Posts by Melissa McEwan

Melissa McEwan writes and edits the blog Shakespeare's Sister.

Enough Crowing Over Carrie Prejean's Sex Tape "Hypocrisy"
Posted by Melissa McEwan, Shakesville on November 16, 2009 at 1:35 PM.

I don't care how many tapes Carrie Prejan made of herself masturbating. I don't care how many nude or semi-nude photos she shot of herself or let other people shoot of her. I don't care if she had breast augmentation surgery. I don't care what she does with her body or what she does sexually, as long as it's consensual.

And neither should anyone else who rightfully objected to her anti-same-sex marriage sentiments.

Support for same-sex marriage is rooted in a belief that people have the rights to love and fuck and spend time with whoever they want, and to do whatever they want with their own bodies. It reflects the idea that sexuality is a private matter -- not in the sense that it shouldn't be seen in public, but in the sense that any individual person's sexuality doesn't personally affect anyone else who isn't sexually involved themselves with that person.

So what difference does it make, in terms of Prejean's bigotry, that she has a sexual life of her own? None. Because denying fellow citizens equal rights is wrong no matter what.

She was wrong when she said it before anyone knew she had a "sex tape," and she's wrong now. The existence of a "sex tape" doesn't somehow make her more wrong.

I see a lot of people, including self-identified progressives, cheering the "schadenfreude" of Prejean's being revealed as -- what? -- having a sexuality, I guess. But slut-shaming Prejean for expressing her sexuality merely perpetuates a culture in which the objection to same-sex marriage is justified with distaste for the icky, icky gay sex. Entrenching puritanical narratives about "deviant" sexuality (and let's all stop and note the hilarious irony that young women who actually express the sexuality the entire culture admonishes them to express are immediately slut-shamed and accused of aberrant behavior) does not help the cause of gay rights. Or women's rights. Which are both denied on the basis of kyriarchal control of bodies that are Othered.

So if you find yourself tempted to crow over Prejean's "hypocrisy," consider that the tapes were made privately and not intended for public consumption. To make hay out of that, when we argue sexuality is a private matter, is a hypocrisy all its own.

And worse than that: To make an issue out of these tapes, to endorse or encourage their release for any reason, is to perpetuate the rape culture. Despite our collective refusal to regard them thus, celebrity sex tapes released without the participants' consent is sexual assault. Consenting to the sex act, even consenting to its being filmed, is not implicit consent that images of the act be publicly distributed.

Prejean was wrong about same-sex marriage. She's not any more wrong if she's a moral scold with an expressed sexuality of her own. And being a bigot doesn't give other people license to victimize her.

These shouldn't be controversial statements.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Catholic Church Threatens to Stop Taking DC's Money if Officials Don't Bow to its Demands on Same-Sex Marriage
Posted by Melissa McEwan, Shakesville on November 12, 2009 at 5:44 PM.

God is love, bitchez:

The Catholic Archdiocese of Washington said Wednesday that it will be unable to continue the social service programs it runs for the District if the city doesn't change a proposed same-sex marriage law, a threat that could affect tens of thousands of people the church helps with adoption, homelessness and health care. 

Under the bill, headed for a D.C. Council vote next month, religious organizations would not be required to perform or make space available for same-sex weddings. But they would have to obey city laws prohibiting discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

Fearful that they could be forced, among other things, to extend employee benefits to same-sex married couples, church officials said they would have no choice but to abandon their contracts with the city.

"If the city requires this, we can't do it," Susan Gibbs, spokeswoman for the archdiocese, said Wednesday. "The city is saying in order to provide social services, you need to be secular. For us, that's really a problem."

Just so we're all on the same page, the Catholic Church doesn't want to extend partner benefits to same-sex married couples, because they view homosexuality as a sin. The Catholic Church also believes that all of its employees are sinners, by virtue of its doctrine viewing all humans as sinners. But they're not arguing that they shouldn't be compelled to extend benefits to those sinners, nor would they argue that providing healthcare coverage to people whose bad health habits they regard as sinful (gluttony! sloth! lust!) is a tacit endorsement of those sins. It's a special argument reserved especially just for the very special case of gay people and their specialized sin.

