PHILADELPHIA — The old tactic of dragging out an opponent’s sexual skeletons for political gain is being turned on its head in the City of Brotherly Love.

In a left-leaning district anchored by a roughly three-square-block area known as the Gayborhood, where gay pride rainbows grace even the street signs, a state representative accuses her foe of pretending to be bisexual to win votes.

Rep. Babette Josephs says Gregg Kravitz, her challenger in the May 18 Democratic primary for the 182nd District House seat, told her he was gay, then appeared at a campaign event with a woman who introduced herself as his girlfriend.

“I outed him as a straight person, and now he goes around telling people, quote, ‘I swing both ways,’” Josephs told supporters April 15 in recorded comments at a fundraiser at a downtown pub. “That’s quite a respectful way to talk about sexuality.”

I’ve met Babette before.  We hosted her for a forum on Women in Politics at Temple.  She struck me as a giant fag hag and I really enjoyed having her wacky self come speak to us.  I honestly do think that she envisions herself as a great LGBT pioneer, and I certainly acknowledge her years of service to the Commonwealth of PA.

With all that being said, kindly fuck off.  Don’t tell me – or any other queer – what ways are appropriate to describe or discuss my sexuality.  And don’t you dare try to use bi-phobia as a way to campaign while trying to tell the community that you zomg! care about us!

The Democratic apologists have already started piling onto Kravitz…ignoring, of course, that he’s a DEMOCRAT as well.  My favorite bit of stupidity is brought to you by one of the HuffPost commenters, OBroadhurst:

In this story, it is made clear that Josephs is not accusing Kravitz of lying when he states that he’s a bisexual, but rather is accusing him of having lied when he previously told her he was gay – and then was later seen dating a woman (assuming he told her anything). Josephs, meanwhile, appears to be confused about those of us who may be described as “bisexual” – in somehow presuming that this necessarily means we “swing both ways”. Sexual identity does not always imply behavior.

Frankly, if I cared enough to create a HuffPost account, my response would be: “If sexual identity does not always imply behavior, maybe you’re just doing it wrong.”  I’m just sayin.

Original link located here.  (Edit for clarity: this tweet went up on the 7th, the day the article was posted.)

Unless you’ve been under a rock, I’ve been posting a lot about this Bitch Magazine/biphobia debacle over the past few days.  (Gosh, I’m still waiting on that public apology I requested!)

Now, many fellow members of the LGBT community have made it clear that we have a HUGE problem with the headline and content of this piece.  Now, I don’t advocate that Bitch should remove old tweets, but I do think it’s telling that this tweet popped up on my Twitter about an hour ago:

(Original link located here.)

Seriously?  Really?  On what fucking planet is this acceptable?  It’s bad enough that Kelsey Wallace seems to think that the title was the only objectionable portion of the article, but to post the SAME article (with nothing changed by the title) again on their Twitter account stinks of childish stubbornness.

I’d rather get my feminist analysis elsewhere.

(But, as a side note, I did find this hilarious comment from Kelsey Wallace on the worldwide intertubes.  Scroll down until you hit it; in a nutshell, she has a problem with a blogger’s criticisms of Bitch‘s take on the travesty known as Jennifer’s Body.  It’s so professional of her to track down bloggers and chastise blog posts on their personal sites.  My favorite portion was this line “but I don’t think that warrants your questioning of our feminism or abilities as bloggers.”  Right, because disallowing non-mainstream feminist voices doesn’t imply that the Bitch editors are the arbiters of feminism, now does it?)

—-

If you’re reading this from my Facebook notes, please go to the original blog post (located here) to comment.

While I was enraged about the bi-phobic garbage presented in the infamous Casey Johnson/Tila Tequila article posted on Bitch Magazine, I made a sarcastic comment about how begging readers to donate money was a much better use of time than actually fixing the problem.  And what do you know?  A few days later, the Bitch Facebook page linked here in an attempt to beg for subscriptions.

