Gen (with some Skye/Ward UST); Ward, Skye, Coulson, May, Talbot; casefic; 16600 words
Summary: Ward was last seen by the team being led away by the military. When Skye unexpectedly runs into him on a SHIELD mission, she learns that Colonel Talbot had been loath to waste the specialist' talents and is putting his skillset to a good use. Skye is forced to become Ward´s mission control as Talbot and Coulson decide to work together, and is quick to realise that Ward's sweet parole deal is much darker than he lets everybody know.
Green Seattle Partnership splits each park into different zones called “habitat management units” (HMUs). This allows GSP to assign different target forest types and reference ecosystems to the different HMUs, and the forest stewards to use techniques and approaches best suited to each HMU.
North Beach Park is split into 11 HMUs; nine of these are discussed in this document. The other two are only accessible by crossing private property lines.
The HMUs were delineated by Nelson Salisbury and Ella Elman when they mapped North Beach Park for EarthCorps in late summer of 2011. The names of the HMUs were decided by the forest stewards. All of the names are descriptive in some way.
The HMUs in North Beach Park are based on two basic characteristics: slopes and uplands, and wetlands. There is some mixture in that all the wetland areas contain some upland slopes, and the upland areas frequently contain some seeps or wet areas in their lower regions.
Within these two divisions, slopes and uplands are assigned their name based on nearby property (ie, Fletcher’s Slope is below Fletcher’s Village; 91st St. Slope is below 91st St.; 92nd St. Wetlands is below 92nd St.), characteristics (the South Plateau is the largest flat area of the park and 80 feet above the rest of the park), or aspect (South Slope, West Slope, North Slope). The Headwaters Bowl is where the groundwater enters the park and begins to form the stream; the Central Valley is in the middle of the park.
Each of these HMUs received a reference ecosystem at the time of mapping, based on broad category of the plant species seen. There are two reference ecosystems for NBP: “mesic-moist conifer and conifer-deciduous mixed forest” and “riparian forest and shrubland.” These are based on NatureServe classifications.
The table below shows the nine HMUs discussed in this book sorted by size, and listed with their target forest type and reference ecosystem. The target forest types are explained in “Target Forest Types,” next week.
|Name||Size||Target Forest Type||Reference ecosystem|
|Central Valley||1.97||ALRU/RUSP/CAOB-LYAM||Riparian forest and shrubland|
|Headwaters Bowl||1.39||ALRU/RUSP/CAOB-LYAM||Riparian forest and shrubland|
|North Slope||1.14||TSHE-PSME/POMU/DREX||Mesic-moist conifer and conifer-deciduous mixed forest|
|West Slope||0.84||TSHE-PSME/POMU/DREX||Mesic-moist conifer and conifer-deciduous mixed forest|
|South Slope||0.76||TSHE-PSME/POMU/DREX||Mesic-moist conifer and conifer-deciduous mixed forest|
|92nd St. Wetlands||0.69||THPL-TSHE/OPHO/POMU||Mesic-moist conifer and conifer-deciduous mixed forest|
|South Plateau||0.57||TSHE-PSME/POMU/DREX||Mesic-moist conifer and conifer-deciduous mixed forest|
|91st St. Slope||0.54||TSHE-PSME/POMU/DREX||Mesic-moist conifer and conifer-deciduous mixed forest|
|Fletcher’s Slope||0.53||TSHE-THPL-ACMA/ACCI/LYAM||Riparian forest and shrubland|
The Central Valley, Headwaters Bowl, and 92nd St. Wetlands are all primarily wetlands and are discussed first. The other six HMUs are primarily uplands and slopes and are discussed after the wetlands. Within each category, the HMUs are discussed in the order of greatest amount of restoration effort they have received.
Mirrored from Nature Intrudes. Please comment over there.
“Identify situations in which sexual assault may occur.
If you see something, intervene in any way you can.
If something looks like a bad situation, it probably is.
Get someone to help if you see something.
Get in the way by creating a distraction.”
