This is how it is.

[CROSSPOSTED AT No Shortage of Opinions]

I am tired, and I am angry. I am overwhelmed by the sense that nothing will stem the tides of violence against black bodies. I am afraid that no amount of hope or change or dialogue or legislation can undo centuries of dehumanization and disregard. I feel sad that the arc of history bends too slowly for so many. I feel powerless. But I do not feel surprised. The Zimmerman trial ended exactly the way I expected it to. I do not feel surprised, and that hollow feeling of "this is how it is"-ness really scares me.

Last night, I did something I'd avoided doing for almost a year and half: I allowed myself to see a picture of Trayvon Martin's dead body. It was attached to an article at Gawker, written by Adam Weinstein, entitled "This, Courtesty of MSNBC, is Trayvon Martin's Dead Body. Get Angry"--I'm not linking because the article is easy to find, and the picture is right up at the top. I didn't really want to see the picture, but I felt like I needed to. I needed to remind myself in the most visceral way possible that this is how it is. Beneath the rhetoric and abstract arguments of the trial and the public discourse, this - this dead black boy - is how it is. George Zimmerman follows, threatens, and fatally shoots an unarmed young man. He walks free, because he was "standing his ground." Elsewhere in Florida, Marissa Alexander fires shots to scare off a man who admits to beating her: she is denied the right to "stand her ground," and is sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Things have changed in America, and often for the better. But things have also remained the same.

Last night, I did something I haven't done in years: I cried because I was so angry that I couldn't express it any other way. I heard the verdict and it filled me with sadness and rage. I looked at the picture because I needed to let that out, and I knew that the reality of that image would give me permission to do so. Sometimes crying is cleansing -- a way to expel negative feelings and make room for positive ones. I don't know what I made room for last night. I know that, when I stopped crying, I still felt full. When I started writing this, last night, I felt too full to collect my thoughts in any coherent fashion. (I'm still not sure how coherent this is, but believe me when I say that it's an improvement.) I gave up on trying to let this out and turned instead to taking things in. I let myself get lost in the Facebook posts, Tweets, and text messages full of outrage and sadness and resignation. This sadness, this anger, is how it is. I found some comfort in knowing that I was not alone in those feelings, but it did little to help me settle my thoughts before bed. I thought I could do that by reading something frivolous, but what started out pleasantly escapist soon became too real. I was too full to handle themes of bullying, loneliness, and the emotional damage of being constantly told that you are less-than, so I gave up on that, and went back to my laptop, to see what I'd left open to read from the past few days. As it happened, I'd left open on my browser a transcript of Malala Yousafzai's address to the UN. Malala, who was also shot by a coward who feared the threat that her existence posed to his narrow-minded beliefs, was speaking to the UN on the importance of education. It is worth noting, though, that she ties her focus on women's rights and girls' education to wider ideals of justice, and the lack thereof. "Poverty, ignorance, injustice, racism and the deprivation of basic rights are the main problems faced by both men and women," Malala said. This is how it is. But Malala also reminded me that my initial sense of powerlessness and insurmountable sadness are not the final word.

So here I stand...one girl among many. I speak – not for myself, but for all girls and boys. I raise up my voice – not so that I can shout, but so that those without a voice can be heard. Those who have fought for their rights:  

Their right to live in peace.  

Their right to be treated with dignity.  

Their right to equality of opportunity.  

Their right to be educated. 

--Malala Yousafzai

Yesterday, I was filled to capacity with sadness and anger. This morning, watching the video of Malala's speech, I was struck by her courage and her capacity for forgiveness. I remember, today, that my hope, though certainly shakeable, is not yet uprooted. Tomorrow, or maybe the next day, I will again find some comfort in the knowledge that what was shared on Saturday night was not just the understanding that this is how it is, but also the conviction that this is not how it should be. I will, again, find some comfort in the hope that it will not always be this way -- that though some of us may be silenced, others will speak out in the face of injustice.

Malala believes that illiteracy, poverty, and terrorism of all kinds can be fought -- that our situations are not hopeless, and that we are not powerless. I hope that I can learn from her example that this, also, is how it is.

Dick move, Hansen. Dick move.

On Monday, when just about everything got overshadowed by the terrible events in Boston, New Hampshire political blogger "Susan the Bruce" wrote of an email sent to the NH House's internal email list (back on April 1)  by Representative Peter Hansen. In this message, Hansen seems to have referred to women as "vagina's [sic]." Here's what Hansen wrote:

The Representative from Manchester [Rep. Steve Vallaincourt] blogged today his full speech from the well at last weeks vote on HB 135. 

