Neko-Onna

Enough With the "Pain Is Good"

2010-08-02T12:18:00.000-07:00

Do you think pain is good? I'm betting no. Most reasonable people avoid pain- isn't that its purpose, to serve as a warning and a deterrent? So why, oh why this silly cult of Pain Is Good? I see it everywhere- from the twee little sports shirts that boldly proclaim "pain is weakness leaving the body", to wacky crap like this, which posits pain during child birth does everything short of unclogging your drains and reorganizing your closets.

Sure, sometimes pain is a necessary evil- you have to have the "pain" of intense workouts to train your body for sports play, or you have to endure a certain amount of pain if you want to give birth (even medicated delivery is NOT pain free). But most people don't play soccer because they like pain, or get pregnant in anticipation of labor pain. Why? Because that would just be stupid. Plain and simple. Pain is not "good".

Ok- I can understand the motivation for claiming "pain is good" in sports circles. It stands as a motivation of sorts, and works as a badge of honor- "I withstood the pain, I'm one of the insiders". I contend this is wrong-headded, as it often leads to people pushing too hard, to the point of injury, but I understand it. Childbirth? Not so much.

Maybe I could understand "pain is good" coming from moms who have Been There, using it in much the same way as the athletes do as motivation/approbation. But from a male midwife who has never given birth? Strange stuff, really.

Dr. Denis Walsh (that's PhD, not MD), asserts pain in childbirth is good because it regulates the process, and may aid in "bonding" between the woman and her baby. I'm here to call bullshit on those two claims.

1. If you have ever endured labor and delivery, you know you are not the one in control. All of the visualizations and breath control techniques in the world aren't going to stop or start contractions. That's a good thing, too- if you had to think about what you were doing, I'd wager it would be a much dicier proposition than it all ready is.

2. "Bonding" is utter nonsense. I was really worried about bonding, since there seems to be so much hand-wringing over it. I should have saved my worry for something else, like the misery of perineal tears. The truth is, you start out feeling a sense of responsibility to the baby, because that's what society tells us to feel, and over time, you begin to love the baby, as it develops a personality, and you begin to be able to interact with it meaningfully. I would guess that 99% of the women claiming to feel an instant "love connection" with their baby are full of crap. Sure, you feel a connection- this is YOUR baby, after all. You probably feel a sense of wonder, too. Babies are pretty amazing little things; from nothing-to-something in 9 months is pretty impressive. The little boogers can be downright cute, too, and people are programmed to like cute little things. But swept away with overpowering love for something you don't even know? Hardly. Women feel compelled to say that to bolster their "mommy cred", but conversations with real new mothers that go past the gloss paint a totally different picture.

So why, Dr, Denis, all the "Pain is Good" posturing?

Because Eve was weak! That's why. The whole natural labor movement, the concern that medicating women in labor and delivery "deprives" them of some key experience all goes back to the sexist idea that women are the Weaker Vessel, and they better toughen up...or else! Even for those who have discarded the trappings of fanatical religion, the core message is still found, intertwined in the conscious and subconscious of all who see women as lesser beings. I just bet Dr. Denis doesn't have a lot of real respect for his patients, and operates at a paternal level with them. Secretly, in his heart of hearts, I bet Dr. Denis thinks he could do better than these hysterical women, if he just had half a chance. He could bear the pain, easily! He could have textbook labor and delivery every time. And because nature so cruelly keeps him from demonstrating his perfection, he has to jab at those weak women sometimes, make them really feel the burn for their own good. Because life is unfair! And they shouldn't get to have all the fun, now should they?

Sadism just never gets old. I wish men and other people who never have/could have babies would devote more of their time to obsessing over something else that doesn't impact me.

Who's up for a good game of (fill in the sport)? Dr. Denis, I hope.

The Blessing Myth

2010-07-29T11:41:00.000-07:00

Why do I speak out against religion so much? Well, for one, I see it being used as a way to undercut the secular nature of our government, as a tool of repression (especially against women), and a cover for some of the worst intolerance of human nature. I also have a problem with the worldview that religious thought often engenders. The following is an example of that troubling worldview, and how it can remove the very legitimate right of people who have survived traumatic events to feel bad about what has happened to them, and understand it in the larger context of random chance. The "Blessing Myth" takes away the right of trauma survivors to mourn their loss, as well as the very real connection they have to every other person on Earth, who is just as vulnerable to random acts as the victim herself.

I watched this very sad video about a woman who survived a plane crash with her husband. And as I watched, I just felt more and more uncomfortable about the tone of the narration. The woman who was in the crash kept saying over and over what a "blessing" the whole event was. Blessing? A plane crash that nearly claimed her life, and left her with disfiguring, debilitating injuries was a blessing?

That just doesn't make sense. Now, I can understand trying to put a positive spin on the things that happen to you- I don't advocate wallowing in self pity. However, I think it is only fitting and appropriate to be allowed to grieve legitimate loss- and this is a story of legitimate loss. The woman hints at this when she talks about emotion "sweeping over her" as she touched her old clothes and yearned to be the person she was before the crash.

Of course she does. Anyone would. That is totally reasonable, and I don't see a reason to put an artificially happy face on the subject. The reason she does, of course, is to make a religious statement. God gave her this "blessing" so she could view her role as wife and mother in a new light. She feels more "divine" after the crash.

Aha. Now it makes sense. The "blessing" is that of rationalization. How could a "good" god allow such bad stuff to happen? He was "blessing" you, of course! It also fits neatly into the whole "place" of women meme- now this person can truly "appreciate" her role as wife and mother, since she almost lost it all. That nagging question she sometimes whispered to herself- "Is this really all there is to life?" is now decisively put to rest, because god has "blessed" her with this trial that makes her more aware of what she almost lost. And let's not forget the social aspect of this- her declarations of faith and her praise to god for her "blessing" cements her role in her religious community. Instead of being pitied, she is revered, because she was chosen by god.

So what's wrong with this? It seems like a win/win. The woman in question gets to feel better about the hellish tragedy she suffered, she gains status in the community, and the community gets to use her story to bolster their own faith and bring new members into their faith community.

Well, it's a win for everyone except for those who loose. For one thing, this mentality is exactly what leads to abominations like Pat Robertson's declarations that Hurricane Katrina or the earthquake in Haiti were forms of divine retribution. God doles out the blessings and the curses, right? I am sure there are religious people who could spin the tragedy of the plane crash survivor's story into a tale of divine retribution as easily as a tale of divine blessing.

For another thing, this kind of rationalization makes a sticky problem of human agency. Should people just accept what comes their way as god's will? Should people try to prevent bad things even if they suspect god is behind them? Think this is academic? Think again. Religionists have been saying for years that pain in childbirth, which can be prevented, shouldn't be, because it represents Biblical "justice". Even non-religious rationales which valorize the "natural" seem to think great pain is simply a price women should "pay" in childbirth (this is the subject of my next post, incidentally). The rhetoric of "blessing", however ironically, can be put to service- IS put to service- when justifying human suffering of every stripe.

And finally- I suspect that the recipient of the "blessing" looses to, as she is not allowed to feel the very natural feelings of grief after this event. Instead, she represses them, and puts on a happy face. She feels singled out, and different, because she cannot accept the story of her misfortune in the context of random chance. She was "chosen"- this wasn't "one of those things" that could happen to anyone. Difficult questions undoubtedly follow. If this is a "blessing", why do I feel like shit all of the time? Why was I chosen? Is my husband, who was injured much less severely, "less chosen"? Or, am I his burden, his trial?

In the wee hours, when these questions surface, this blessing must feel an awfully lot like a curse.

Unintentional Irony

2009-12-07T17:49:00.001-08:00

Seen on a truck in front of me on the way to work: three Marine Corps decals, one Pro-Life sticker.

Wow.

I can't think of any organization LESS "pro-life" than the Marine Corps. Can you?

My dad was a Marine. During the Vietnam war, no less. He told some stories that would turn your stomach. Valuing the lives of the Marines themselves seemed a low priority to the Corps; killing innocents was even less of an issue. I know many people* associate embryos and fetuses with "innocent" life**, but c'mon. I can't imagine there were many Marines in Vietnam who were instructed to spare pregnant Viet Cong operatives because of the "baybee". That's not how the Marines roll. Mom wasn't "innocent", so the embryo/fetus had to go in order to get the "guilty" operative. Collateral damage. Or maybe not. Apparently there were quite a few US servicemen who thought exterminating the whole lot was the way to go. And lest you think that is a vestage of a bygone era, the sad excesses of a time of exceptional barbarity, I bid you to remember Haditha. Never heard of it? Not surprising. Twenty-four civilians killed? Who cares. That's the price of war.

Apparently, though, when it comes to women exercising control over their own bodies, well, that's just murder. Plain and simple.

Semper Fi.

*Those who believe in preformationism. See my earlier post on the topic.
** "Innocent" life really has no meaning outside of a context. All life is inherently value-neutral. To the pregnant woman, the embryo/fetus wouldn't be "innocent" if it threatened to cause her bodily harm, social approbation, financial strain, or some other ill effect.