The White House’s flashy new bystander intervention campaign, It’s On Us, makes sexual assault sound a lot like a bad thunderstorm — unfortunate, inevitable, striking seemingly out of nowhere, and devoid of human agents. The solution, then, is easy and comfortable: “Identify situations in which [a-tornado-I-mean-sexual-assault] may occur” and guide your friend to safety; remember: “If something looks like a bad situation, it probably is.”
Gender-based violence is not like the weather. It has direct, immediate human agents and is structural and systemic at its core. But the new campaign de-politicizes and de-genders sexual assault, portraying it as an easy-to-avoid problem solely between individuals, and making perpetrators out to be vague “someones” who do “something” to other “someones.” In reality, perpetrators are disproportionately likely to be men and their victims are disproportionately likely to be women (particularly queer and trans women, women of color, and women with disabilities), queer men, and gender non-conforming folks.
The It’s On Us campaign’s failure to conceptualize of violence as systemic and structural guts meaningful responses to it. While bystander intervention more broadly may be usefully integrated into a more comprehensive anti-violence approach, it has serious limitations. And the way it’s framed in It’s On Us, it offers a strategy to avoid violence, not meaningfully reduce it. The campaign’s tips — like guiding your friends away from perpetrators at parties — might help an individual woman avoid a rapist in an individual instance but it won’t stop that rapist from turning to the next girl down the bar. It makes the problem seem discrete and manageable, with a quick fix that fits comfortably within an existing structure of how our world works, who has power, and who doesn’t. It enlists men, for instance, to protect their female friends at a bar but not to recognize their own power and privilege, the subtle ways in which they enact violence all the time.
It’s On Us is so appealing precisely because it doesn’t require us to disrupt the status quo.
But the White House’s aim of collectivizing our response to violence is important and good, particularly in a world where the responsibility of not-being-raped so often falls on the shoulders of those most likely to be victimized. It’s On Us invites “everyone to step up and realize that the solution begins with us.” So what if we took that goal and radically re-envisioned the means by which it sought to do it? In other words, what should being a proactive bystander really mean?
What if being an engaged bystander meant being someone who first and foremost is fiercely anti-sexist, anti-racist, and anti-oppression? A person who does more than interrupt individual “situations in which sexual assault may occur” but rather takes it upon themselves to recognize and dismantle the very power structures that produce and perpetuate violence to begin with?
If that sounds hopelessly abstract, here’s a non-exhaustive list of ways It’s On You to stop being a bystander and intervene actively to end violence on your campus (and beyond):
It’s On You to recognize and dismantle institutions that tolerate and perpetuate violence. If you go to a school that doesn’t expel perpetrators, It’s On You to hold your school accountable for its abuses. It’s On You not to invite rapists to your parties, and not to attend theirs. (Some sororities maintain lists of men who have raped their members and cut off ties with the fraternities to which the perpetrators belong.) If your favorite sports team shelters abusers and blames survivors, It’s On You to call it out and refuse to support it with your dollars. It’s On You to boycott the actors, musicians, and artists who beat up their partners. It’s On You to condemn police violence against women of color — and to do so loudly and publicly. If you live in a country where your government doesn’t hold universities accountable for civil rights violations (hint: ours), or which locks people up in prisons and detention centers where they are raped at alarming rates (also ours), It’s On You to hold your representatives accountable, whether on the streets, in the press, or at the ballot box.
It’s On You to be your own bystander. It should go without saying that you shouldn’t rape anyone; you should also make a commitment to recognize the ways in which you exert power over less privileged folks in your life, the ways in which you may violate someone else’s boundaries without realizing. It’s On You to be conscious of the space your voice takes up, and not to talk over folks with less power. (I once attended an anti-rape rally where a group of white male students took the megaphone away from a female survivor, telling her they’d had enough.) It’s On You to use your privilege to create space for marginalized folks to speak and be heard. If you’re a campus administrator, It’s On You to treat survivors with respect and decency, to hold perpetrators accountable, and to give your students the tools to talk about oppression, power, and violence in their lives.