There were two critical ingredients missing in the illustrious stories purporting to demonstrate the practical side of retreat. Not that retreat may not be possible mind you. What could possibly be missing from those factual tales of successful retreat in VT, Germany, and the bowels of Amsterdam? Why children and vagina's [sic] of course. While the tales relate the actions of a solitary male the outcome cannot relate to similar situations where children and women and mothers are the potential victims. The presence of one or both ingredients demands that a potential totally different outcome might have prevailed and that is the factor which I believe was dismissed in the HB 135 debate and vote. 

Rep. Peter T. Hansen
Hills. District 22 Amherst
ED&A Committee

--quoted from "Vagina's and Children First!" by Susan the Bruce 

"Children and vagina's [sic]"? Leaving aside all of the obvious grammar and spelling issues...ok, I can't. If you're going to say something ridiculous like this, can you at least not confuse the possessive with the plural? As written, the sentence is nonsensical, which leaves the reader to figure out the meaning through context clues. He seems to be trying to say that his colleague's argument left some things out. What were those things? Those things were children and...vaginas (the plural of vagina, which must have been what he meant)? What a strange time to be talking about genitalia. Oh, wait -- children and women and mothers -- that makes more sense. Sort of. I'm pretty sure that mothers are women, but ok. So, then -- wait, are we to understand, as it appears, that children : children as vaginas : women and mothers?

The story was also picked up by HuffPo Politics, with both articles discussing the response made by fellow representative Rick Watrous, who asked what any reasonable human being should ask: "Are you really using 'vaginas' as a crude catch-all for women? Really?" He went on to suggest that Hansen think before sending out "such offensive language." Now, I take Watrous' meaning to be that language that conflates "women" with "vaginas" is offensive, and that Hansen should not have sent the language that conveyed that offensive conflation out to the whole office, as it were. Hansen seems to have read it differently:

"Having a fairly well educated mind I do not need self appointed wardens to A: try to put words in my mouth for political gain and B: Turn a well founded strategy in communication into an insulting accusation, and finally if you find the noun vagina insulting or in some way offensive then perhaps a better exercise might be for you to re-examine your psyche," Hansen wrote.

Notice anything strange? Watrous asks if Hansen really (really?!) intends to use "vaginas" as a synonym for "women," and says, I think (I hope) that language that does so is offensive. Hansen responds that his word choice -- the noun vagina -- should not be offensive. But he in no way addresses the more substantive issue, which is what he means by using the noun "vagina" in a place where he should be using the noun "women." Even allowing for the ambiguity of Watrous' last sentence, it seems disingenuous to focus there, instead of on the very clear and substantive criticism he leads with. Because Hansen is right -- the word "vagina" should not be seen as inherently offensive. But that doesn't really seem to be what Watrous is saying. Perhaps the response of NARAL Pro-Choice New Hampshire was more clear:

"Women are more than their reproductive organs. ...We deserve more than being referenced by our body parts."


Hansen seemed to say in his first responses to criticism that that isn't what he meant to do, but it's difficult to get any other meaning from his statement, and he didn't bother to provide a clarification. By Wednesday, Hansen had issued an apology. As quoted in HuffPo Politic's follow-up article:.

"I want to apologize to my constituents, my colleagues and women, especially those in my life, for the blatantly offensive, insensitive and, frankly, stupid language I used in my email with House members regarding the Stand Your Ground legislation," Hansen wrote in an emailed statement. 

"I am embarrassed, to say the least. There is no place or need in the public discourse for the words I used. The people and the process deserve better than that."

Notice anything strange, here? Perhaps the problem is that Hansen needs to work on being more clear in what he says, so that he can be sure he's saying what he actually means. Because I can't tell if he's actually gotten the point -- if he realizes that his particular use of the word "vagina," not the word, itself, is the issue. It sounds like he's apologizing for his word choice, not for the thinking behind it. But is the problem really that "there is no place or need in the public discourse" for the word "vagina"? Because I thought that the problem was that there is no place or need in the public discourse to use the word "vagina" in a demeaning way -- as a substitute for the word "women," seemingly suggesting that women are reducible to their vaginas. Using the word "vagina" is not a problem if you are, in fact, talking about women's genitalia and have some good reason to be doing so. See, right now, I'm talking about using a specific body part -- the vagina, as opposed to, say, the leg, or the kneecap -- to refer to women in general. I'm saying that using the specific word for female genitalia to refer to women in general is misogynist, making it a particularly offensive use of synecdoche. I'm also saying that using offensive, sexist language in a professional e-mail is classless and at least a little bit dumb. But those things aren't true because there's something wrong with the word "vagina." Calling women "vaginas" is sexist, offensive, classless, and dumb because women *have* vaginas, as opposed to *being* them. So I am using a perfectly acceptable word in a perfectly acceptable way, while talking about that perfectly acceptable word being used in an unacceptable way. If I were to collectively refer to all of the men in NH's House of Representatives as "penises," that would also be using a perfectly acceptable word in an unacceptable way. I hope we can all agree on that.

