Posted in: Azteclady Speaks
Tags:GLBT, Human Rights, organized religion sucks ass, Rampant homophobia, same sex discrimination
Here’s the finger to assholes:
Here’s the finger to assholes:
Yes, I’m sure many here are tired of the topic, particularly since it seems to crop up regularly, all over the place.
Me, I’m one of those who believes that talking about it, keeping the perpetrators and their victims clearly separated, is the only way to reduce the instances of plagiarism. (Like racism, there are some people who don’t realize what it is–or that they are indulging in it¹–until someone points it out to them.)
But, onwards with today’s post.
Yesterday Jill Sorenson commented on my latest post on Kristi Diehm, plagiarist.
My own reply to Ms Sorenson took me back to RRRJessica’s awesome post on the scandal (seriously, go and read the whole thing; it’s wonderful and full of win. The part about moral autonomy and women? Win, I tell you).
Upon re-reading the post, my mind, that horrible, suspicious, cynical fiend, fixated on the following bits: (more…)
Back when the shitstorm surrounding Kristi Diehm, plagiarist, aka The Story Siren¹, broke out, I posted about apologies, and how I think it’s useless to expect–or indeed to receive–an apology from a plagiarist. Like many other offenders, said apologies tend to be of the “fuck, I’m sorry I got caught” variety. Or, much worse, they include so many excuses, explanations, rationalizations and justifications that in the end, to many an uncritical follower/fan, they read like a justification to hate on the victims of the plagiarist.
Well, that queen of chutzpah, Kristi Diehm, is at it again. The short hand for those who don’t go to the SmartBitches: apparently this plagiarist, who has still to apologize properly (as in, without excuses) to her victims, and who has failed to address her fans outright hounding of said victims, has decided to organize a week long event on plagiarism, designed to ‘educate herself’ (yeah, because that very pointed post she wrote on the topic, after allegedly being plagiarized herself, shows that she reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeelly didn’t know what the fuck she was doing when she stole Beautifully Invisible and Grit and Glamour. Right.) (more…)
I love videos of flash mobs dancing something everyone (or most everyone) has heard and at least tapped his/her toes to. But this? Absolutely amazing.
To celebrate what would have been Michael Jackson’s 51st birthday, some 50,000 people (give or take a few hundred or so) gathered near Mexico’s City historical center on August 29th, 2009 for a flash dance to the choreography of the original Thriller video.
Bonus points: the actual dancing crowd broke the Guinness Record–by a mere 13,300 or so.
A Tennessee man is asking for government aid–to pay child support to the eleven (11) mothers of his thirty (30) children.
I see people crying that he must be stopped–no argument here–but what about the women? (more…)
Remember last week how there was a reader who disagreed with me about censorship?
The quick recap: the Brevard County Library system purchased 19 copies of that book I won’t read (Karen’s review here) then pulled from circulation when someone heard that it was being labeled “mommy porn” in the media.
A very healthy portion of the Longarm books–so-called ‘adult western’ (for Beverly‘s benefit: badly written sex, clearly intended to titillate) along with titles by several well known erotic romance authors (Lora Leigh, Laurell K. Hamilton and Emma Holly, just to name three).
As several readers asked here, what’s different about this book, other than public outcry–and the abominable “mommy porn” moniker?
Nothing, that’s what.
(The glee part: I posted about this before both the Bitches and GalleyCat–heh)
A few weeks ago, Maya Banks posted about what happens when authors’ and readers’ points of view diverge—also known as, when readers break up with authors.
This is by no means a novel topic. Readers have complained about authors changing the rules of the worlds they build *coughJRWardcough* or how every successive book is the same story and the same characters as the previous dozen *coughChristine Feehancough* or feeling betrayed when the author kills a main character, well into the series *coughKarinSlaughtercough* (more…)
You know how, when a blog owner doesn’t allow certain things to be said in her comment threads, or when an online forum’s guidelines specify that no discussions of religion or politics are allowed there, there are people who start screeching immediately about their right to free speech and how both of those things are censorship?
(Never mind that a) the right to free speech as per the First Amendment of the US Constitution has no bearing on discussions that involve people from countries other than the US–such as gee, this one–or that b) censorship in a private space doesn’t violate said amendment.)
