So, here’s something new:

Indeed. Via Jill at Feministe, we find that Breitbart’s and Palin’s use of “blood libel” (which is actually a specific term, with a specific history, relating to anti-Semitic myths about Jewish folks drinking blood and such — myths which were used to justify murdering Jewish people, for a really long time, by the way, and when a Jewish woman is currently in critical condition due to being the primary target of an assassination attempt? MAYBE YOU WANNA BE CAREFUL ON THAT ONE) was, in fact, totally fine.

Because the other option? Is that Palin’s critics are gang-rapists.

INDEED.

“I used ‘blood libel’ because I thought analogy of lefties at pinball machine in Jodie Foster film ‘The Accused’ was too obscure,” he Tweets, and no, Andy: It’s not that obscure. That would be one of the more famous rape scenes in film history, in fact. And the “analogy” is that publicly criticizing Palin, and the Tea Party, for their role in — I mean, for some reason we’ve decided to skate around this, but let’s say it again –PUMPING THE AIR FULL OF GUN-BASED IMAGERY AND RHETORIC, WHICH HAD ALREADY REACHED FEVER PITCH AND RESULTED IN THREATS ON GABRIELLE GIFFORDS’ LIFE AND SOME VIOLENCE AGAINST HER, WHEN SOMEONE ACTUALLY SHOT HER AND KILLED A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE, AND NO MATTER WHO HE WAS OR WHAT HE WAS THINKING, HE WAS LIVING IN A CULTURE THAT LINKED GUNS, VIOLENCE, AND THIS WOMAN GABRIELLE GIFFORDS, is, in effect, personally gang-raping Sarah Palin.

Okay. Let’s talk for a minute about how this is sexist, before we proceed. One: The continuing premise of Sarah Palin supporters is that Sarah Palin is a woman, therefore any and all criticism of her should be silenced, for she is a woman. Two: As someone who is, uh, not exactly opposed to pointing out sexism on the part of the left wing, I will freely admit that some of the criticism of Sarah Palin has been sexist. I’ve written about it. I’ve gotten in arguments with fellow left-wing people about it. Some of the criticism of Sarah Palin has been sexist. Many feminists and otherwise responsible people — the first one who springs to mind, the most vocal, the one who got perhaps the most shit for it from the left, is Melissa McEwan — have also written about this. Three: This is distinct from legitimate criticism. Which any and all people who operate as politicians must face. And four: Uh, NOT A LOT of the criticism of Sarah Palin that I’ve seen in these past few days has been focused on her gender. It’s mostly been about how she and others talked up guns constantly, and were totally freaking irresponsible about it, and then somebody got shot.

And here’s the part where this is sexist: You know how any and all criticism of Sarah Palin is supposedly sexist? And this particular strong, widespread criticism is apparently a fucking gang rape? Reduces her, wholly and entirely, to her gender. And suggests that, because of her gender, she can’t be responsible for any damn thing she does. It suggests that, as a woman, she is incapable of operating in the public sphere, because she’s a lady and we’re all gonna rape her, so hold her train when she crosses a puddle and give way to her childish feminine whims and, you know, maybe don’t let her vote because ladies can’t be held responsible, and you know, don’t let her go to certain places without a male to escort her and guard her virtue. It’s sexist precisely in the sense that it suggests that women cannot be as smart or as accountable for their actions as men can.

And then let’s get to the part where he called you a rapist. And me. And all of the feminist anti-rape activists who also criticized Palin. We’re all rapists now, apparently. Except that this also trivializes rape.

Because Sarah Palin could be harshly criticized over this. Being harshly criticized is not rape.

Because Sarah Palin’s chances at a Presidential run could be damaged over this. Having one’s chances at achieving a goal lessened is not rape.

Because Sarah Palin’s public image could be tarnished over this. Having one’s public image tarnished is not rape.

Because Sarah Palin’s career could end over this. Having one’s career ended is not rape.

Rape is rape. And a false equivalency between any of these things — these things which are, comparably, far less serious than rape — and rape itself only serves to promote the message that rape itself is not that serious.

I take exception to that. I really, wholly and fully do.

All of the false-equivalency, “left is just as bad” rhetoric — which, in all honesty, is often disingenuous or ass-covering (what if it turns out he didn’t like Palin? He still lived in the culture of violence she helped to create) at best, straight-up lies and attempts to discredit Palin’s critics at worst — has been pretty offensive. But the thing is? Of all the people I’ve seen, only Breitbart took it decisively too far. Only Breitbart called us all a bunch of rapists.

