If You’re Serious About That Boycott

There’s a campaign right now to try to get Facebook advertisers to pull their ads because Facebook refuses to shut down pages that advocate violence against women (including rape).

In an open letter to the organization, the groups point out that Facebook’s content moderators already police some images of women. In fact, images of mastectomies, breastfeeding mothers, and other non-sexualized depictions of women’s bodies are often removed from the site after being incorrectly labeled as pornographic. On the other hand, however, images and forums that make light of abusing and raping women are allowed to remain on the social media platform under the “humor” section of their content guidelines.

“It appears that Facebook considers violence against women to be less offensive than non-violent images of women’s bodies, and that the only acceptable representation of women’s nudity are those in which women appear as sex objects or the victims of abuse,” the groups’ open letter reads. “Your common practice of allowing this content by appending a [humor] disclaimer to said content literally treats violence targeting women as a joke.”

Facebook currently allows pages on its site called “Fly Kicking Sluts in the Uterus,” “Violently Raping Your Friend Just for Laughs,” “This is why Indian girls are raped,” and “Punching your girlfriend in the face cuz you’re Chris Brown.” The social media site also permits pictures of battered women who are bleeding, bruised, tied up, or drugged alongside captions like “This bitch didn’t know when to shut up.” Women, Action & the Media has collected several additional graphic examples here (trigger warning).

I wholeheartedly admire that campaign and hope it succeeds. The only way Facebook will truly listen to the concerns of women and girls regarding these bullshit pages is if they lose money because of them. Facebook doesn’t really care about their users because they’re aren’t worried about their users.

However, there are millions of users on Facebook and that’s a freaking goldmine for the advertisers. So what do they do? Why they pass the buck, of course. Here’s what Vistaprint had to say:

We are aware of the issue surrounding some of our Facebook ad placements earlier today. Vistaprint does not condone or endorse any offensive content or pages. We’ve discussed this issue with our partners at Facebook and have been assured that these pages have been removed. Our ads on their platform are targeted at individual users, not tied to the content or pages created by users on the Facebook platform. If you see a Vistaprint ad on an offensive page, please visit the link below and report it. Facebook’s Operations team monitors user feedback on offensive content/pages and will remove the page.

Thank you for your understanding.

-Vistaprint social media team [Emphasis mine]

They are assured that all of these pages have been removed, you see, and really they aren’t placing them on the pages– they’re targeting individual users! So if you go to that page the ad will follow you. It’s not their fault! Why don’t you pick on someone else?

The comments on that page are folks angry with the message and telling Vistaprint that they’ll be boycotting their product– while logged into Facebook.

Vistaprint is on Twitter. There’s no need to go to their Facebook page to leave a message for them.

You see, they would be losing money by buying ads on Facebook if those same people were boycotting Facebook too. If these folks decided they’d had enough of Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook not giving a fuck about violence against women– while simultaneously deleted pages and pictures of women breastfeeding or showing mastectomy scars– they could simply delete all of the their content and stop giving them their traffic1. The ads wouldn’t be following them over to the rapist’s page because they wouldn’t be going to that page and pretty soon companies like Vistaprint and Dove no longer find value in spending money on those ads.

There’s no reason to be on Facebook to tell those companies you’d be boycotting them while they continue to advertise on Facebook. They have a presence on every social networking site. Tweet them, email them, put up pages on Google+. But boycott Facebook too. Take away what makes them money.

I’ve not been on Facebook for quite a while. I have my own issues with that site and how they sell the people who use it. I’ve heard plenty of people complaining about them too. They don’t want to delete their profiles, though, because that’s how they keep up with distant family and friends from high school that they never really liked in high school but they’re on Facebook so that makes them cool. Blah blah blah. Shit, one of the things I hated about Facebook was that people I couldn’t stand in real life could find me on the interwebz. At any rate, to them I say: Email, phone, tweet, Google+, Pinterest, etc etc. Honestly, people convince themselves that the need Facebook, but really they don’t. They just don’t want to be that one person who doesn’t have a FB.

