Which is to my shame- the controversy around the Jena 6 has been getting more press these days, but nowhere near what it should have been getting. I don't know that I have anything I can add that hasn't been said by someone else, and said more eloquently or with greater force, but that's a poor excuse for saying nothing.
The latest update on the Jena 6 case is that the DA has decided not to appeal a ruling that set aside Mychal Bell's conviction on the grounds that he shouldn't have been tried as an adult.
Gov. Kathleen Blanco, after learning that DA Reed Walters wasn't going to pursue and appeal, said "I want to thank him for this decision he has made" while Al Sharpton said "I want to congratulate the district attorney for good judgment".
I say: Bullshit.
When you mishandle a case like this and write an op-ed piece for the NYT that basically says "I haven't done anything wrong and this is being handled perfectly well" after you charged six black students with attempted murder while ignoring the attacks by white students... you don't deserve praise when you finally give in. You don't deserve thanks for moving a step closer to what you ought to have done in the first place.
From what I can see, Walters is doing the absolutely minimum he can. He's not giving up on the appeal because he thinks it's the right thing to do- he's caving to political and social pressure. Which, you know, I'm glad for- it's better than making the appeal- but it still means that he's a shitbag, and I'm not about to praise him for finally doing something sort of right for the completely wrong reasons.
Showing posts with label No Cookies For You Either.... Show all posts
Showing posts with label No Cookies For You Either.... Show all posts
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Wednesday, August 01, 2007
Why Authors Should Sometimes Just Shut the Eff Up...
As if Bradbury didn't make it manifestly clear, let me: Authors would be well advised not to talk about The Meaning of their books.
Now, Sara quotes an interview with Rowling that illustrates exactly why many authors would be well advised to just shut the hell up about what they meant by various things.
In this case:
Thanks for clearing that little mystery up, J.K. Can I call you that? I'm going to. You have to be a goblin fanatic to think that all goblin-made objects really belong to the maker? Really? Now, I don't have the book in front of me, but didn't Bill make it sound like... well... most if not all goblins hold that belief. So... all goblins are fanatics?
It was bad enough when I thought she just dropped the ball on the whole species as race aspect of the books, but it turns out that I was wrong. She didn't just drop the ball, she threw the damn thing away.
Now, Sara quotes an interview with Rowling that illustrates exactly why many authors would be well advised to just shut the hell up about what they meant by various things.
In this case:
Su: How did neville get the gryfindor sword, is there a link to the hat
J.K. Rowling: Yes, there is very definitely a link to the hat!
J.K. Rowling: Neville, most worthy Gryffindor, asked for help just as Harry did in the Chamber of secrets, and Gryffindor’s sword was transported into Gryffindor’s old hat
J.K. Rowling: – the Sorting Hat was Gryffindor’s initially, as you know.
J.K. Rowling: Griphook was wrong – Gryffindor did not ‘steal’ the sword, not unless you are a goblin fanatic and believe that all goblin-made objects really belong to the maker.
Thanks for clearing that little mystery up, J.K. Can I call you that? I'm going to. You have to be a goblin fanatic to think that all goblin-made objects really belong to the maker? Really? Now, I don't have the book in front of me, but didn't Bill make it sound like... well... most if not all goblins hold that belief. So... all goblins are fanatics?
It was bad enough when I thought she just dropped the ball on the whole species as race aspect of the books, but it turns out that I was wrong. She didn't just drop the ball, she threw the damn thing away.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Speaking of Guys That Don't Get It...
Fortune smiles upon me once again: The perfect illustration of a guy who doesn't quite get it.
Dustin Seibert- and his lovely little collumn here called "Game on the train? I'll take a pass"- is, I suspect, the sort of guy that many feminist blogs are talking about when they're call someone a Nice Guy™. He gives lip service to "getting it," but his attitude, and a lot of his comments, suggest to me that he doesn't really get it.
A casual glance might give you the impression that he's most of the way there. After all, he's writing about how he doesn't approach random women on the train. That's good, right? Of course. He also mentions that one of the reasons he doesn't approach random women on the train is "I know too many women who get freaked out by such advances." He's making progress, yeah? Well... maybe not so much.
See, while it's great that he's not bothering women on the train for their numbers, his attitude about the whole thing is depressingly angry and snide. Right after acknowleging that he knows too many women who are bothered by the unwelcome advances of strangers, he adds "The sneers that pop up on their faces a split-second before I even get a chance to smile say, 'I don't have a chance,' 'I'm not interested in what you're selling' or simply 'why the hell are you talking to me?!?'"