The President Wants To Brainwash YOUR Kids!

2009-09-07T21:24:00.000-07:00

Isn't this the biggest non-issue ever?

Wow. The president wants to tell kids to study hard and make good grades. Or so he says. According to trusted sources*, Obama Bin-Laden really wants to recruit the kiddies into his Leftist Terror Cult-disarmingly called "The Rainbow Funtime Club". (The "rainbow" reference gave him away.) Anyone with a lick of sense** realizes that exposing their kids to this "speech" will allow Obama to implant deviant sexual urges and plans for Total World Communistic Domination directly into their cerebral cortexes via his insidious Brain-Blaster Ray.

You doubt the existence of such a device? How do you account for the acceptance of Obama's obviously forged birth certificate by the authorities? Answer me that one, huh?

Stop the madness! Pull your kids out of school so they won't be indoctrinated by Der Furher!

* People who fear a Freemason Conspiracy and have personally seen Sasquatch have been passing along a rumor to this effect.
** People who see Rush Limbaugh as a modern-day prophet.

Nature Holds Court On Issues Of Assisted Reproduction

2009-07-15T12:07:00.000-07:00

Wow- this was shocking to me, too! I stupidly believed that "nature" was not, in fact a sentient being capable of having opinions on the human practice of assisted reproduction, but Allan Pacey, secretary of the British Fertility Society, has set me straight on this matter. In a recent article reporting the death of the world's oldest new mother, Maria del Carmen Bousada, Mr. Pacey suggested that women as old as Bousada (66 at the time of the birth of her twin sons)should not be allowed to purchase assisted reproduction services.

"The rationale for all that is that nature didn't design women to have assisted conception beyond the age of the natural menopause...once you get into the mid-50s, I think nature is trying to tell us something," Pacey told The AP.

He added: "I think many people would worry about providing fertility treatment to women in their 60s. I think as a general rule, to embark on pregnancy when you may not see your child go to university is potentially a very difficult situation."

Hmm. Now, I may not be the Secretary of the British Fertility Society, and I sure don't have Nature's number on my speed-dial like Mr. Pacey evidently does, but I've got to wonder at the well... logical consistency of such a statement. Did nature really design pre-menopausal women for assisted reproduction? Isn't the point of assisted reproduction helping people who can't naturally conceive to have children? Wouldn't post-menopausal women be the very definition of people who can't naturally conceive? Wouldn't Mr. Pacey and the whole gang at the British Fertility Society be out of a job if they really believed that one shouldn't tamper with "nature's order" when it comes to conception?

Now, let's not forget the second part of the statement, where Mr. Pacey laments the "difficulty" of having a child when you can't commit to living long enough to see them through university. Again, does Mr. Pacey or the Society really believe not being able to certify that you will live at least 18-20 years after your child is born should disqualify you from buying their services? I had my son when I was 23. I have made it 10 years, but I can't know for sure that I'll make it a full 20. Who can? The Brits, I guess. Things must be a bit different in Britain (probably due to their chummy relationship with Nature),as people there must be able to foresee their lifespans if the Society uses this benchmark when providing reproductive services. Otherwise, upholding that criteria would pretty much put them out of a job as well.

So, what exactly is Mr.Pacey trying to say, then? Why would he actually be against allowing post-menopausal women to use assisted reproduction? I think I can make a stab at it.

What Mr. Pacey really meant to say was that the thought of old, wrinkly ladies having babies is gross! Eww! That "hole" has a "Do Not Enter" sign on it for a reason!! A woman's attractiveness is bound up with her fertility, and allowing old women to reproduce is just like saying they are attractive and have Worth in society's eyes, which is totally not true! Controlling a woman's fertility has always been the best way to control a woman. Young women must be kept in terror of having unwanted pregnancies or the bondage of mother and wifehood, and old women must have the "right" to claim the "legitimate" power of sex object and mother stripped from them. That's how we keep 'em in line!

See? Doesn't that make more sense? A fertility society doesn't give a gnat's ass about "natural order", nor are they overly concerned with who will take care of the kid once it's born. Neither does the rest of society at large, for that matter. If we did, we would outlaw all assisted reproduction. We would also have all new mothers designate a legal guardian for their child in the event both parents die before the child is 18 (not a bad idea, by the way). No, Mr. Pacey's remarks were just a nice way to jump on the gleeful "I told you so!" bandwagon the article represents while distancing the fertility biz from any hint of impropriety in doing what they do.

The real point of this article was to thumb a collective nose at Bousada for having the audacity to try to escape her societaly-imposed "crone" identity by having a child at 66 years old. By herself, no less. The narrative points out that Bousada's "crime" was justly punished- she died just two years after having the babies. Much clucking of tongues about the "poor children" being "orphaned" by their selfish mother will serve to reinforce society's narrative- women don't have the right to escape their proper fates. Those heavily invested in the patriarchy will try to use this episode to deny older women access to reproduction technologies allegedly to protect the "children", but that excuse is paper-tissue thin.

Of course, the article hints at the fact that Bousada was "reportedly" diagnosed with a tumor some time after the procedure took place. If she did, in fact, die of cancer, that will put a little crimp in the plotline, because as we all know, cancer can strike at any age. Its interesting to note that younger women who continue with pregnancies after being diagnosed with cancer or other illness are often considered martyrs, though they orphan their infants just as surely as Bousada did.

I wonder what Mr. Pacey and Nature have to say about that?

The "Crazy Axe Murderer" is in the backseat of Byard Duncan's car...

2009-07-14T15:21:00.000-07:00

Really, he is. And when Byard gets out of the car, he is going to find a hook on the side mirror from the Crazy Hook Murderer who was trying to get in while Byard and his date were necking. Urban legends are so much fun! I really love Byard's twist on that theme with his laf-a-minute article, My First Abortion Party. Take a minute, and check it out. Really absorb it. When you have wiped the laugh-tears from your eyes, we'll talk.

OK? Have you composed yourself? It took me a minute, too. The whole thing was so incredibly maudlin, so reality show unreal, I had to read it twice. I was looking for the "psych! Had you going!" line where the author reveals this was all a joke. I never found it. So, what does this article want us to believe?

1. Byard's girlfriend has a friend who needed an abortion.
2. This abortion-needing friend hosted a a house party to solicit donations to help her pay for the abortion.
3. The party was a joy riot, and everyone was diggin' it, 'cept Byard and the baby daddy, who for some unknown reason, was dressed as a clown.
4. All of the abortion-needing momma's friends were eevul harpies who just wanted to bag on the baby daddy.
5. This "party" reveals some larger, dark truth about abortion.

I'm OK with 1. #2 might sound a little sketch, but it really doesn't stretch credibility if you take away the shock title "abortion party". The fact of the matter is that people host benefits to take up collections for health-care related issues all the time. Kid needs an operation? Husband has $20,000 in doctor bills after an accident? Host a benefit. So, this was less a party, and more a benefit for the woman who needed an abortion. Put in that light, it makes sense.

#3, however, is a little less believable. Yes, the people at the benefit were dancing and mingling. Does that mean everyone was just having a hootin' hollerin' good time, wishing in their heart-of-hearts they could have an abortion too? Not hardly.

Walking in, we were bludgeoned with a blast of hot air, followed by the tangy stink of dance floor revelry. Someone had taken a red bed sheet and hung it below a light fixture to resemble a giant womb. Every so often, a dancer’s head or arm or dreadlock would brush against one of its smooth folds, creating a rippling effect. "Let’s Go Crazy" by Prince was playing.

This is the tone the author sets. A regular bacchanal in progress. The "Womb-sheet" is a nice touch. It would be better, of course, if a naked man in a goat-head mask was dancing lewdly under it, and readying to thrust a dagger into a crying virgin, but the Womb-sheet alone is plenty declasse and chilling. Only, I bet it wasn't really a "Womb-sheet" at all. I bet it was someone's attempt at mood lighting. How many parties have you been to with a sheet or scarf draped around a lamp?

Even if it was meant to look like a uterus (how I HATE that dogwhistle word 'womb'), wouldn't you kind of expect that to be a little tounge-in-cheek humor, like a cake that looks like a leg cast for the above-mentioned accident bennefit? Byard acts like he is a friend, like he is here in good will, but the tone of the article suggests otherwise. The problem isn't that people are dancing, or that someone may have a ribald sense of humor. The problem is Byard disapproves of this whole affair, because he is squeamish about abortion. He is trying hard to paint a scene of debauchery and fuzzy-headed liberal excess. Who is at this party? A bunch of crazies (Prince's "Let's go Crazy" is even playing) and other "bad elements" (notice the dreadlock reference? I did. That's dogwhistle number two).

But wait! There's more! In order to prove, once and for all, that these are very bad people, and abortion kills baybees, Byard introduces us to "Andrew".

As Ali went off to find Maggie, I sat down and struck up a conversation with Andrew (name changed), the three-year-old son of one of the partygoers...

Even though I thought the presence of a young child at an abortion party was a little bizarre, nobody else seemed to acknowledge (or care about) this contradiction...

