fialleril: [Spock disapproves of your poor life choices] (what is this even)
Is NBC seriously running a fluff piece on Kerri Strug's 1996 team win right now, instead of talking about Gabby Douglas' win yesterday? Are you fucking kidding me?

God forbid we should talk about a black girl winning gold and make it sound like she won because of talent and hard work and determination, because obviously if she won it must have been because of something somebody else did, and hey, why don't we ignore her entirely and spend a huge segment of primetime talking about something that happened sixteen fucking years ago, because at least then the hero was a white girl.

NBC is the actual, literal worst.
fialleril: [Spock disapproves of your poor life choices] (what is this even)
[Trigger Warning for: heteronormativity, heterosexism, asexual and aromantic erasure, slut shaming, gender essentialism, theological abuse.]

I should know better than to read anything on "singles" put out by a Catholic publication, let alone a publication like Our Sunday Visitor. And yet...sometimes I guess I just have to know what I'm up against.

I mean, this is only a tiny fragment of the horribleness:

Although it may be reassuring, in some ways, that today’s unmarried Catholics have lots of company in the single life, it’s also a problem. Never before have quite so many adults, Catholics or otherwise, delayed marriage quite so late in life. Some delay by choice. Others by chance. But marriage is delayed regardless. And the results are often less than rosy.


Even if a nice Catholic girl or boy is found, however, other problems often get in the way of marriage. Many nice Catholics girls and boys haven’t always been nice Catholic girls and boys. Some have made mistakes in the past that haunt them still.

Others bear the wounds of past breakups, divorce or misguided notions about career, family, personal responsibility, the meaning of happiness and the ends of marriage.

- Being single in the universal Church

Click the link if you want to appreciate how truly terrible it is, and commiserate in my pain.

... And people wonder why I'm not "out" in my church community.
fialleril: [Spock disapproves of your poor life choices] (what is this even)
Spotted on a fic summary today:

In a previous fic I got John and Sarah married. This made quite a few people very upset. So to make you all happy I've killed her.


Am suddenly very tempted to write that fic where I get Sarah and John married. AND DON'T KILL HER FOR IT.
fialleril: [the fires and the black river of loss whose other side is salvation] (lioness)
This past weekend, I was able to go on the Ignatian Spirituality Project's last overnight retreat for homeless women in Chicago before the end of my JV year. I know I don't talk much about my JV experience on this journal, so here's a bit of a refresher:

This year, I'm working with the Jesuit Volunteer Corps, a volunteer agency that gives volunteers the opportunity to live in community and simplicity while being placed at a variety of social justice organizations. In my case, I'm working with the Ignatian Spirituality Project, an incredible program that offers free overnight and one day retreats to men and women who are homeless and in recovery from addictions. I work specifically with the women's retreat program in Chicago, as the co-coordinator for the women's volunteer team and as the main logistics person who organizes all of the retreats. And I get to go on the retreats themselves every so often. They're always incredibly powerful, intense experiences: twelve to fourteen women from four or five different homeless shelters around Chicago gather together to share their stories with each other and find hope and strength through building a sense of community with one another. It sounds so incredibly simple when I describe it, and yet it's genuinely life-changing.

This weekend was even more intense than any of the other retreats I've been on, though.

cut for possible triggers, plus bonus Clone Wars/George Lucas rant )
fialleril: [somebody's gotta save our skins] (voice of reason)

Kansas lawmaker compares rape to auto theft.

Kansas lawmakers are currently considering a law that would bar insurance providers from covering elective abortions — unless a woman pays extra for a special plan. The problem with such coverage, however, is that it forces women to “plan for a completely unexpected event.” The bill “wouldn’t apply to abortions performed to save the life of a woman, or to pregnancies resulting from rape or incest.” However, in the latter case, women would first be forced to file a police report:

The bill would require a police report to be filed if the woman wants an abortion to be covered by her insurance under the incest or rape exemptions. [...]