My response to this (on Facebook) pretty much sums up my feelings on the whole matter:

LOL. THANK YOU FOR PROVING MY POINT.

This magazine is a fucking joke. See the handling of the Casey Johnson “article” if you don’t understand why. Hey Kelsey Wallace, thank you so much for ignoring my email after giving us the bullshit, pissy “you can email me if you have issues with Bitch” comment on that thread.

If this magazine’s interpretation of feminism has become posting homo/bi-phobic and misogynistic articles, all but ignoring complaints about them, and then begging readers to subscribe to this hot mess of a publication, then count me out. I’ll be removing myself as a fan and publishing my email to Kelsey on my website as a follow-up to my criticisms about the horrendous “Tila Tequila” post.

I’m certainly doing more for feminism there than reading this nonstop crapfest.

It’s beyond frustrating.  Web editor Kelsey Wallace spouted off a talking point about giving a crap and then completely ignored my email.  I gave her two business days to respond and watched her ignore my email in favor of putting up two posts on the website (one on the 9th and another yesterday, the 11th).  I’m so glad to see where Bitch Magazine’s priorities lie.

Here’s the content of the email that Ms. Wallace couldn’t bother to respond to:

Kelsey,

I think I’ve pretty much covered all of my complaints with the content.  In my opinion, Bitch’s online content has been steadily declining over the past six months.  Many of the pieces I have caught online have bordered on insipid, even when I do agree with the point.  Take the South Park piece, for example.  (Located here: http://bitchmagazine.org/post/come-on-down-to-south-park-and-watch-some-feminist-episodes)  I agree that Trey Parker & Matt Stone have presented a feminist (or at least feminist friendly) perspective in quite a few episodes of the show and – as both a radical feminist and a libertarian – would have loved to read a much more in-depth essay about the subject.  Instead, readers were treated to a shallow piece that barely scratched the surface or incorporated feminist theory into the discussion.  I copied & pasted the piece into Word and did a word count on it; it was 390 words and came in at around 1 page.  There is no reason why Juliana Tringali couldn’t have incorporated examples, criticism, and a little bit of feminist theory into a tight, polished essay instead of something that reads worse than most blog posts.

I used to be able to count on Bitch for making me think about things a little bit differently, but now I can only really count on Intro to Women’s Studies-esque discussions.  Natalie Stein wrote the type of article you expect to see in an Intro to WMST course just before the author gets schooled.  I’d really love to not be subjected to this crap from a “feminist” publication.  Bisexuals take shit from lesbians who think we aren’t gay enough or who want to label us as “dykes.”  Straight men either automatically assume you’re into threesomes or are so intimidated that you might know how to get a woman off better than them.  Straight women are often convinced you’re going to want to lez out with them or are threatened because you’re so much more exotic than they are.

All of this shit that we take is dismissive of the many facets of our sexuality, objectifies us, and is just bad news bears in general; these ideas are based – at least in part – by ill-formed stereotypes of bisexuality.  Instead of tearing down these stereotypes and misconceptions, Natalie focused more on tearing down the unlikable women attached to these stereotypes (to paraphrase a Facebook user: the unstable, exhibitionist bisexual and the fallen blonde heiress).  What could have been a powerful critique on the media circus surrounding this very sad, very real story turned into an excuse to say “HAHA BI = BAD IDEA!”  Geeze, there were so many different, feminist ways this discussion could have gone.  Y’all could have even used the Perez Hilton/Tila Tequila Twitter war (over Casey Johnson’s death) to talk about sexism within the LGBTQA community and stereotypes about LGBTQA women instead of this tripe.