Catholic Charities, the church's social services arm, is one of dozens of nonprofit organizations that partner with the District. It serves 68,000 people in the city, including the one-third of Washington's homeless people who go to city-owned shelters managed by the church. City leaders said the church is not the dominant provider of any particular social service, but the church pointed out that it supplements funding for city programs with $10 million from its own coffers.

"All of those services will be adversely impacted if the exemption language remains so narrow," Jane G. Belford, chancellor of the Washington Archdiocese, wrote to the council this week.

Ah, it reminds me of those lovely words spoken by the Savior during his Sermon on the Mount: "And lo I beseech you to fuck over the homeless if the gays get too uppity."

Councilperson David Catania, who sponsored DC's same-sex marriage bill and chairs the Health Committee, sniffed at the church's threat: "They don't represent, in my mind, an indispensable component of our social services infrastructure." Councilperson Mary Cheh was even less generous, saying the church's behavior was "somewhat childish."

President Obama Has Refused to Stand Up for Women, Plain and Simple
Posted by Melissa McEwan, Shakesville on November 10, 2009 at 9:45 AM.

I can't put it any more plainly than that. And, no -- it's not hyperbole. I wish it were.

The White House on Monday signaled it would keep its distance in the increasingly vocal debate over whether health insurance reform should include language related to abortion.

When asked whether the president supported Rep. Bart Stupak's (D-Mich.) amendment to prohibit the public insurance plan from covering abortion services, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs dodged the question -- multiple times.

"Well, ask me that right before Christmas and the end of the New Year," Gibbs said during today's press briefing, noting the president still expected to sign a healthcare bill before the year's end.

The press secretary later clarified, "We will work on this and continue to seek consensus and common ground."

FUCK THAT.

There is no fucking "common ground" between people who believe in women's right to autonomy over their own bodies and people who believe that women's bodies are property of the government, or their doctors, or their husbands, or anyone else who gets a vote on whether they have to be pregnant even if they don't want to be.

Either you stand on the side of women's equality and independence or you don't.

It is fucking ludicrous that our DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENT refuses to take a stand on this issue.

And this mealy-mouthed bullshit —"I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill"—is contemptibly craven. I'm absolutely fucking livid that a man who had the audacity to claim to be a champion of women's right to choose would abandon women in this way. Not that I'm surprised. Of course I'm not surprised. I always knew this was bullshit. A lack of surprise makes me no less furious about the depth of his callous disregard for women.

That? Is also not hyperbole: "In case you are wondering about the real life effects of playing cheap politics with pregnancy, read this.

And this. ... All women will be losing coverage for necessary abortions when a wanted pregnancy goes wrong. It only has an exemption for the life of the mother, but not for her her health, nor for severe and fatal fetal abnormalities. Click those links for what that means in real life."Women's real lives—something our president evidently doesn't give a fuck about. Or might. Y'know, depending on which way the wind is blowingin December.

For the record: This isn't me hysterical. Nor overwrought. Nor upset. Nor reactionary. Nor irrational. Nor hypersensitive. Nor any other word one might use to dismiss a feminist in this moment.

This is me angry and brimming with contempt.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Anti-Rape Activist Gabrielle Union Speaks Out About Her Own Rape and the Richmond, CA Gang Rape
Posted by Melissa McEwan, Shakesville on November 5, 2009 at 4:00 AM.

Actress and anti-rape activist Gabrielle Union, blogging about her reaction to commentary about the Richmond rape case and about her own rape (ellipses original):

I'm sad more than anything. After googling the gang rape story in Richmond and reading comments on blogs, it just leaves me sickened and really sad. The fact that race and socio-economics have been used to explain away a brutal gang rape...just sad...maybe I just have seen every kind of rapist and survivor...every race, color, religion, socio-economic status group...it's all the same...a lack of regard for violence against women. Tolerated, and in this case encouraged by the mob surrounding the perps...laughing, joking and taking pics.