“You seriously don’t have a FB?”
“No.”
“SERIOUSLY?”
“No and I think you’re fucking nuts for feeding the Zuckerberg monster yourself.”

That’s usually a conversation I have with people who want to be friends with me over there. They want to follow me online? How’s about calling me on the phone and chatting first? Hmm?

But that’s neither here nor there. The point is, if you are serious about getting those pages off Facebook then take yourself off of it first. You’re a product that FB sells to those advertisers. If you’re not there then you can’t be sold and then the ROI decreases substantially. All of those excuses you’ve given yourself about why you can’t possibly delete your account are bullshit. We all know it. How can you possibly think the advertisers will take your boycott threats seriously if you don’t boycott the one company that has the power to get rid of those pages? Shoot, I don’t take you seriously because of that and I’m just some chick on the internet.

Want to feel like you’re really getting your message across? Then do something serious. Remove your content and yourself from Facebook.

  1. Which is what Facebook sells to these advertisers, by the way. [↩]

Season Seven Finale pt. 1 with nothing but spoilers

So, Season 7 of Doctor Who is officially over. And it ended in such a way that questions we had for years were finally answered.

First, I want to discuss River Song. The last we saw of her she was helping the Doctor deal with the loss of Amy and Rory. The Doctor went through his mourning period parked on a cloud in Victorian England with a troupe of characters keeping an eye on him. He wasn’t too interested in the world, until he met Clara. And he became more animated. He’d found a cause. But that cause seemed to make him for River (and Amy and Rory). But he loved River, so how could she just disappear?

Well, let’s go back to when David Tennant was still the Doctor and Catherine Tate played his fiery companion “Donna Noble”. In The Silence in the Library and The Forest of the Dead, River showed up as an archaeologist- exploring the biggest library in the universe to find out what happened to the people that were in it. I’m not going to go on about that whole episode. But River recognized the Doctor right away– he was a different, younger version of her Doctor. We learn this through their conversations. She tells the Doctor his name so that he will trust her. She tells them the story of the last time she’d seen his future self and what they’d done together. Then she must sacrifice herself to save him. She becomes a “ghost” on her communication device. These devices were used to hold part of a person’s conscience after death so they would be able to say goodbye. The Doctor “saves” River by connecting her comm to the data core and “saving” her into the biggest computer in the universe. And there she’d stay.

We got to know and love River Song through her adventures with 11. She was a time traveler too, but her personal timeline was going the opposite direction of the Doctor’s. His life was continuing and she was on her way to the end of her life. They met at the wrong points in time and had to coordinate their logs of their travels to be sure into which part of each life they’d landed. At one point, 11 kisses River goodbye in her prison cell. She’d kissed him many times. That was his first kiss. It was sad for her to realize that.

Though that wasn’t the last time River traveled with the Doctor, she was getting closer and closer to when she’d have to go to the Library. She was sad because her Doctor wasn’t there to say goodbye. She died and 10 integrated her into the system.

After River disappeared at the end of “Angels Take Manhattan”, many folks had speculated that she’d gone on to the library. We knew her end and how she got there1. We got our closure with this episode. River’s ghost (the conscience saved on the data core) was able to reach out. She was able to watch her doctor and his new companion. She was finally able to speak to him again and he was finally able to see her. He wanted to know why she was there because she’s only just an echo, even in CAL she’s an echo. She said some people stay around waiting for goodbye. He told her it was too painful— for him. She needed a goodbye from him. He kissed her and told her he’d see her around. She told him “spoilers” and then she faded with “Goodbye Sweetie”. That was River Song’s ending. She, and we, got closure with that kiss and that goodbye.

That was my favorite part of that episode. A lot of folks will probably be mad that River has gone, but it was a perfect ending– after we’d already seen her death in “Forest of the Dead”.

I loved this episode and have more thoughts. I’ll save them for later.

  1. We didn’t find out how she ended up with the Doctor’s sonic though [↩]

When Twitter Heads Explode

It’s been awhile since I’ve seen a hilarious head explosion over absolutely nothing1. There was only one other time, actually. A bunch of us were joking about sockpuppets and some noob didn’t understand what was up so she took it personally. That was interesting and frightening at the same time. This one is just hilarious.