It’s On You to reconceptualize what violence is and recognize it in all its forms. We are obsessed in this country — in our press, in our laws, and yes, in our White House bystander intervention campaigns — with an experience of campus violence that looks like a (usually able-bodied, white, upper middle class college) girl at a party assaulted by an acquaintance. That all-consuming narrative ignores and erases the multitude of experiences of violence that occur on campuses and off, even those that are almost as (or more) common — rape within a dating relationship, emotional abuse by an intimate partner, or stalking by a former or current partner, for instance. (Perhaps we ignore these forms of violence because to recognize them would be to acknowledge violence as both far closer to home and far more insidious than we’d like to admit.) It’s On You to recognize less public forms of violence. It’s On You to learn how to spot an abusive relationship and guide a dating violence survivor to support. And It’s On You to learn that the best ways to support a survivor of relationship abuse will likely be counterintuitive to you.
You don’t get a gold star in my book for buying an #ItsOnUs t-shirt or changing your profile picture. It’s on all of us to go beyond this campaign, to demand more from each other and from ourselves. Ending violence won’t be easy — if it were, we’d have done it long ago — and, as we’ve said before, that’s precisely why we have to do it now.
My wife recounts what our divorce was almost like, in a beautiful essay written on our fifth anniversary, back when we had just gotten out of the worst of it.
Thanks to my blogging, a lot of people sort of idolize the relationship I’ve forged with Gini. And it is a great relationship. But there was a time when it wasn’t, and we struggled with everything, and I’m proud of what we’ve wrought and yet trepidatious that people think our love came out of nowhere.
We fought a lot. We fight a lot. We steer this relationship hard. And my wife knows how bad things got, which is why we both cherish what we have now.
Fifteen years. Damn. Still a little weirded out by that one.
Cross-posted from Ferrett's Real Blog.
As a member of the Harry Potter generation, it made me more emotional than I care to admit to see
Hermione Granger Emma Watson call for the world to unite to defeat Voldemort gender inequality.
Watson, who is the newest U.N. Women Goodwill Ambassador, spoke at the UN this weekend to launch the “HeForShe” campaign,” which aims to mobilize men and boys as advocates for ending gender inequality. She extended “a formal invitation” to men to make gender equality their issue too.
We don’t often talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes but I can see that that they are and that when they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence.
If men don’t have to be aggressive in order to be accepted, women won’t feel compelled to be submissive. If men don’t have to control, women won’t have to be controlled.
Both men and women should feel free to be sensitive. Both men and women should feel free to be strong. It is time that we all perceive gender on a spectrum, instead of as two sets of opposing ideals.
If we stop defining each other by what we are not and start defining ourselves by what we are, we can all be freer. And this is what HeForShe is about. It’s about freedom.
I want men to take up this mantle. So their daughters, sisters, and mothers can be free from prejudice but also so that their sons have permission to be vulnerable and human too—reclaim those parts of themselves they abandoned and in doing so be a more true and complete version of themselves.
The name of the campaign, HeForShe, made me worried that it’d take the all-too-familiar tactic of enlisting men’s support in the fight for gender equality by appealing to a sense of paternalistic protectionism, calling on them to imagine all women as their daughters/sisters/mothers/wives in order to give a damn. So I’m pleased to see Watson frame it instead as movement for freedom–the freedom to be a full human being–for everyone.
Read the full text of the speech here.
Maya Dusenbery is an Executive Director of Feministing.
I know it's early, but this is a strong contender [DoNotLink] for the worst thing you're going to read all day.
Actual Headline: "The Rape Epidemic Is a Fiction." Welp!
Kevin D. Williamson's case primarily rests in the discrepancies that have been found in the number of women who report sexual assault depending on how the questions are asked.
This is not unusual in surveys attempting to establish incidents of sexual assault, whether one is asking victims or perpetrators. For example: Perpetrators who will answer yes to a question like "Have you ever had sex with an unconscious partner?" will, even in the same survey, answer no to the question "Have you ever raped someone?"
