don’t disturb my groove
I like how the cat’s reaction is to see where it is going rather than scramble to regain its place.
With the upcoming fourth season of A Game of Thrones about to hit TV screens, you will soon see ‘If you like reading GRR Martin, why not try these authors?’ displays going up in bookshops. I will give a book of mine, of their choice, to the first person who can send me a photo of such a display that isn’t entirely composed of male authors. Because I’ve yet to see one. I have challenged staff in bookshops about this, to be told ‘women don’t write epic fantasy’ Ahem, with 15 novels published, I beg to differ. And we read it too.
But that’s not what the onlooker sees in the media, in reviews, in the supposedly book-trade-professional articles in The Guardian which repeatedly discuss epic fantasy without ever once mentioning a female author. That onlooker who’s working in a bookshop and making key decisions about what’s for sale, sees a male readership for grimdark books about blokes in cloaks written by authors like Macho McHackenslay. So that’s what goes in display, often at discount, at the front of the store. So that’s what people see first and so that’s what sells most copies. —
Juliet E. McKenna being brilliant (so what else is new) on the SFWA shoutback, public perceptions of the field, and equal access to offensiveness, sexism and idiocy. (via dduane)
(Can “Blokes in Cloaks” be a series, like Chicks in Chainmail?)
Chicks in Chainmail as a series got me into fantasy, full stop.
I have a tilted uterus and during my last pregnancy, I lost 6 liters of blood. I almost died. I can’t have this baby. Why don’t they understand that? —
Weeping client talking to me today. They tried to goad her companion into a fist fight so they could call the police and have him arrested, therefore she couldn’t have the procedure.
She was crying and screaming for them to leave her alone. They wouldn’t, and her companion got angry.
I told her that I have no idea why they can’t understand it. My guess is, that they don’t care about you or your partner, only the fetus that could kill you.
She was very upset, so I let her and her companion wait in my car. She thanked me and said “I’m glad you are here. He would have hit that guy if you all had not walked with us”.
She walked into the clinic tear free, but still with anti’s trailing behind her shouting. The escort presence gave her space and a buffer from the harassment.
That is why I escort. That is why I do it.
Using two methods of birth control, like the pill+condoms, is the BEST protection from pregnancy AND STDs. Better to be double safe than double sorry!
'Fox Business' Commentator Tells 'Daily Show' Correspondent, 'If You're Poor, Stop Being Poor' -
And eat some cake, too.
Cantor responded by claiming the amendment simply mirrored the “unequivocal success” of welfare reform in the 1990s for a program that’s “in desperate need” of reforms to combat fraud and abuse. But SNAP has a lower error rate than farm subsidy programs, and at just one percent, its outright fraud rate is among the lowest for any federal program. And calling welfare reform an “unequivocal success” only makes sense if the goal was to destroy the program’s ability to address child poverty.
Conservatives celebrate the work requirements of the 1990s as a grand success, but the reality of those reforms is much uglier. While things looked great during the Clinton-era economic boom, the program provedutterly unable to respond to the jump in poverty that came with the Great Recession. As Melissa Boteach, director of the Center for American Progress’ antipoverty work, explained last summer, “several states actually decreased their caseload as poverty rates rose each year. And today, only about 27 percent of poor families with children can access the program as opposed to the two-thirds of poor families with children that did in 1996.”
(via GOP’s Food Stamp Amendment Sinks Farm Bill)
But they’re not the only ones who are operating outside of our enshrined banking system. Other groups, the demographic opposites of the Bitcoin crowd, are doing the same. The clinical terminology for those people is the “unbanked” — they rely on informal, instead of formalized, systems of trading or borrowing capital. Why? The unbanked, comprised of women and people of color, are much more frequently turned down for auto loans, mortgages, and investment advice. Or, when they go into formalized systems, the government isn’t there to protect them. Instead, they’re taken advantage of by unregulated banking — unbanked households on average spend over $2,400, about 10 percent of their income, to use services like payday lending and check cashing.
So they seek options outside of the banking system as mainstream America knows it. One example is a sou-sou. Formally known as aRotating Savings and Credit Association, and called a “min,” “sub,” “partner,” or “sociedad” by various ethnic groups, sou-sous originated in West Africa and were brought to the United States by Caribbean and African immigrants. They’re effectively community banks: A group of people put money at regular intervals into a shared fund and then at regular intervals distribute out that lump sum to one person in the group. So, for example, a group of 10 people would put in $1,000 a month, and once a month one person would receive $10,000 to do with as they please. It works simultaneously as a savings plan and a credit plan — all without interest. And sou-sou participants say that there’s more accountability and obligation to the fund because you know the other people in it. — via Bitcoin: By The Privileged, For The Privileged | ThinkProgress
When [an abusive man] tells me that he became abusive because he lost control of himself, I ask him why he didn’t do something even worse. For example, I might say, “You called her a fucking whore, you grabbed the phone out of her hand and whipped it across the room, and then you gave her a shove and she fell down. There she was at your feet where it would have been easy to kick her in the head. Now, you have just finished telling me that you were ‘totally out of control’ at that time, but you didn’t kick her. What stopped you?” And the client can always give me a reason. Here are some common explanations:
"I wouldn’t want to cause her a serious injury."
“I realized one of the children was watching.”
“I was afraid someone would call the police.”
“I could kill her if I did that.”
“The fight was getting loud, and I was afraid the neighbors would hear.”
And the most frequent response of all:
"Jesus, I wouldn’t do that. I would never do something like that to her.”
The response that I almost never heard — I remember hearing it twice in the fifteen years — was: “I don’t know.”
These ready answers strip the cover off of my clients’ loss of control excuse. While a man is on an abusive rampage, verbally or physically, his mind maintains awareness of a number of questions: “Am I doing something that other people could find out about, so it could make me look bad? Am I doing anything that could get me in legal trouble? Could I get hurt myself? Am I doing anything that I myself consider too cruel, gross, or violent?”
A critical insight seeped into me from working with my first few dozen clients: An abuser almost never does anything that he himself considers morally unacceptable. He may hide what he does because he thinks other people would disagree with it, but he feels justified inside. I can’t remember a client ever having said to me: “There’s no way I can defend what I did. It was just totally wrong.” He invariably has a reason that he considers good enough. In short, an abuser’s core problem is that he has a distorted sense of right and wrong.
I sometimes ask my clients the following question: “How many of you have ever felt angry enough at youer mother to get the urge to call her a bitch?” Typically half or more of the group members raise their hands. Then I ask, “How many of you have ever acted on that urge?” All the hands fly down, and the men cast appalled gazes on me, as if I had just asked whether they sell drugs outside elementary schools. So then I ask, “Well, why haven’t you?” The same answer shoots out from the men each time I do this exercise: “But you can’t treat your mother like that, no matter how angry you are! You just don’t do that!”
The unspoken remainder of this statement, which we can fill in for my clients, is: “But you can treat your wife or girlfriend like that, as long as you have a good enough reason. That’s different.” In other words, the abuser’s problem lies above all in his belief that controlling or abusing his female partner is justifiable…. — Lundy Bancroft, Why Does He Do That? Inside the Minds of Angry and Controlling Men (via redwinerivers)
(Source: seebster, via misskittystryker)