When I was 19 years old, I was raped. I was working at a shoe store in California, and the store was robbed. The person robbing the store ended up putting a gun to my head and raping me. As he was raping me, I felt as though I was floating over myself, thinking, 'This isn't happening.' I blanked out and had an out-of-body experience, like I was hovering above seeing this ­horrible thing happen to someone else...not me. I was fortunate enough to go the UCLA rape crisis center after this horrific ordeal. It gave me my life back. My dignity and self-esteem were gone and they helped me find them again.

That's why I now lobby for state legislatures across the country and the federal government to help raise funds and awareness for rape crisis centers, and I speak to all different kinds of people across the country about what happened to me. My goal is to never hear the words 'me too' from someone after I say 'I was raped.'

Blub.

Rahm Emanuel on Public Option: "It's Not the Defining Piece of Health Care"
Posted by Melissa McEwan, Shakesville on October 19, 2009 at 8:01 AM.

WaPo -- White House aides reaffirm public option is not mandatory:

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, in two television appearances [this weekend], noted that the public option could provide much-needed competition, but that "it's not the defining piece of health care."

Liberal lawmakers such as Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), who is involved in the negotiations, said they will push for the government option to be included in the bill that goes to the Senate floor. "I haven't given up on this," Dodd said on NBC.

...Obama aides conceded that they may not have the votes in the Senate for the provision.

"There are people in the Senate -- Republicans and Democrats -- who have objections to that," senior White House adviser David Axelrod said on ABC's "This Week."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

9-Year-Old Asks Obama: "Why Do People Hate You?"
Posted by Melissa McEwan, Shakesville on October 16, 2009 at 2:30 PM.

I love this little guy:

When Obama called on [9-year-old fourth-grader Tyren Scott of Paulina, La., whose mother had gotten tickets to the town hall meeting for them] to ask the last question of the day, the boy's question temporarily silenced the crowd:

"Why do people hate you and they're supposed to love you and God is love?"

Obama handled the question deftly. "Well, first of all, I did get elected President, and not everybody hates me," he told Tyren. "If you're watching TV lately, everyone seems mad all the time. Some of it's just what's called politics. One party wins, the other party feels it needs to poke you to keep you on your toes. You shouldn't take it too seriously. People are worried about their own lives, losing jobs, health care, homes, and feeling frustrated. When you're President of the United States you've got to deal with all of that."

Gambit asked Tyren what he thought of Obama's answer. "It made me feel good about what he said," Tyren told us. "And he gave me the right answer."

Given that he was talking to a 9-year-old kid who feels upset by seeing his president hated, I think Obama gave him pretty much the right answer, too.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

John Mayer's Rape Joke
Posted by Melissa McEwan, Shakesville on October 15, 2009 at 7:26 AM.

That John Mayer is a huge asshole is not news. Still, it takes a special kind of huge asshole to give an interview that warrants the title: "John Mayer Threatens to Sodomize Us." Which he actually does. Because he doesn't like the reporter's questions, and complains about it through the entire interview, culminating in this exchange:

What concept [will your next record have]?
More political things, worldly things.

Such as?
Nothing rhymed with public option.

You don't always have to rhyme, though.
I'm going to forcefully sodomize your editor.

Charming. Almost as charming as

New York

publishing the interview, which is nothing but a stream of insults against their reporter, no less under the aforementioned headline, turning Mayer's rape joke into the centerpiece of the interview.

I beg you not to read comments at the link.

Nobel Prize in Economics Goes to A Woman for the First Time
Posted by Melissa McEwan, Shakesville on October 13, 2009 at 10:30 AM.

And she's from my home state, too! Woot!

The prize committee cited Elinor Ostrom, 76, at Indiana University, and Oliver E. Williamson, 77, at the University of California, Berkeley, for work done over long careers. Ms. Ostrom is the first woman to receive the economics prize in the 41-year history of the award. She is a political scientist, not an economist, and in honoring her, the judges seemed to suggest that economics should be thought of as an interdisciplinary field rather than a pure science governed by mathematics.

"This award is part of the merging of the social sciences," said Robert Shiller, a Yale University economist. "Economics has been too isolated and too stuck on the view that markets are efficient and self-regulating. It has derailed our thinking."

...Ms. Ostrom's work deals in the concept of "commons" shared by a number of people who earn their living from a common resource and have a stake, therefore, in preserving it. Her most recent research has focused on relatively small forests in undeveloped countries. Groups of people share the right to harvest lumber from a particular forest, and so they have a stake in making sure the forest survives.

"When local users of a forest have a long-term perspective, they are more likely to monitor each other's use of the land, developing rules for behavior," Ms. Ostrom said in an interview. "It is an area that standard market theory does not touch."

...Ms. Ostrom concluded in her research that the "tragedy of the commons" was an inaccurate concept. Particularly in 17th- and 18th-century England and Scotland, the concept described villagers' overgrazing of their herds on the village commons, thereby destroying it as pasture.

The solution often invoked was to convert the commons to private property, on the ground that self-interested owners would protect their pasture land.

"Conservatives used the tragedy of the commons to argue for property rights, and efficiency was achieved as people were thrown off the commons," said Joseph E. Stiglitz of Columbia University, a Nobel laureate in economics himself. "But the effects of throwing a lot of people out of their livelihood were enormous. What Ostrom has demonstrated is the existence of social control mechanisms that regulate the use of commons without having to resort to property rights."

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Watch if You Dare: Joe the Plumber's Über-Awkward Stand-Up Flop (Video)
Posted by Melissa McEwan, Shakesville on October 6, 2009 at 1:10 PM.

Joe the Stand-Up Comedian Shuddering Mass of Flopsweat:

 

[sigh] I'm done. I'm gonna go back to living the life of luxury—I miss my drivers, I miss my limo, I liss my—I miss my car-dee-err of, uh, uh, excuse me, my snifter of car-dee-, uh, uh, snifter of… [someone yells from audience] Oh! Macallan. [snorts] And for you of those that don't know, Macallan is a ten thousand bottle of whisky. And I really love giving myself footbaths—I pour about three of those bottles with a pound of saffron in there. At the same time, I let my concubines work me, you know, deep tissue massage—oh, god, I miss it so much. [laughs; looks down at his notecards and flips through them]

That way, I can go back to, uh, you know, I can go back to life of luxury, like I was saying, and, you know, I can hang out with my, uh, two cocker spaniels, uh, Goldwater and Reagan. I could watch my, uh, filly run the derby next year; her name's Oppress the Poor. I could watch her on my hundred-and-nine inch plasma screen TV, so… [breathes heavily; flips through note cards furiously]

So, that's what's been weighing on my chest, so, you know, hey, listen— [takes a deep breath and exhales] I'm Joe the Plumber no more—I'm Francis W. Rove, rich Republican, and I'm happy to be out of the closet. And you know what gives me the most pleasure of all? Is Keith Olbermann's somewhere out there right now screaming, "I knew it! I knew it!" And he's gonna have a stroke and life will be good. Thank you guys very much.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

VA Gubernatorial Candidate's Stutter Mocked By GOP Rival's Camp
Posted by Melissa McEwan, Shakesville on October 5, 2009 at 11:45 AM.

To Republican surrogates:

Few Virginians would describe Creigh Deeds as a great speaker. The Democratic candidate for governor frequently fumbles his words in press conferences and on debate stages. The Washington Post has described him as "stammering."

Now a top surrogate for Republican candidate Bob McDonnell is drawing some unwanted attention for outright mocking the Democrat's halting manner of speech.

..."We need people who can communicate," [Sheila Johnson, the co-founder of BET and a high-profile African-American McDonnell backer] said at the event, as McDonnell stood by in the audience. "And Bob McDonnell can communicate."

Johnson then said other politicians she talks to can't communicate, "especially his op-op-op-op-opponent."

The McDonnell campaign had no comment.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Letterman Admits Extortion Plot; Sexual Liaisons With Staffers
Posted by Melissa McEwan, Shakesville on October 2, 2009 at 12:22 PM.

[Trigger warning.]

