Kristi Noem, Dog Assassin

 

SD Gov. Kristi Noem is getting a roasting over her depiction of killing a backwards "untrainable" puppy as well as a smelly goat that came from her political memoir No Going Back: Descriptive Stuff After the Colon. A lot of people on social media are posting pictures of their own good doggos--and that's great. But to give her her due, sometimes a dog just is either traumatized or dimwitted, or for some other reason has misplaced aggression issues, and they aren't fit to their environment. You could try rehoming them with a family--hopefully in a "single pet, no small children" situation, but once they have demonstrated they will kill livestock, like a neighbor's chickens, there's a real chance they aren't "fixable". She may have simply made a pragmatic choice with the dog because she didn't want to see it turn and attack a human--especially not a little one. 

There's more humane ways to put down an animal, though--we aren't living in Little House on the Prairie times. And also killing (poorly) a goat because it is smelly and misbehaved just feels gratuitous, because what do you expect from adult goat? And wasn't she responsible for how the dog was trained and controlled (crated or fenced?) Feels like she might have set that pup up by not preparing it for success.

This Rhetoric is Harmful and Misogynistic

 

JD Vance thinks parents should stay in violent marriages "for the sake of their kids." That's not just wrong, it's unbelievably dangerous. pic.twitter.com/aQnTGRCuNi

— Tim Ryan (@TimRyan) July 25, 2022

I'm not going to get into the argument of "Well, women can be abusers, too", because I really feel like what Vance is getting at here is women don't like their helpings of marital chastisement, so the little round heels use lawyers to slink away from their otherwise perfectly good homes. Homes, where, presumably, they would be raising their children in a much better environment with two parents than by trying to go it alone.

It's appalling that a supposedly educated man knows no better than this. I heard something some time ago that really stuck with me--it's better to be from a broken home than to live in a broken family. If a spouse is being abused, what are the odds the kids aren't absorbing the trauma of that, and being abused themselves? 

On the other side of Roe, we're already looking at homicide being the number one cause of maternal mortality, and the likelihood of it being due to intimate partner violence being really high. Staying together "for the kids" in a world where parents might not have planned for or wanted these kids feels like so much resentment and interpersonal aggression ready to happen in a world where resources aren't there for them.  But once the kids are here, should they have a loving, not-violent environment to grow up in? 

His answer that getting a divorce is too easy is a disgrace--what if getting your ass beat and your psyche trampled on the daily is something no human should have to suffer? What if no one deserves the threat of violence or even death as a part of their interactions in their own home, which should be a refuge and place of safety and comfort? What if raising a child with healthy boundaries and physical and emotional safety was more important than some arbitrary feelings about two parents in the home? 

We have child marriage and rapists being fathers in this country. We have families ripe for abusive relationships. And this fool wants to pontificate on whether maybe spouses should just put up with beatings? Fatherlessness is better than a monster for a father. 

I don't know if this is his true belief or something he's signifying for the hard-right evangelicals who believe the rod shouldn't be spared and the husband is the head of the house in some iron-clad spiritual way, but this view is unhealthy and misguided, and saying it out loud displays an unfitness for making decisions pertaining to other people's lives. 

He needs to lose. Tim Ryan should be the next US Senator from Ohio. 

Many Things Can Be True At Once

 

I was absolutely not interested in writing about a certain case which has been all over the news, but unfortunately, I get stuck in my writing if something like this goes by and I haven't commented. But I will not refer to anyone BY NAME because I know my readers will know what I'm talking about. And it feels like a nice blind item for a gossip column that way.

Sigh. So here goes...

It can be true that men can be abused. That does not give them a pass to also be abusive. Women can be abusers, but that does not mean that a woman has to be perfect to also be able to say that she has been harmed. The two people in this case both seem to have made each other thoroughly miserable and there was substance abuse involved. I hope for both of their sakes they are getting therapy. I'm not for the purposes of this post taking sides, but if you know what I've written about #MeToo and misogyny previously, you can probably imagine. 

That said, what I want to post about isn't this case per se, but the reaction to it--it's been weirdly personal, and despite getting more details than anyone ever could want and both of these people being famous--regardless, we don't know them. These are people underneath their celebrity and the roles they have performed. We know the cases their lawyers and PR professionals have made on their behalf.  Stories can have more than one side. 

But this case and its result should not affect anyone else's story, or anyone else's right to talk about their own abuse, and I think the reason in part this particular case became so riveting is because people wanted to fold it into some other narrative about cancel culture or whether men (all men, not this particular man) can now shrug off claims of abuse because women won't be believed, because this one woman wasn't believed. 

