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.

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.

Grading Marks

Over at FB, a friend of mine posted a link to an article by Gene Marks, entitled "If I Was a Poor Black Kid."

First, let's take a moment to mourn the death of the subjunctive.

Now, take a look at the article, and then come back -- I'll wait here.


So, that was...yeah.

Look, let's start from a place of charity, and presume that Marks means well. If this were a student's paper, I'd have to ask myself, "What's the kernel of thoughtful goodness at the heart of this condescending, tone deaf mess?" More importantly, I'd have to figure out how to help the writer understand not just that this is highly problematic, but how to make the next paper less problematic than the last. So, what comments would I give to Gene Marks, if he were my student?

Never Let Me Go

So, I was supposed to be getting a desk copy of Kuzuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go. Actually, let me be clear: I said I didn't need a desk copy, and someone insisted on getting me one anyway. So, Monday, the book was sent over via a student.

Deborah Smith's Never Let Go. Which is not at all the same as Kuzuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go.

Different author, different title, different ISBN number. How do you even manage that?

Good thing I didn't need that desk copy in the first place.



And, to top it all off, it looks like a truly terrible book. Here's the back cover material:

Confusion, fury, and disbelief filled Rucker McClure's soul when he saw his wife across the airport waiting room. A year ago Dinah had vanished without a trace, but he'd never stopped looking for her, never given up hope -- until now, when it seemed all his worst fears were true: she's betrayed her country and abandoned the husband she'd sworn to love until death. Tormented by conflicting needs to comfort and punish the woman who'd shattered his trust, Rucker lashed out at Dinah when she begged for his help -- but despair warred with a hunger that time and lass had only deepened. With so many secrets between them, only a shaky truce was possible, but Dinah needed to prove she was still his. Rucker was the dream that had kept her alive in a world of terror and pain -- must she sacrifice forever in his arms to save the hero of her heart?

WTF?! I don't even want to read this to see how bad it is.

I just noticed, though, that one of the blurbs is from The Advocate, a Baton Rouge newspaper with which one of my handful of readers is very familiar.

Anyway, I'm annoyed that it's the wrong book, but I'm more annoyed that it was sent to me in full knowledge that it's the wrong book. What the hell am I supposed to do with it? Having somehow managed to get completely the wrong thing, why would you send it to me, like maybe this will do? WHAT IS WRONG WITH PEOPLE?!

The vampire squid from hell

Who knew there was such a thing?

The vampyroteuthis infernalis ("vampire squid from hell") is a small deep sea (2000-3000ft) cephalopod, growing to about 1ft long.

WTF?!

It is the only known living species in its order (vampyromorphida), and shares characteristics of both octopus and squid. It has 8 arms like an octopus, but they're joined by a webbed skin, the inside of which is black, giving the appearance of a cloak.

Its large eyes may appear blue or red, according to the light (I'm guessing the "cloak" and red eyes account for its name). The arms that are missing on the octopus, and which are tentacles on a true squid, are, for the vampire squid a pair of extra-long, filament-arms, used to sense prey (which is then caught by the 8 standard arms). These are kept tucked away when not in use.

There's probably prey in there

When the vampire squid is threatened, it flips its "cloak" over its body, to disguise its appearance.

Those prickly-looking things are, allegedly, harmless.

Vampyroteuthis breathes just fine at oxygen levels of as low as 3% in the really deep sea, and does not change colors like cephalopods from more shallow depths, but is covered in photophores that it uses to disorient prey -- again, maybe the idea of vampire-like attributes (hypnotic power?) and its home in the way-deep depths contributing to the name.

The vampyroteuthis infernalis -- vampire squid from hell.

It's looking at you.

1992 Dracula would love that 'do. And, holy shit, is that a fang?!

One more reason that nature is awesome. Also why both monsters and aliens are often based on cephalopods.

Fug Madness: Twitter Edition

The picture, for reference:

Amazing.

2/16 - Wow.

Check out the email address on this totally reputable email notification I received today. 

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.

Perhaps I was a horrible human being in a former life?

