Madonnas and Whores

So I like True Detective. Like, a lot. Apparently so does everyone else. I honestly thought it was a show that only a few special, clued-in people were watching, but after the sixth episode this last week (there are only eight this season) suddenly everyone’s talking about it. It’s all over my Facebook feed. All over the media. The DJs on 96.5 the Buzz were even talking about it Monday night when I drove home from work.

The show is very well written and veteran actors Woody Harrelson and Matthew McConaughey are so good at what they do it almost hurts to watch them work their craft. (I’ve read several comments about how so many people doubted McConaughey’s acting skills before this part, but I’ve always been a McConaughey fan. Mostly because of his iconic role in Dazed and Confused, but also because of this interview he once did on the Conan O’Brien show. I dare you to watch it and not love him.)

ANYWAY. There has been much discussion about the female characters in the show. There’s been controversy/criticism about how, in contrast to the fully drawn and complex male leads, the female characters seem … thin. And there’s some real analysis and discussion about this. But there’s nothing to discuss. The female characters on True Detective aren’t just uncomplicated, they can be pretty much broken down into two camps: Madonnas and Whores.

Thusly:


Presumed whore.



Whore

Daughter facing camera: Whore.
Daugher with back to camera: Madonna.

First Madonna, later Whore.



Whores, literally.

Does this make me not like the show? Not at all. Am I sure what it means? No. True Detective creator and writer Nic Pizzolatto has hinted that next season’s season might feature female leads. If so, it’ll be interesting to see how he writes women. It has been pointed out, correctly, that True Detective does what The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo does: it illustrates how some men put women in boxes (Madonna or Whore) and otherwise dismiss, belittle, demean and abuse them. But The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo also shows the women’s side of things—how and what they think as well as their complexities. True Detective doesn’t do that at all. Rust is complex to a degree that’s both fascinating and comical. Even Marty in his stereotypically male simplicity is complex—he has himself fooled into thinking he’s a great family man, when in actuality he’s a huge failure.

Whether or not the show is yet another shitty Hollywood representation of women remains to be seen.

Perhaps the most apt comment I’ve read written about all the hullabaloo surrounding the misogyny of the show came from an African American woman who added her two cents to a True Detective discussion thread:

“White people problems.”

Heh.

What do you think about the show? I'm curious.

Taking back our (local) government

Turns out Kansas doesn’t have to be so thoroughly embarrassed as the most “backward” state in the nation. Arizona has managed to take their LGBT discrimination bill one step farther than we did – theirs has passed the state house and senate and is now awaiting approval or death by governor Jan Brewer. Kansas’ steaming turd of legislation squeaked through the house and was squashed when my fellow Kansans raised holy hell, much to the surprise of our out-of-touch, so-called leaders who blinked like a possum caught in tunnel at night with a train bearing down on it. (Sorry. Sometimes I loves me some Kansas vernacular.) Even people who aren't thrilled with the idea of gay marriage recognized this law for what it was, realizing that it stunk too much of the days of Jim Crow.

For a couple of days, our legislators had the nerve to dig their heels in. So Kansans continued to show them what-for. We made phone calls. We emailed. We protested. We wrote letters-to-the-editor of our local papers. Many papers wrote stunningly sharp editorials. We screamed. Our boneheaded legislators finally got the message, if only begrudgingly. Personally, I think they owe everyone a huge apology, but since I don’t enjoy asphyxiation –  autoerotic or otherwise –  I won’t be holding my breath.

We’re seeing similar bills popping up all over the country as some states legalize gay marriage and the people against gay marriage anticipate it being proclaimed legal at the federal level. They realize it’s only a matter of time, so they’re trying to head the homos off at the pass, as it were.

I’ve seen several religious extremists online writing that people of their ilk need “protection” from lawsuits that might be brought by same-gender couples seeking their services, and that gay people should just stay away from businesses that don’t want to serve them because those darn gays are just “causing trouble” and “being difficult.”

I have two questions in regard to that concern:

A) Exactly what country do you think you’re living in? This is America. Land of the litigious. Any business can be sued at any time, by any customer or employee, for reasons legitimate and frivolous. That’s the way it is. Period. Grow up.

Secondly, should the four African-American college students who staged a sit-in at a Woolworth’s lunch counter in Greensboro, North Carolina in 1960 have stayed away because the business didn’t want to serve black people? Because it sounds like you’re saying that.