Now, if I were to say something like: "Peter Hansen is probably a sexist asshole; he is certainly an ignorant dick who misuses apostrophes," we might reasonably disagree on the use of synecdoche as slang and the appropriateness of being inappropriate in casual conversation.

Terms of engagement

A privilege is a special advantage available to some, and not to others. Having a privilege is not inherently bad or good. I love king cake, and had the privilege of being in New Orleans during king cake season (aka Mardi Gras). That privilege is inconsequential to some, and makes others a bit jealous. I'm not a bad person for being in New Orleans, or for loving king cake, or for eating it when I could, and those poor souls who love king cake, but couldn't get any, are not bad people because they missed out. Though they might be sad people. Sad, king-cake-less people. But some privileges are much more substantial than access to delicious baked goods. It may not be such a big deal if I joke about the fact that not everyone who wants king cake can have it, but shouldn't it be a big deal if I joke about the fact that one group has the special advantage of full human dignity, while another does not?

Of Dogs and Lizards: A Parable of Privilege is an excellent explanation of privilege, its perks, and its pitfalls. It's fairly brief, and also funny—if you haven't already read it, it’s worth checking out!

What's so funny 'bout reason, discernment, and reality?

I am not a conservative. This means that I will disagree with conservatives on many things. Many. But it is possible for me to *respectfully* disagree with someone. If someone speaks in sentences that involve words with actual meanings, and that express thoughtful arguments and conclusions, I might disagree with those thoughts, and find those arguments uncompelling, but that wouldn't mean my interlocutor was speaking gibberish. She could have a critically engaged set of beliefs and opinions, and the fact that they differed from my critically engaged beliefs and opinions would not render them senseless. (Not necessarily, at least.)

The tragedy for the types of conservatives that I can respectfully disagree with -- and who might be able to respectfully disagree with me, in return -- is that America's conservative party has stopped speaking in sentences that involve words with actual meanings, and that express thoughtful arguments and conclusions. The party's public persona is one of assertions that are either willfully ignorant, counter-factual, or totally disconnected from any engagement with reality. Mitt Romney's recently publicized comments grossly misrepresenting 47% of Americans are another reminder that his campaign isn't even trying to offer reasoned (or even reasonable) beliefs or arguments that demonstrate critical engagement with the world as it actually is. They have long since stopped being people I can respectfully disagree with, and I'm confused about how anyone can even (self)respectfully agree with them at this stage. They have become senseless --not shaped by reason, showing poor judgement, lacking in awareness and understanding -- and even other conservatives are having to admit this now.

The tragedy for all of us is that we can't really count on America's voting public to care as much as I do (or even as much as David Brooks seems to) about reason, discernment, or reality. And there's nothing funny about that.

Pack of animals on school bus terrorizes passenger

Yeah, I'm talking about the kids in Rochester, NY, who ganged up on and ridiculed the bus monitor until she cried. And, yeah -- I did, in fact, mean to call those children animals.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I've seen a lot of focus on the fact that these kids are being disrespectful to someone older -- a grandmother, it's pointed out. That fact does make this seem extra-disgusting. But the main problem is not, in my opinion, that Ms. Klein is a grandmother. The main problem is that she's human, and these kids are being abusive. It would be abusive no matter what age the abused. I love it that Matt Lauer is so angry about this. To be honest, I don't think it was necessarily a good thing for someone on YouTube to put the kids' names on blast, but I'm glad someone did. But the collective anger of the viewing public won't fix this, and I have a hard time believing that anyone cruel enough to participate in this has the decency to be properly humiliated by his or her participation being made public. They did, after all, have one of their peers record it, presumably to show off. Lauer wanted to know if they'd apologized. My guess would be that, if they're sorry for anything, they're sorry they got caught and reprimanded. 

School officials promise that their parents have promised to "punish" them. But what sort of "punishment" do people presume is appropriate for this? Yes, I'd like to know that they got grounded, because it hurts me to think that these little shits won't face any consequences for being little shits. But grounding them won't make them better people. Wouldn't it be better for school officials to to promise that the parents have actually taken responsibility for re-socializing the animals they've raised into decent human beings?