“You’d have to have a report that someone stole your car,” said Rep. Steve Brunk, a Bel Aire Republican. “This is kind of the same thing.”

fialleril: [y'all don't know 'bout my flawless logic] (T'Pring)
Or, the promised Halloween pics plus a good bit of unexpected and unwanted drama on the side. Things which have forced me to add "overidentifying with Vulcans" to my LJ interest list in an effort to bring something at least kind of amusing out of the situation.

But first the good things. We had a Halloween potluck at our JV house on Friday, to which none of the people we were required to invite actually came. This was, in fact, not a bad thing, since we didn't know any of those people, anyway. And some folks Amy knew from work and an awesome lady named Adriane who is a friend of one of our support people did come. (It turns out Adriane is a hairdresser and is going to cut our hair for free tonight, so!) Also our other support person, Mary Ellen, and one of her friends. Good times were had. We held a costume contest and gave away some truly awful, glow-in-the-dark pictures of Jesus as prizes. (They were donated to us, but they had to go. It was for the best.)

Under this cut there are pictures! And incoherent asexual rage! )
fialleril: [the fires and the black river of loss whose other side is salvation] (Ishmael Beah)
Yesterday the United States Senate voted 90-6 against closing the Guantanamo Bay detention facility. Because it would be a security hazard to shut it down.

Because obviously we can't hold people in the United States under legal conditions. The fact that we've been doing that for years before we decided to go the illegal detention route only proves how much it doesn't work.

And obviously we can't release all the people who were picked up at random by bounty hunters and turned in as terrorists for the reward. Because after five or six years of torture, well, they might possibly want some revenge. And besides, they're all evil soulless terrorists anyway.

And as for the kids who were thirteen and fourteen years old when they got rendered to Gitmo, well, they were already hardened criminals. And now they're even more so.

And when it comes to the international opinion of America, well, it doesn't take a genius to see that our detainment center at Guantanamo has made us much more popular with the rest of the world, thereby improving our national security! So clearly, shutting it down would be a bad idea.

Besides, we weren't using that Bill of Rights, anyway.

I'm so angry and broken up about this right now, I can't even think straight.

Pertinent Amnesty linkage is here. Spam the hell out of those bastards.
fialleril: [somebody's gotta save our skins] (voice of reason)
I should have known better than to pick up a book called Single State of the Union, especially with that cover. But I was optimistic as always, and I thought that possibly this was relevant to my interests. So.

Some of it really wasn't that bad. The introduction made some good points about media treatment of single women as either washed up old maids living unfulfilled lives or sex-crazed man stealers waiting to suck your wallet dry. And it was nice to see a book of essays by single women saying that yes, shockingly, we can be happy and fulfilled without "a relationship."

But honestly, in a book with over twenty essays about the experiences of single women, was it really impossible to include even one asexual perspective? And even if for some strange reason (or not so strange: read heteronormativity) it was impossible, was it really necessary for practically every essay to begin with some variation on "I'm not a frigid asexual, but..."?

I understand that part of the feminist project has been to reclaim sexuality - so often associated with the female - as a good. And yes, I'm actually very sympathetic to that goal. But reclaiming sex as a good without also challenging the basic equation woman = sexuality is not really going to change much. It also puts those of us who identify as asexual in the position of "problem" not only for the patriarchy, which has seen us as "unnatural" and in need of mental help for centuries, but also for (many) feminists, who in their efforts to reclaim sex as a good seem positively terrified of acknowledging the existence of asexuals, presumably on the grounds that to acknowledge them would negate the good of sexuality.

I reject this false dichotomy entirely, and I'm glad to say that there are many, many other feminists and womanists who do as well. Unfortunately, there's still a lot who don't, and probably a lot who have never even considered the possibility that someone might be asexual.

I want to give this book the benefit of the doubt and say that it falls into the latter category, but there are enough references to "oh those frigid asexuals, destroying the media's view of single women" that I can't quite convince myself of that.

So to the authors of those essays, here's a little note. You'll probably never read this, of course, but I feel it needs to be said. This asexual, who's quite happy with her single life and really isn't frigid at all, would like to point out that your privilege is showing.

October 2012

 12 3456
2122 2324252627



RSS Atom