But here we have a real example of censorship: (more…)
(or rather, its staunch defenders¹)
If you want to think of priests as leaders, go right ahead, but you’re wrong, they’re not: they have a very, very specific role, they are priests, they offer the Sacraments.
Bishops, cardinals and Popes come from the community of priests, so they are men.
Baseball coaches come from the ranks of ballplayers, so they are ballplayers. See? Not insidious, just logical.
If you are so minded to consider the father of a family the only leader: (1) get into the right century and (2) where does that leave the woman? By your logic, the woman, being unable to produce sperm, cannot be a leader of the family. We know that’s obviously wrong.
Some of our most fundamental roles are specific to our sex: mother, father, sister, brother. Also priest.
You are looking at what the priest does and who he is with the eyes of an outsider and someone who has never opened a catechism or even a good dictionary before speaking. I think you would be relieved if you spent ten minutes reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church on priesthood and the roles of the sexes.
I’m almost speechless at the idiocy.
So priests can offer the sacraments, women can’t be priests…but there is no discrimination. And coaches are not leaders? Never mind that, if we were to follow this ‘logic,’ then we start with the premise that women can’t even be players, which confirms the church’s misogyny, thank you very much.
Then again, this idjit is talking about fundamental roles for the sexes–enough said.
¹ If only they could see how their behaviour drives even more people away from whichever church they chose to ‘defend’
Plagiarism keeps rearing its ugly, unimaginative head. In the past few months there have been plenty of instances where people are caught dead on yet them manage to pretend not to know what they did wrong.
Or they didn’t know they were doing anything wrong.
Or they were doing their victim a favor.
Or because they are not profiting from it.
Or they thought it was their own work, how could they know they had copied and pasted the entire thing without attribution in the first place.
Or…anyway, I’m sure anyone with half a working brain cell gets the idea.
For those who are still struggling with the concept, a few pointers: when a person plagiarizes/steals the words/intellectual property of another person, the plagiarist is the thief–the other one? That one is the victim. (more…)
I was reading headlines–as I’m won’t to do when bored–when an article on ‘acceptable’ dresses for attending your high school prom caught my eye. I clicked right on, ready to get indignant at the prudery of parents and teachers (and I was–no shorter than three inches above the knee, with ruler in hand, really?).
What seriously knocked me over is reading about how families are expending around a thousand dollars between prom dresses, transportation, etc. An 18th boasts that she got away with a $500 dress, like that’s some sort of steal.
$500, at a bare minimum, for one night of your life.
No wonder so many of these kids grow up to incur debts of hundreds of thousands of dollars before they hit 30.
And for those of you tired of the plagiarism conversation, go somewhere else and look at some puppies and rainbows.
It seems that the latest version of the thief’s apology reads thus:
“When I first received the allegations of plagiarism, I was presented with the information and could not deny the facts. While the content was not identical the subject matter was. I thought only content could be plagiarized. Changing a few a words around with a thesaurus, or simple copying and pasting content. It seems as though taking a general topic and rewriting it is plagiarism. That is simply my own ignorance on the matter, and I should have known better. It was a confusion of inspiration and plagiarism on my part. I am not denying my actions. I was in the wrong. I read a post, I thought it was interesting and wanted to make it into something that would be relevant for book blogging.”
I guess it was just a matter of time for her to claim ignorance (more…)
Have you ever dealt with a person who always takes exception to what you have to say, no matter what it is?
I mean, even when you agree with her, she bitches at you because you don’t agree with her enough. Or you don’t use her language to agree with her.
And if you don’t talk to her, she bitches at you for what you say to other people–people who are adults, intelligent and articulate enough themselves, mind you, to ream you a new one if they thought you deserved it, or if they felt you were attacking them.
Yet this person, who has no dog in a fight that isn’t even taking place, comes at you loaded for bear, demanding (basically) that you shut up.
But, lest you think it’s lil ole innocent me (fragile flower of femininity that I am *adjusts halo again*) who is the problem, I have seen this same person do the exact same thing to…well, everyone else she comes in contact. It may take her a day or a few months, but no one who is present where she is escapes her constant harping.