And, yes -- I know that that they're young and immature, and that kids do all sorts of things when they're away from parental supervision. But does a well-socialized child actually go full-on Lord of the Flies with no more provocation than a ride on the school bus? They are young. They are immature. They are also cruel, and people don't really just grow out of that. They just grow more strategic about displaying it.

"Not merely the validity of experience..."

The NYC Ministry of Truth Department of Education wants a long list of words banned from standardized tests, to avoid making students "uncomfortable" or "jealous." Some of these words (or, more accurately, the activities and concepts they refer to) already don't make sense as things to put on standardized tests -- why would you have a question about pornography or abuse of people, alcohol or drugs on a test designed for school-aged children? And don't get me started on the Georgia testmakers who had slavery word problems. But not wanting to trigger trauma is not the same as not wanting to bring up the fact that there are people who adhere to different religions, or celebrate holidays you don't. And the way to address our society's class inequalities is not to take "swimming pools" off of tests (though, as with the long-ago yacht example from the SAT, questions probably shouldn't require personal experience of how long a swimming pool is).

What's the line, here? Even if we all agree that a random question about divorce might be unnecessary or insensitive, will we all agree that dancing is out, except for ballet? Or that music is fine, as long as it's not rap or rock and roll? And how far do we take it? Should we remove all references to light, to keep from making the migraine sufferers uncomfortable? Should we remove all mention of parents, in case anyone taking the test has ever had an argument with theirs? What about dogs -- surely someone is afraid of dogs. Or clowns or spiders or heights. You know what? We'd better ban use of the word "people" as well, since they're known to case so much of the distress in the world.

More seriously, what happens when people who don't want "disturbing" things, like evolution or religious difference, in the classroom use their exclusion on the test as a precedent?

Sorry for the screed. I just think there are so many more important things the Dept. of Ed. could be focusing on. Like actually teaching students the skills they need to succeed in the world, which include learning to think and live well in a world that will not simply edit itself for your comfort.

Strangely, it all makes me think of San Francisco

Julie Klausner at Jezebel wants grown-ass women to start acting like it. And, dear god, to start dressing like it. (Don't Fear the Dowager: A Valentine to Maturity) Given that Zooey Deschanel's new website further bolsters her place as the patron celebrity of Hipster Girls, it's no surprise that, over at Racialicious, Tami Winfrey Harris asks, "Who is the black Zooey Deschanel?" When I saw that title, I thought, for one horrible moment, that it was going to be a serious question, or perhaps a call for one. I was mortified, because as far as I'm concerned, the only good thing about the Manic Pixie, Hipster Girl, grown-women-in-rompers phenomenon is that I've been able to think of it as a white girl pathology. Sure, there must be women of color participating. But surely this type of sexy infantilization is predominately a trend by white people, for white people? Or, to be more fair, this is not a trend that lines up well with the common images of black women that I have encountered. Here's an exercise for you: think of all of the stereotypes about Black women you can. Are any of them suggestive of sparrows? What would it mean, then, to have a black Manic Pixie Dream Girl?

In any case, I should have had more faith in Racialicious. The article points out, among other things, that "we find creepy in a man the kind of childishness we fetishize in women," and also that "the persona Klausner writes about is bound by class and race," the type of perpetual-girl femininity in question being very much tied to ideals of white femininity.

In related news (and linked in Klausner's article), this piece on "The Bird as Symbol in Current Culture."

Racism in Mississippi: not a news flash

So, yesterday, there was some random poll asking Republican voters in Mississippi who they want to vote for for governor, and for president, and whether or not interracial marriage should be legal. Huh? The pollsters asked the question of everyone, and claim to be trying to get a sense of the kinds of people likely to want to vote for each candidate, but have only released the Republican results so far. Now, my objections to the sensationalism, research methods, and feeding of the politico-media election frenzy machine aside (it's April and you're trying to generate a scandal poll? really?!), what I'd like to talk about for a second are the reactions to the results. Commenters were shocked (shocked, I say!). Agencies reposted it. Adam Serwer describes the results startling, and points out that the younger generations ideals do seem to be shifting. I think the latter point is an important one, but have to disagree on the former. We are startled by something when it is unexpected. Shock carries, to my mind, that same element of surprise with its outrage. 46% of a random sample of Republican voters in Mississippi says interracial marriage should be illegal, and people are shocked? Maybe, but only if you're shocked, that the number's not higher. IT'S MISSISSIPPI, FOOLS! Why is anyone shocked that almost half of a sampling of conservative voters -- hell, *any* voters in Mississippi -- is racist?!