"Do you feel welcome here?" I eventually asked him, fully expecting a ‘grown-up’-type answer. He glanced around, chewed on his sleeve and went to look for some babes to hang out with. "Too cool for me," I thought, shaking my head and cramming a pastry into my mouth. I was bewildered.

To Byard, a child at a benefit to fund an abortion is like a lot like Dave Chapelle's "Black White Supremacist" skits, or the old SNL "Cluckin' Chicken" commercial parodies. Obviously, the poor boy doesn't realize that this "party" is funding the killing of an innocent child just like him!! And what kind of parents would let a child go to such a sin-a-rama, anyway?

The piece de resistance, however, is the caracture of the baby daddy. He is literally made into a tragic clown, replete with rainbow suspenders and a sad 1,000 yard stare.

I saw Maggie’s boyfriend, sitting near the kitchen, wearing rainbow suspenders and looking uncomfortably alone... When we talked, his sentences spilled out in quick little jumbles, like scattered puzzle pieces. His eyes stayed focused on a point behind me. He looked as if he’d like to be somewhere else.

Ooh! The real victim of the evening! The Good Boy who got lured into this whole satanic nightmare. Byard obviously sees him as an object of pity.

In all, it seems like Byard is trying just a little too hard to prove #3. Every sentance, every word is designed to make this party resemble the orgy scene from Eyes Wide Shut. Why? See #4 and #5 above.

Byard really wants us to believe that this whole nightmare is courtesey of the ~~coven~~ group of female friends who ~~strongarmed~~ convinced the baby momma and daddy in question that abortion was the right choice.

Let's go back to the encounter with the baby daddy. Why was he so glum?

As it turns out, he had been the object of a lot of vitriol from Maggie’s friends -- women who thought that he should not have had anything to do with the abortion. Both he and Maggie had been saddened about this reaction because they had made the decision together.

Byard continues to set up the problem when he turns his attention to the baby momma:

Maggie, too, looked less than excited. A few days beforehand, one of her friends had asked her to have the abortion in Ohio. When Maggie insisted on bringing her boyfriend along, the friend told her not to bother coming. Maggie was being shown a great deal of respect, certainly. But she told me she couldn’t help but feel as though her pregnancy had been "hijacked" by women who felt like her inclusion of a man in the decision was weak or wrong. This was a surprise to me, but I didn’t exactly know how to weigh in.

Ahh. Now we are really exposing the raw nerves behind Byard's disapproval of this whole scene. Women Are Uppity Bitches! Even To Other Women! Byard is SOOO liberal and in-touch, but the Uppity Women just won't fall to their knees in fawning acceptance of his Obviously Superior Intellect, and listen to what he thinks about the Subject of Abortion.

Byard goes on to do a fair amount of navel-gazing about the "proper" place of men in abortion, and pays lip service to the "justifiable anger" women feel when men try to strip away their agency, but his position is clear: Abortion is "icky" and wrong, something those "bad" people do, and women use it as an excuse to wield illegitimate power over men. He couches it in the urban-myth narrative that Slutty Sluts Like Abortion, and even throw "parties" because their abortion-having is so much fun. No, Byard doesn't want to take the choice of abortion away from women, he just wants them to suffer their shame privately, and feel eternally guilty for their choices. Oh, and he wants them to think about The Men &trade first and foremost when making such a decision.

So, #5 is just Byard's way of whinging about how being confronted with abortion squicked him out and how if his girlfriend ~~questioned the authority of his penis~~ got an abortion, he wouldn't be no man-clown and take it up the ass while the whole world watched.

Really. That was the whole point of the exercise. Just like all other urban legends, it was designed as a cautionary tale for those who might defy society's norms and dare to engage in a taboo act. Apparently Byard felt the need to remind all of his gentle readers that he's a man in the know, and no one better try to slice his kidney out in a hotel room... or make him the guest of honor at an "abortion party".

The Economy Has Come Home To Roost

2009-07-14T15:18:00.000-07:00

My husband lost his job last week. It sucks. Such is life.

A Consistent Ethic of Life

2009-06-20T21:25:00.000-07:00

I've been engaged in some interesting discussions on a site for atheists- Why Wont God Heal Amputees. There was a discussion about abortion, and amazingly enough, I was seeing many of the same woo-based arguments against abortion there that I hear from people heavily invested in religion. It set me to thinking- why haven't I set down my exact beliefs on the value and hierarchy of life? So here it is- my (hopefully) logical and consistent ethic of life.

Life is important to me, because it is the only state of being I know. Non-being is frightening to me because it will deprive me of relationships with other living beings and I will cease to be an agent of action. I assume other people feel the same as I do, as they seem to fear the finality of death, too. I imagine other beings share some of these feelings to some extent as well. Therefore:

I reject killing anything that I do not have to kill. For beings that I am reasonably sure are non-sentient (insects, etc),my threshold for killing is convenience. I will not kill a thing that I am reasonably sure is non-sentient unless it inconveniences me. Example: Spider crawls down the wall. If possible, I catch it and put it outside. If it won't go, or I can't catch it, I kill it. I will preemptively kill non-sentient things if I suspect they may cause me or someone/something I care about harm or major discomfort. Example: I put flea treatment on my dog and cats.

For things that have very limited sentience, my threshold for killing is extreme inconvenience or suspicion of harm or discomfort. Example: a mouse gets in my house. I would try non-lethal traps first, but if I found they were hard to operate or weren't effective, I would call in an exterminator. If I felt there was an infestation, or that the presence of a mouse might compromise my family's health, I would skip to the exterminator.

For things that have some level of sentience, my threshold for killing would be immediate danger. Example: A strange dog comes into the yard, growls, corners my son- I grab first available weapon, and use whatever force is necessary to secure my son's safety. If the dog dies in the process, I have no regrets. I would not kill an "unrurly" or misbehaving house pet unless it became an immediate threat.

Probably fully sentient non-human beings such as great apes or some cetations- I would not kill unless I feared that they were going to imminently attack me with the intent to kill. I would first aim to incapacitate the animal, reserving lethal force as a last resort.

I would not attack a sentient human being with the intent to kill unless it attacked me first, or I feared such an attack was imminent. I would only use lethal force if I felt I had no other resort.

Special circumstances: With regard to abortion, I classify embryos/fetuses as non-sentient beings, and would use that standard. People in a perpetually comatose state or vegetative state, or otherwise totally impaired, would fall under the some level of sentience guidelines. As they would be unlikely to present imminent danger to me or mine, I wouldn't personally kill them, but I would support termination if it was shown the chances for them regaining sentience were minimal, and their continued maintainance was a possible detriment to other people. I would not actively kill or have an animal killed for food above fish, possibly fowl level unless I felt it was necessary, though I will eat food products from higher animals(beef, pork, etc.) that were all ready killed for consumption.

Aw, C'mon! Slut Jokes Are Just SO Funny!

2009-06-16T08:27:00.000-07:00

Well, David Letterman apologized for his joke about Sarah Palin's daughter getting "knocked up" at a baseball game by Yankee Alex Rodriguez. Cut the poor guy some slack, though- he didn't know at the time it was a rape joke about a minor- he just thought it was a slutty-slut joke aimed at an 18 year old! See! Doesn't that make all the difference...

I, by no means am a Palin supporter/ apologist. I think the woman's politics are wack, and everything I've heard from the people I know in Alaska would suggest she isn't much of a Governor, either. To an extent, her very own actions made Bristol a media target when she acted like a good politician and a lousy mother, and made Bristol's pregnancy a political issue. That's what wackaloon right wing intolerance will get you- spend long enough harping on the eeevuls of sex and contraception and abortion,and when your minor child turns up pregnant, you can't just "dissapear" the problem like most moneyed and influential people. Oh, no. You've got to sacrifice your daughter and the child she'll eventually have, not to mention your own holier-than-thou facade, on the Altar of Family Values Hypocrisy for the whole world to see. That's how True Believerism works, don't you know? Never mind that it proves all the abstinence stuff to be shit, is narrowing the horizons of a young woman, and consigning a child to the "horrors" of the single parent household railed against so frequently in fundie circles. Those are really small prices to pay for sticking to your guns, right?

No, I don't like Sarah Palin, and I think she has a lot to answer for when it comes to her own actions. But none of that justifies making rape/slut jokes about her kids. Or her, for that matter.

I am so sick of women being nothing more than their place on the Fuckability&trade scale. Everything revolves around how attractive you are to men, or the implication that you aren't attractive to men, and are then only fit for the "lesbos". If you are conventionally pretty and you know it, you are a slutty-slut. If you are conventionally pretty and you don't flaunt it, you are some librarian-prude, or perhaps a cryptolesbian. If you aren't conventionally pretty, you are some "bull dyke", or humorless feminazi, or pathetic Cat Lady, or worse yet- invisible. And whatever you are, you just need to "lighten up" if you find being called any of these things offensive.

Bitchez just can't take a joke.

Can You Really Be A Rational Pro-Lifer?

2009-06-15T11:02:00.000-07:00

The short answer to this is "no". Not any more than you can be a rational believer in Christ, or Kali, or Rael. Faith is, by its very nature, irrational. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, mind you. We all have irrational beliefs. However, on issues of public policy which affect the bodily integrity of half the human population of this country, irrational beliefs should not be relied upon.