And it’s not just anti-gay legislation that extremists are trying to push at local levels of government. It’s anti-women legislation, anti-poor legislation … because a certain extremist faction of the country has figured out that they’re probably not going to win the presidency any time soon. Their freak flag is just a leeetle too freaky (and not in a good way) for the rest of us to stomach.

So they’re going after the elections we Americans don’t pay much attention to: Governorships. State legislators. City Commissions. Sheriffs. School boards, even.

Now you can shake your finger at Americans for being “lazy” for not paying attention to local politics, but c’mon. Between our jobs that don’t give us much time off, our kids, the PTO, our aging parents and all that stuff – y’know, life—that we have to take care of, there aren’t too many of us who have time to keep track of what’s going on.

Except for the zealots. The zealots always make time because they’re intent on rolling back the progress of this country. That’s what makes them so effective. And dangerous. For the average American, battling this shit is exhausting. It’s like turning on the light at night and trying to step on all the cockroaches that skitter away, knowing that as soon as you turn the light off, the roaches will be back. In the meantime, they’re breeding behind the walls.

What’s so scream-at-the-walls aggravating about the extremists is they don’t seem to realize how good they have it. They already have all the rights they could ever want. They are perfectly welcome to worship how they choose. They’re perfectly welcome to remain bigots in their hearts. They even have the right to be bigots in their businesses. (We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone at any time.) It’s just that they don’t want to have to face up to the consequences of their actions. They want government to be just large enough to protect them, and just small enough to exclude everyone else.

Must be nice.

So we have to stay vigilant, my fellow Americans. At least for a time, we have to pay attention.  We have to take our country back.

Dear Kansans: wake the f*ck up

In case you haven’t heard, the Kansas House has just passed House Bill 2453 which says that anyone may refuse service to someone whose religious beliefs don’t line up with their own. Sickeningly, the authors and supporters of the bill are calling it the "religious freedom act." In theory, this bill means that anyone could refuse service to anyone else for any sort of "religious" reason, but the real goal of this law is to allow bigots who are against gay marriage to refuse service to legally married gay couples. And this isn’t just for business owners. If this bill becomes law, any employee working in any private business or government capacity may discriminate against a gay person or couple if it “offends their religious sensibilities” and the employer can’t even fire an employee for such behavior, because in Kansas, religion is a legally protected class but sexual orientation is not. (I'm not sure how this lines up with Kansas being a right to work state, but what the hell do I know? I'm no lawyer.)

I have been struggling with writing about this. It’s so demoralizing, so horribly sad, that I just don’t even know what to say. Usually I try to be a little snarky in this blog, but … This isn’t funny. Not on any level. I’m at a total loss.

I will say this:

Wake up, Kansas.

The days of automatically voting for the candidate with an “R” after his or her name are over. Kansas has a long, proud tradition of voting for moderate Republicans, but it’s time to start doing our homework.

The speculation over exactly what the ramifications of this bill might be are already being debated. It's not just about an employee who doesn't want to make a wedding cake for two women getting married. A police officer could refuse to intervene in a domestic dispute between a gay couple. Thomas Witt, Executive Director of the Kansas Equality Coalition warns:

Under HB2453, county clerks won`t have to issue you a marriage license.  Under HB2453, companies won`t have to offer you the same spousal benefits they offer other married couples.  Under HB2453, hospitals can pretend you`re not the next-of-kin to your dying spouse.  Under HB2453, your boss can deny you bereavement leave to bury the above-mentioned spouse.  Under HB2453, it`s not just individuals who get to pretend you`re not married.  It`s entire agencies of the state government.  It`s whole for-profit companies.  It`s any man, woman, child, stray dog, and random breeze that gets to pretend you`re not really married.  All they have to say is ``God told me so.``  

Not only is this law disgusting, but if it’s enacted, there’s no way that it can possibly legally stand. Which means that your tax dollars will go toward fighting a total waste of time.

This law has been proposed and endorsed by people who think of themselves as Christians. But I ask you, would Jesus have refused to wash a gay man’s feet? Would Jesus have refused to give bread and fishes to a lesbian couple and their children in need? Just where in the Bible is that passage?

House Bill 2453 still has to go to the senate. It’s not too late to contact your senator and tell them to stop this piece of legalized bigotry. If you don't know who your senator is, don't be embarrassed. You can search for your representatives at OpenKansas.org

There's a Change.org petition in protest of the bill here.