Racism in Mississippi isn't a news item, especially in a random sampling of conservative voters. It's a Thursday.

2/6 - roommate fuckery (cont.)

Details? Well, as the book says, everybody poops. Sometimes it's messy. Grown ups who are not disgusting bastards clean up after themselves, rather than waiting for their moms (who don't live here), the maid (we don't have one), or the shit fairy (imaginary) to come along. Nasty bastards with no home training think they should just leave shit splashed up the insides of the toilet, waiting for me when it's my turn to clean the bathroom later this week. Hell no. Also?

You have really stupid hair.

Well here's a can of worms

This was initially a reply to a comment that K. left on this post, but, go figure, a comment about religion and science got way too long for the comment section. So now it's a post. My apologies for the rambliness (yeah, it is too a word!). I'd say I'd work on it some more, but I probably won't :P

An open letter to racists, some of whose best friends are black

Republican state Rep. Terri Lynn Weaver is facing criticism after posting a picture on the Internet that some are calling racially offensive.

Weaver said that a picture that she took with her pastor in blackface dressed as Aunt Jemima was just Halloween fun and doesn’t understand why the photo is offensive.

Representative Weaver says that this is all in fun, and "feels some Democrats are making something out of nothing." She is not a racist, she says, pointing out that "some of [her] greatest friends are black."

Oh, I see - some of her best friends are black. You know, I begin to wonder who all these people are whose tight relationships with people of color have not shown them that denigrating people of color (or laughing when someone else does, or thoughtlessly employing symbols of denigration) is not appropriate. Seems a bit strange, no? But, I'm all about solutions here at in medias res, so here's a handy form letter I've whipped up for black folks to send to their friends who are not black. Please feel free to modify with the ethnicity and common types of "funny" denigration most appropriate for you:

Dear non-black friend,

As your friend, I want to be sure there are no misunderstandings on this matter. Please know that your friendship with me will not excuse racism on your part. Our friendship will not make it ok for you to wear blackface, or to respond nonchalantly if someone else does. As a friend, I am telling you in advance that this is offensive, that people will justifiably be offended by it, that your feigned surprise will not make it less offensive, and that your assertion that it was "all in fun" will not make it funny.

And, for the record, pointing out that "some of your best friends are black" will simply make it worse, because what sort of person would do something that is so obviously denigrating of their best friends?

Yours in friendship,
Black Friend

I hope you find this a useful tool. And, remember: blackface is not cute.

Grilled cheesus

A couple of people have asked me what I thought about the grilled cheesus episode of Glee. Too many thoughts for Facebook, but I also doubt, given all the work (stupid work) I've got going on right now, that I'll organize them well enough for a full-on blog on theodicy, religion in schools, and what a pale shadow of Aretha's magnificent cover of "Bridge Over Troubled Water" that was. Here are the highlights, though, and I welcome comments/discussion:

First of all, I just don't think Glee deals very well with more serious material. I think Kurt's a good character to do it with because Chris Colfer is pretty compelling, but I don't think it's their strong suit as a program. From the fake baby to teen pregnancy to the eating disorder to religious faith (or the lack thereof), I think there "big issue" episodes are always disappointing. Except the drug use one (with the "vitamins"). That was hilarious.

Narratively, I thought it was sloppily done, and I was severely underwhelmed by most of the music.

Theologically, I thought it was dismissive of the atheist's viewpoints. In addition to the fact that "I or a loved one have had a tough time" is not the only reason one might be an atheist, surely the complaints made by both Kurt and Sue deserve a better response than "Well, we believe, and you're a bad friend if you don't let us pray for you."

Also, while there must be churches where you can bring a friend, announce that he's an atheist and get nothing but smiles and nods from the rest of the congregation, I really thought that scene was disingenous. Like, a lot.

But I liked grilled cheesus, and Kurt's version of "I Wanna Hold Your Hand."

PS - Aretha

Aretha Franklin - "Bridge Over Troubled Water"

Get over it, part 2

Elon James White on racism being over. A couple of highlights:

White privilege, institutionalized racism all just disappeared, you know, just like the oil in the gulf. Actually, it's exactly like the oil in the gulf, you know, even though we can't see those huge plumes of racism - I mean oil - right beneath the surface, you know, we all know it's still clearly there.

Oh, how I love to be told to get over it, you know? It's like the smell of fresh-baked bread in the morning, ha ha. If that bread was being baked by an unpaid negro and then later on they were going to have to go pick cotton.

Racialicious reads my mind

Once again, the folks at Racialicious do a much better job of saying what I'm thinking than I do.