So, what happened? Well, my friend deleted his Twitter account. Apparently, this chick doesn’t like said friend so popped into my mentions to ask why. I told her it was none of her business and she flipped her fucking lid. So, being the mature person I am, I went ahead and told her to fuck off. That was on Wednesday, April 24th. Then it was over and I forgot about her because that’s what I do. But on Saturday, April 27th, I woke up to my timeline filled up2 with her gibberish. Not only does this chick lose her ever-loving mind two days late, but she lost every vowel on her keyboard! Today is Saturday, May 5th– a full week and a half later– and this chick is still whine-tweeting me3– about something which does not in any way concern her.

This is tragic, really. How miserable must she be to continuously tweet me to get my attention? Apparently, she’s going to show me and I’m going to get it. She’s just biding her time and when she’s good and ready she’s going to drop the hammer on me. Her friend did come in and try to put me in my place a few days ago, but gave up and asked my friend to leave the drama nut alone. Um, well, sister, no one’s fucking thinking about that lunatic and if she’d shut the fuck up then no one would even know she still exists. She tiresome, her tweets are illegible and she’s really not at all interesting. But, sure, if this will shut her up then let me give her a bit of attention.

She’s angry because she felt entitled to an answer and because I didn’t give her one. Then she did what so many folks do. First, I should mention, I’ve never interacted with this person before she mentioned me on Twitter4. She’s not the least bit important to me. Apparently, someone else with whom she’s engaged in an internet war outed her5. I don’t like that shit. I don’t support folks who out others or attempt to intimidate them in real life due to a freaking flame war. At any rate, like many people, she decided that blocking and moving on just wasn’t possible. So, she festered and watched then got drunk and bam! Here we are. I imagine most folks like her think every tweet and every post is a subliminal message to them and then proceed to flip the fuck out about every single one. I’m in her brain like a little worm wiggling around and taking control. She’s not kicking my shins because it’s amusing to her6. She’s doing it because she’s lost her fucking mind.

I also found out why she got so pissed that I wouldn’t out my friend’s personal information: She re-doxed her own friend.

I went over to her very long and rambling blog as someone said I’d laugh. Well, I didn’t laugh. There was a post up over there that was talking about her friend being outed by some trolls. She mentioned in this post that the person who outed the information locked down their blog (which also means it’s delisted). So, what does she do? She announces her friend’s Twitter username and combines it with her real name. Multiple times. It wasn’t enough that this information, combined with a nonsense twitter war, was indexed on another blog. She had to make sure that person’s name was tied to that particular silliness forever and ever amen. Someone googling that person’s name? They’ll find that blog and read about how there’s even more information somewhere due to a twitter war! Yay! Most people would write the story like “This person doxed my friend, but I’m not going to share that information because it doesn’t need to spread any further.” Most people would worry that their friend’s name was permanently tied to online drama and searchable on Google. They’d be concerned and, I dunno, not share it further. I know I’d never re-share that shit. Doris isn’t very bright though, so there’s that.

There’s a whole lot of nuttery over on Twitter. A lot more since Oprah declared it cool and the folks on Facebook wandered over. Aside from “Jimmeh” (who will always be ridiculously assholish) you have this sort of person. I wonder how they function in real life. If someone is rude to them in the line at McDonald’s, do they follow that person home and drive by their house every day? Do they send anonymous letters to their house? “Hey, lady who was rude to me, fuck you! I’m going to stress for days and days about this thing and then tell you that I’m not stressing and, well, YOU NEED PSYCHIATRIC HELP!” I imagine not. We all know it’s the internets which make folks so brave. She probably imagines that’s what she’d say or do- she’d show that person who was rude to her and they’d rue the day! She’d be the kind of person who would leave crayon-scribbled notes on her bank teller’s car reminding the poor woman that she didn’t smile at her on that Monday 6 months ago. Anyway, the Twitter nutters are have a hard time realizing that it’s no more than another internet chat room. There’s nothing serious about it (unless you’re AP, in which case you should change your passwords). And when you let it become that much of a serious part of your life, well, there goes your sanity.