Anyone wanna venture a guess, why does she do this?
(And bonus brownie points to whoever guesses who I’m talking about)
Go to Equality Now and do your part to help change the world–for yourself, for your sisters, for your daughters–and for all the men in their lives.
So while linking to Maya Banks’ Colters’ Woman at B&N for yesterday’s review, I noticed that they had Colters’ Wife free as a promotion. No one to waste a chance (hello, poor beleaguered budget) I clicked on it faster than blinking–only to be told that I needed to create an account with them.
But okay–free book, some hoops, not bad.
Account created, click and…”give us your credit card information.”
If the book is free, what the fuck do you need that for?
Cue email to customer service. Their reply: “We provide free NOOK Books to enable our customers to test the NOOK App on their device of choice. ”
See, I am techno impaired, both by nature and inclination. If I can’t “point and shoot” then it’s useless to me.
I never download any free kindle books because I won’t download the kindle app, and now I know that I’ll never download any B&N books either.
…whether a plagiarist apologizes or not?
Yesterday I read one of the latest cases where a plagiarist is caught, confronted and shamed (with the inevitable “leave the poor plagiarist alone, she’s suffering enough as it is” comments thrown in).
What baffles me is the repeated expectations for an apology.
What does an apology change?
Look, not all crimes¹ are equal, and I’m not going to call for pitchforks here, but plagiarism–and particularly repeated plagiarism–is not an accidental thing, there is intent. A person cannot inadvertently copy and paste chunks of other people’s work and then forget it’s not his/her own work.
Given this, what is the value of an apology? How can any apology over a deliberate act be anything but, “sorry I got caught”–which is no apology at all?
So, why does anyone care to receive an apology from a plagiarist?
¹ Plagiarism = theft, ergo, crime
I posted a couple of days ago about the homophobia of many visible Catholic priests. The absolute lack of connection that the Catholic church has with the real world and the lives of the people within it has motivated many of us to renounce our once-faith.
That is bad enough, right? But for those in the church who cling to the belief that there is something good in the institution, even when some of its leaders are flawed and misguided, we have this:
The Vatican published a report on the Leadership Conference of Women Religious criticizing them for spending too much effort on poverty and social injustice and not enough on their male leadership’s anti-abortion and anti-gay agenda.
Seriously? Is it possible for any institution whose focus are the teachings of Christ to spend too much effort on poverty? Well, paint me purple and call me Herbert.
From the article:
Public disagreement with the bishops — “who are the church’s authentic teachers of faith and morals” — is unacceptable.
The bishops…who are men.
Because women are, you know, inferior and unworthy.
Which is why Pope Benedict, may karma catch up with him soonest, has declared it an impossibility that women would ever be ordained. That would be akin to admitting women are as human beings as men, for goodness sake!
So now some other bishops will take over and rewrite the Conference statues and shit, to make sure the nuns adhere to the letter of the church–Jesus’ actual teachings be damned.
Way to go, assholes, way to go.
of why I no longer consider myself Catholic–more, they make me ashamed to admit that at one point I was Catholic.
Bishop John Nienstedt violates the separation of church and state, directing priests in his diocesis to ‘to defend and define marriage.” Just over a year ago, he used church funds to pay for anti gay marriage DVDs to be made and distributed in his state. (Why again are Catholic churches tax exempt when they are obviously and publicly engaging in politic issues?).
Bishop Daniel Jenky compares Obama’s policies to Nazi religious prosecution (yes, he did go there).
And newly minted Cardinal Timonthy Dolan, for whom “The definition of marriage is a given: it is a lifelong union of love and fidelity leading, please God, to children, between one man and one woman.” (so what, when the husband beats the hell out of everyone else in the family, or both parents neglect, abuse or kill their kids…why is that considered marriage, then?)
/rant (for now)
Athletic dudes girly little secret: the pedi.
Taking care of your feet is sensible and shouldn’t be exclusive province of women, and men can remain manly men even if they indulge themselves a little.
Which is true, and makes sense, etc etc etc.
Should this be news? Meh
But obviously someone thought it worth mentioning, as well as using distinctly dismissive language.