This morning, I woke up and decided that I would take a bath. There's been a lot going on lately (thus the silence on the blog), and I've been thinking that maybe a nice, relaxing bath would help. I heard my roommate moving around and decided to just chill in bed until I could take over the bathroom. Now, in addition to the normal sounds of my roommate moving around, there was a loud, crashy sound, not quite at the level of godawful racket, but close enough for 8am on a Saturday. I decided not to investigate. It sounded like something - probably something of mine, given that much of what occupies the apartment is mine - had been broken or knocked over, and I just didn't have the heart to find out what it was first thing in the morning. My assumption was that the towel rack had been ripped out of the wall, given the metallic clanginess of the sound.

A bit later, after I'd prepared a playlist of relaxing songs to listen to while in the bath, I went in to start running the water. Here's what I found:

What the fuck?!

Let me translate what you're seeing here: those are several of my towels, sticking out of the toilet. Closest to the back of the toilet bowl is my Superman towel. The light-colored towel with the pattern on it is my Winnie the Pooh towel. Then my purple towels, then my orange hand towel. Sticking out of the toilet bowl.

Not surprisingly, this did not lower my stress levels.

Once I was able to breathe evenly and think in actual words, I knocked -- firmly for a.m. Saturday, but not as aggressively as could be justified upon finding one's bath towels in the toilet -- to ask my roommate how my towels had ended up in the toilet, and why they were still there. He looked terrible, and not just in the "someone woke me up abruptly" way, which is probably why he's still alive. After some confusion about what I was asking him, he managed to explain to me that he's on an antibiotic that he's just started taking, that it's making him really dizzy, and that when he got up and went to the bathroom this morning, he fell and hit his head, and must have knocked the towels into the toilet at that point. He somehow didn't realize he'd done this, and got back into bed.

Now, I have to believe him. I have to believe that the crashing I heard was him falling, and probably trying to grab onto the metal rack that my towels are on. One of the screws that holds it against the wall is loose (it's always been loose), so it wouldn't have helped. And, sure enough, that screw has been pulled out of the wall in a way that suggests someone tried and failed to use the shelf to stabilize himself.

I have to believe that he was really out of it, which is why he fell, and why he didn't realize that he'd knocked my towels into the toilet. I have to believe that he knocked my towels into the toilet, despite the fact that there are just enough of them to fill the bowl, that there are none on the floor,  and that nothing else fell down.

Did I mention that the toilet hadn't been flushed, so my bath towels were knoecked into a toilet full of urine, then left there?

I hope that this antibiotic makes him fall down again. No - hear me out! I hope that this antibiotic makes him fall down again, because it will reinforce that he is not in control of himself right now, and that he obviously didn't intentionally place my bath towels in a toilet full of urine and leave them there to soak. Now, it's possible that falling down again would also mean hitting his head again, and maybe getting hurt worse than before, but I think that would be OK.

Because the fact that I have to believe him -- I am not yet capable of being the human being who does not believe him -- doesn't mean that I don't hate him. Oh, no, not the way I did before, which was really just me not wanting him to be my roommate anymore. No, now I hate him for real. I hate him the way you'd hate someone who left your towels soaking in urine. Just like that. And if that makes me a horrible human being in *this* life?

I hate him.

I'm ok with that this morning.

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.

True-ly hilarious

Go Fug Yourself has done a "Fug: The Cover" on the Rolling Stone issue featuring Alexander Skarsgard, Anna Paquin, and Stephen Moyer. It's hilarious to me - maybe my favorite thing to come out of True Blood this season. Here's the cover:

My favorite quote from the entry? "SMOY: Blue Steel. BLUE STEEL!"  You can check out the whole thing over at Go Fug Yourself.

In other True Blood news, Racialicious' roundtable for episode 9 is up. As is usually the case, it's full of excellence.

This is where I would usually put my own opinions about the last episode and the season so far, but I think I'll skip that this week, except to say that I think they finally did some things right with Tara in episode 9. It shouldn't have taken until episode 9, and it may still turn out to be too little too late for this season, but I'd love it if this were a turning point for the show.

Cops continue to misuse their power; citizens continue to make poor choices in dealing with people known to misuse their power.

2 officers out of jobs in wake of repeated tasering of woman

Ok, really, people? A woman calls to report a potential intruder. She also calls a nearby friend to come sit with her while she waits for the cops. The cops show up...well, here's where all hell breaks loose. The cops show up and, for unspecified reasons, assume this is a domestic violence case (because, obviously, all black folks sit around beating each other up at night). They ask the friend a few questions, but not his name, then let him go. Then they ask the woman who called them about an intruder for her friend's name and, not surprisingly, she doesn't think it's relevant to the matter at hand. So, of course, the cops try to arrest her and, in the process, Tase her. Repeatedly. Her friend was a) not the reason she called the police and b) not there anymore because the officers let him go. But suddenly it's crucial to get his name, and worth arresting her over? And they're surprised that, faced with getting arrested for calling the police because she thought there was an intruder, she doesn't seem on board with that plan? And they feel like repeated tasing of a 57 year old woman is a necessary response here?!

Now, as some of you have heard me say, I feel like it's just a good call to tell the cops what they want to know, largely because I think it's obvious by now that a lot of cops CANNOT WAIT to shoot you, tase you, or beat your ass. And I, for one, have no interest in any of those activities. I feel like you tell tell the cops the guy's name, because it reduces the chances of getting tased. In theory, I feel like you get in the squad car for the same reason, but I suspect that, in practice, I'd at least ask politely why I was being arrested, given the circumstances. And then I'd get my ass tased for "resisting arrest." And, even if the cop did get fired, he'd just get a job in a neighboring county within days.

But, hey, on the upside, at least this asshole knew his taser from his handgun, right?

What kind of pathetic fear-state do we live in where *that's* the good news? One where, as TNC points out, "citizens are forced to take on the onus of de-escalation--because the people trained and theoretically paid to understand de-escalation refuse to."

True Blood season 3: the red flags so far

*sigh*

A few weeks ago, I got really excited about the impending return of HBO's True Blood. Last season was a mixed bag, in my opinion: I enjoyed much of the Dallas plot, but lost interest in the maenad storyline long before it was over. The finale was frustrating - so much maenad, but the final minutes set up some exciting drama for the season to come. I mostly don't care about Bill (I like TV Bill better than book Bill, but that is faint praise), but I was excited to see what would happen with Jessica and Hoyt, and with Jason. I love Eric, and I love Alexander Skarsgard as Eric, so I'm interested to see where TV Eric goes. And any episode with a Pam or Lafayette sighting is worthwhile - extra points if they're in the same scene. So, as the beginning of season 3 drew near, I was definitely ready to revisit Bon Temps.

Three episodes in and I'm a little worried.

Some snaps from the last couple of weeks

File under: fashion police. There's too much going on in both of these - I'll let the pictures speak for themselves.

Cultural sensitivity and public shaming

Over at Racialicious, there's a post today about a group of Palo Alto High School girls who got dressed up in their best Native American Stereotype gear and went to the Stanford Powwow. You should read the article here: When Non Native Participation in Powwows Goes Terribly Wrong by Adrienne K.

This is the picture that went with the article.

Maybe because I will possibly end up teaching one of these girls (Paly is, not surprisingly, a feeder school for Stanford), I had to comment. I'm reprinting here because I'd love to know what you think.

Wow. I am not at all shocked - I teach at Stanford, and spent several years living in Palo Alto among the Palo Alto High School students and, more problematically, their parents. I am not shocked, but it's still appalling.

While I know from experience how tiring it can be to educate people on why and how their gleeful ignorance (trying to err on the side of the most charitable interpretation) is offensive, I am really glad to see that the author and her friends gave these girls a gift by sending them to talk with the head of the Native Center. Adrienne, your mom is probably right that they didn't know any better. One can, sadly, assume that their educations - both on Native history and in cultural sensitivity - have been lacking. But you are absolutely right to say that they *should* know better, and maybe now they will. Maybe they'll actually learn from this. Maybe they'll even bring some of that new knowledge with them to share with their classmates and friends when 1/2 of them come to Stanford.

Because I know from experience how tiring it can be to educate people on how unacceptable their glib insensitivity (cultural, racial, socio-economic, religious) is.

I am glad that there is at least some element of public shaming going on (though I do think it was good to block out their faces at least a little). I think more people should have shame about the right things, and I think a photo like this is a great place to start. But the teacher in me is also glad that someone actually said something to these girls. Shame is no good if there's no understanding of why you should be ashamed.

Thoughts?