This also speaks to the concern Williamson raises here:
It is probably the case that the prevalence of sexual assault on college campuses is wildly exaggerated—not necessarily in absolute terms, but relative to the rate of sexual assault among college-aged women with similar demographic characteristics who are not attending institutions of higher learning. The DoJ hints at this in its criticism of survey questions, some of which define "sexual assault" so loosely as to include actions that "are not criminal." This might explain why so many women who answer survey questions in a way consistent with their being counted victims of sexual assault frequently display such a blasé attitude toward the events in question and so rarely report them. As the DoJ study puts it: "The most commonly reported response — offered by more than half the students — was that they did not think the incident was serious enough to report. More than 35 percent said they did not report the incident because they were unclear as to whether a crime was committed or that harm was intended."Sanity has nothing to do with it. Understanding that much of our culture has no idea—by design—about what constitutes sexual assault, or meaningful consent, is crucial.
If you are having a little trouble getting your head around a definition of "sexual assault" so liberal that it includes everything from forcible rape at gunpoint to acts that not only fail to constitute crimes under the law but leave the victims "unclear as to whether harm was intended," then you are, unlike much of our culture, still sane.
That women are failing to report incidents of sexual assault not on the basis of their lack of consent, but on their assumptions about whether their assaulter intended to harm them, should be of grievous concern. It's not evidence of feminism gone wild; it's evidence of a cultural diminishment of women's agency so profound that women allow their rapists' presumed intent to define whether they were raped.
For that reason, women who may answer yes to a question like "Has anyone ever had sex with you while you were unconscious?" might also, even in the same survey, answer no to the question "Have you ever been raped?"
The horrible truth is that many women have a "blasé attitude toward the events in question and so rarely report them" because we are groomed by our culture to be compliant victims: Sexually objectified, denied agency, not empowered with the right of consent, entrained to be shamed by sexual exploitation, and experiencing sexual assault as so ubiquitous as to be utterly normalized and a routine part of womanhood.
The most objectionable part of Williamson's piece is not, however, that he is wrong about the most basic facts of his premise. It is that he accuses feminists of inventing this fiction as a political gambit:
The fictitious rape epidemic is necessary to support the fiction of "rape culture," by which feminists mean anything other than an actual rape culture, for example the culture of the Pakistani immigrant community in Rotherham in the United Kingdom. "Rape culture" simply means speech or thought that feminists disapprove of and wish to suppress... Feminism is about political power, and not the Susan B. Anthony ("positively voted the Republican ticket — straight") full-citizenship model of political power but rather one dominated by a very small band of narrow ideologues still operating under the daft influence of such theorists as Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon, each of whom in her way equated political opposition to feminism with rape.I have not written, to date, the majority of the 710 entries in our Rape Culture archive (after starting to use labels only in '09), as a political game.
I care about people who are harmed. I remember them and carry them with me. I ache from knowing that I will be writing about victims of sexual violence for as long as I do this work.
This is not a goddamned game. Not to me.
when boys have sleepovers do they sleep in the same bed like girls do or do the rules of no homo include sharing beds
girls always share beds. and covers and clothes and food and personal space. sometimes even bathrooms
Girls share everything.
And so to the biggest celebrity story of the week — the internet publication of naked photographs and intimate videos of 102 female celebrities, including Jennifer Lawrence, Kim Kardashian, Kate Bosworth, Selena Gomez, Kirsten Dunst and Ariana Grande.
At some point in the past month, the womens’ iCloud accounts were hacked into and the images posted on the website 4Chan, from where they spread across the internet with such ferocity, the only apt simile being “as rapidly as a whole bunch of pictures of hot celebrity women, naked”.
As productivity across the world slowed markedly — due to half of every workplace gathering in the corner farthest away from their line manager and googling “naked A-list ladies hurry hurry” — an interesting phenomenon was observable: a widespread belief that it was … all OK. That nothing bad had happened. There had simply been a visit from a jovial Porn Santa, who had given the world the gift it so richly deserved — Jennifer Lawrence’s tits — and now all that was left was to give thanks before googling “naked A-list ladies any new ones hacked?” and continuing with the day.