That doesn't seem right. 

But regardless, while I am not saying that all the people who sympathized with a certain nameless person are rotten people, it doesn't escape my attention that all the really rotten people are high-fiving each other over this jury's decision. And while I don't know the other nameless party personally, I know there are people who have suffered abuse and were not believed and can only imagine how gutting the gloating over this feels for them, because it's like their own predicament is being rubbed in their faces. It could have a dampening effect on other people trying to seek help or admit what has happened to them. 

That doesn't seem right, either.

So I want it clear that it really feels to me like there is some serious misogyny at play and while I'm not going to try to convince anyone about what happened in this case, I ask anyone who cares about domestic violence in general to take a good look around at who is supporting whom, and why. It can be eye-opening. 

They Couldn't Spoil It--Almost

 

I think I could take a moment to acknowledge something really good and historic happened yesterday and really leave it at that...

But I would be a whole other person if I did not take note of the churlish, contemptuous behavior of the GOP jackaloons that still wanted to be sullen and snitty about the smears that they actually made up. The reason I can't leave it alone is that it was unnecessary for them to try and damage someone's reputation with that kind of calumny, but also the nature of it ("She's a friend tto sex fiends!") is a conspiracy theory classic from the same text as blood libel--a kissing cousin, so to speak, of QAnon.

You can't get a whole bunch of people to believe a cabal of baby-eaters is running the world--but depicting a group as deviant is not as hard a lift and can be just as dangerous. They did this to make her unpalatable by pre-smearing the people who would vote for her confirmation with a kind of guilt by association, vide MTG's despicable Tweet:

She says "Any Senator voting to confirm #KJB (sic) is pro-pedophile just like she is." Right out there for the kids who are slow on the uptake and need it spelled all the way out for them. And of course, Marginal Traitor Greed is a vicious lying extremist, but...no. I guess that really is all I have to say about that. But she has definitely articulated, baldly, what Senator Hawley tried to set in motion/ 

In any case, I'd like to think that only the far-right, already Q-enmired types would think this plausible, but I can't help but notice how neatly it folds into the new claim that people opposing the dangerous and dumb "Don't Say Gay" bills are "groomers". This tactic isn't pure politics--it's eliminationist. It uses fear to silence people and wage terror on those who don't stay silent. 

So while I want to embrace this history-making moment, I am disgusted by the antics of those who decided now was a great time to play a dangerous and stupid game with the process. 

Trump Responds to Porter News

“We certainly wish him well,” President Donald Trump said of Rob Porter, the White House aide who has been accused of domestic abuse. “It’s obviously a tough time for him. He did a very good job when he was in the White House.” https://t.co/T9XclJXPuOhttps://t.co/T9XclJXPuO pic.twitter.com/O2ldQLBJOW

— POLITICO (@politico) February 9, 2018

I don't know if we could have expected anything better from Trump than wishing the best of luck to outgoing Deputy Chief of Staff Rob Porter amid allegations from three women that he is guilty of domestic assault. Trump is sure to remind us that we should not forget that Porter himself says that he is innocent, which is something we could also say of Trump with respect to the twenty or so women who allege he has harassed or assaulted them. I will also remember that Porter said that Colbie Holderness and he were arguing over a vase, and she received a black eye because the vase somehow hit her. Vases are sneaky like that.

In his public statement, it can be noted that he doesn't mention Porter's accusers, which is just as well, because in private, he apparently thinks they are lying.  This is, after all, a man who has said that women should be treated like shit. He's defended serial sexual harassers and assaulters like Roger Ailes and Bill O'Reilly.  There is nothing breath-taking or shocking about Trump matter-of-factly hoping that the man who beats women goes on to have a successful career because he has given us no indication by anything ever said that he thinks any other way. When it was revealed that Steve Bannon might have been violent to his former spouse, he nicknamed him "Bam Bam".

Because it's a joke. Sometimes, in his mind, men just keep women in line like that. So maybe his staffer will just go on to better things, and maybe someday find a woman he won't have to beat on. Maybe Hope Hicks can be that woman--after all, he allegedly described her (according to Fire and Fury) as the best "piece of tail" Corey Lewandowski would ever have, which is both revolting and somehow what I believe Trump actually would try to bestow on someone as a compliment).  But in the meanwhile, he is a little miffed at Hicks for not, in all this, managing to craft a message that also makes Trump look good. (Rob Porter who actually abused his wives and a girlfriend?--Great guy worked hard, really sad situation. John Kelly who seems to have known all about it and covered it up-well, you know full confidence. Woman in an awkward relationship with a man accused of being violent towards intimate partners? Totally responsible for figuring out how to not have made this into a "thing", you know? Jennie Willoughby is worried about Hicks, and frankly, so am I. )

This White House is basically soaking in misogyny. Another person working there, a speechwriter, has resigned for domestic violence allegations as well.   But this is reflective of the man at the top. These are the people he has around him for reasons. They are not good reasons.