Hiding behind a disclaimer means nothing, especially when it’s used to justify misogynist and homophobic crap.  As I mentioned in one of my Facebook comments, it’s not like unpopular feminist perspectives will be read in Bitch anytime soon – which is the reason newspapers, magazines, websites, etc. have a version of that disclaimer.  It’s downright shitty when – instead of being used for it’s intended purposes – the web editor hides behind such a disclaimer to justify a piece such as this one.  As a member of the LGBTQA community, it really feels like I’m being told that my complaints, issues, struggles, and oppression don’t matter, as long as no one’s feelings get hurt by Patty Heaton.  Honestly, if you can’t see how this is a problem, then I don’t know what to tell you.

In a similar vein, passing all the blame off onto the author is irresponsible of both you and Bitch Magazine, and your miffed tone when you first began receiving criticism is bullshit.  You came across as more annoyed than anything else because those uppity lesbos threw a shit fit; I’m sure this wasn’t your intention, but to be honest, your tone in your initial comment really pissed me off.  It really struck me as typical dismissive breeder bullshit.  Furthermore, before you can even attempt to defend an article about the LGBTQA community, you need to check your privilege and try to understand why so many of us took issues.

It’s fairly obvious that neither you nor Natalie even attempted to see where we were coming from here.  The “solution” was an apology posted way down in a Facebook comment thread that came across as an “I’m sorry if you got offended” styled “apology” and the title of the article was changed.  This was despite the fact that many commenters complained about the CONTENT of the article, myself included.  I really think you missed the point on this, considering you didn’t get that the title was only PART of the problem.  I’m not going to go through point by point and tell you everything that was sexist, homo/bi-phobic, and/or generally fucked up because – frankly – as a gender studies major, you should know better.  These are the reasons I said that I probably would not be restarting my subscription to the magazine; I don’t really want to pay money to be dismissed and have it defended.  I’m very disappointed with the Casey Johnson piece, and even more disappointed with the way it was handled; seriously, Kelsey, we didn’t even get a response from a Bitch Magazine rep until I mentioned I likely would not restart a subscription.

With all that being said, I do appreciate you opening your inbox for comments on Bitch, as well as coming online to facilitate a discussion.  Personally, I hope that this entire debacle can be used as a learning experience.  In the future, I deeply hope that Bitch will take a bit more responsibility when selecting pieces to run in print or online editions, that future authors will be a bit more sensitive to marginalized groups, and that the dreaded “opinion disclaimer” will be used for its intended purpose (instead of a way to deflect criticism from the magazine and its contributors).  As far as right now, I think the least that Bitch could do is put up a public apology on the main page from both Natalie and you; both of you have already apologized once in the infamous Facebook thread and we have every right to expect a formal, written apology on the main page.  I’m not saying that it will fix everything, but I think that it will go much further than you might think.

Thank you for letting me sound off to you.

Sincerely,
Vicki Moore

I don’t understand why this email – along with the suggestions in it – was ignored.  I guess that the Bitch staff has a huge case of butthurt when it comes to criticism directed at the magazine, which is pretty disappointing.  You would think that a magazine billing itself as an alternative to mainstream media might actually function in an alternative manner.

‘Magine that.

—-

If you’re reading this from my Facebook notes, please go to the original blog post (located here) to comment.

This all led the author to use the term “fake lesbian relationship” in her headline.

Luckily, many other Bitch readers were also pretty pissed about the off-base and phobic shit in the article. Frankly, I am shocked that anyone from Bitch thought this article should have been run on their website, but before I delve right into that mess, I really need to unpack all the sterotypical garbage here.

1. Oh, those darn attention seeking bisexuals!

As one Facebook user remarked, no one claims that Paris Hilton isn’t into dudes because she’s used her sexuality for attention. The attention seeking portion of it doesn’t make the sexuality any less real or valid, and is so heavily rooted in bi-phobia. What bisexual hasn’t heard claims that they’re just doing it for the attention, especially bisexual sex kittens – who are also always doing it for male attention? Surely no femme looking sex kitten or vamp type could have actual desire for another woman or even be experimenting; nope, it must be Girls Gone Wild syndrome.