Ignoring for the moment that what he really means is "you don't stand a chance," think about that attitude for a second. His concern isn't about what the women are feeling about unwelcome advances- it's about how he feels about the rejection he gets from women who are bothered by unwelcome advances. He doesn't like feeling shut down, so he doesn't approach women.
On the one hand, the result is great- he's not bothering women and invading their personal space. On the other, the reason is a shitty one- he doesn't like feeling rejected, not because he respects their personal space. If there was any doubt about that, the stand-alone line "They're likely also thinking, 'Well, if he were really good-looking, then I might be more receptive." makes it quite clear. It's not that he thinks women don't like being bothered on the subway- it's that he thinks women want to be bothered by men more attractive than himself. He's taking a situation that ought to be about the woman's feelings and turning it back into something that's about his own.
In other words: Seibert? It's not about you. It's not about how attractive you are. It's not about how interesting or shallow you are. It's about respecting another person's right not to be pestered and hit on while they're taking the tram.
There are plenty of other cues about Seibert's mentality. He's unhappy that women might find him unattractive, but repeatedly discusses approaching attractive women: "that one very attractive women sitting by herself on your train", "Perhaps approaching a pretty young local in East Snackbite, Ill would be easier", "will the cutie standing on the corner..."
For an article talking about how Seibert doesn't hit on women on the train, he seems singularly invested in blaming women for his not hitting on them. He talks about the "inaccessibility" of women on the streets as though it's a bad thing that he can't hit on them. He refers to "lowe-culture" men who "ruin it for us good guys" as though, if only it weren't for all those classless losers, Seibert might have a chance to score some numbers on the street. After all, he's "no sketchy individual", and he's just trying to "offer substantive sonversations" that are "falling on deaf ears."
Shorter Seibert: "Poor Nice Guys! We have it so hard!"
The problem, of course, is that I think a lot of people probably read this kind of article and don't see a problem with it. They read it and they really do think "Wow, that sucks for him! Why are those women so mean to him! He's cute, and look at how nice he is!" Because he's paying lip-service to the desires of women, no matter how back-handedly, any criticism is likely to be met with resistence. After all, he respects women, so why are we so hard on him? That he spends the entire article blaming women for the situation and discussing how unfair and difficult it is that women are unreceptive to advances in public... well... never you mind that.
So, there you go, exactly the sort of subtle sexism that underlies a lot of what we've been talking about. I almost feel like I should send him a thank you note. But, somehow, "Thanks for being a sexist asshat who blames women for your problems" just doesn't seem like it'd go over well.
Dustin Seibert- and his lovely little collumn here called "Game on the train? I'll take a pass"- is, I suspect, the sort of guy that many feminist blogs are talking about when they're call someone a Nice Guy™. He gives lip service to "getting it," but his attitude, and a lot of his comments, suggest to me that he doesn't really get it.
A casual glance might give you the impression that he's most of the way there. After all, he's writing about how he doesn't approach random women on the train. That's good, right? Of course. He also mentions that one of the reasons he doesn't approach random women on the train is "I know too many women who get freaked out by such advances." He's making progress, yeah? Well... maybe not so much.
See, while it's great that he's not bothering women on the train for their numbers, his attitude about the whole thing is depressingly angry and snide. Right after acknowleging that he knows too many women who are bothered by the unwelcome advances of strangers, he adds "The sneers that pop up on their faces a split-second before I even get a chance to smile say, 'I don't have a chance,' 'I'm not interested in what you're selling' or simply 'why the hell are you talking to me?!?'"
Ignoring for the moment that what he really means is "you don't stand a chance," think about that attitude for a second. His concern isn't about what the women are feeling about unwelcome advances- it's about how he feels about the rejection he gets from women who are bothered by unwelcome advances. He doesn't like feeling shut down, so he doesn't approach women.
On the one hand, the result is great- he's not bothering women and invading their personal space. On the other, the reason is a shitty one- he doesn't like feeling rejected, not because he respects their personal space. If there was any doubt about that, the stand-alone line "They're likely also thinking, 'Well, if he were really good-looking, then I might be more receptive." makes it quite clear. It's not that he thinks women don't like being bothered on the subway- it's that he thinks women want to be bothered by men more attractive than himself. He's taking a situation that ought to be about the woman's feelings and turning it back into something that's about his own.
In other words: Seibert? It's not about you. It's not about how attractive you are. It's not about how interesting or shallow you are. It's about respecting another person's right not to be pestered and hit on while they're taking the tram.
