Femmostroppo Reader – June 13, 2009

Items of interest found recently in my RSS feed. Please share what you've been reading (and writing!) in the comments.

  • Pam's House Blend:: The Obama admin defends DOMA in a brief comparing marriage equality to incest
  • – OMFG – this is worse than I feared

  • Tragedy at the Holocaust Museum: Stand Up To Terror
  • – “Eight episodes of right-wing extremist violence in four and a half months. We haven’t gone four weeks since February without some poor guy — always with a long history of mental illness, usually with a record of military service and/or domestic violence, and invariably jacked up on a toxic cocktail of white male privilege; us-versus-them enemy seeking; fury at women, blacks and/or Jews; and a belief that the world as he knew it was ending unless he took up arms — taking out his gun and offing innocent Americans in a suicidal bid for glory.

    For the record: This is not business as usual.”

  • WND is No Longer Just Moronic – It is Dangerously Irresponsible
  • – Frothing misrepresentations from WND even worse than usual

  • WANT Part VIII: Zen and the art of Apollo maintenance
  • – Something for the nerd who has everything

  • Stick Figures vs Matriarchy.
  • It’s two months since Richie’s last webcomic slapdown, and it’s a beaut. Remove coffee from vicinity of keyboard before reading.

  • 50 votes (by digby)
  • – “This idea that everyone has to sign on is just utter and complete nonsense — a foolish beltway truism born of some fantasy about ‘Ole Tip and Ronnie throwing down martinis after work.”

  • Douchehound of the Day « Kate Harding’s Shapely Prose
  • – “In this case, what usually gets glossed over is this: what they object to is not what we’re saying but the fact that we’re talking. We don’t just have the audacity to fail to live up to this guy’s standards of beauty — we also have the nerve to persistently not disappear! What kind of women ARE you people? Sure, I could go somewhere else and not have to deal with scary scary critical thought, but I’d still know that somewhere, women were flapping their gums! FAT women! OBESE WOMEN are MAKING NOISES! LANGUAGE NOISES! SOMEWHERE! Oh why won’t they simply be quiet? Can’t you please shut up and restore order to my world?”

  • Whatevah!
  • – “It’s that idea of feminism as old, outdated, stuffy shit. BOOOOORRRIIINNG! This is a very common argument from the anti-feminists, and so is painting pictures of feminists as out-of-touch, ugly, desperate and no longer fashionable.

    The reason I find it so fascinating is that the argument is totally superficial and really shouldn’t work. Who cares if feminists are ugly as hell if they improve women’s lifetime earnings by reducing discrimination in the labor markets? Who cares if they shout as long as women themselves get to keep the right to determine their own fertility patterns? Who cares what was in fashion and wasn’t in fashion?”

Categories: linkfest

Tags: ,

3 replies

  1. Re the DOMA thing.
    They cited cases in legal history where certain States had opted to not recognise marriages performed in other States – as precedent for some States not doing so with gay marriage. The cases cited were in relation to the marriage of second cousins and between two parties where one was under 16. I’m not saying that what the Obama administration has done in terms of filing this brief is a good thing but I’m not sure I’m down with the accusation they ‘compared’ gay marriage to incest.
    Plus the original post by John Aravosis makes me a little uncomfortable in the way it keeps referencing Loving and reiterating the fact that people of colour can get married but queers can’t. I don’t really know how to explain my reaction more clearly or coherently though.
    I don’t know. I think people should be able to get married if they want to and that there shouldn’t be restrictions to doing so based on sexuality or gender but I’m starting to feel really weary about this heteronormative addiction to marriage as the #1 QUEER ISSUE.

  2. But the nature of the current administration’s defence of DOMA is crying out to be challenged with the utmost vigour, because of the way they have supported discrimination with arguments that the authors must be aware defy logic. Did you read this passage?
    “Section 3 of DOMA does not distinguish among persons of different sexual orientations, but rather it limits federal benefits to those who have entered into the traditional form of marriage.”
    You might want to read it again, to check that they just said all that in the one breath, and that it isn’t a passage from Alice Through the Looking Glass.

  3. Sorry, I should have made more clear that I don’ support the filing of this brief nor it’s content or what appears to be it’s aim. I’m not against using vigour, I just don’t agree that it compares gay marriage to incest (or child abuse) and I think it’s a bit disingenuous to push that idea – particularly when there are so many other claims, as you’ve pointed out, that are so ludicrous.

%d bloggers like this: