Untitled

PBS didn’t gloat about it

I mean, listen, it’s not ever a bad thing for creators to be excited about representation, and it’s good to come out with it (pun unintended) ahead of time so that people who may not be a religious fan of the show can mark their calendars to see it, but so often it’s clear that the bigger corporations like Disney do something really small an make an ENORMOUS deal of it, patting themselves on the back, cheering themselves on, and in actuality put very little on the line in taking this risk- oftentimes having a one-off charector or an unimportant charector or a charector that soon dies, etc… but Arthur?

Arthur put ALL of the cards on the table

Mr. Ratburn is a charector that’s existed since the very first season and is a CONSTANT in the show, not going anywhere soon and not hidden in the background, in a franchise for VERY young children with a VERY long reputation for being squeaky clean like nobody’s business, and they really went out there and shoved the gay down everyone’s throats without saying one. single. damn. WORD.

Imagine all of the homophobic parents who had strokes today when this happened and uh-oh too late they watched the episode anyway :) Unlike things such as Disney that give a “warning” and lose ticket sales from those idiots

Furthermore, wile Arthur is not… great… with continuity (the last episode said they were transitioning into fourth grade but now they’re back in third, for example) it has a good history of keeping charector traits, things that could easily be one-off details like Mr. Ratburn’s love of puppets or Francine loving horses- things that aren’t “necessary” about their charectors but still important- come up often, wich means there’s no reason to believe Patrick is a one-off who will never come back and that’s AMAZING

But just…. the fact that PBS really went out there and put their hand on a loaded gun like this and didn’t even say one single word ahead of time is so fantastic because they’re making it into a very average episode, it isn’t a big deal, they aren’t making it a big deal, because getting married to someone born with the same gender that you have SHOULDN’T be a big deal

I can’t really imagine body-positive activists saying that ‘anyone can have skinny energy’ or ‘anyone can have clear skin energy’ and thinking that’s progressive, so how are the same people so comfortable with their ‘lol anyone can have big dick energy’ and think that doesn’t reproduce existing notions about which genitals are good and which are shameful?

Like, I get that it’s all a joke and that a big part of the joke is that ‘big dick energy’ is not related to anyone’s actual genitals and that it challenges toxic masculinity, but it still ascribed positive values to the concept of a big dick and negative values to the concept of a small dick.

Vox put it this way pretty accurately:

Reducing men’s worth to their bodies is not harmful in the same way that it is harmful to do the same to women: one of the ways that the patriarchy systemically oppresses women is by reducing them to their bodies. Joking about big dick energy does not reinforce systemic sexism. What it does do is reinforce a system of masculinity that eventually leads to toxic masculinity.  The dick part of BDE is just a metaphor, but that metaphor is not value-neutral.

When I remember previous activist failures (remember the horrible ‘Trump with a micropenis’ statue?), this is just another reminder that a lot of activists are happy to mock men’s bodies without considering how that reinforces toxic masculinity and will throw the self-worth of fat men, trans men, intersex men, etc. under the bus the moment there is a chance to joke about a big or a tiny penis.

Don’t let them steal your vote]

Additional info:

“Provisional Ballot Laws are laws that require a provisional ballot upon verficiation of the idenity of the voter if a voter fails to present proper identification at the polls or when registering before voter registration deadlines.”

Poll worker here! Let’s talk about this “I DEMAND A PROVISIONAL BALLOT AS PROVIDED BY LAW” thing.

== TL:DR; Yes, provisional ballots are important! And yes, you should absolutely ask for one if you need to. But there’s a couple of things to try first. A provisional ballot is a last resort. ==

It’s very common for voters to come up to the “check-in” desk, and not be found in the poll book. Some non-nefarious reasons why that might be the case:

1) The poll worker doesn’t understand how to spell your name. 2) You’re not in the right precinct (this happens ALLLL the time) 3) New married name? 4) You’re a college student, and you are registered, but you’re registered at home.

Here’s my recommendation for what to do: * Make sure the poll worker is looking in the right spot (the book will be right in front of you; you can help find your name.) * Mention your home address to the poll worker. THey may very well immediately say something like “Oh! Yes, you should be voting in the cafeteria. Here in the GYM, we are your next precinct over.” * Ask politely to speak to someone to verify your status with the county. They will get on the phone with county folks, who will look you up in their BIG COMPUTER.

The steps above will, eight times out of ten, change you from the scary status of “Huh? you don’t exist!” to “Oh, right! Okay, here you go, voter!”

If that doesn’t work, ask firmly and politely for a provisional ballot. If you say “AS PROVIDED BY LAWWWWW”, you will only get an eye-roll from a tired and hungry poll-worker. But hey, you do you – it really IS the law.

If you don’t get satisfaction, all is not lost. Step outside the precinct and call the ACLU, and they will send someone over to have some FIRM WORDS with the Judge of Elections.

How do I know? I’ve had ACLU lawyers sent to talk to me during an election: “Hey, we heard that you were turning voters away!” they said.