2. Why can’t these homos be two-dimensional Super Gays instead of being nuanced individuals?

I can’t believe that Bitch Magazine would allow something to run that was so dangerously close to making a “credit to your race community” argument. Dude, really? Do I have to make more of a point here? Seriously, Tila Tequila, Courtenay Semel, Samantha Ronson, Portia De Rossi, Fergie, Perez Hilton, Neil Patrick Harris, Margaret Cho, Andy Dick, Sir Ian McKellen, Elton John, Jim McGreevey, Barney Frank, Dan Savage, and Christian Siriano are NOT the emperors of gay people. None of ‘em hold that title. They are not saints, they are not perfect, and they are certainly not two-dimensional stereotypes. Are we good on this?

3. OMG TILA TEQUILA HAS GONE OVER HER 140 CHARACTER LIMIT OF GRIEF!

Before Shot at Love, the only real distinction Tila had was to be the person with the most popular Myspace page ever. Shocking that she might grieve online? Let’s be honest, yeah, it’s not the smartest idea. If nothing else, when you’re emotional, you are so much more likely to say things you’ll later regret, and given this twisted mess of clusterfuckery, it’s probably a much better idea to take a breather and log off Twitter for a few days. But is Tila Tequila really the first person to publicly mourn the loss of a loved one? Is she really the first person to make bad decisions on the internet? Even if she was the first to do it, how on Earth is this proof that this is somehow a “fake” lesbian relationship?

There was a lot of great feminist theorizing that could have happened here. We could have seen a discussion open up about the media circus surrounding Casey Johnson’s death, or even a discussion about any of the objectionable portions of Stein’s post; instead, Bitch Magazine’s web editor, Kelsey Wallace, felt that this bi-phobic tripe was a better use of bandwidth. How do I know this? Well, Ms. Wallace jumped into the fray of critical comments (after I had commented that I would likely never get another subscription to the magazine) with the following miffed comment:

Hi, this is Kelsey, the Web Editor at Bitch. Thank you everyone for your comments. I have contacted Natalie, the author of this post, and asked her to respond to your concerns about her interpretation of Casey Johnson and Tila Tequila’s relationship. Please keep our policy in mind that “Opinions expressed on this website are those of their respective authors, not necessarily those of Bitch.”

As for those of you who feel that all of the content on the Bitch Media website is rapidly declining and is at the level of a high school women’s studies course, please feel free to contact me (kelsey@b-word.org) to relay any specific criticism you may have.

Thanks again,
Kelsey Wallace

Notice two things: the statement does not address the specific issues others had with the post, and it uses a disclaimer to deflect all criticism onto the author. Opinion disclaimers are meant to protect a publication from extreme criticism over an unpopular view. In this context, it would be meant to cover the mag’s asses if they had someone writing about why they don’t support gay marriage because they don’t support marriage (for example). The disclaimer isn’t intended as a clever little shield to deflect rightful criticism such as horribly bi-phobic language and points made in a supposedly feminist publication. (What’s next? Are we going to see articles warning us about the Lavender Menace?)

By hiding behind it and hanging Natalie Stein out to dry, Kelsey (and, by extension, Bitch Magazine) might as well be saying, “not our problem!” I guess we’ll just ignore the web editor’s responsibilities re: approving pieces for publication. It was completely irresponsible to allow this article to run in the first place. The solution was to change the headline of the piece (to “Sapphic Salon: The Death of An Heiress, The Milking of the Press“), to completely disregard the issues within the article, and to give a half-hearted “sorry if you were offended” styled “apology” within Facebook comments. As of right now (11 pm EST, 1/9/10), there is still not an apology or any acknowledgment that the article was shouldn’t have been posted in its current form.

Considering that Bitch likely won’t be asking Angela Keaton to contribute any pieces to their site under the guise that her opinions are not necessarily shared by Bitch Magazine’s, I think it’s safe to call “bullshit.”  It’s even more depressing to me because it feels like Ron Paul campaign BS all over again.  Why is it that my issues – as an LGBTQA woman – can be sold out and dismissed, but it would be the worst crime in the world to give Jill Stanek a voice? (I say this as being one of the main organizers on this event.) I’m guessing that it will be a cold day in hell before we see Kelsey Wallace giving either Wendy McElroy or Camille Paglia a voice in the publication.

