Paterno Posthumously Explains Why It Was Right to Fire Him

From ABC News:

Paterno told his son, Scott Paterno, that he did not know anything about Sandusky’s sexual abuse, noting that he did not listen to rumors and only knew what McQueary told him.

“‘I didn’t hear anything, why are you badgering me?’ Paterno told his son. ‘What do I know about Jerry Sandusky? I’ve got Nebraska to think about, I can’t worry about this.’ Nebraska was the next game.

Thanks for laying out your priorities there, bro.

The article also says:

He had his dark moments, certainly, when he wondered how old friends could turn so suddenly on him and how people at Penn State, the school he had loved and championed for most of his life, could believe such terrible things about him.

How could they believe that he didn’t give a rip about child molestation? Maybe they got that opinion by listening to him talk.


Remember when Penn State students demonstrated their disgust for child sex abuse by rioting in defense of Paterno? Because it was so unjust to expect him to investigate serious allegations about an underling?


Protect the Criminal, Punish the Victim

17-year-old Savannah Dietrich was sexually assaulted at a party. The two boys even took pictures of their heinous deed. The criminals actually had to go to court, but received light sentences, and then a gag order was placed on the case so that no one, including the victim, could speak publicly about it again. Dietrich, upset at the lack of justice, used Twitter to speak out, and dared to name her attackers. The boys’ attorneys tried to have her charged with contempt, a jailable offense.

Thank god that they withdrew that motion, after international outrage.

Savannah Dietrich

Dietrich sounds like one cool lady:

“There you go, lock me up,” Savannah Dietrich tweeted, as she named the boys who she said sexually assaulted her. “I’m not protecting anyone that made my life a living Hell.”

…“I’m at the point, that if I have to go to jail for my rights, I will do it,” she said. “If they really feel it’s necessary to throw me in jail for talking about what happened to me … as opposed to throwing these boys in jail for what they did to me, then I don’t understand justice.”

Isis King & Janet Mock Lay Down How to Be Awesome People

This is essentially an instruction video on how to be awesome. Isis King, best known for being the first transgender woman on America’s Next Top Model, and Janet Mock, an editor at People Magazine, interview each other. Seeing these two accomplished trans women of color talk TRUTH is invigorating!

See for yourself:

Crap like this is why I needed to see some positive representation of trans women right now.

Fun in Gender Policing!

I just read about a new dimension of the work of the Seattle Department of Parks and Recreation: policing gender!

Staff at a popular Seattle swimming pool were confronted with the horror of a woman, who is a survivor of a double-mastectomy and breast cancer, who wished to swim topless to avoid the pain she feels in a tight swimsuit top.


However, Jodi Jaecks is no ordinary woman, and she doesn’t give a fuck about gender norms. So she pursued the matter. So far, she has won a partial victory: Parks and Rec will grant her, and only her, an exception to their gender rules.

Of course, Jaecks, other cancer survivors, and other women aren’t done advocating for themselves. And since nudity is not illegal in Seattle, it’s curious that the pools have stricter rules than the city. We’ll see what happens!

Jodi Jaecks

Jodi Jaecks

“Saving” Babies from the Horrors of an African Childhood

Let us join Nancy French in congratulating herself for saving a baby from the horrific prospect of being raised in Africa. French wrote an article entitled I’m a White Republican Raising a Black Child: Deal With It to raise awareness about how awesome she is.

When I hear this self-congratulatory rhetoric around transracial and/or international adoption, I always pause and think. The self-congratulations typically come from middle, upper-middle, and upper-class heterosexual white families who have adopted a child who is of color and/or born in another country. There is typically lots of applause from other whites for their “good deed”. The assumption being that a middle-to-upper class white upbringing must be superior to other kinds of upbringing, and that by allowing a normally-inferior individual into the white club, a meritorious act has taken place. This is part of what is called the White Savior Complex. It is a relic from colonialism, when whites felt it was their mission to spread across the planet and “improve” the “backwards” races. The colonial mindset is still very present with us, as when this author insinuates adventurism with phrases like: “poverty stricken African tribal area” and their savior status by rescuing a “starving, abandoned girl” from such a terrible place. As I recall from grade school, Africa is actually broken up into political units known as “countries”, but French is kept very busy letting the world know about her good deeds that she can hardly be expected to know unimportant details about insignificant parts of the world.