And yeah. Breitbart isn’t going to change his mind. Breitbart’s scummy and weird and his whole thing is about trying to get people mad by being obviously sexist or variously scummy, and then being like, “oh, my gosh! Look at how these people are mad and stuff!” Breitbart, in other words, isn’t Michael Moore. We can’t talk to the man.

But that whole “left is just as bad” thing? Yeah. That’s kind of decisively, publicly false. And everyone can see it. And we have one very special man to thank for that.

So, thank you, Andrew Breitbart! Now we can go back toward putting the focus where it belongs.

So there’s another thing I’ve been thinking about, and reading about, and you can laugh at me all you want, but: Joan of Arc. I’ve been thinking, and reading, a lot about Joan of Arc. Patti Smith has a line in “Just Kids” about the optimism of little girls who choose “Joan” as their confirmation name; it got stuck in my head. Because you have to choose the name of a saint, basically, for those unfamiliar; you have to choose the saint you want to have your back. When you’re in trouble, or you need to make a very hard decision, and you need supernatural aid to keep going safely, you get to make one phone call, and it’s this particular saint, so think about the sort of trouble you’re likely to get into, and choose the one who will take your call: That’s part of what a confirmation name is about.

And yeah. Guess who I chose.

The thing about Joan of Arc is, I don’t know how many other saints were soldiers — Saint Michael is the only one that comes to mind, and he’s an archangel, so his existence is sort of questionable — but I do believe Joan of Arc may be the only person to be sainted for being a soldier. And it’s interesting, to know about her war. Her country was subject to a long-term invasion and occupation; the only way peasants like Joan were really involved,  aside from having a long war fought in their homes and being unshielded from its violence, was in terms of wanting to maintain their cultural identity, to stay French instead of being assimilated into the English culture. For a person who knows anything about our current wars — our current long-term invasions and occupations, our current struggles over cultural identity — this is interesting.

So, into this war comes Joan. Who is literally nobody: Poor, illiterate, a girl, not trained to do anything but clean the house and look after the sheep. Here comes Joan, from a place and a time where there is a popular folk legend that a girl will arise and save France. Here comes Joan, and she says God picked her; she says that the job of saving France is hers.

Whether or not she believed the story herself, what kind of courage does it take to do that? It’s basically like telling everybody that you’re Bigfoot. It’s like Buffy the Vampire Slayer, but if no-one ever told Buffy that she was the Slayer, and she just stood up one day in the middle of class and was like, “guess what? I have superpowers, and I mean to kill vampires with them.” But not. Because even if you do proclaim out of nowhere that you are Bigfoot or Buffy the Vampire Slayer, you still probably don’t decide that the next step is going to the Oval Office to visit the President, and explaining to him why he should give you command of the military and a role in deciding national policy.

I mean, I think I actually like the story better if she was making it up. If she just got wind of the myth — we don’t know if she heard it, but if you are a skeptic, you have to note that it specified the area in which she lived, and was therefore probably known by lots of people from that area — and had a very definitive opinion about the war, and thought she could do a better job than the people currently in charge, and then was like, “so that prophesied superhero you’ve all been talking about? It’s me. No, totally: That girl is actually real, and plus? She is me. Now hand me the keys to the army. And also, I want a sword.”

(Continued)

I really like blogging. I really like blogging, a whole lot. I have met several of my closest friends through it. I met the guy I’m currently dating through it. Blogging has improved my life to a tremendous degree, and given me self-confidence and something to look forward to and care about, in a way I would not previously have imagined possible.

I also think deleting blogs is bad, because it’s a way of denying accountability.

HOWEVER. I struggle, on a more or less daily basis, with the urge to delete this blog. While I can no doubt be a jerk and a bad person at times, sometimes on this very blog, I don’t want to erase that. I would just go and do it somewhere else, anyway. And I like being called out; I like being held accountable. I was raised Catholic, so I believe a regular dose of guilt and penance is good for the soul. If no-one ever chastises you, how will you know what you screwed up? But I also don’t feel, given some of the people and forces I am currently interacting with, that it is a good idea for me to have shared so much information regarding my past abuse and sexual assault via blogging. Or, for that matter, information about my family. Which is why I want so badly to delete this blog and never look back.

(Continued)

It’s hard to write about Bradley Manning. I’ve composed more than one lengthy, impassioned post about Manning, and deleted it; we’ve heard things about or from Manning that we weren’t supposed to hear, and we’ve heard lots of things about Manning that may or may not be the truth, and addressing those things publicly — in any of the various ways that they are actually being construed — may actually put Manning in danger.

But let’s start with the most important thing, something simple: Bradley Manning is accused of trying really, really hard to do the right thing.

(Continued)