At any rate, Twitter wars come and go. Blogwars are few and far between, but were always so much better. Anyone else remember the good ones? Oh, those were the days. So, I hope this chick likes the attention7. Maybe she’ll be able to sleep better now.

  1. Unless you count a refusal to share a friend’s personal information as something. [↩]
  2. Someone else was replying to her or I wouldn’t have known. Of course I had to look. That shit makes me laugh every time. [↩]
  3. She’s got me blocked, though, so there’s that. [↩]
  4. She’s fighting with my friend, but I wasn’t involved. [↩]
  5. Also known as “doxed”. [↩]
  6. Which, in honesty, I can respect. [↩]
  7. No one ever said I was the bigger person. [↩]

What Bible Was That In?

Yesterday the Supreme Court of the United States heard arguments regarding the standing of plaintiffs in the suit to appeal the decision on Prop. 8 in California. Like many liberals on Twitter, I was watching and threw out a tweet or two in opposition to the people opposed to same-sex marriage. This one kind of took off:

Marriage was traditionally a contract between a man and his father-in-law to transfer or consolidate power/property. So there’s that.

I woke up to some crazy-ass replies to this tweet after it’d been retweeted by someone relatively popular. I want to highlight some of those replies, because they are 1) stupid and 2) not even the slightest bit on topic with regard to what I tweeted (topic being: traditional marriage as a contract).

In no particular order:

@Jennyjinx interesting where did you get that info?

Answer: History

@Jennyjinx uhhh what Bible was that in?

Answer: The only possible history is the one in the Christian Bible. All other history is null and void. There has been no history since the last story was written.

@Jennyjinx FALSE. Defined in the garden between 1 MAN & 1 WOMAN

Question: How did Cain and Abel become fathers and who are the mothers of their children? Also, how do you explain the polygamy in the Old Testament?

@Jennyjinx @mattgallows That’s weird. Because in Genesis the world is created. So where were these contracts taking place?

Answer: History. Again this is hard, I know.

@Jennyjinx marriage was created by God.. but your tweet is a view in places where women don’t have any rights and are viewed as property

Indeed. Imagine that. And prior to the 1800s women were indeed regarded as property- an idea which was based on the Bible in part or whole. History is a finicky bitch though and is oh-so hard.

@Jennyjinx @Rees3DJ she’s just one of these people who just randomly says things and has no clue what she’s saying.

Google is hard too. I mean, you have to be a magical elf to actually use that damned site.

@FARRAH1228 @Jennyjinx Bible > than some uninspired history book!

Those asshole history books are librul conspiracies! Ruining hearts and minds! There is no history. There is no history outside of that book which is not only mythical but also historical.

Ask any of these people where the proof is for their Bible and I will guarantee they will point to some History Channel special telling us that archaeologists found proof of one story or the other from their favorite book. If you point out the not-so-savory aspects of their book – including stoning adulterers and keeping slaves – they will tell you that the Old Testament was made null by Jesus dying on the cross. Shoot, I’d bet money on it. It’s highly amusing to see people chase their tails when it comes to those aspects of their Bible. Unless, of course, they like a section then it’s all hands on deck!

The most amusing part of all of this is the fact that I simply stated that traditionally marriage was a contract between a man and his father-in-law. This isn’t something made up. It’s a fact. Actually, the way we marry now is contractual. You need the state to recognize the partnership and dissolve it. Marrying for love? Unheard of back when these “traditions” were being born. That’s something else that relatively modern.

So, Google really is my friend and I was able to dig up some very basic history for people who cannot believe that people were actually around prior to the Common Era (when the Good Book was written). I was a little taken aback by the reaction to that tweet1 especially among the nutters. I didn’t realize that there are people who really don’t believe there is any kind of history with regard to marriage. Maybe it’s just that they’re just that stupid? I’m going with that too, but I’m sure there’s a perfectly logical answer– somewhere.