It’s the same old homo/bi-phobic crap that we queers have been subjected to since the beginning of friggin feminism. It’s tired and played out, but sadly, probably won’t fully change; instead, privileged straight people will continue to act like they know how we should feel about any subject. Maybe we would all be a little better off if we started listening to marginalized groups and stopped speaking for them.

Then again, what do I know?

Follow up: Kelsey Wallace, web editor of Bitch Magazine, ignores reader complaints.

—-

If you’re reading this from my Facebook notes, please go to the original blog post (located here) to comment.

Let’s be clear about a few things:

1. The majority of the bicyclists I have seen drive like dickheads.
2. The majority of car drivers I have seen drive like dickheads.
3. The bicyclists are kind of screwed because they risk a $250 fine* for biking on the pavement or risk getting planted into parked cars for biking on most of the roads here.

With all that being said, I think it’s pretty obvious that this is another way to screw the poor in this city.  Yeah, a lot of dickheaded bike riders, especially down in South Philly, are asshole yuppie fucks who think they are enlightening the city dwellers by showing them omg! new green initiatives! instead of taking poor people transportation (aka Septa).

But you know, there are a lot of places that Septa either doesn’t run, or is unreliable at best.  And, honestly, given how sucky the job market is within city limits, a lot of people are being forced to cut costs.  That $2.90 round trip might not seem like much, but that adds up to $58 a month if you’re lucky enough to be working 5 days a week, which could translate into 7 hours of work if you’re unlucky enough to only be making $8 an hour.**  I totally understand why someone might not want to shell out that much money a month just to get to work.  (Of course, this does not account for things like going to the grocery store, or God forbid, going out to grab something quick for dinner or possibly even – gasp! – an overpriced six pack to drown away your sorrows about only making $8/hour.  I know, I know, the working poor should never ever ever spend their money on anything frivolous.  They should be forever punished and never allowed to spend a little bit of their hard earned cash on something that isn’t a necessity.)

Anyway, I’m digressing.  The point is that these additional proposed laws are completely idiotic.  The proposed fines will jump to $300 for riding on the sidewalk, $300 for riding with headphones, $1000 (!!!) for riding without brakes, and will introduce a new licensing system for bicycles which will include a $20 fee for registering your bike.  (I’m willing to bet that, like with car registration, this fee will be an annual fee and not a one-time shot.)  Does anyone really think it’s going to function as more than just a money making ploy for City Hall?  I mean seriously.  I doubt I will notice an appreciable difference in the number of bicyclists on the sidewalk after these proposed laws go through, nor will I notice an appreciable increase in the number of bicyclists who actually observe traffic laws.  Maybe I’m cynical, but I’m not wrong as often as some seem to think I am.

The reality is that the laws won’t do much besides encourage the ever confrontational relationship that bicyclists and motorists have with one another here.  You won’t see anything actually change until there is a little bit more courtesy extended on the road by both bicyclists and drivers.  Yeah, there are plenty of holier than thou, self-righteous assholes riding bikes in this city, many of whom are fitting squarely into the camp of “heh heh, dumb cunt deserved to get hit by a bicyclist who couldn’t be bothered to slow down when approaching a stop sign.”  Those guys are assholes.

But at the same time, it’s an attitude that’s born from frustration.  This city is scary as shit to walk in some areas (like right around 9th and Wharton, at Pat’s & Geno’s, where I’ve almost been hit by tourists in mini vans on multiple occasions), let alone trying to ride a bike.  I get the feeling that most of these bicyclists, no matter how dickheaded they ride, have developed this attitude because they have been almost killed while riding their bikes around here.