First, let's look at some definitions (All from Merriam Webster Online).

Reason: a sufficient ground of explanation or of logical defense ; especially : something (as a principle or law) that supports a conclusion or explains a fact d: the thing that makes some fact intelligible : cause

Rational: having reason or understanding b: relating to, based on, or agreeable to reason

Irrational: not governed by or according to reason .

So, when I say something is irrational, I'm not necessarily saying it is stupid. (Though in this situation, I think there is a case to be made that "pro-life" beliefs, are in fact, based on a rather stupid premise). Rather, I am saying it is not backed up by reason.

There is no proof of an embryo or fetus being equivalent to a sentient, born person. As a matter of fact,all scientific proof points to the opposite, with the necessary structures/ brain patterns needed for sentience not being formed until the 24th week. Which, ironically enough, is the standard for viability recognized by Roe v. Wade. Even since the early 70's, that threshold has not advanced appreciably, due to the fact that the structures necessary for independent life just haven't been formed until then. And of course, let's not forget that even at the 24th week, most fetuses will not survive without extensive medical intervention, and even with medical intervention, survival rates are fairly grim.

It is also important to point out that one being involved with the pregnancy is a fully sentient, human person from start to finish- the mother. Of that, there can be no doubt. If the real pro life argument is that all animal life should be valued equally, sentient or otherwise, the killing apes, dogs, flies, or amoebas would carry the same weight and penalty as killing a human. However, I have never seen a "pro-life" support of this particular viewpoint. The only consistent application of this principle I have noted is within Jainism, which does not enjoy a wide following here in the US. As a matter of fact, many "pro-lifers" believe the death penalty is just. Most believe participation in this country's armed forces is honorable and appropriate. Almost all believe killing in self defense is justifiable. And mind you, all of these acts could kill a sentient person, not just a "life" in the generic sense.

So where, exactly, does the "pro-life" movement come from? A recent net phenomenon can be used to explain the "genesis" of the movement. A woman in Chicago blogged about her supposedly doomed pregnancy, gaining support from the pro-life community as they urged her to see the pregnancy on through to the bitter end. The blog and the pregnancy were a hoax, as it turns out, but the emotional outpouring from the faithful was real.

I believe the pro-life movement stems from a clinging to an outmoded model of human development- Preformationism, or the belief in a homonuclus, or fully formed miniature human, residing in the uterus from the moment of conception. That preformationism coincides nicely with the Christian concept of creation is no accident. Quite simply, the pro-life movement seeks to keep alive the fairytale of faith that modern science has threatened to disrupt.

Let's go back to "April's Mom", the hoax blog. When the people reading that blog were urging the supposed mother to continue on with her pregnancy, it is highly doubtful that they were envisioning a developing embryo or fetus at whatever stage of development the pregnancy would indicate. Nor, I am sure, were they envisioning an anencephalic infant, (anencephaly is what the hoax-fetus supposedly suffered from). Instead, they were envisioning the perfect homunculus, a thinking, feeling being trapped in it's mother's womb, wanting only a "chance" at life, a chance to fulfill the God- given purpose it had been patiently waiting to live out since the beginning of time.

Since preformationism posits that conception is merely the setting in motion of a pre-ordaned, pre-made human life, the mother is nothing more than a carrier of this life, tasked to be the intermediary between this world and the next- nothing more. Also, since preformationism is explicitly non scientific, it would look at a diagnosis of anencephaly by the medical establishment with a jaundiced eye. Undoubtedly, there were readers of the "April's Mom" blog who believed the force of their prayers might "cure" the anencephaly, or that the doctors might have been wrong from the start. After all, it is difficult to reconcile the belief that a thinking, feeling entity is just waiting to be born into this world with the reality of a severely deformed fetus missing most of its brain. As a matter of fact, the old preformationist line often held that congenital defect was the fault of some "wickedness" on the part of the mother, or some intervention by the Devil or one of his minions. In the preformationist worldview, perfection is the default mode of all homonuculi- defect is caused by external forces, and is reversible, by acts of the faithful, or God himself.

So, as we can see, there is no rational support for the pro-life position. Scientific evidence conclusively shows that first and second trimester embryos and even some early third trimester fetuses do not possess the structures necessary for independent life, let alone sentience. Christian theology does not call for the absolute respect for and preservation of all life, and US Christians do not practice such across-the-board reverence. While other religions do embrace a wider respect for life, they are not at the center of the US pro-life movement. Absent certain religious convictions that center on the embro/fetus being a pre-formed, pre- ordained human person from the moment of the creation of this world,there is no possible reason for the virulent anti-abortion rhetoric prevalent in this country. I would go further, and say that while a portion of the pro-life movement sees the preformationist belief as reason in itself to reject abortion, there exists a sizable portion of the movement that uses preformationist dogma to enforce a cynical and misogynist worldview that seeks to reestablish firm patriarchal control over women and their bodies as either an end unto itself, or as a way of re-establishing an order of domination thought to be preferable to the Christian God.

Is that really what you want public policy to be informed by?

Who Goes to a Creationist Museum?

2009-06-15T10:44:00.000-07:00

You always find the funniest things over at PZ's Place! Yesterday, he was critical of this BBC article about the infamous "Creationist Museum" in Kentucky. While I normally agree with PZ on matters of creationist wackaloonery, I've got to admit that I found this article very funny. It didn't need to be explicitly critical of the museum to thoroughly skewer it, and the kind of people who would go to such a place.

So, who does go to a creation museum?

Dan Schoonmaker, 26, drove 11 hours from Alabama with his family after his wife Kristy heard about the museum in a Bible class. The Army helicopter pilot (who as a member of the military gets in free) described himself as a "creationist in training", admitting it needed "a lot of faith". "I personally don't know, but natural selection seems to be the only thing people go on. It should be more open," he says. "There are sometimes better explanations for things, I mean people thought the earth was flat." Theories other than evolutionary science should be given more prominence and there should be an option to study creationism in schools, with parents given the choice, he believes. "I'm a creationist in training, I don't really go to church but I'm curious about Genesis."

Robert Mailloux
Robert Mailloux, 68, flew 1,200 miles from his home in Colorado Springs just to visit the museum. The retired businessman dismisses Darwin's theory as "not even a low grade hypothesis" and said it had "no substantial science" in it. "The Bible says God created the Earth in six days and we flat believe that. There are over 100 ways science is able to look at the Earth and 90 say it is thousands of years old - only 10 say it's real old." He adds: "The way liberals and evolutionists win an argument is to outlaw freedom of speech... they won't let us in. Why is Darwin buried with kings at Westminster Abbey? He's not a king. He's the king of the atheists' movement, of people who don't want to deal with the guilt that's put on them by sin... it's a weight and a bondage, they become their own God."

Laurie Geesey
Laurie Geesey, 57, made the 560-mile trip from Wisconsin the night before with her husband Richard. The former high school teacher, who says she believes God created "everything visible and invisible", feels people look down on her views "especially under the current [White House] administration". "It interferes with their lifestyle, you know 'If it feels good go ahead and do it' - the Bible doesn't teach that," she says. In fact, she's not sure Darwin believed his own theory. Husband Richard Geesey, 67, a retired university professor, says he was "very impressed" by the museum and liked the fact that scriptures backed up the exhibits. "I believe in a lot of this and wanted to see how accurate it was," he says. "I believe the Earth is around 5,500 years old. If you don't believe in Genesis, you don't believe in anything else."

Scott Rubin
Scott Rubin, 42, says he turned to God late in life. The father-of-three, from Chicago, was a business consultant when he "had an encounter with Jesus" and became a youth pastor. "Evolution is a good theory, I don't believe in it, but parts of it are sensible and parts of creationism are sensible," he says. "When it comes down to it, how can you know for sure? What I do know is God's changed my life. I believe God created the world in six days, I do believe that." Mr Rubin, who is visiting the museum ahead of a baseball game in his home town of Cincinnati, says he grew up in the church but did not pay much attention to it. "I never intended to be the church guy. It makes sense why people believe in evolution, especially if they've not had the encounter with Jesus I've had."

This stuff is priceless. Really. As I said in comments at Pharyngula, this could be an Onion article, only these people, sadly enough, are real. I actually feel bad for these folks. They are obviously searching for meaning, and instead, they are having to settle for a $27 million dollar pseudoscientific fantasyland complete with "tail wagging dinosaurs".

Ironically, Mush and Peanut squared off over this very Creation Museum.

Top Ten Movies

2009-06-11T12:19:00.000-07:00

If anyone is out there, I would love to hear what your top 10 movies are in your Netflix queue. A lot of people do this with music on their blogs, and I find it a great way to discover new and exciting songs, so I'm trying it with movies.