At any rate, I came upon this fabulous article from last summer:

When did people start marrying?
The first recorded evidence of marriage contracts and ceremonies dates to 4,000 years ago, in Mesopotamia. In the ancient world, marriage served primarily as a means of preserving power, with kings and other members of the ruling class marrying off daughters to forge alliances, acquire land, and produce legitimate heirs. Even in the lower classes, women had little say over whom they married. The purpose of marriage was the production of heirs, as implied by the Latin word matrimonium, which is derived from mater (mother).

[...]

Same-sex unions aren’t a recent invention. Until the 13th century, male-bonding ceremonies were common in churches across the Mediterranean. Apart from the couples’ gender, these events were almost indistinguishable from other marriages of the era. Twelfth-century liturgies for same-sex unions — also known as “spiritual brotherhoods” — included the recital of marriage prayers, the joining of hands at the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. [Emphasis mine]

I know this is shocking to some, but that really is history.

But wait! There’s more:

In the early 18th century, the English critic Daniel Defoe denounced marriage as “legalized prostitution.” English law dispossessed any woman who married, with the notable exception of England’s queens. Women were not allowed to own property or land or to control their own assets. William Blackstone, a celebrated 18th century jurist, put it this way: “By marriage, the very being or legal existence of a woman is suspended, or at least incorporated or consolidated into that of the husband, under whose wing, protection, or cover she performs everything.”

Even women with dowries or inheritances were subjected to the financial control of husbands, other male relatives, or guardians. Married European women could not buy or sell, except in the capacity of “deputy husbands.” They could not engage in any financial transactions in their own right. Their dilemma is epitomized by the case of Millicent Garrett Fawcett, an English woman whose purse was stolen by a young thief in the 1870s. Already a leader of the movement for woman suffrage, she was surprised to hear in court that the charge against the thief was “stealing from the person of Millicent Fawcett a purse containing £1, 18s. 6d., the property of Henry Fawcett.” In her memoirs, Millicent wrote, “I felt as if I had been charged with theft myself.” [Emphasis mine]

As a woman, I can say that I’m not a fan of traditional marriage. I mean honest-to-goodness traditional. I’d rather not have to bow down to my husband or be forced to marry for money (or lack thereof!) or be considered property. I’m really happy that era is long gone2.

I’m not going to go into the biblical quotes that prove that even there women were traditionally property of men (and some women still believe they are subservient to their husbands based on biblical principles). My tweet wasn’t about religion- some of which aren’t Christian (also shocking). It was about traditional marriage. It’s been traditionally a contract between parties. Just because one does not like the history does not make the history wrong.

Luckily for the rest of sane society, these willfully ignorant folks are now in the minority. Most of us are well aware of our unsavory past as human beings and we know that we must move forward. That means that if a man and a woman are legally permitted to enter into a legally binding marriage contract which is sanctioned and regulated by the state then so should same-sex couples be allowed to contract together.

Most of us call this “marriage equality” and we do, in fact, support it.

  1. It seemed so innocent! [↩]
  2. Not so long. My great-grandmother was married off when she was 12 to a 36 year old man. That was in the U.S. in 1932. [↩]

Because Sinkholes Really Aren’t Cool

Today was “Earth Hour” day. I’m not really sure what it’s supposed to accomplish except make folks feel good about their energy consumption. I can understand that. We do what we can with what we can. Well, some of us. Some folks are just willful assholes who love the idea of destroying the only planet we have just to piss off some liberals and/or environmentalists (the folks who are directly impacted by disasters related to our energy consumption aren’t necessarily “liberal or even political aside from getting relief for their injustice). “Oh, look at me with my 5 cars running and all of my lights on and blah blah blah.”

Yes, aren’t you just the cute little rebel troll? Please do keep yapping your jaws.

These people– the every person for him or herself people — don’t give a flying monkey’s ass about their neighbors. I know that. They wouldn’t piss on their neighbor’s house if it was on fire. Well, they might if they were a good conservative donor or a regular member of their church. Otherwise? Fuck ‘em.