Regardless of your opinion on bicyclists in Philly, just because some, many, or even most might personally be assholes, it doesn’t mean that the proposed laws are decent ones and it doesn’t make it right to milk money out of a seemingly citywide hated group.

* According to the first link, “cyclists riding on the pavement or wearing headphones while riding would each face a fine of $300. Currently, the fines are, respectively, $10 and $3.”  I’m not sure certain that this is correct.  I see signs all over 9th street claiming that the fine is $250.   If I’m wrong, I stand corrected.

** Whoops!  I flaked out and forgot that tokens cost $1.45 each.  All of the numbers in red were edited when I realized my mistake.

—-

If you’re reading this from my Facebook notes, please go to the original blog post (located here) to comment.

Ron Paul.  Okay, three, if you’d prefer to roll with “Ron Paul rEVOLution REVOlution.”

A manarchist must have been hanging out at Passyunk and Bainbridge.

Every time a member of Campaign for Liberty parrots off the “Ron Paul Loves Freedom” standard talking points, God kills a kitten, then Rickrolls some unsuspecting n00b, and then follows up by teaching some poor sap the meaning of shock image.  You know, I could believe it if it weren’t for the hit-you-over-the-head obvious fact that “Ron Paul Loves Freedom” is officially 100% old meme.

Well, that and if I weren’t female.

When members of the Libertarian party slobber all over Ron Paul, it sends a message to women (and queers and Mexicans) that not only is our participation unnecessary, but also that our issues are not ones rooted in freedom.  Before you jump on me, I’m quite aware that there’s got to be a few participants in the Ron Paul REVOlution who are Hispanic, gay, and/or female. I’m also quite aware that every time some poor “freedom loving” 9/11 truthing stereotype prattles on and on about how Ron Paul is Love Over Love it takes every ounce of composure I have to not lean in very closely and scream “Ron Paul doesn’t give a flying fuck about my freedom.”

Yes, I get it.  He cares about issues very near and dear to your average libertarian stereotype: guns, prostitution,  weed, and keeping basement apartments legal.  While I share your love for those things, dear freedom fighters, I also happen to think that having autonomy over my own body is super cool.  I’ll also go so far as to say that you cannot be pro-life and a libertarian.

Yeah, I said it and I’ll say it again in more explicit terms: if personal freedom and choice are the crux of the libertarian argument, then you are a hypocritical fuckwad if you are a pro-life libertarian.

I fail to see the logic in trusting me with an AK-47, but not trusting me to make the decision that is best for my life and my situation.  I fail to see the logic in arguing that I should have the right to shoot an intruder – defined as “someone who is not invited into my home” – but I can’t remove an unwanted fetus from my body.  I fail to see the logic in allowing me to have access to a fully automatic gun capable of popping off multiple rounds with the touch of a trigger, a weapon which exists only to hunt (humans), but having a medical procedure that doesn’t impact you is “murdering a baby.”  Trust me, hypocritical pro-life libertarian asswipes, me having sex with you is not an option, therefore it is 100% none of your damn business.

Every time a libertarian tells me that Ron Paul is “good 95% of the time,” my head wants to fucking explode, because I’m part of that 5%.  As a woman in a heterosexual relationship, it’s unfathomable that the LP or it’s members would support a man who has shown me that he does not view me as trustworthy as a man.  When you remove the right of women to control what happens in their own bodies, you are saying that I am inferior to a man, all because of that pesky xx thing.

The fucked up shit is that, if you were to listen only to people like Catherine Seipp, you’d think that abortion was irrelevant.  Right, because there are absolutely no reasons why pro-freedom individuals should give a rat’s ass about abortion.  It’s not as if it’s another form of governmental oppression waged against a group of citizens.  If you want me to be 100% perfectly honest, this is a large reason why I have the nagging feeling that many of the female contributors on Reason are essentially affirmative action hires.  Their writing skills are nowhere near on par with the male contributors, and when speaking about feminism, it is clearly that they often haven’t pulled their heads out of their asses long enough to read a damn book or academic article about feminism. Instead, they figure that a Google search or two, and some recollections of some feminist stereotypes will be enough to write a thorough criticism.  Besides, it’s not like chicks can perpetuate misogyny, right?