And if you're into Facebook, a group called Stop Kansas House Bill 2453 has been growing by the second. You can go to it by clicking the link.

State hobby lobby lobbies for Hobby Lobby

Oh people. You are wearing me out. I wasn't planning on blogging for a few days, but you’re forcing my hand.

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt has just filed a brief in the U.S. Supreme Court supporting Hobby Lobby’s legal challenge to provide insurance that pays for emergency contraception, as outlined in the Affordable Care Act, or Obamacare if you dig that moniker. (Personally, I do.)

And why, do you ask, would Kansas concern itself with the business of a national craft store? I’m so glad you asked! It’s because Kansans are disproportionately interested in all things artsy-fartsy. 

FACT: No Kansas child is allowed to progress from the 4^th grade to the 5^th without first mastering the ancient art of wheat weaving. FACT: During the great locust plague of 1889, Kansans were able to drive the pests to Missouri by lighting millions of handmade scented candles. FACT: In order to renew his or her driver’s license, every Kansan is required to have no fewer than two Pinterest accounts. FACT.

David Green, owner and CEO of Hobby Lobby Inc., recently published an open letter explaining his objections to Hobby Lobby being forced to provide insurance for its employees that would potentially cover emergency contraception. Here’s a particularly poignant excerpt from that letter:

A new government healthcare mandate says that our family business MUST provide what I believe are abortion-causing drugs as part of our health insurance. Being Christians, we don’t pay for drugs that might cause abortions, which means that we don’t cover emergency contraception, the morning-after pill or the week-after pill. We believe doing so might end a life after the moment of conception, something that is contrary to our most important beliefs. It goes against the Biblical principles on which we have run this company since day one.

You can read the letter in its entirety here.

There are a few problems with this letter, many of which have pointed out by people smarter than me:

1) David Green may “believe” that emergency contraception is an “abortion-causing” drug, but Princeton University has done research that shows otherwise.

2) Hobby Lobby isn’t paying for emergency contraception. Hobby Lobby is paying for insurance. How Hobby Lobby’s employees and its employees’ doctors choose to use that insurance is entirely up to them. Hobby Lobby has no business getting between its employees and its employees’ doctors. Hobby Lobby is an employer. Not a parent. Or a church.

3)The idea that the family that owns Hobby Lobby is so morally outraged about abortion is laughable. The vast majority of Hobby Lobby’s inventory comes from China, a country where abortion is government mandate. (China often denies this, but China denies pretty much everything.) And y’know. Being that China by-and-large isn’t a Christian nation, obviously David Green’s god doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the number of abortions the Chinese perform. Heck, Green’s god is probably happy that a few less Chinese will let the ‘Mericans catch up in the breeding race.

For Kansas to put even a symbolic dog in this fight (and it is one ugly muthafuckin’ dawg) is insulting. It is insulting to me as a Kansan and as a woman. I have chosen to not shop at Hobby Lobby for about a year now. For my state—a state where my ancestors settled five generations ago in order to escape religious persecution—to dare speak on my behalf about a matter so repugnant to me is a real slap in the face. Talk about infringing on rights. Also, doesn’t the Kansas AG have more important things to worry about? Like, I dunno … CRIME IN KANSAS?

Now someone might think that it’s not a big deal for Hobby Lobby to want to opt-out of paying for emergency contraception. According to Drugs.com, the Plan B pill costs approximately 50 bucks. (Notice at the bottom of this screenshot that Plan B cannot be ordered by ladies in Oklahoma. It’s not illegal there, but they have to show ID to buy it.)

Fifty bucks? You might think. Fifty bucks to prevent an unwanted pregnancy ain’t that much. But according to glassdoor.com, the average salary of a cashier at Hobby is only $8.88 per hour:

That means a Hobby Lobby cashier has to work 5.63 hours in order to pay for a one-time use of Plan B. That’s probably about equal to what a Hobby Lobby cashier would spend on food for the week.

The Kansas AG office writes:

Americans may form a corporation for profit and at the same time adhere to religious principles in their business operation. This is true whether it is the [plaintiffs in this case] operating their businesses based on their Christian principles, a Jewish-owned deli that does not sell non-kosher foods, or a Muslim-owned financial brokerage that will not lend money for interest. The idea is as American as apple pie.