Then I start to wonder about the big picture. French’s adopted daughter has a biological mother and father. Where are they? Why are they so poor? Why couldn’t they keep their child? Do they have rights? Isn’t there any value to the culture she was born into and taken away from? Why are so many African nations “poverty-stricken”? How are the world’s dominant countries implicated in this poverty?

I just happened upon an article about the struggles of Congolese mothers against the backdrop of political violence: A Congo Mother Survives Cannibalism to Save Her Children: Why Her Photo Matters. Interestingly, the article notes that much of the conflict was instigated by European colonists. Now mothers have to protect their children from cannibalism. If only French could adopt even more African children.

The right to raise your own children is a fundamental human right, and a pillar of the Reproductive Justice movement. Yet it is easier for white Americans to reframe themselves not as colonialists with serious responsibilities to other countries we have impoverished, but as pure, loving saviors who just want to help the children. Do we really have a right to take these children that trumps our responsibility to ensure that all mothers enjoy the right to raise the children they birthed?

Obviously, I am not the first one to have these thoughts. I would recommend further reading, starting with these articles:
The Lie We Love
Black Kids in White Houses
All Your Children Are Belong to Us

Another question that just popped into my head: If French’s daughter had instead grown up in Ethiopia and tried to immigrate to America as an adult to find a better life (the better life that French hopes to offer her by raising her), would French support her access to American residency? Or is it only by fulfilling French’s need to have another child that her daughter earns her right to live in America?

Male Senator from Wisconsin Is Expert On Women’s Natural Stupidity & Sneakiness

Wisconsin State Senator Glenn GrothmanWisconsin state senator Glenn Grothman is an unusually intelligent man. And we both know that men are usually intelligent.

How intelligent is he? Let me count the ways.

1. He authored a bill to label single parenthood “a contributing factor to child abuse and neglect.” 31% of children in his state live in single parent homes.

2. He blames single parenthood on “the choice of the women”.

3. He identifies the government of making the “single motherhood lifestyle” desirable. (What about single fathers? Well, they’re men, so there’s no need to criticize them.)

4. He illuminates that women actually don’t have unplanned pregnancies. They just lie and say the pregnancies were unplanned. Because they’re women. Lying’s what they do.

5. He draws the fine line that women are dumb enough not to know that it’s hard to be a single parent, but smart enough to have a country-wide conspiracy to lie about their covertly-planned unplanned pregnancies for reasons that they have as of yet not revealed. No word yet on single fathers or the baby daddies of these nefarious single mothers. Which is probably because these smart-stupid single ladies have found a way to reproduce that doesn’t even involve men, meaning that we are only a short journey away from a dystopian future of feminazi fascism and male slavery.

Why do I think I hear the infamous welfare queen lurking behind his words?

You Didn’t Thank Me For Punching You in the Face

Please read this! Blogger Queen of the Couch discusses how boys are told that it’s okay to express affection and love through bullying and abuse, and girls are told “Oh, that just means he likes you”. A great read!

Look, if you want to tell your child that being verbally and/or physically abused is an acceptable sign of affection, i urge you to rethink your parenting strategy. If you try and feed MY daughter that crap, you better bring protective gear because I am going to shower you with the brand of “affection” you are endorsing… I am going to punch you in the face but I hope you realize it is just my way of thanking you for the great advice you gave my daughter.

Planned Parenthood is Turning YOUR Child into a Homosexual Sex Addict as We Speak

The American Life League (the same people who brought you the fetus jack-o-lantern) has produced a STUNNING video revealing troubling “facts” about Planned Parenthood. Like:

When most people think of Planned Parenthood, they think of the babies it kills through abortion.

