Category Archives: wat

Monday music post, “final exams!11” edition

Hello readers! You may have noticed that I have not updated in a week or so. This is because I have been busy with final exams and such. But I have a lot of cool posts planned for when I am FINISHED with finals, so please bear with me.

Anyway, here are some songs that I have been enjoying as of late. If you have songs that you would like to share, you may leave YouTube links in comments (lyrics are also good!). Or just talk about stuff you’ve been listening to lately, or concerts you’ve seen, or albums you’ve (re)discovered. Whatever — it’s up to you.

First up, here is a suitably intense version of Tori Amos’s “Blood Roses” from 1999 or so (lyrics here):

Next, we have “Here Lies Love” (lyrics; vid is audio-only) by David Byrne and Fatboy Slim with Florence Welch, from the recent concept album of the same name, which is SO AWESOME and you should track down a copy (especially if you like disco, concept albums, and/or female singers):

Finally, an oldie-but-goodie, “Ocean” by the Velvet Underground (lyrics; vid is audio-only):

Tagged , , , , , ,

Why SF’s Proposed Sit/Lie Laws Are a Terrible Idea

[Note: Please read the comments policy carefully before commenting.]

In San Francisco currently, there is something of a debate brewing about Mayor Newsom’s proposed sit/lie laws, which would make it illegal for anyone to sit or lie on any public curb or street in San Francisco (with a couple of exceptions).

The intersections with disability here are rather clear. For one thing, there are some intersections between homelessness and disability, because some homeless people are, for example, mentally ill or have disabling physical problems. Do either of these things make them unworthy of compassion, or not human? Of course not, but from the way this proposed ordinance is designed, it is, on a very basic level, criminalizing homelessness even more than it is already criminalized (not to mention socially stigmatized), while taking extra “common sense” steps to avoid citing non-homeless people for an offense. Observe the following response to concerns that SF police would begin to crack down on non-homeless people were the laws to go into effect:

During a heated, five-hour Board of Supervisors public safety committee hearing on the issue Monday, Adachi showed photographs of behavior that would be illegal under Newsom’s proposed law: a well-heeled tourist sitting on her luggage as she waits for a cab, a little boy sitting on a sidewalk clutching his skateboard, and tourists sitting on a curb and gazing up at the sights.

Assistant Police Chief Kevin Cashman said all of those people would be warned first to move and that none of them would probably receive a citation.

“Obviously common sense is going to be part of the training with enforcement of this statute,” he said at the hearing.

Ah, yes, “common sense.” Common sense, apparently, still makes the further stigmatization of homeless people de rigeur. Because apparently, they don’t deserve to sit down in public, unlike “well-heeled” tourists and neighborhood residents. I wonder what the response to a person with disabilities — tourist or not — needing to sit down on a public street might be? Someone waiting for an ambulance? While that is approaching a bit of a slippery slope argument (which I generally like to avoid), it is worth considering, simply because “common sense” will mean different things to different people — those whose job it is to enforce the statute included.

Also interesting is the framing of this ordinance in terms of concern for children. From one of the SF Gate articles:

Newsom, who bought a home in the Haight recently, was convinced to support an ordinance after walking along Haight Street with his infant daughter and seeing someone smoking crack and blocking the entrance of a business.

Certainly, children need to be protected from dangerous situations or potentially dangerous situations, but is an ordinance that criminalizes the poor and homeless — not all of whom are recreational drug users or addicts — really the way to do it?

Additionally, nowhere have I seen any plan to increase the number of homeless shelters or services for homeless people attached to this ordinance. The implicit message behind these proposed sit/lie laws seems clear: It’s too bad you’re homeless, but don’t you dare be homeless on our streets, because it might make our city look bad. Oh, and you certainly shouldn’t expect the city to help you not be homeless — even after it cites you for breaking the sit/lie law.

(Cross-posted at FWD/Feminists With Disabilities)

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Today in “Missing the point, rather spectacularly”

From the mod queue on this post, which is almost a month old:

Really! So limiting “hate” speech is OK? This is a great concept until the opposition gains power and limits your speech as “hate” speech. Who ever your opposition is. Whether you like lesbians or hate lesbians, like straights hate straights, like the left hate the left, like white people hate white people, like black people hate black people, this is s slippery slope. When one becomes egocentric and can only tolerate their own point of view, then you they have joined an elite group that includes: Nazi’s (killed millions), Soviet communists (killed millions), Chinese communists (killed millions), KKK (killed thousands). Your hatred of hate speech as you define it, is no different. The message is this, be careful in imposing your will on others, it sometimes turns out badly!

I read this comment and I think, “This person did not read the damn post, because nowhere did I say that speech should be limited.” Calling people out for saying bigoted shit and/or when they jump to “free speech means I can say whatever I want, without getting called on it” is not the same thing as legislating what can and cannot be said.  Anyone with a basic understanding of what free speech actually means, and, uh, logic knows this. Also, LOL at slippery slope argument, and putting words in my mouth.

Reading comprehension: get you some.

Blast From the Past: This is Not My Type of Feminism

[Important note: New feature! “Blast From the Past” will feature past posts from my old blog that I think are worthy of inclusion on this one, mostly because I like ’em. This post is from May 2009, so it’s a bit old in blog-time, but I think most of the points made are still (sadly) relevant. I’ve changed some of the wording for clarification purposes.]

There are days when I question whether feminism, as a whole, is welcoming to people like me. Or to people who are not exactly like me, but are still part of groups that have historically been ignored, erased, marginalized, or plundered by mainstream feminism.

This absolute trainwreck of a “discussion”–on mental illness–happened over two weeks ago at Feministe, and I’m still thinking about it. Many (though not all) of the comments on that post are horrific displays of ableist tripe.

I do not understand why some find it so haaaaaard to grasp that disability and ableism are feminist issues, or that disability rights and the rights of people of all genders are connected; I find it equally difficult to understand why some are so dedicated to holding on to the last vestiges of their privilege, even as they give lip service to things like “inclusion” and “diversity.” Neither term holds meaning when used by a certain type “good” mainstream liberal/feminist/et al to describe just how awesome and progressive they themselves are; oftentimes, these words are used to make those in the mainstream feel better about themselves, their privilege(s), and their biases–some of which they just cannot let go.

Again and again, I see comments in several places online that suggest that disabled and other marginalized people, and their experiences, are only good for two things: enabling the “growth and development” of mainstream feminists, and providing abstract (at least to those who have that privilege) discussion fodder that allows various “concerned” fems to do their thing without questioning their own privilege. Both of these have the effect of depoliticizing any radical potential that those who are NOT het white cis upper-middle class able-bodied mentally “healthy” feminists may bring to the table. In a way, it’s kind of like using the ideas of radical women of colorwithout referencing where these ideas come from!–to make a point about your wedding, of all things.

It fucking hurts.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,