Thea: I have to say I felt more out of breath and queasy at the end of this episode than I usually do…Season 3, while better on the storylines than Season 2, sure is heavy on the violence against women. First Lorena gets punched so hard in the face that she flies across the room (of course this follows having her head twisted around last ep, so that Bill wouldn’t have to see her face while he had sex with her…which in this ep, she tells us she thoroughly enjoyed) then Franklin imprisons, assaults and then ties Tara to a toilet. And we end with the gory, violent, sexualised murder of a stripper.
     The violence against Lorena puzzles me. It is plain and simple, extreme violence, but it is complicated by the fact that she is a vampire i.e. has superhuman strength. But just in terms of optics, it is shocking to see.
     And I have to say it was extremely disturbing to see Pam tortured…even tough bitches are ultimately vulnerable to male violence. (And I would argue that it was male violence – even if was by rule of vampire law.)

--From Tough Black Women & Women in Refrigerators: The Roundtable for True Blood S03E04


Given my own misgivings about the season so far (and the books in general), I'm glad to see that it's not just me. The racial ping is very much there with Tara and family, but I am, as I've mentioned before, much more disturbed right now by the fact that the show seems more and more to be using rape and graphic violence (often sexualized) against women as the primary narrative force (this is also my main complaint with the books). Not cool, True Blood. So very not cool. I keep hoping it'll get turned around, but I'm not really sure how they'd manage that.

Also?

"Pandemic in its implications."

TNC posted the following today, which I made the mistake of reading before I'd had my coffee:

Laura Spicer was sold away from her husband while they both were slaves. After the war and emancipation, the two considered reconciling, but the husband had remarried. Here is a letter to Spicer from her first husband[.]

You should read it. I'm pretty sure it's the most heartbreaking thing I've ever read. I don't know that there's anything for me to say about it, except that if my history classes had involved more of this, I might have paid more attention, and perhaps even retained more. TNC writes that "it's important to supplement a discussion of the concept of 'slavery,' with the words of humans who actually were enslaved. Never do this thing cold and sterile. Make it hot and alive, pandemic in its implications."

Pandemic in its implications.

*sigh* One day, I will casually write something that good.

Its implications were certainly contagious in the comments. In addition to the shared heartbreak, it sparked a conversation on the importance of primary sources, and of teaching history as real people, with real stories - actual human beings beneath the statistics, surveys, dates, and summaries. As an example of how powerful this can be, a few people brought up the holocaust museum in DC, and especially the room full of shoes. thatbgirl wrote:

that room with all the shoes, and then the photos of all the people from that one village who were killed that you see at the beginning and at the end... those were what broke me up inside more than anything else...

I went to the Holocaust museum once, back in 1993 or so. That was *cough17cough* years ago and, while I can no longer see the room of shoes in my mind, I can remember, vividly, how devastating it was, and the visceral sense of sadness and outrage it created. It is, in fact, the only thing I remember from the holocaust museum. Half a lifetime ago, and that room of shoes is what I think of every time I have reason to talk (or read, or listen) about The Holocaust. An entire room full of shoes, worn by real people, representing only a small fraction of the people killed. That's the history of The Holocaust to me.

What's this got to do with this letter? I would love to slip a copy of this letter into the history textbook of every child learning about American slavery and The Civil War. It's the perfect response to that states' rights bullshit. Because this is what those states' rights were really about - this letter, over and over and over. Hot and alive. Real and heartbreaking. If *this* is what you mean by Confederate History Month - learning that *this* is what the Confederates for fighting for the right to do - then I am all for it.

/rant

Say what, now?

A little vocabulary lesson.

1. gay (adj.) - homosexual contemporary usage
2. gay (adj.) - happy, cheerful, bright archaic usage

Somewhere in the world, someone thinks it's OK to use "gay" as a generic term of disapproval. That person may or may not be a raging homophobe. Sometimes the person consciously intends to link sexual preference and disapprobation, sometimes not. But the language is homophobic, whether consciously so or not. Using "gay" to mean lame, ridiculous, or otherwise unappealing is homophobic - I really don't think that's open for discussion. And I can't begin to address the problems of intentional bigotry right now. Here's what I'd like to discuss: prefacing your misuse of hurtful, bigoted language with a phrase like, "for lack of a better word." I see this as similar to the common practice of using the phrase "no offense" right before saying something that is, and can only be, offensive. Those phrases don't make what follows any less problematic. In the case of the misuse of the adjectival gay, it doesn't even make sense. It serves, in fact, to highlight the problem, because there is no lack of better words.