There are plenty of other cues about Seibert's mentality. He's unhappy that women might find him unattractive, but repeatedly discusses approaching attractive women: "that one very attractive women sitting by herself on your train", "Perhaps approaching a pretty young local in East Snackbite, Ill would be easier", "will the cutie standing on the corner..."
For an article talking about how Seibert doesn't hit on women on the train, he seems singularly invested in blaming women for his not hitting on them. He talks about the "inaccessibility" of women on the streets as though it's a bad thing that he can't hit on them. He refers to "lowe-culture" men who "ruin it for us good guys" as though, if only it weren't for all those classless losers, Seibert might have a chance to score some numbers on the street. After all, he's "no sketchy individual", and he's just trying to "offer substantive sonversations" that are "falling on deaf ears."
Shorter Seibert: "Poor Nice Guys! We have it so hard!"
The problem, of course, is that I think a lot of people probably read this kind of article and don't see a problem with it. They read it and they really do think "Wow, that sucks for him! Why are those women so mean to him! He's cute, and look at how nice he is!" Because he's paying lip-service to the desires of women, no matter how back-handedly, any criticism is likely to be met with resistence. After all, he respects women, so why are we so hard on him? That he spends the entire article blaming women for the situation and discussing how unfair and difficult it is that women are unreceptive to advances in public... well... never you mind that.
So, there you go, exactly the sort of subtle sexism that underlies a lot of what we've been talking about. I almost feel like I should send him a thank you note. But, somehow, "Thanks for being a sexist asshat who blames women for your problems" just doesn't seem like it'd go over well.
Friday, July 06, 2007
It's Reader Participation Day: Part II - Blog Title
Yesterday, I asked you what kinds of things you'd be interested in reading. Given that I gave you all of a day, I think I got some good responses. So, as promised, I now tackle your topics. Part I was about feminism and film, which you can see right below this post. Part II is about the title of the blog: cme asked me to blog about the title of my blog, and what the phrase "You don't get a cookie or a tourguide" means to me.
I came up with the title of this blog because I firmly believe that I don't deserve some kind of special prize or gold star (or cookie) just for being a minimally decent human being. I'm generally opposed to the idea that we should be bribing people to be decent human beings. When someone goes above and beyond what we should reasonably expect, we should absolutely give that person the gold stars sie deserves. But, it makes me very uncomfortable when I see men get special praise just for holding feminist opinions- as though thinking that women shouldn't be treated like shit because of their sex is or ought to be remarkable. In some sense, I suppose that it is remarkable... but it shouldn't be. Anyway, the point is that I don't expect or want extraordinary rewards for holding views that make me a minimally decent human being.
I hadn't heard that tourguide part before cme mentioned it, though. Is this a common expression? I must confess that I have slightly more ambivalent feelings about that part. I absolutely agree that women have no responsibility to give men a map to what is or is not acceptable behavior. It's not, as the saying goes, the responsibility of the oppressed to point out the oppression to the oppressors. Or something like that.
On the other hand, I do recognize the importance of having someone who can help you see through the bullshit and figure things out. I don't expect someone to hold my hand the entire way, but having a mentor or a guide can be a tremendous help in realizing how wrong some things are. I look back at my own experiences, and I'm not sure I can count the number of times that women have explained or pointed out a situation in such a way that I was able to make the connection, where I might not have otherwise.
So, I guess what I'm saying about that is that I think it's my responsibility to seek out and try to learn what I can, and to ask questions about the things I can't figure out, and to seek out the people who can help me learn about things that I don't understand. It's also my responsibility to respect that no woman is obligated to help me. I think that there are things I'm not necessarily going to be able to figure out on my own, but it's my job to find people who can help me, it's not someone else's responsibility to hand me things on a silver platter. I am helped by women who are generous and take time to explain things to me when I don't get them, but I don't have a right to that- it's a favor they're doing for me.
Does that make sense?
I think that this is a great topic, and there are some sticky aspects to it: I know that I've felt, at times, like I was getting more praise than I deserved for things that I've said because I was a man. I also know that there are some people who feel like it's important to praise or reward men who "get it" so as to encourage them or make them feel appreciated. I'm not so sure that this is the best tactic, but I understand where it comes from. There's a lot to talk about, though, and I think I'd like to hear what some other people are thinking about this.
Also: if you've got more ideas, feel free to throw them here- I'm going to try to reserve Friday to answer reader questions or to blog about suggested topics. Friday can be Reader Participation Day. Huzzah!