Oh, Derek. Notice that in the plethora of examples you’ve given (two), it’s about what the business sells. Not how it treats its employees. Sure, I’m allowed to open a business selling riding crops and chastity belts. Under the ACA, I am not allowed to tell my employees that they must pay for their Viagra out of their own pockets because I think erections are icky. Just like I’m not allowed to discriminate against hiring anyone based on their gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, height, weight, etc. Similarly, if I am an employer who worships the Flying Spaghetti Monster, I am not allowed to tell my employees that they must consume meatballs on Thursdays.

Kansas Attorney General Derek Schmidt is married with two daughters. One would hope that he would ask for his daughters to be treated the same under their insurance coverage, and at work, as he has been.

You can email the Kansas Attorney General’s office here.

Thanks to my friend Jake Vail for the awesome title!

Containing the wily vagina

For many moons, men have feared the cunning vagina. Like the remote jungles of Africa and South America, they imagined it to be a dark, foreboding place. As such, women felt obligated to keep the specifics of their “womanly” matters to themselves. (Just to make things simple, the term “vagina” may be used in this blog post to mean the entirety of the female reproductive system. Even though this is scientifically inaccurate and bordering on being as stupid as some of the Neanderthals I’m about to talk about, the fact of the matter is I enjoy the word vagina. Vagina, vagina, vagina. Vagina.)

From pregnancy to periods to cysts to yeast infections to pre- and post menopause, in times past, the issues of the female reproductive system have largely been the responsibility of women ourselves. Men didn’t want to know about such things. They couldn’t have told you the difference between a fallopian tube and a clitoris, nor did they care. They didn’t want to hear about it. They just wanted to reserve the right to stick their jiggly bits in there once in a while.

This is not true for many modern men. Take my husband for instance: He’d happily talk with me about my vagina for an hour if I wanted, because that’s just the kind of caring, forward-thinking kinda dude he is. He was with me every step of the way of our pregnancy and he’s an involved father.

On the other hand, the pre-enlightened male probably can’t even tell you that the urethra and vagina are two separate openings, because that’s not how his body works, and really, why would he give a shit?

Yet it’s the pre-enlightened male who feels perfectly valid in legislating the vagina. After all, vaginas are mysterious and magical things, simultaneously the source of human life and much human pleasure. They also believe it to be the source of the downfall of men, a witchy, wantonly device used by women to undermine the heterosexual male.

So the pre-enlightened male figures that women can’t possibly be trusted with their own vaginas, because vaginas are simply too powerful. Vaginas must be legislated and kept under male control. Forget that so many old white dudes in power think that an ovum takes place during an opera and vulva might be a type of processed cheese food. This is irrelevant.

When Representative Allan Rothlisberg proclaimed that women over 50 don’t need gynecological services,* one savvy woman noted, “From this statement, I know way too much about his sex life.” And it’s true. Allan is definitely over 50 and one presumes his wife is also. Either she has stopped getting gynecological checkups (which is obviously a huge mistake), or like women of times past, she’s preserving the tradition of going and not bothering him with the details. Thus his ignorance.

This is why I’m so over male governance. Women can stand on the sidelines and stamp our little feet and scream at old dudes that we deserve to have control over our own bodies and they’re never, never going to get it. Women can know in our heart of hearts that it is UNFAIR that insurance companies treat birth control as “optional” but old dudes in power will always side with the insurance companies and never with women. Because they just don’t want to. And guess what? We’re not going to change their minds.

That’s why it’s high time that women became more political and stopped sitting on the sidelines. (On our vaginas.) We have to get out and vote. More importantly, we have to get out and govern. Only then will we truly set the wily, wonderful, misunderstood vagina free.

* While Rothlisberg’s statement was not recorded and Rothlisberg has since denied making such a statement, Senator Anthony Hensley (D-Topeka) has gone on the record saying that he was in the room when Rothlisberg said it. Says Hensley, “Wouldn’t you deny saying something so ignorant? Unfortunately, no media were present at the time and the Republican-run Kansas legislature has made a practice of not releasing committee recordings - ironically spurred by other outrageous statements that have been an embarrassment to Republican leadership. The truth is that multiple sources who were in the committee room at the time of his comment have all attested to the accuracy of my post. Nonetheless, I stand by it.”