As it happens, the English language contains a great number of ways to express the fact that something is not to your liking. Thinking of situations in which I've heard such sentiments expressed - incorrectly - by using the term "gay," several better, more descriptive choices spring immediately to mind. Odd, strange, weird, lame, boring, pretentious, stupid...those are just the ones that came to mind without really thinking about it, and all of them are fairly commonplace and simple words. The choices may not be endless, but there is no lack of better words. If none of these will do you and you're really at a loss, try a thesaurus (available free online!). Or try an exercise: the next time you want to describe something as "gay," but what you really mean is something like, "I find it unacceptable for reasons that probably have nothing to do with sexual preference," think of how you'd explain to your grandmother what you were trying to say. Substitute those words for "gay." Voila!

eta a response to J., who writes:

I, as a frequent user of "gay" as a term of disapproval, must come to the defense of its usage. Technically, gay means happy, as in "I'm so gay." So it's kinda like Opposite Talk, as defined by the Urban Dictionary, a legit source of reference. Now if we were talking about "homo" or "homosexual", as in "I'm so homo" I'd be right there with you.

Thanks for your reply, J. The fact that gay only technically means happy anymore is exactly the reason that argument doesn't wash. When gay was used pejoratively as far back as the 17th century, the prevailing meaning of "gay" was "happy," and the pejorative use referred to a sort of frivolous hedonism that those using it pejoratively considered sinful. If the standard usage of gay still meant happy, and the contemporary usage of gay as a term of disapproval implied either "unhappy" or "sinfully lacking in seriousness and devoted to petty pleasures," then your argument would be relevant.

But language evolves.

That usage of gay is archaic, and has been for longer than either of us has been alive. Gay, meaning homosexual, is found as far back as the 19th century; its use in-group is known as far back as the 1920s; and it gained prominence in mainstream vernacular circa late 1960s, early 1970s. (I'm speaking here of American vernacular, because language evolves differently in different places.)

We know that gay was used most commonly used to mean happy. But, we also know that it is no longer commonly used to mean happy, and that it is now most commonly used to refer to sexual orientation. So here's the question: do you, in your everyday language, use "gay" to mean happy? And, when you use it as an insult, do you actually mean "unhappy" or perhaps "sinfully frivolous"? I'm not asking if you COULD mean that, given all past meanings of the term, but whether you DO, in fact, mean that. If so, then my criticism doesn't apply to you. If not, it may be worth thinking a little more honestly about your vocabulary.

New and improved pain chart

OK, so I was looking at the links on gofugyourself today, and they linked to this cartoon about sandwiches on a website called Hyperbole and a Half. It was very funny, so I started looking around the site and came across a post that includes a new and improved version of the pain chart I've had to fill out countless times, at various neurology, chronic pain, sleep clinic, podiatry, and general practitioner's offices. I cannot tell you how much I hate that chart. Oh, wait, maybe I can - I HATE IT A WHOLE LOT! Though, perhaps, not as much as the actual pain (usually). You should check out the post for the normal pain chart, and Allie's very amusing explanation of it. Below, I've included just the pictures for Allie's version, which I think is much more apt. Again, you should consult her website for full explanations.

I'm just sayin': On Jill Scott and a big can of worms

So, some of you know that Jill Scott opened a big ol' can of worms wrote an opinion piece for Essence magazine in which she said that interracial dating - especially Black men who marry White women - carries with it a "sting" for Black women, having to do with the shared historical experience of African Americans. Here's her full (short) piece. Take a look at it, because my summary is a clumsy one.

Not surprisingly, there's been a lot of discussion of it, a lot of it heated.

I'm Just Sayin': On "Romantic" "Comedies"

Hollywood is making it harder and harder for me to enjoy romantic comedies.

The fact that they are, quite often, bad movies is only a minor problem for me - I like a lot of bad movies (see: my eager anticipation of the new "Clash of the Titans"), so that's hardly the issue. Romantic comedies often deal heavily in frustrating gender stereotypes, but even that hasn't been able to kill the pleasure for me. Dampen, perhaps, but not kill. Now, don't get me wrong: just like with other movies, some romantic comedies look too terrible to be enjoyable, even in a bad movie way (see: All About Steve, just about anything with Matthew McConaughey in the trailer). I'm just saying that the suspect dialogue and plots held loosely together with clichés are not, sadly enough, what threaten to drive me away from the genre altogether. My enjoyment of romantic comedies usually comes down to some intangible combination of charm and relatability: take those away, and you're left with a bunch of substandard movies full of unsympathetic characters.

It doesn't have to be that way.