I came up with the title of this blog because I firmly believe that I don't deserve some kind of special prize or gold star (or cookie) just for being a minimally decent human being. I'm generally opposed to the idea that we should be bribing people to be decent human beings. When someone goes above and beyond what we should reasonably expect, we should absolutely give that person the gold stars sie deserves. But, it makes me very uncomfortable when I see men get special praise just for holding feminist opinions- as though thinking that women shouldn't be treated like shit because of their sex is or ought to be remarkable. In some sense, I suppose that it is remarkable... but it shouldn't be. Anyway, the point is that I don't expect or want extraordinary rewards for holding views that make me a minimally decent human being.
I hadn't heard that tourguide part before cme mentioned it, though. Is this a common expression? I must confess that I have slightly more ambivalent feelings about that part. I absolutely agree that women have no responsibility to give men a map to what is or is not acceptable behavior. It's not, as the saying goes, the responsibility of the oppressed to point out the oppression to the oppressors. Or something like that.
On the other hand, I do recognize the importance of having someone who can help you see through the bullshit and figure things out. I don't expect someone to hold my hand the entire way, but having a mentor or a guide can be a tremendous help in realizing how wrong some things are. I look back at my own experiences, and I'm not sure I can count the number of times that women have explained or pointed out a situation in such a way that I was able to make the connection, where I might not have otherwise.
So, I guess what I'm saying about that is that I think it's my responsibility to seek out and try to learn what I can, and to ask questions about the things I can't figure out, and to seek out the people who can help me learn about things that I don't understand. It's also my responsibility to respect that no woman is obligated to help me. I think that there are things I'm not necessarily going to be able to figure out on my own, but it's my job to find people who can help me, it's not someone else's responsibility to hand me things on a silver platter. I am helped by women who are generous and take time to explain things to me when I don't get them, but I don't have a right to that- it's a favor they're doing for me.
Does that make sense?
I think that this is a great topic, and there are some sticky aspects to it: I know that I've felt, at times, like I was getting more praise than I deserved for things that I've said because I was a man. I also know that there are some people who feel like it's important to praise or reward men who "get it" so as to encourage them or make them feel appreciated. I'm not so sure that this is the best tactic, but I understand where it comes from. There's a lot to talk about, though, and I think I'd like to hear what some other people are thinking about this.
Also: if you've got more ideas, feel free to throw them here- I'm going to try to reserve Friday to answer reader questions or to blog about suggested topics. Friday can be Reader Participation Day. Huzzah!
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
A Wednesday Mini Link-a-Thon...
Things are a little busy around here, but a few links that I found interesting today:
-News Flash! Althouse responds scathingly to the bloggers who pointed out how ridiculous and stupid a Freudian analysis that turns onion rings into vaginas was by calling them stupid-heads and poopy-faces.
-In related news: The rest of the blogosphere lets out a collective yawn in the face of her completely unsurprising lack of maturity and her assinine behavior.
-Over at feministe, piny points out that there are still assholes who think you get a gold star for being minimally decent. I know it's hard to believe, people, but you don't get credit for not attacking people while they sleep.
-Belledame discovers what a lot of us from Michigan already knew: Dr. Kevorkian is creepy as hell, and his actions raise a lot of eyebrows. The analysis of his victims is eye-opening.
-Jenny Dreadful takes an anti-pot ad to task. I haven't seen the stupid ad, yet, but I have to admit that it sounds a hell of a lot better than the "If you get high someone will rape you" or "If you get high you'll shoot your best friend in the face" ads from a few years back. Note: Better does not necessarily mean good.
-News Flash! Althouse responds scathingly to the bloggers who pointed out how ridiculous and stupid a Freudian analysis that turns onion rings into vaginas was by calling them stupid-heads and poopy-faces.
-In related news: The rest of the blogosphere lets out a collective yawn in the face of her completely unsurprising lack of maturity and her assinine behavior.
-Over at feministe, piny points out that there are still assholes who think you get a gold star for being minimally decent. I know it's hard to believe, people, but you don't get credit for not attacking people while they sleep.
-Belledame discovers what a lot of us from Michigan already knew: Dr. Kevorkian is creepy as hell, and his actions raise a lot of eyebrows. The analysis of his victims is eye-opening.
-Jenny Dreadful takes an anti-pot ad to task. I haven't seen the stupid ad, yet, but I have to admit that it sounds a hell of a lot better than the "If you get high someone will rape you" or "If you get high you'll shoot your best friend in the face" ads from a few years back. Note: Better does not necessarily mean good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