I wasn’t, but I DID NOT MIND having someone smart and informed come to check on what was up. The ACLU counsel was smart, engaged, and knew the rules. Had I been trying some crap, this person would have SHUT. IT. DOWN.

—

President Obama, today.

THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL CENSUS POWER GRAB

The Trump administration’s decision to alter the 2020 Census to ask people if they are American citizens is an unconstitutional power grab that would hurt many disadvantaged Americans. It must be stopped. 

The U.S. Constitution calls for “actual enumeration” of the total population for an explicit purpose:  To count the residents – not just citizens, residents – of every state to properly allocate congressional representatives to the states based on population.

Asking whether someone is a citizen could cause some immigrants — not just non-citizens, but also those with family members or close friends who aren’t citizens — not to respond for fear that they or their loved ones would be deported. In the current climate of fear, this isn’t an irrational response.

The result would be a systemic undercounting of immigrant communities – with two grossly unfair results.

First, these communities and the states they’re in would get less federal aide. Census data is used in over 132 programs nationwide to allocate over $675 billion each year.

An undercount would deprive many immigrant communities and their states of the health care, education and assistance they need and are entitled to.  

Second, these communities and the states they’re in would have fewer representatives in Congress. The Census count determines the distribution of congressional seats among states. Under the Constitution, these seats depend on the total number of people residing in the state, not just citizens. 

Which is the real reason for this move by the Trump administration. It’s no secret that immigrants with the right to vote tend to vote for Democrats. So undercounting neighborhoods that are heavily Latino or Asian would mean fewer Democratic members of Congress.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross says the citizenship question is necessary in order to better enforce the Voting Rights Act. Baloney. The Trump administration has shown zero interest in the Voting Rights Act. It has even defended voter suppression laws in court.

THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL CENSUS POWER GRAB

The Trump administration’s decision to alter the 2020 Census to ask people if they are American citizens is an unconstitutional power grab that would hurt many disadvantaged Americans. It must be stopped. 

The U.S. Constitution calls for “actual enumeration” of the total population for an explicit purpose:  To count the residents – not just citizens, residents – of every state to properly allocate congressional representatives to the states based on population.

Asking whether someone is a citizen could cause some immigrants — not just non-citizens, but also those with family members or close friends who aren’t citizens — not to respond for fear that they or their loved ones would be deported. In the current climate of fear, this isn’t an irrational response.

The result would be a systemic undercounting of immigrant communities – with two grossly unfair results.

First, these communities and the states they’re in would get less federal aide. Census data is used in over 132 programs nationwide to allocate over $675 billion each year.

An undercount would deprive many immigrant communities and their states of the health care, education and assistance they need and are entitled to.  

Second, these communities and the states they’re in would have fewer representatives in Congress. The Census count determines the distribution of congressional seats among states. Under the Constitution, these seats depend on the total number of people residing in the state, not just citizens. 

Which is the real reason for this move by the Trump administration. It’s no secret that immigrants with the right to vote tend to vote for Democrats. So undercounting neighborhoods that are heavily Latino or Asian would mean fewer Democratic members of Congress.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross says the citizenship question is necessary in order to better enforce the Voting Rights Act. Baloney. The Trump administration has shown zero interest in the Voting Rights Act. It has even defended voter suppression laws in court.

THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL CENSUS POWER GRAB

The Trump administration’s decision to alter the 2020 Census to ask people if they are American citizens is an unconstitutional power grab that would hurt many disadvantaged Americans. It must be stopped. 

The U.S. Constitution calls for “actual enumeration” of the total population for an explicit purpose:  To count the residents – not just citizens, residents – of every state to properly allocate congressional representatives to the states based on population.

Asking whether someone is a citizen could cause some immigrants — not just non-citizens, but also those with family members or close friends who aren’t citizens — not to respond for fear that they or their loved ones would be deported. In the current climate of fear, this isn’t an irrational response.

The result would be a systemic undercounting of immigrant communities – with two grossly unfair results.

First, these communities and the states they’re in would get less federal aide. Census data is used in over 132 programs nationwide to allocate over $675 billion each year.

An undercount would deprive many immigrant communities and their states of the health care, education and assistance they need and are entitled to.  

Second, these communities and the states they’re in would have fewer representatives in Congress. The Census count determines the distribution of congressional seats among states. Under the Constitution, these seats depend on the total number of people residing in the state, not just citizens. 

Which is the real reason for this move by the Trump administration. It’s no secret that immigrants with the right to vote tend to vote for Democrats. So undercounting neighborhoods that are heavily Latino or Asian would mean fewer Democratic members of Congress.

Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross says the citizenship question is necessary in order to better enforce the Voting Rights Act. Baloney. The Trump administration has shown zero interest in the Voting Rights Act. It has even defended voter suppression laws in court.

I became a full time professional stripper in 1980, after having dabbled here and there. I needed the money. I really, really needed the money. I did it for the money. It was not an artistic endeavor, and I make no apologies for that. Needing money is why anybody takes a job.

It was also, instantly, an identity, in an age with no social media, when for the most part the only strippers a stripper knew were the ones she met in the dressing room.