Take Sally Albright and Bridget Jones. Both are caricatures, to be sure, but there is something recognizable in them. Sally is particular about how she takes her pie, but she is also caring and self-sufficient. Bridget manages to embarrass herself several times, but she's also a supportive friend and daughter. They are caricatures of real, flawed women. They are, more importantly, endearingly exaggerated, and both the films they anchor and the men they share their stories with show a real affection for them. They are lovable women, which is part of why it's so satisfying to see their respective partners come to love them.

Just as important is the fact that the men they come to love and be loved by are, in fact, lovable. Mark Darcy, like Fitzwilliam before him, may initially *seem* like a real jerk, but the whole point is that this isn't really true. Fitzwilliam is not an asshole; he just feels ill-qualified to recommend himself to strangers. Mark also has some serious social issues, but has the decency to apologize for his initial insensitivity and never treats Bridget poorly again. This is, we presume, because he loves her. And "just as she is," to boot.

Harry, for his part, may take a while to come to his senses, but he does come to them, and in recognizing how important his friendship with Sally is, he becomes the man Sally has been looking for - even when she didn't know it - in the best possible way.

Clichéd? Certainly. But also romantic, and at least partially because I can recognize parts of real women - maybe even myself - in Sally and Bridget. They're exaggerated, but never in a mean-spirited way. And just as I can see bits of the woman I actually am, and others I actually know, I see aspects of the man I want in my life in Harry and the Darcys. These men, who you know from the beginning they're going to end up with, are flawed, but they're not cruel. And when they get it wrong, they come to realize what a mistake they've made, and have the decency to feel sorry for it. They make the heroines feel truly loved, and that's why we watch.

Why, I now wonder, did filmmakers expect me to watch Leap Year? Amy Adams's Anna is the caricature that 1/2 of all romantic comedy heroines have become - demanding, materialistic, and not fond of surprises (read: control freak). That she is dating someone who seems (at least at first) perfectly nice but distant and boring comes as no surprise. He looks great on paper, which we know because he's a cardiologist. He turns out, of course, not to be such a catch. His shift at the end - both the reason behind his proposal and the obliviously callous way in which he reveals it - seems unfair, to be honest, to the character he seemed to be until that point. Not surprising, but handled poorly.

These things on their own might not be so problematic. The bigger problem, for me, is that for the majority of the movie, Anna is not presented as someone particularly loveable. She is beautiful, and we think at the start that her cardiologist cares for her. But she's also shrill, rude, oblivious, and entitled. Perhaps this is why the filmmakers thought the abuse heaped on her for the majority of the movie would be funny. I was not amused, though. I didn't feel like she'd gotten what she deserved when Declan watched as her suitcase was stolen, and I certainly didn't think it was cute when her later confrontation with the 3 male thieves turned, almost immediately, to the image of three men leering and using their physical presence to intimidate a woman whose lacy unmentionables they'd removed from her suitcase and tossed around. Declan's coming to her rescue here is one of the reasons I didn't hate the movie altogether, but even this doesn't change the fact that, while Anna does little to recommend herself, we have little reason to want her to. For much of the movie, Declan's rudeness falls short of roguishly charming because he is so very unkind. And there is never any sense that he's sorry for his early mistreatment of Anna, only that he loves her by the end. He says, at least, that he loves her; we never really see him making her feel loved.

I'm all for the guilty pleasure of the genre, but without the pleasure, why bother? For reference, here's what I said about Leap Year in my movie review roundup:

Leap Year**
SPOILERIFIC

Plotwise, Leap Year is one of the better romantic comedies I've seen lately (faint praise, I know). Matthew Goode is attractive and perfectly capable of charming, and Amy Adams' hair looks fabulous. All of this makes it even more unfortunate that the movie so clearly hates women. That's a strong statement, I know. And, I doubt that the filmmakers realize that they hate women. But here's what I consider the strongest example. Anna gets humiliated repeatedly, culminating in the alarm scene (a nice touch, to be honest). In the end, she goes back to Ireland, gives a speech that makes it clear that, in her eyes, the solution is to be someone totally different than she has been, and proposes to Declan in his now-crowded gastro-pub. And he, without saying a word, turns and walks away. Yes, we know he's going to get the ring, which is sweet. But, he also humiliates her in front of a room full of people. More than that, he is completely unapologetic about it. That's neither romantic nor comedic.

Leap Year is not the worst romantic comedy I've seen lately (that would be The Ugly Truth), but it may be the most insidiously misogynistic, and the fact that it passes for a romantic comedy is troubling. This is not to say that there are no sweet or funny moments in the movie. There are. But they are not, in my opinion, enough to balance out the rest of it.