See for yourself:

I can’t pick a favorite quote, but here are some of the golden nuggets of factual information and solid wisdom offered up by the man in lavender:

1. “Age appropriate” is a standard concocted by Planned Parenthood itself so that it can sell pornography to kids as science.

2. Just as the goal of a drug dealer is to make drug addicts, Planned Parenthood’s goal is to make sex addicts.

3. Planned Parenthood’s gateway drug is masturbation.

4. Planned Parenthood tells vulnerable teens stimulating and intimate things about sex.

5. What Planned Parenthood education booth would be complete without a fisting kit for homosexual college and teenage students?

And I simply had to catch this precious flowchart for us all to admire:
American Life League Planned Parenthood flowchart

It makes you think, doesn’t it?

Another Example of the Insulting Crap that Passes as “Journalism” at Fox News

Phyllis CheslerPhyllis Chesler wrote this meandering pile of rape apologist poo on Fox News recently: JFK and 19-year-old White House intern Mimi Alford — a truly shameful revelation

Read it yourself to understand what I mean.

Or enjoy these select quotes:

[19yo Mimi Alford] was “wife” material–but President Kennedy treated her in a shameful and inappropriate fashion.

Chesler describes Alford as a “virgin” and having attended the same prestigious school as Jacqueline Kennedy. Apparently this is what makes “wife” material. But losing her virginity to someone besides her husband has ruined her suitability for marriage, apparently. Also, “wife material“?? Why not describe her career or political aspirations as ruined, instead of her suitability for marriage? Oh, because she was a woman.

Girls and women make just such devil’s bargains [submitting to the sexual demands of men who have power over them] every day.

Is “devil’s bargain” what we’re calling rape these days?

They do not care about the humiliated or left-in-the-dark wife nor do they care about how little they really matter to the Great Man.

Where are these unsupported assumptions coming from? Chesler’s fantasy world?

In fact, it’s important to remember that neither Ms. Alford nor Ms. Lewinsky ever alleged sexual harassment or rape.

Why, exactly? Because only low-class whores “cry rape”?

But both young women were manipulated into feeling very, very “special,” even important. Neither dared say “no” to their commander-in-chief.

And this is supposed to be Ms. Chelser’s argument for why what happened *wasn’t* rape?

We know that many rock stars and athletes have come to expect free sex from their fans or are more than willing and able to pay “Ladies of the Night.” These days, both the fans and the “Ladies” have increasingly turned out to be prostitutes…

Is Chesler unaware that “Lady of the Night” is a euphemism for prostitute?

…who blackmail their Johns and who also write their memoirs.

WOW. THE WHORES! Tricking unsuspecting, innocent celebrities and politicians into sex with their feminine temptress wiles. Women should not be trusted. Why can’t powerful men use women as pliant sexual objects in peace?? It’s just not fair.

Chesler goes on to name a list of Democrats (and one Republican) known for sexual or rape scandals. I wonder what her political leanings may be.

The punchline comes at the end of the article, where we discover that Chesler is an Emerita Professor of Psychology (at the City University of New York).

On her own website, she describes herself as “a best selling and influential author, a legendary feminist leader, and a psychotherapist and expert courtroom witness.”

God help us.

Felonious Birth Control

In Texas…

A high school girls basketball coach [and math teacher] is facing a felony charge for giving a “morning-after pill” to a student who was worried that she was pregnant, according to an arrest affidavit released today.

The girl was 16, and the law is that not until you are 17 are you able to get emergency contraception over the counter. The criminal teacher’s bail was set at $15,000.

Canadian Law Makes It Awfully Hard to Travel if You’re Trans

I appreciate this op-ed by Kyle Knight at the Huffington Post.

Trans people are often denied basic rights by governments around the world, including “western” or “first world” governments. Governments force trans people to carry inaccurate ID and prevent them from making sure the gender/sex marker reflects their true identity. At any point in one’s life where one must show identification, problems quickly arise.