The movies at the top of my queue currently ( I count series disks as one place on the list):

1. Ranma 1/2 Outta Control
2. Ju-Rei: The Uncanny
3. Shutter
4. Mahoromatic: Automatic Maiden
5. Rocket Science
6. Please Teacher!
7. Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter...and Spring
8. Kamichu!
9. Carved: The Slit Mouthed Woman
10. City of God

A lot of the stuff on there is anime (Ranma, Mahoromatic, Please Teacher!, Kamichu!). I'm also a big J-horror fan, so that accounts for Ju-Rei, Shutter, and Carved. Rocket Science and City of God were recommended to me by friends who though the movies were "me". Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter... and Spring is a Korean movie that has been praised for its lush cinematography and profound message.

Stuff that I've watched lately that I liked: The Wrestler, The Amazing Screw-on Head, The Spirit, The Quiet American, Moon Child, Death Note II: The Last Name, L: Save The World.

Like I said, please share your list if you read this! I'm always looking for interesting new movies to watch.

My Obama Report Card

2009-06-11T11:40:00.000-07:00

Well, President Obama has been in office for almost six months now, and I think it is fair to really weigh in on his performance. (I vehemently disagree with the "100 days" crap- that's just not long enough to make real policy decisions). This is my personal opinion, of course, and is heavily weighted towards the issues I see as pressing.

Foreign Affairs- A I think Obama has done a really good job of mending the fences internationally. After Eight years of Bush doing everything he could to inflame hatred of America and Americans globally, Obama has made a real effort to back away from the former administration's incendiary rhetoric. He's had a couple of missteps- the gift gaffe and a generally weak response to North Korea- but overall, he's been saying and doing what needs to be said and done. I especially commend his Egypt speech- a conciliatory statement to the Muslim community was long overdue.

Economy- B Obama, by and large, is as much along for the ride on the whole economic runaway train just like the rest of us. He inherited the tanking econ, he inherited the bailout, he inherited the underlying causes of the problem. All he can do now is stay the course, which is pretty much what he has done. I, for one, have no problem with things like the "nationalization" of GM, but I would like to see more emphasis on corporate responsibility and accountability so that we don't keep ending up in these messes.

Iraq/Afghanistan/War on Terror Abroad- C After a really strong start on Guantanamo, Obama has really been floundering with his policies and statements on these issues. Six months after taking office, I have seen very little actual change in the war, and the Guantanamo and torture backpedaling are most disheartening. Obama needs to fulfill his campaign promises by getting us out of Iraq, articulating a timeframe and goals for Afghanistan, and unequivically renouncing the use of terror or the holding of "detainees" without due process.

Civil Rights- D This is where Obama is really falling down. He needs to end DADT now. It would be so easy, and would cost him so little. While he was at it, I wish he would start pushing hard on the restrictions on women in combat. He also needs to use the bully pulpit to move towards federal recognition of same-sex marriage. There is simply no good argument against same sex marriage, and unless Obama wants to be on the wrong side of history, he better act now. It would also behoove him to take a firm stand for womens' reproductive freedom. Repealing the global Gag Rule was an excellent first step, but all of this "abortion is a necessary evil" talk he puts out needs to end. He is giving the high ground away to the forced birthers, and we can clearly see what they do with the "high ground"- see Dr. Tiller's assassination.

Health care- B- OK. Obama has put health care on the national agenda, but he needs to articulate a vision, and stand firm. The system is irretrievably broken, and wishy-washy stop gap measures are not going to fix it.

Energy/Environment- C Obama needs to get on the ball, and really articulate a vision here. The time is ripe- people want to see change in this area. With the grassroots behind him, Obama could take on big business, and force change.

Domestic Terrorism- C Obama needs to make strong, sweeping statements against things like Dr. Tiller's assassination, and the shooting at the Holocaust Museum. He also needs to use these incidents to draw out the links between so-called mainstream "conservative" groups and the actions of this terrorists, because believe me, there IS a connection. The president MUST go on record strongly condemning such acts AND the organizations that spew the hatred that agitates the actors. In short, he must frame them as terrorism.

Overall- B- Obama is off to a good start, but he has plenty of room for improvement. He needs to worry less about political strategy and expending political capital, and more about being true to the vision he articulated during the campaign. It was that vision that got him elected, and it is only that vision being realized that will keep him there.

Now What?

2009-06-02T21:49:00.000-07:00

In the wake of Dr. Tiller's assassination, I have submitted an application to be a Planned Parenthood volunteer. I can't sit back and do nothing. I hope a lot of other people decide they can't sit back, either. I hope that this tragic murder will be the thing that finally galvanizes sane, fair-minded individuals to act, to stand up to the hatred the "pro-life" camp is spewing. I'm tired of all of the vicious bullshit, actually. It turns my stomach every time I read some loon talking about the slutty sluts who get late term abortions, the evil of "abortionists" who kill innocent babies, etc. Feministe has compiled patient stories that show the true face of late term abortion, and Dr. Tiller's work. I'm also scared to death that only two doctors in the country are prepared to continue this vital work.

So, I'm doing what I can. It won't bring back Dr. Tiller, it won't give more options to those women facing the traumas that lead to late term abortion, and it won't change the hardened hearts of the anti-abortion movement, but its the best I can do.

Dr. Tiller's Death, and Anti-Abortion Terrorism

2009-06-01T08:17:00.000-07:00

Let's call this out for what it really is. The Anti-abortion movement, whether intentionally or not, has fanned the flames of domestic terrorism. Dr. George Tiller's assasination yesterday, as he stood in the door of his church, is the DIRECT RESULT of decades of the "Abortion is murder" campaign. I don't care how "mainstream" or "peaceful" a group alleges to be, if they go around spouting the abortion is murder line, they have helped create the climate of hatred that spawned this attack. In a reply to a post on Pandagon, I summed up my position on what needs to be done about this:

The so called condemnations of Dr. Tiller's assassination were anything but. They never once condemned the parties responsible inciting this kind of violence, never once called for all of the "pro-life" faithful to renounce such people or tactics. The National Review fanned the flames even more by continuously referring to Dr. tiller as an "abortionist" or even "late-term abortionist". Someone needs to call them on this at a national level. NARAL's response, while doing a good job of highlighting the pattern of ant-abortion violence, fails to make the critical connection between the mainstream rhetoric and the violence itself. Planned Parenthood never even approaches the connection. NOW is the only prominent national organization I've seen thus far to call this out-and-out terrorism. Dr. Warren Hern, another late-term abortion provider said exactly the right thing in his interview with the Wichita Eagle:

Warren Hern, a Colorado physician and close friend of Tiller's -- who described himself now as "the only doctor in the world" who performs very-late-term abortions -- said Tiller's death was predictable.

"I think it's the inevitable consequence of more than 35 years of constant anti-abortion terrorism, harassment and violence," he said.

When Obama was elected last fall, Hern predicted that anti-abortion violence would increase, he said. Because Obama supports legalized abortion, Hern said, its foes "have lost ground.... They want the doctors dead, and they invite people to assassinate us. No wonder that this happens.

"I am next on the list."

This is the message that needs to be repeated endlessly. I don't have much of a soapbox- I think I have about three regular readers at my blog ;-). However, Pandagon reaches a lot of folks, and I know there are readers here who have well-read sites, too. Let's spread the word that the time is past to be conciliatory, to pretend that the "abortion is murder" rhetoric has no bearing on actual terrorist acts. I'm going to contact NARAL and Planned Parenthood, urging them to issue stronger statements highlighting the link. If anyone else has media contacts, or ideas, let me know- you can comment on my blog, or react to my comment here. This is intensely personal for me, as it literally "hits me where I live"- the suspect in this case is from my metro area.

Please join with me in setting the record straight. We didn't start this "culture war" crap, but we've got to meet in face on.

The Good Stuff!

2009-05-27T18:42:00.001-07:00

Mmmm. I got some of my favorite soda today- Apple Sidra. It's sooo yummy. It's kind of hard to describe- apple flavored battery acid is what comes to mind. Seriously, this is some super-carbonated stuff! I can almost feel my tooth enamel being eaten off when I drink this. It's from Taiwan, and like most Asian soda, its not as cloyingly sweet as American soda. I really prefer Asian sweets in general, as they seem to strike a better balance between sweet and flavor. Go and try some Apple Sidra today!

Yawn. Yep. Boring As Hell.

2009-05-18T19:43:00.000-07:00

Well, if this doesn't beat all. From the woman who thinks... women are stupid. "This just in! Atheists are boring! Really, they are. So boring, in fact, I've got to write about...how boring they are."

Really, Charlotte Allen? "Boohoo victimism"? Is that anything like voodoo economics? Wow. I'm hoping this article is meant to be ironic, as in, "Look! I'm going to make all of these arguments about other people being meanie mean meanies, and just to up the ante, I'll use every single tactic I excoriate them for in my own arguments."

I for one, have nothing against meanie mean meanies. But I do really rankle at hypocrites, which is what Ms. Allen is being in this take on atheists.

Unintentional Irony in italics.

My problem with atheists is their tiresome -- and way old -- insistence that they are being oppressed and their fixation with the fine points of Christianity. What -- did their Sunday school teachers flog their behinds with a Bible when they were kids?