CW finds this whole thing fascinating — this continuing belief that things somehow “don’t count” if they’re on the internet. Threatening to rape and kill women on Twitter isn’t real harassment; stealing pictures of women and posting them on the internet isn’t a real criminal sexual offence.
If there’s one thing that would do this species a heap of good it would be getting out of the house and getting some fresh air in its lungs. And if there are two things that would aid our species, it would be finally getting its head around “the internet”. The internet is something invented by humans, for humans, where humans communicate with each other. It’s exactly the same as “the meat world”.
If, in the “real world”, someone broke into Jennifer Lawrence’s garden and watched her undressing they would, rightly, be branded a pervert, arrested for trespass, treated as a bit revolting and sentenced to a spell in jail and possibly a stiff course of Just Stop Being A Freaky Mad Pervert therapy.
It’s no different to criminally trespassing into her iCloud and looking at her tits, simply because it’s “on the internet”. It’s “the internet” — not “Imaginary Norulestopia where you can do what you like”. When you treat the greatest communication tool the world has ever known like that, you basically turn it into Donkey Island in Pinocchio.
CW finds it slightly dolorous, living in an era where there is a constant, global game in play to see the naked body of every famous woman. The attitude reminds it exactly of being in the school playground, where a certain gang of boys would try, every playtime, to reveal the knickers of the girls, even though the girls were crying and traumatised and eventually grew up to be angry goths.
It’s going to leave the last words on this subject to the mighty Anne Hathaway, speaking about up-skirt shots of her that were sold to tabloids in 2012: “I’m sorry that we live in a culture that commodifies the sexuality of unwilling participants.”
Right on, Hathaway. Because there’s a word for people who sexually commodify an unwilling participant.”
- Caitlin Moran absolutely fucking nails the celebrity nudes hacking disgrace in Celebrity Watch in today’s Times (via theinternethassexwithitself)
There are only 3 canonical characters on the AO3: JoT One Esk 19 | Breq, Anaander Mianaai, Seivarden Vendaai.
If I want to nominate Lieutenants Awn or Skaaiat I need to add them, which means I want to get their names right for future use on AO3. I can't remember if either of them have a fuller name. Before I do another reread (as if I needed the excuse), does anyone know off the top of their head? I have until 6pm UTC on 29th September to make any changes to my nominations.
- Watching, a docu-drama about suffragette Annie Kenney, 1hr 16min youtube, from the 1974, six episode, docu-drama series Shoulder to Shoulder, about selected leading figures in the Women’s Social and Political Union before the First World War. The series was originated by Georgia Brown, who portrays Kenney, and was one of the first mass media representations of women’s history in which women creatives had significant degrees of control over the production from beginning to end, specifically actress Georgia Brown with script editor Midge Mackenzie and producer Verity Lambert (and co-directed by Waris Hussein and Moira Armstrong). This episode was written by Alan Plater and presumably needed less editing out of ma(i)nstream prejudices than in some of the other episodes. Midge Mackenzie said: "They were very gutsy ladies who were treated with enormous brutality and who have been blatantly ignored by historians. I find it hard to understand why I wasn't taught about this at school. The issues of the vote united women in a way that no issue had ever done before and is likely to again." Of course, the subsequent increased study of the histories of women’s suffrage mean that some aspects of Shoulder to Shoulder could be nitpicked but it’s a drama series from 1974 and it’s survived the tests of time better than most (and has become an interesting example of how something can be both "ahead of its time" and "a product of its time" simultaneously in addition to being stirring drama). Worth 75mins of your time if you’re interested in suffragette dramas, or 70s telly history, or the history of women’s studies: all of which you should be (hypothetically, if you have 75mins and nothing better to do with it). There’s an episode focussing on Sylvia Pankhurst too but it had a less sympathetic author and I’m not sure want to watch it, heh.
- Watching, art: a statue of the probably fictitious Abbess Kyneburga of Gloucester, in the south aisle of the cathedral.
- So, what are you doing, thinking, wondering about, reading, watching, making, or writing, that you don't usually post about?