Why government is in the business of enforcing gender categories, I don’t know, but apparently the state has a compelling interest, like fighting terrorism, or some such nonsense.

H/t KB

Tough Guise

Guess what! You can watch this awesome documentary on youtube for free: Tough Guise: Violence, Media & the Crisis in Masculinity.

IMDB has this to say about this 1999 film:

Tough Guise systematically examines the relationship between pop-cultural imagery and the social construction of masculine identities in the U.S. at the dawn of the 21st century.

Here is Part 1:

Thanks to Johnny and a shadowy figure known as Shenanigans for tipping me off.

Just So’s We’re Clear

Just so that we’re clear:

Being PRO-CHOICE means that you believe individual women should be free to make their own reproductive choices, which may include birth control or abortion or having any number of children. You believe each woman should make her own choices, even if you do not personally think abortion is right, and/or you would never make that choice for yourself.

Being PRO-LIFE means you believe women should NOT have certain reproductive options (abortion, perhaps emergency contraception, sometimes even all forms of birth control). You do not believe individual women should be able to make their own choices based on their beliefs, instead you wish to outlaw abortion and/or certain other reproductive options.

If a politician says they are “pro-life”, they are clearly communicating that they wish to end abortion rights, and maybe some or all birth control rights as well.

Or, for example, a devout Catholic could be completely against abortion, but yet still be pro-choice because they do not want to prevent all women from making their own decisions based on their own beliefs.

One position is about increasing freedom, and another is about reducing it. Just so’s we’re all clear on that

I Am the 51%

From the Atlantic:

Occupiers all viscerally sense the problem: extreme economic inequality. They all cite a lack of fairness — a lack of opportunity. They also agree that the status quo is failing.

But when it comes to women, Occupy is really a microcosm of the greater culture at large. This should … greatly embarrass those in the movement who see themselves as revolutionaries.

Just as when misogynists claimed the women accusing Julian Assange of rape were in fact part of a CIA-planned “honey trap”, there are misogynists calling the acknowledgment of gender inequality in the “Occupations” a plot by the powers-that-be to delegitimize the movement.  Little do they know that any participant’s disregard for the concerns of women in the movement, and their lack of willingness to acknowledge that women face sexism in society, will do plenty more to delegitimize Occupy than anything these alleged powers-that-be could do with their sudden, uncharacteristic feminism.  (Society’s power networks have never been known for being particularly woman-friendly, so claims that this is a government or corporate plot seem specious.)

How about this: to pre-empt these nefarious powers attempting to delegitimize the Occupy movement by pointing out how it reproduces society’s inequalities, why doesn’t Occupy instead model what an equal society should look like by being actively feminist, anti-racist, and welcoming to all other marginalized identities?

The argument that we must ignore all inequality except for class inequality is a surefire way to create an all white male movement that benefits white males.  The American Socialist Party in the early 20th century did the same thing, and we can see how powerful they are now. Quote:

[The Socialist Party’s] female members were not encouraged to join other women’s organizations in the fight for women’s rights ans suffrage. The class struggle was to have priority over matters of gender equality.

Not only does an equal class, unequal gender vision of the future serve to benefit men and turn off women, but it is impossible. How is it possible for unequal people to maintain equal wealth or wages or standards of living?

No one is a single identity.  Each of us is a whole person with many different identities around race, ethnicity, (dis)ability, sexual orientation, gender identity, sex, religion, age, etc.  An individual’s class is heavily affected by their other identities.  Black and brown people have considerably less wealth than white people, women still earn less than men for equivalent work, trans people are more likely to be homeless than cisgendered people, etc.  If you can’t bring that into your class analysis, you are doing some shitty class analysis.

To call women, or people of color, or other marginalized groups abettors of the oppressors for raising their particular concerns is to be willfully blind to the real way class works, and to silence those who experience the preponderance of its negative effects… i.e. the best and most motivated potential activists.

Here is some information about wealth disparities for the skeptical.