Charlotte Allen is taking this opportunity to berate atheists for their supposed victimization complex, and their odd "fixation" on religion, in an article saying meanie atheists should stop picking on believers, because C. Allen's exhaustive study of What Atheists Believe has found their beliefs wanting.

Pot? Kettle?

Read Dawkins, or Hitchens, or the works of fellow atheists Sam Harris ("The End of Faith") and Daniel Dennett ("Breaking the Spell"), or visit an atheist website or blog (there are zillions of them, bearing such titles as "God Is for Suckers," "God Is Imaginary" and "God Is Pretend"), and your eyes will glaze over as you peruse -- again and again -- the obsessively tiny range of topics around which atheists circle like water in a drain.

Charlotte Allen is surprised and disgusted to find atheists talking about atheism in books on atheism and websites on atheism, so she writes an article on atheisim...to point that out (and talks about atheism in the process). I mean, the audacity of those windbags! talking about atheism on an atheism blog or in an atheism book like its a valid topic, or something? Where is Dawkins' Best Cinnamon Rolls Ever! recipe in "The God Delusion"? Why doesn't the "God is Imaginary" website offer more celebrity gossip- that's what Charlotte Allen wants to know!

First off, there's atheist victimology: Boohoo, everybody hates us 'cuz we don't believe in God. Although a recent Pew Forum survey on religion found that 16% of Americans describe themselves as religiously unaffiliated, only 1.6% call themselves atheists...Maybe atheists wouldn't be so unpopular if they stopped beating the drum until the hide splits on their second-favorite topic: How stupid people are who believe in God.

Now, Charolotte Allen will conclusively put the nail in the coffin of the atheists' whiny argument that they are unpopular, by pointing out how unpopular they are. In a mocking way. I think that really speaks for itself.

Then there's P.Z. Myers, biology professor at the University of Minnesota's Morris campus, whose blog, Pharyngula, is supposedly about Myers' field, evolutionary biology, but is actually about his fanatical propensity to label religious believers as "idiots," "morons," "loony" or "imbecilic" in nearly every post. The university deactivated its link to Myers' blog in July after he posted a photo of a consecrated host from a Mass that he had pierced with a rusty nail and thrown into the garbage ("I hope Jesus' tetanus shots are up to date") in an effort to prove that Catholicism is bunk -- or something.

Charolotte Allen wants to assure us that no one, in fact is trying to silence the wacky atheists, by pointing out that an atheists' blog which was found 'offensive' was de-linked from an institutional website. Again, with a heavy dose of snark. I actually read Pharyngula, was reading during the hubub, and Charlotte is leaving out one crucial point- while PZ was calling the belief that a cracker becomes the body of a dead mangod "loony", those sweet believers were leveling death threats at him. Who is being outlandish and incendiary, again?

Another topic that atheists beat like the hammer on the anvil in the old Anacin commercials is Darwinism versus creationism. Maybe Darwin-o-mania stems from the fact that this year marks the bicentennial of Charles Darwin's birth in 1809, but haven't atheists heard that many religious people (including the late Pope John Paul II) don't have a problem with evolution but, rather, regard it as God's way of letting his living creation unfold? Furthermore, even if human nature as we know it is a matter of lucky adaptations, how exactly does that disprove the existence of God?

Charlotte is in rare form now. How dare those brutish atheists get all worked up over evolution (does anyone really call it Darwinism any more? I thought that went out with the Scopes trial). She takes them to task for their incessant re-hashing of the same old tropes...by throwing out the oldest, tropeist trope- "God isn't disproved by evolution, 'cause maybe evolution was really His idea! NaaaNaa!" Clearly, no atheist has ever heard that before. And obviously, Charlotte is missing the point entirely if she thinks "...many religious people (including the late Pope John Paul II) don't have a problem with evolution but, rather, regard it as God's way of letting his living creation unfold?" is anything but the very thing atheists would take issue with. Psst- here's a clue, Charlotte- atheists don't believe God exists! That would be like an atheist saying to a Christian, "Gee. I think "God" is just an evolutionary adaptation of the human brain. We really believe the same thing, buddy!"

The problem with atheists -- and what makes them such excruciating snoozes -- is that few of them are interested in making serious metaphysical or epistemological arguments against God's existence, or in taking on the serious arguments that theologians have made attempting to reconcile, say, God's omniscience with free will or God's goodness with human suffering. Atheists seem to assume that the whole idea of God is a ridiculous absurdity, the "flying spaghetti monster" of atheists' typically lame jokes. They think that lobbing a few Gaza-style rockets accusing God of failing to create a world more to their liking ("If there's a God, why aren't I rich?" "If there's a God, why didn't he give me two heads so I could sleep with one head while I get some work done with the other?") will suffice to knock down the entire edifice of belief.

Oh, ho! Now we get to the meat of it! Charlotte is going to enlighten us as to the real problem with atheists. They don't engage in intellectually honest or rigorous arguments with believers! To that end, she's going to let a brief listing of the titles of some recent, serious books on this very subject stand in for a real takedown of any of the arguments these works present, and instead, poke at some strawmen ("If there's a God, why aren't I rich?" is just the absolute basis of Dawkins, Hitchens, Denett, et al's works, doncha know?). Flying Spaghetti Monster! LOL! That's not intellectually dishonest in the slightest, now is it?

What atheists don't seem to realize is that even for believers, faith is never easy in this world of injustice, pain and delusion. Even for believers, God exists just beyond the scrim of the senses. So, atheists, how about losing the tired sarcasm and boring self-pity and engaging believers seriously?

Finally, for her coup de grace, Charlotte wishes to take those nasty atheists to task for their boring, hurtful screeds that harp on the fact that there is no proof that God exists, and its silly to believe in something that there is no proof for, by boldly asserting that even believers can muster no real proof for God. Way to go, Charlotte! Knockout punch! That'll teach those uppity atheists!

...or will it? Whaaaahahahah!!!!

Mush and Peanut On Creationism

Mush and Peanut Ride Again

2009-05-15T21:42:00.000-07:00

This movie thing is just too much fun. I really love the odd inflections of the compu-voices. I know it wouldn't work for everything, but it's parody gold! Here's some more Mush and Peanut insanity. I particularly like the abstinence-only ed cartoon. Enjoy!

More Mush and Peanut- the Abortion Debate

2009-05-14T15:32:00.000-07:00

Woo hoo, am I on a roll! More of my self-styled conservative commentator "Mush" and his idiotic conversations with Peanut, his daughter. I'm making myself laugh, at any rate, and the little movie making website xtranormal.com is a blast. Viva la technology! Let me know what you think of my creations.

Mush and Peanut- my newest project

2009-05-14T13:20:00.000-07:00

On Omnipotence and Omniscience, Or a Response to The Prophecy I &II

2009-04-19T15:06:00.000-07:00

Well, sure. This is pretty fluffy too. But what the hey- fluffy is good, right?

I just watched the movies The Prophecy and the Prophecy II, and aside from strengthening my conviction that Christopher Walken is the creepiest guy ever (in a good way, mind you), these movies got me asking some questions. Here is a brief synopsis of the movie(s) if you are unfamiliar with them.

1. If God is omnipotent and omniscient, how could a "war in heaven" ever happen, unless God wanted it to happen? Sure, yeah- the movies are 100% made up bunk, but there are people who believe that "Lucifer" was an angel who was cast out of heaven because he fomented an uprising against God. So the question stands.

2. Are angels corporeal beings? Beings of spirit?

3.Why would God "need" angels to do anything for God? Re: omnipotence and omniscience.

4. If angels have no "souls", but obviously have a measure of free will, what is a "soul" anyway?

5.When an angel "dies", where does it go?

6. Where did angels get the reputation of being "good"? If they do God's bidding, they are really just neutral actors. The one recorded instance of an angel acting on his own will gives us a version of the "creation of Hell" story.

The movies, of course, never really answer any of these questions. Nothing else answers them very clearly, either. All of these questions could be as easily applied to other religious ideas. Omnipotence and omniscience are particularly problematic- really, you could substitute about anything unsavory for "war in heaven" and really have the same outcome. Why is there war,famine, plague, teabaggers (sorry-had to put that in there), etc? If God knows/controls all, why the bad stuff? A lot of people answer with the old, "God's will is inscrutable" stuff, but that holds no water with me. I could almost buy it if it wasn't for this nagging conscience thing we have that makes us see things as "good" or "bad" instead of all just "God's will". Why make us like that? Why make us agonize over things, when we just as easily could have been programmed to respond with indifference? Unless, of course, God isn't benevolent, but is omnipotent and omniscient...

That's the answer I always arrive at. If I believe God exists, and is omniscient and omnipotent, I also have to believe God is malevolent, or best-case, neutral. Otherwise, I've got to conclude there is no God, or that God has limits, and can't make all of the bad stuff go away. Which isn't really what the movies were trying to get at, I suspect, but nevertheless, they make a good case for one of these answers.

The whole thing is such a house of cards. Of course, it doesn't help that I am skeptical by nature, but sheesh. How could anyone be all right with these internal contradictions? It was hard enough just suspending disbelief long enough to watch the movies. I can't imagine how hard it would be to suspend disbelief long enough to live by this stuff.