Last night on his show, David Letterman took ten minutes to share with his audience the story of an extortion plot—including the writing of a fake $2 million check, his testimony in front of a grand jury, and the arrest yesterday afternoon of the extortionist—and also confessed, without details like when or why, to having had sex with female employees of the show.

Despite the idiotic headline, this piece very accurately summarizes the segment, which I found to be profoundly uncomfortable to watch, even knowing the content of what he was going to say. Throughout the story, he refers obliquely to the "creepy stuff" he'd done, over which he was being extorted, and the moment where he at last reveals what the "creepy stuff" was (at 7:40), the reaction from the studio audience is, well, rather creepy itself—even given all the relevant excuses for nervous responses, etc.

[The video's in the window to your right. Starting at 7:40]

 

Now, of course, we get to: What was it, what was all the creepy stuff [audience laughs] that he was going to put into the screenplay and the [book], and, uh, the creepy stuff was that I have had sex with women who work for me on this show. [audience murmurs] Now, my response to that is: Yes, I have. [audience laughs] I have had sex with women who worked on this show. [audience applauds] And, and would it be embarrassing if it were made public? Perhaps it would. Perhaps it would. [audience laughs] Especially for the women! [audience laughs and applauds]

Part of the reaction is discernibly "Way to go, Dave!" from people who think it's great he's had loads of HOT SEXXX WITH CHICKS, but part of the reaction is palpable relief that the "creepy stuff" wasn't worse:

At least he's no Polanski.

 

 

No. Not according to him, anyway. According to him, it was just some consensual sex with some ladies who happen to work for him—as if that's incidental and not a major ethical problem, even if they weren't coerced by virtue of their employment.

 

 

I suppose such questions are easily drowned out by laughter at self-deprecating jokes about "Lutheran Midwestern guilt" and how embarrassing it would be for his conquests for people to know they had sex with him. Har har.

 

 

Jesus. I'm so done with this fucking week.

Catholic Church Delivers Astonishing Pedophilia Rationalization in Geneva
Posted by Melissa McEwan, Shakesville on September 30, 2009 at 7:00 AM.

Still defensive about the sexual abuse scandals that have rocked the Catholic Church in myriad diocese in multiple countries, the Vatican's permanent observer to the UN, Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, read a ridiculously juvenile and bigoted statement following a meeting of the UN human rights council in Geneva during which Keith Porteous Wood, representative of the International Humanist and Ethical Union, asserted that the church had breached several articles of the Convention on the Rights of the Child by continuing to cover up sexual abuse of children.

The statement petulantly complained that other religions had problems with sex abuse, too (true, but irrelevant in terms of the Catholic Church's need to account for its endemic sex abuse), that Protestant churches' and Jewish communities' problems were worse than the Catholic Church's problems (probably not true, but also irrelevant), that "only" 1.5%-5% of Catholic clergy were involved in child sex abuse (there are about 1,500,000 Catholic clergy worldwide; "only" 1.5% of that is still about 2250 22,500 sex predators), and then let loose the unmitigated bigotry against gay men.

In a defiant and provocative statement, issued following a meeting of the UN human rights council in Geneva, the Holy See said the majority of Catholic clergy who committed such acts were not paedophiles but homosexuals attracted to sex with adolescent males.

…The statement said that rather than paedophilia, it would "be more correct" to speak of ephebophilia, a homosexual attraction to adolescent males.

"Of all priests involved in the abuses, 80 to 90% belong to this sexual orientation minority which is sexually engaged with adolescent boys between the ages of 11 and 17."

Okay, first of all, ephebophilia is not specific to people with same-sex attraction. Tomasi's implication that it's a uniquely "homosexual attraction" is patently false. The Catholic Church has been trying to blame its sex abuse problems on gay men since day one, in order to avoid its own responsibility for ordaining and protecting pedophiles, but that shit's been publicly debunked so resoundingly that the Holy See can't just scream "homo priests!" anymore.

 

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

Welcome to Bank of America! How Can We Totally Insult And Discriminate Against You?
Posted by Melissa McEwan, Shakesville on September 14, 2009 at 10:00 AM.