I don’t understand that. I guess it’s because I was raised that a community takes care of it’s own and that members of the community who are suffering deserve the help of the community. If it’s not the community, then it’s the family. If someone’s water, for instance, is contaminated, then that hurts everyone.

Part of my family comes from Amish stock. A lot of stuff is on the television about the Amish. They are very conservative, pacifists and tight knit. They’re a religious sect, so that’s something to consider when looking at them as a group. But they are very communal. They will help with doctor bills, with house repairs and with food to their needy. Shoot, if their English1 neighbors need help then they will rally around them too. Community matters.

I know people are selfish, but when it comes down to it, we are communal. We’re social. We depend on each other. So, this idea of cheering the quickening of climate change and the destruction of the only home we have makes me see red.

There’s a whole town in Louisiana right now that is sinking into a hole that is caused by the collapse of a salt dome. It’s causing tremors and gas leaks. It’s in a gas drilling area and the entire fucking town has been evacuated.

Then over in Colorado there’s a natural gas leak coming from somewhere. Officials can’t find the source and don’t really know how to stop it.

No cause was reported. No source of the spill has been identified, Williams spokeswoman Donna Gray said. Chemicals present in the plume were not revealed.
“Everyone wants to know that,” Gray said. “There is free-flowing hydrocarbon underground. It’s coming from something. There’s pipes underground. There’s tanks in the ground. We really do not know yet.”
[...]
In 2008, Colorado wildlife officials began sampling fish in Parachute Creek for contamination in response to concerns about the impact of oil and gas operations. State overseers allow drilling and production activities along most mountain waterways — a concern environment groups long have pointed to as a regulatory deficiency.
A recent review of state data by the Center for Western Priorities found that the oil and gas industry in Colorado often pollutes water. It found that more than 60 percent of the spills reported since January 2011 by five major operators (555 of the total 985 spills reported) occurred within 1,500 feet of surface water and that more than 30 percent occurred within 500 feet.

Over here in Ohio, a company was recently discovered dumping toxic fracking brine into a river. That was up north near Youngstown. His employee said they’d done it at least 20 times since October– each time dumping 20,000 gallons of that poison into the river. You do the math. Don’t worry, though, they’ve cleaned up about 10,000 gallons or so (so they say).

Pretty soon we’ll have the Keystone XL Pipeline snaking it’s way down from Canada to our Gulf. The same Gulf that is still trying to recover from BP’s massive spill. Tar sands oil is some of the dirtiest oil to be found and the pipeline that’s already been built here is already leaking [PDF]. That’s a monster we really don’t need, but hey! We’re in an era of clean fucking energy so yay!

This past winter, the Northeast United States got hit by Hurricane Sandy. We can expect more of that kind of extreme weather thanks to climate change. Drought? Check. Hurricanes? Check. Wildfires? Check. Tornadoes? Check. Heat waves? Check. Most reputable scientists now agree that this particular warming is being accelerated by us. We can’t fight Mother Nature. She will win. We can, however, respect her. Make an attempt to turn it around, right?

Nope. Apparently, it’s much more important to laugh in the face of those pansy-ass hippies trying to change the world. Silly hippies. These people laughing at the “hippies” (which include farmers, small town and rural folks, educators, scientists and people who have come face-to-face with what can happen) don’t seem to realize that the freaking planet doesn’t care what ideology they are. What good is money if it’s all spent on shipping in water or rebuilding towns or finding non-contaminated food sources? What good is winning a one-upmanship if the world around them is on fire or flooded or sinking into a hole? They really don’t care and really won’t care until it happens to them. Water magically appears in the water bottles at Wal-Mart. Meat magically appears in the meat section, neatly packaged.

I get annoyed with people who think that’s so funny. Then I get depressed because I get so annoyed with them. It’s not just the folks on Twitter who ignore it. I think people won’t start really caring until our air gets as polluted as Beijing’s or our water is completely undrinkable.

  1. Non-Amish [↩]