It's Been a While- Random Stuff Roundup

2009-04-19T14:46:00.000-07:00

Yeah, I know. Seven months. That's a long time. I've been busy. Besides, I'm sure all three of you have found other amusements on the web. What has been inspiring me lately? Here's the list:

Retro Renovation

I love 20th century history- its one of my passions. I stumbled across the following website a while back, and I can honestly say I'm in love.

http://retrorenovation.com/

Save The Pink Bathrooms

A sister project from the folks at Retro Renovation, I love looking through the bathroom pics. I can't wait to upload the pic of my gram's sweet 1960's upstairs pink bathroom.

http://savethepinkbathrooms.com/

Marina Style Safeway Stores

Again, a tangent off of my 20th century love-a-thon. I've always liked those swoopy 60's rooflines. Now, I realize I'm not alone. We've got an old Marina Safeway building in our town that's standing vacant. I wonder if it is for sale? Perhaps being a grocer is in the cards for me...

Marina Safeway pic

Japan Cat Network

I love Japan. I love cats. What, then, was not to like in the CatFancy article I read about this awesome organization in Japan that is helping feral cats? I may have to take them up on their offer for the "volunteer vacationer" deal where they find you free accommodations in Japan if you volunteer part time while there.

Japan Cat Network

That's it for the "fluffy stuff". Spring has sprung, and hopefully I'll be lest tired/grouchy/beat down, and more prone to post.

Chris Muir- I Just Don't Get It

2008-09-03T21:17:00.000-07:00

Is the funny comic thing SO over, and I just missed the memo? Apparently so. I've been casting about, looking (unsuccessfully) for a funny comic strip to read. Someone on Pandagon had linked to Chris Muir's Day By Day, and even though they had unfavorable things to say about the site, I followed the link. Big mistake.

I just have a few questions.

1. Why are the women always in various states of undress? I'm not just talking scantily clad, I'm talking running around in panties. Are women in panties funnier than fully-clothed women?

2. Why aren't the men in various states of undress? Are fully clothed men funnier, or more ironic?

3. Why do both of the men have skeevy facial hair, and pretty much look like each other, except one is black, and one is white? Is facial hair supposed to be funny? Or cool? I bet C. Muir has facial hair. Any takers?

4. Are the little character bios supposed to be jokes? They are the only funny thing on the site.

"Zed- 45 year old seen-it-all ex military sniper. Not ready for the civilian workforce, he takes on any work that will help his family, daughters Mari and Kiko, and wife Sam."

"Sam- Smoldering redhead who finds herself as a new mom with two daughters at age 39 with her husband Zed. An engineer, she's often in conflict with her overwhelming feminine side."

From this, I can conclude a few things: 1.) Cartoon ex-snipers have more fun than real ex-snipers (I know one. You wouldn't want to write a comic about him. On second thought, maybe you would...) 2.) Chris Muir has never been a woman. Or an engineer. 3.)In an earlier cartoon, he must explain the logic behind Sam the engineer dropping out of the workforce to raise the kids, while the ex sniper who isn't "ready" for civilian jobs takes whatever he can scrounge. I'll bet that explanation has something to do with Sam's "overwhelming" femininity that "compels" her to the mommy track.

5. What's up with "smoldering" Sam and her twin baybees? Why is she always juggling them? They have no point. Kinda like real baybees, only these comic baybees have cool Japanese names. Why are people fascinated with the idea of twins?

6. Chris Muir is a little confused. Check out the 8/29 strip, second panel. http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2008/08/29/

Which of these things is not like the other? Oh, yeah. "No Child Left Behind" was a Bush policy, not something concocted by the "liberals". Unlike tofu, of course. Tofu is definitely a liberal plot. But why, then, does Muir have hip ex-sniper Zed and brainy-but-smouldering-and so VERY feminine Sam naming their spawn after...Tofu eaters?! Also, in the 8/19 panel, he has hot-as-hell redhead sexpot Sam breastfeeding one of the twins, but on 8/24, she's bottle feeding. Does she breastfeed one twin, and bottle feed the other? Is this perhaps some cruel experiment? Or maybe Muir doesn't know squat about baybees (or women), and just thinks its hawt to draw women being motherly.

7. Is this a political strip, ala Doonesbury, or a parody of a political strip? I hope it's the later. If it's the former... Read this strip- http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2008/09/01/ Where is the Republican National Convention again? Oh, yeah. St. Paul, Minnesota.

Wow. Show me the unfunny, Mr. Muir.

I Am A Feminist Because...

2008-08-28T21:09:00.000-07:00

I'll see if I can start one of those goofy chain-letter things where people answer a question, then pass it on. I'm talking to you, my big Three Readers!

I am a feminist because...

I think there are plenty of reasons to declare me incompetent that have absolutely nothing to do with what is between my legs. As a matter of fact, I think my genitalia are some of my least offensive features.

What say you?

Entitlement: Political Edition

2008-08-08T19:55:00.000-07:00

Today, I saw the story about John Edwards' affair.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/edwards_affair

I can't say I'm surprised, but I CAN say that I'm pissed. And no, I'm not some anti-sex prude. I don't really care who someone has sex with, as long as it is consensual, and doesn't hurt anyone, and isn't a part of a larger betrayal of trust. But when it crosses one of those lines, then yeah, I have a problem with it.

I have an even bigger problem with politicians engaging in stuff like this, because I think it really does show a huge character flaw when someone will willingly lie to, hurt, or exploit a family member.

If Edwards would willingly break his word to Elizabeth, why wouldn't he break his word to the American public?

I am particularly upset by Edwards' own take on the situation:

After the story broke Friday, Edwards released a statement that said, "In
2006, I made a serious error in judgment and conducted myself in a way that was
disloyal to my family and to my core beliefs. I recognized my mistake, and I
told my wife that I had a liaison with another woman, and I asked for her
forgiveness. Although I was honest in every painful detail with my family, I did
not tell the public."

He admits this was disloyal to his family AND his core beliefs, yet he did it anyway. He was "honest" with his wife, after the fact, but he elected not to tell the public. Why?

"I was and am ashamed of my conduct and choices," he said. "With my family,
I took responsibility for my actions in 2006, and today I take full
responsibility publicly."

Because he was ashamed. Even though he had been disloyal to his core values, and was readying to campaign to be the President, and earlier ran for Vice President, and frequently questioned his opponents' "loyalty" to their "core values". But the public didn't deserve to know about his own disloyalty? And how "honest" has he been about the affair, even when pushed?

Last month, the Enquirer carried another story — the blaring headline
referred to an Edwards "love child" — stating that its reporters had accosted
Edwards in a Los Angeles hotel where he had met with Hunter after her child's
birth. Edwards called it "tabloid trash," but he generally avoided reporters'
inquiries, as did his former top aides.
He said in his statement Friday he
had "used the fact that the story contained many falsities to deny it," and he
called that "being 99 percent honest."

99 percent honest, eh? I wonder if he would be "99 percent" honest about his campaign funding sources, or if elected, "99 percent" honest about why he called a military strike on another country.

Does that sound familiar at all?

So why would Edwards do this?

"In the course of several campaigns, I started to believe that I was
special and became increasingly egocentric and narcissistic. If you want to beat
me up feel free. You cannot beat me up more than I have already beaten up
myself. I have been stripped bare and will now work with everything I have to
help my family and others who need my help."

Aw, c'mon, John. I bet I could beat you up more than you've beaten yourself up.

Frankly, I'm not really getting the vibe that John has beaten himself up over this much at all. Why?

In an interview, scheduled to air on ABC News' "Nightline" Friday night,
Edwards said the tabloid was correct when it reported on his meeting with Hunter
at the Beverly Hills Hilton last month.

That sounds like the act of a guilt-ridden, repentant man, doesn't it?

This just makes me sick. But what makes me sicker is the defense this behavior is getting from people who know a thing or two about the patriarchy, entitlement, and being left to twist in the political wind. This from Amanda Marcotte, over at Pandagon:

Edwards, as far as I know, has never been a “sanctity of marriage” wanker,
and so this is officially None Of Our Business, and anyone who dogged him on
this story should be fired on the principle that they don’t know journalism from
rooting around in the trash. Hypocrisy is a story; human weakness is
not.

I’m not going to get on a high horse about his judgment, because
he didn’t get on a high horse with me about mine. That’s all I’m going to
say about that.

Only, of course Edwards HAD been a hypocrite, denouncing Bill Clinton for his sex scandal back in 1999. But that isn't really the point. The point is, yeah, a person's personal life IS a valid story, when that person's deportment in their personal life just seethes with patriarchal entitlement, and he is willing to callously walk over the people beneath him when those people no longer have any particular use for him.

And how did he handle that whole ridiculous screed against Amanda, when she was blogging for him? He should have stood up for her; he should have told the Catholic League and her other detractors that her personal views, while expressed in ways that might have been inappropriate, were hers, and had no bearing on her work for him. He should have defended her, but he didn't. I cannot believe, not for one minute, that he would allow her to be hired to write for his campaign without knowing her personal beliefs on the religion issue. As long as her audacity was working for him, it was fine. When it wasn't... She was of the disposable class, so he let her twist. Just like he let his wife twist.