In a libertarian context, freedom and liberty should be the most important aspects of any issue.  Period.  Given that I could lose my job during my pregnancy due to my inability to perform it while pregnant, I could be pregnant with a Tay-Sachs baby, I could be making too little to support myself and a baby without taking government aid, I could have taken every reasonable precaution to prevent pregnancy, or, like many a gun owner, I could just not want to be pregnant at this time, I don’t understand how abortion is not an issue of freedom.  All of these are valid reasons for an abortion (as are a million others).  Why are the same libertarians who argue that compulsory tax legislation is anti-freedom often so resistant to treating abortion like an issue of personal freedom?  Most concerning, though, is why is abortion being re-framed as a left v. independent issue?

As I said on Twitter, feminism and libertarianism are not mutually exclusive.  If you support the core argument of feminism, that women deserve equal opportunities to men, and you support one of the core arguments of libertarianism, that the government has no right to infringe upon your freedom, then they seem to work together far more often than they pull one another apart. My body and my right to determine what goes into or stays out of it are not political fodder.  Or, to put it more simply, either you love freedom, or you don’t.  If you do, that might mean having to accept things you don’t really like, that make you uncomfortable, or that gross you out.

I can accept that that a society with minimal government means garbage I don’t personally support will be legal.  Why can’t you accept it when it pertains to my life?

—-

If you’re reading this from my Facebook notes, please go to the original blog post (located here) to comment.

(Seriously, Ms. Mangu-Ward, your writing skills are atrocious, even for state university levels.  Now that I’ve found out you are a Yale grad, I probably won’t stop weeping for humanity.

Yes, I have many more thoughts on this subject.)

—-

If you’re reading this from my Facebook notes, please go to the original blog post (located here) to comment.

…and not with my female ex-roommate’s maturity.

The irony being – of course – that this ex-roommate broke up with her first girlfriend and began initiating her relationship with that exes cousin within a few hours of their breakup.  Then, after she and the cousin – predictably – broke up, she moved onto one of the cousin’s best friends.  I’m going to assume that this was also within a few hours.

No, that’s not some serial killer shit or anything.

Really though, what should you expect from people who work things out by having a falling out, ignoring one another for several months, and then sweeping everything under the rug?  It’s funny, because after reading through about 8 gajillion old posts I’ve made (between Livejournal, Blogger, and WordPress), I’ve noticed a pattern where I have a hell of a time picking friends.  Two themes, however, keep rearing their little heads:

1. The people in question causing more drama then they’re worth
2. The people in question have an inability to work things out with one another

I don’t think there is anything commendable about allowing people to walk all over you, treat you like shit, and then working out your issues with one another via a Facebook friend request.  This is doubly true if there is constantly some big drama between everyone a mere week or two prior to “working things out.”

In a similar vein, there is nothing shitty or bitchy or lacking in self-respect about demanding – much less expecting – an apology for certain behaviors.  There’s even less that is shitty or bitchy or lacking in self-respect about telling someone who has treat you in a shitty manner to fuck right off.  I give a lot of chances for people to redeem themselves, and that’s probably what’s done me in the most over the years.  After reading through, deleting, editing, and organizing several thousand posts from my old Livejournal and blogger accounts, these are the biggest themes I keep seeing.

The craziest thing is that – with some exceptions – I don’t even necessarily think many of the people I’ve encountered are doing it maliciously.  In most cases, I think they’re just not intelligent enough to see how inherently fucked their social interactions are.  Simply put: they’re children and they lack the understanding necessary to realize why they can’t function in society.