Hi, welcome to Bank of America. How can we totally insult and discriminate against you?

Steve Valdez tried to cash a check his wife wrote to him on her Bank of America Account, but a bank branch in Tampa insisted he had to put his thumbprint on the check before it could be cashed. But Valdez couldn't give a thumb print because he was born without arms and doesn't have hands and fingers.

Valdez says he handed the teller the check with the prosthetic hands and the teller said obviously you can't give us a thumb print. When the branch manager realized he couldn't give a thumb print, she said he could bring in his wife or open a checking account.

Valdez says that's not the way they would treat someone who doesn't have prosthetic arms and he refused to do that. Valdez says he asked if they were aware of the Americans With Disabilities Act and federal law. The manger said yes, they were offering him accommodations by giving him those two options.

A spokesperson for Bank of America says while the thumb print is a requirement for those who don't have accounts, the bank should have made accommodations. She says the company plans to contact Valdez and apologize.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

One Step Closer to Torture Prosecutions?
Posted by Melissa McEwan, Shakesville on August 24, 2009 at 11:00 AM.

Attorney General Eric Holder has been teasing us for awhile with tantalizing hints he may actually investigate Bush-era torture cases, and now it looks like we're possibly one step closer, as the Justice Department's ethics office (which I believe was either dormant or on paid vacation during the Bush administration) has recommended investigations.

The Justice Department's ethics office has recommended reversing the Bush administration and reopening nearly a dozen prisoner-abuse cases, potentially exposing Central Intelligence Agency employees and contractors to prosecution for brutal treatment of terrorism suspects, according to a person officially briefed on the matter.

The recommendation by the Office of Professional Responsibility, presented to Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. in recent weeks, comes as the Justice Department is about to disclose on Monday voluminous details on prisoner abuse that were gathered in 2004 by the C.I.A.'s inspector general but have never been released.

When the C.I.A. first referred its inspector general's findings to prosecutors, they decided that none of the cases merited prosecution. But Mr. Holder's associates say that when he took office and saw the allegations, which included the deaths of people in custody and other cases of physical or mental torment, he began to reconsider.

With the release of the details on Monday and the formal advice that at least some cases be reopened, it now seems all but certain that the appointment of a prosecutor or other concrete steps will follow, posing significant new problems for the C.I.A. It is politically awkward, too, for Mr. Holder because President Obama has said that he would rather move forward than get bogged down in the issue at the expense of his own agenda.

The advice from the Office of Professional Responsibility strengthens Mr. Holder's hand.

Emphasis mine.

It's difficult to think of something that could more pointedly underline 1) how deeply on the wrong track this country is; and 2) how irreparably broken Obama's campaign promise of new politics is; that our Attorney General even needs his hand strengthened on the subject of wanting to prosecute torturers.

Open Wide...

Shut Up!

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »

The Exponential Idiocy of 'Moderate' Democrats
Posted by Melissa McEwan, Shakesville on August 21, 2009 at 12:15 PM.

There is nothing more revolting than the "moderate" Democratic Senators and Reps who do whatever they think is necessary -- i.e. vote against progressive reform -- to keep their stupid jobs on the premise that, if they don't, a Republican might grab the seat and, I dunno, vote exactly the same way or something.

So they vote like Republicans to keep their job, as if it that D behind their names is itself providing some sort of benefit to people. Um, nope. That D doesn't make a goddamn bit of difference if the person whose name it follows doesn't vote like one.

But there's this persistent idea that just having Democrats in Congress is important, an idea that seems positively intractable even when (some of) those Democrats vote like Republicans and avoid reform to stay in office.

Even when they got into office by promising reform.

So actual progress just keeps getting kicked down the road by people who say they can't risk their seats by voting for reform or else real reform will never happen, and who continually count on the fact that no one ever notices the giant snake eating its own tail.

They're masking naked self-interest behind a promise of reform they'll never deliver, because they care more about keeping their jobs than just enacting reform and, yeah, maybe losing their jobs but having actually accomplished something in exchange.

Read the rest of the post on the flip side »