We Have All Been Here Before

There's not a lot I can add to the dialogue about the piece in Babe.net about a date with Aziz Ansari except that kind of thing is pretty familiar to me as having mostly dated straight men. I don't think we talk about this thing we call dating or trying to have relationships with the opposite sex from a feminist perspective in a forthright way often enough--although Melissa McEwan's  description of The Terrible Bargain is the best thing I have ever read about the subject. 

As women, we get done dirty by men over and over again. We get talked down as being comic shrews and nags. We are chided for not wanting sex enough, but not being asked how we want it. We get asked to perform the emotional labor of making the relationship talks happen, but are scapegoated for being "serious" when we do. We are the ones who insist on the condoms, for some reason, like our reproductive propensity or our general health. We are supposed to draw the lines about what level of sexual activity is done involving our bodies, but are told we are wrong about where we draw those lines for reasons that have everything to do about our partners' satisfaction, and little to do with our own bodies. 

When we say anything in the vicinity of "No", it registers as "maybe" if we don't literally stand up and walk out. If we stay, there's still a "maybe", no matter what we say. If we consent to sex, we aren't supposed to stop it, even if we have a cramp or he's on our hair or there's a panic attack or I know my diaphragm moved or whatever. But this is obviously bullshit. What a woman feels during sex matters. And for what it is worth, yes, removing a condom is a breech of a very serious contract.  Why wouldn't a woman need to consent to the potentiality of pregnancy or STI? Why is her evaluation of her ability to deal with certain potentialities subordinate to any man's satisfaction?

Daniel Holtzclaw Sentenced to 263 Years in Prison

There isn't much to say about the case of former OKC police officer and convicted rapist Daniel Holtzclaw that I haven't already said about his grotesque abuse of the authority that his uniform lent him, but today he has been sentenced to 263 consecutive years in prison, which basically means he will be there his whole remaining life.

Sounds about right.

All I know is Rachel Dolezal Has Problems

I don't have a very good opinion of what Ms. Dolezal did, but I do think the sanest reaction I've read on this comes from Charles P. Pierce--there just isn't a lot of benefit in trying to piece together what her story "means" against the backdrop of "race in America" or some larger narrative about the extent to which an individual can choose their identity. Some of the kinder takes I've read assume that she has a kind of mental or emotional issue or trauma--although I think it's unfair to people who are struggling with their mental and emotional issues or personal traumas who do not engage in a damaging imposture regarding their personal narratives. It's also been pointed out that there was very little she had done as an ersatz black woman, that she could not have done as well as a white woman, whether it be acting as a civil rights advocate or a parent to black children, except with a difference of style. She traded being accused of being a poseur for being an actual fake.

Officer Casebolt's Position is Not Good

If I had a daughter who was grabbed by her hair, thrown to the ground, and then basically sat on, I'd be hollering for blood, but I would settle for a shit-ton of money.  There is no reason at all for this child, Dajerria Becton, to have been handled this way.

And the sick thing is, the reason the cops showed up is because some racist middle-aged white ladies were starting shit. Were they thrown to the ground?

Nope. In my personal experience as a (youthful!) middle-aged white lady, we do not often get thrown to the ground for starting shit. (We are generally not presumed to be starting said shit.)  Casebolt seems to have said something about being furious to have hauled ass out there with thirty pounds of gear unnecessarily.  I don't even know who told him he needed to haul thirty pounds of gear out there. Maybe he could have come out, calmed shit down and talked to people instead of getting his tactical face on.

All I really know for sure is--there is no situation where sitting on an unarmed and half-dressed teenage girl is okay. It does seem like other people on the scene were also being stupid, but this is the guy who is on camera actually sitting on a girl. I am really not seeing where there is a present danger where that girl needs to be face-down and handled like that.

I know some people will talk about why did some of these teenagers run? Let's not be stupid--run from what? They didn't torch a liquor store or leave a trail of bodies in their wake. They were kids at a swim party and being kids, didn't want to be in trouble and for some reason, brown and black kids think the presence of cops means trouble. To a kid mind, if you outrun "tag", you aren't "it".

This whole scene is a special kind of stupid. But for the adults who mishandled it, the stupid is mostly on them.