What does sadden me, however, is the fact that a lot of this shit has been perpetuated by women I know.  By women who are “feminists.”  Really?  How feminist is it to encourage bullshit competition between your fellow sisters?  How feminist is it to giggle about the back biting, shit talking, gossipy bullshit that hurts all women? Shit, man, it’s 2009.  I thought that sisterhood was supposed to mean something in our interactions with one another.  I thought we weren’t supposed to do this shit anymore.

I’m the first to admit that I am not perfect or that I have acted in a 100% truly supportive manner, but the way some would tell it, my more recent political shift (which aren’t mutually exclusive from feminism) somehow makes me a latent misogynist.  When, fuck, I’m one of the few that has tried to make a supportive environment for those who need it.  There is nothing unreasonable, fucked up, or shitty about wanting to engage in an honest dialogue with others, which means that we won’t always agree on shit.

I know it seems to be the consensus that the only productive discussion is one in which everyone agrees with you, but there is a distinct difference between respectful disagreement and nasty little digs accusing others of having their self-respect packed away in a box.  The photo that began this post may seem like it’s dredging up “ancient history” (read: shit that everyone wants to sweep under the rug), but the reality is that it’s symbolic of so much shit from the past two years.  It is far more telling than any amount of poorly executed trolling could ever be, and the reactions to it are also far more telling than the reactions to any amount of poorly executed trolling.

And although none of us want to believe that we are in the wrong – especially when it seems that our misguided stubbornness is the one of the few things we really have left – I find it very hard to believe that it’s all my fault.  The answer is more complicated and nuanced then “Drunkenatheist is a mean cunt,” and I think that it’s important to keep that in mind.

—-

If you’re reading this from my Facebook notes, please go to the original blog post (located here) to comment.

Lok down yer goggies, Michael Vick iz in town!

Imagine my surprise earlier this evening when I learned that Michael Vick, former Atlanta Falcon and current douchebag extraodinaire, was signed to the good ol’ Iggles today.  At the risk of polluting the interwebz with yet another opinion about insipid bullshit that shouldn’t be worth my time (or yours), I felt compelled to ask two questions to the “Michael Vick has served his time” crowd:

Does that mean you’re all against sex offender registries created through Megan’s Law?  After all, those sex offenders have “served their time,” so don’t they deserve a second chance and deserve to not have their personal information broadcast all over the internet?

I’m just wondering why people who have paid their debt to society deserve to have their lives ruined over statutory rape charges, pissing on the side of a building, or streaking, yet a man who admitted to and was convicted of running a dog fighting ring should be allowed to retain his multi-million dollar job.  Oh, why he should be able to keep that job despite the contract he signed which undoubtedly had a morality clause, which typically covers things that give your employer bad PR.

But it’s cool, because he paid his debt to society!  He ran a large, organized operation that was very punishable under RICO (had his plea bargain not been accepted), and Vick got very lucky that he is as famous as he is or I doubt he would have gotten out of his legal troubles.  Now, he gets to run ads for the Humane Society that basically say “I’m Michael Vick, and I’m just sorry I got caught” and everyone is buying his snow job about being a changed man.

I’m steeling myself for an onslaught of “the crimes just aren’t the same” comments, despite the fact that this isn’t my gripe.  My gripe is that there is a lot of overlap between the “Michael Vick paid his debt to society” crowd and the “sex offender registries are 100% awesome” crowd.

Frankly, something just ain’t right about that.

—-

If you’re reading this from my Facebook notes, please go to the original blog post (located here) to comment.

-20 points for the owners/friends of owners for acting like douchebags on the Yelp boards
-20 points for phillygrrl for labeling the owners as hipsters given the Philly related links on the right sidebar of the blog

This is a stalemate of douchebaggery. I’d threaten to not go there just based on the fear of running into self-loathing hipsters who don’t understand humor while being waited on by an owner who hasn’t heard that internet = serious business (cause that’s not old meme or anything), but I also enjoy patronizing overly hipster businesses that will annoy people. And, let’s be honest, it’s not like I have money for much of any consumable crap.