Edwards, sadly, is not alone. Many, if not most politicians have these feelings of entitlement. Just like John, they start to feel they are "special", and become "egocentric". The privilege they have is unfathomable. They get enmeshed in a win-at-all-costs mentality.

And we let them do it. Every time we give this kind of behavior a pass, we feed the ego machine. I don't want to get into dictating morality, but if a person actively engages in a monogamous relationship, then violates the parameters they themselves set for that relationship, it has wider implications, ethical implications we can't ignore.

And yes, I believe this is a feminist issue. A contractual obligation is no less a contractual obligation because it is made with a woman in the context of a marriage. The old "Boys will be boys" trope has allowed men to skip out of infidelity unscathed for a long time, and women are simply held to a different standard of accountability. The "slut shaming" that goes on with the Lewinskys and the Hunters involved in these high-profile cases does no service to women anywhere. The person primarily responsible for ethical misconduct in an affair is the person who is breaking their vows. Period.

I don't care how "good" Edwards or any other politician is on other issues- when they are guilty of severe ethical misconduct, they need to be called on it. We need to stop enabling bad behavior, and hold politicians to higher ethical standards. We have to make the hard choice to speak out against and vote out politicians who can't be trusted. Why? Well, to sum it up, in Edwards' own words:

"If we want to live in a moral, honest just America and if we want to live
in a moral and just world, we can't wait for somebody else to do it. We have to
do it."

Tennesee Valley Unitarian Universalist Shooting

2008-07-30T09:22:00.000-07:00

I had to spend a couple of days reflecting on this. My first instinct was some sort of angry screed that contained about fifty "fuck yous" hurled in the general direction of the asshole who opened fire, and all those who would support his actions based on the premise that UU's "deserve" horror like this because they aren't a "real" church.

I've calmed down a little. I don't think I'll get to the "fuck yous". But I'm not 100% sure of that. We'll see.

For those who haven't followed the story, a man named Jim D. Adkisson walked into Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church on Sunday and opened fire with a shotgun as approximately 200 people watched a children's theatrical production based on "Annie". At this point, two are dead, and at least five others were seriously wounded. The motive seems to be that Adkisson's ex-wife had been a member of the church at some point, and he knew the church had liberal beliefs. He did not share those beliefs, and thought they were somehow to blame for his recent joblesness and overall condition. The church had also recently put up a banner welcoming gays.

This is the sad cost of America's "culture wars". For years, as a society, we have sat back while a small but vocal group of individuals have screamed about how "liberals" are trying to tear the "righteous" down, how gay rights are really a threat to heterosexuals, and only some churches are "true" churches. We have allowed these people to perpetuate the myth that this is a "Christian nation" founded on the principals they espouse, and that there is no room at the American table for anyone else. We have allowed the rhetoric of contempt for the "other" to reach a fever pitch in areas like the fight against terrorism and immigration. We have allowed them to frame things like the political fight for women's bodily autonomy in moral language, we have allowed them to reintroduce discredited creation myths into science classrooms in order to frame science as some sinister force trying to push out their religion. We have accepted the right of virulent attack groups like the Catholic League to bully and menace people who's only crime is not agreeing with them.

One man took all of this to heart. In his own deluded mind, he bought the rhetoric of the hateful "other". He bought the idea that this is "war". He took his shotgun into a crowded church, and started to shoot at the "enemy".

Adkisson's actions were simply the logical end result of such institutionalized hate.

This is all very personal to me, because I attend a UU church with my 9-year old son. We live in the midwest, and I've often worried that the "civil marriage is a civil right" banner on our building might invite the local knuckle-draggers to vandalize the church. We live in an area filled with people who buy into the culture war venom. Some just kind of accept it on a surface level, but get on with generally sane, decent lives. Others are true believer fanatics. All have the capacity to cause great hurt. It could have easily been my UU church attacked last Sunday.

The culture war needs to end. Now.

Non-Christians are Americans, too. This country was expressly founded on the principle of the separation of church and state. The Enlightenment thinkers who founded this country- Jefferson, Madison, Washington, etc. were the "liberals" of their time. Many were Unitarians. All of them had a huge problem with tyranny. What the culture warriors do today, they do in their own name, not the name of the founders of this country.

If you think none of this matters very much to you, think again. If you think you are immune because you are a Christian, think again. These people have a very narrow definition of "Christian". If you are reading this blog, I doubt you fit it.

We all have a vested interest in renewing the struggle for religious tolerance. All religions. And no religion. Each should be equally and rigorously protected by a populace who knows the danger of letting a majority steamroller a minority. When blowhard assholes want to inflame the passions of people against a group, we should be there to counteract that. We should be there to stand up and say, "Not on my watch." Actual discussion and debate is great. Everyone deserves to be heard. But like the famous supreme court decision pointed out, no one has the right to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. No one has the "right" to incite hate and violence against another group.

Unless we want more Jim Adkissons to heed the call to "war", we all better start working for peace.

Will The Real Feminist Please Stand Up?

2008-07-25T21:36:00.001-07:00

Well, it seems as though the feminist blogosphere is doing its semi-monthly implosion over who, exactly, is THE REAL FEMINIST, and who is the eevul shill for our Patriarchal Overloards, who are trying to convince us its cool to remove our floating ribs and wear whalebone corsets again.

Let me throw out a few things before I really get into this:

1. I know that not everyone who calls themselves (I'm going to use the incorrect gender-neutral plurals 'they' and'them', because I find the personal pronoun juggling cumbersome) a feminist is.

2. I know the MSM, among others, tries to sell women on "empowerful" popfem crap that is really just the same old patriarchal tripe.

3. Patriarchy is everywhere. It is the water we fish swim in.

Let me also talk about what I am referring to. Specifically, I am referring to this post on Feministe, the diatribe by FA linked to in the Feministe piece, this response at Renegade Evolution's place , and this piece from I Blame The Patriarchy.

Got all that? I hope so. Blogger HATES real html, so that was a real labor of love up there.

Now. The upshot of all of that is that- surprise! Some people think that "pretty" feminists aren't real feminists. "Feminist Anonymist", who I don't know, had some interesting things to say to women who fit within societal beauty norms-

If an ugly woman posts her picture on her blog, she is being transgressive.
But a pretty conventional woman doing that is performing the exact opposite
action. If you're going to show off your looks to gain approval from men don't
call yourself a feminist.

So, being ugly is transgressive? I'll have to remember that for future reference. FA seems to think the "sexxxyfunfeminists" have "let us down", the presumptive "us" in this case being "feminists"...because they weren't born transgressive enough?

Wowwie wow wow wow. I don't even know where to begin here. What a crazy can of worms. First of all, "ugly" by who's standards? FA's? Mine? Hugh Hefner's? Am I supposed to vet my pics from now on with the arbiter of ugly so as not to "let down" The Movement? Talk about New and Improved Oppression, Now With More Self-Loathing!

Twisty takes on this subject with a little more nuance, and links it to the "rape culture". Women who make themselves pretty buy into the rape culture. As do sex workers, which I will deal with in a moment. Now, Twisty's take on things has always been consistent, and a lot more coherent than the stuff I read at FA's. I like a lot what Twisty says. I buy the whole rape culture idea- we do treat women as consumables, and that's a huge problem. But here is where Twisty and I part ways- I still blame the patriarchy. Twisty apparently puts part of the blame on the "funfeminists" who "buy in" by making themselves conventionally attractive.

Please refer back to #3 above. Patriarchy is the water we swim in. We are fish in that ocean. EVERY single blessed thing we ever do is shaped by the patriarchy. Even if I rebel against it, I use techniques of resistance it taught me, and I legitimize its opression of me, because now I AM dangerous and antisocial. No one can get away from it. Why, oh why would anyone want to condemn any woman who is self-aware enough to know she is being used by the patriarchy and who is fighting back any way she can? And who among us is so stainless that we can judge anyone for capitulating? True "collaborators" are those who join in the shaming, blaming, and narrowing of women's horizons by telling them what they can and can't do.

Also, we've got to get away from the gender stereotyping crap ourselves. Just because society has named makeup or the color pink or shoes "feminine" doesn't mean they in fact are. Just because society has defined "feminine" as weak doesn't mean it is. The truth is much, much scarier for the patriarchs- "feminine" DOESN'T EVEN EXIST! I can think of many occasions where wearing makeup or donning heels could be a transgressive statement, especially when certain brands of patriarchy are tied up in modesty fetishization, and call those things immodest. No one size fits all, and no one knows better than the individual women in the individual circumstances they face what being "transgressive" truly is. And why this big push for transgression? Can't I wear standard clothes and still make a statement about my political and philosophical beliefs in other ways? Were the suffragists who marched in their corsets and long skirts not transgressive enough to count as feminists?

This all leads me to the sex work conundrum, because this is where the lines seem to be drawn the deepest. Over at Twisty's she lamented the fact that:

Meanwhile, in Afghanistan, while privileged Western dudes continue to
reward funfeminists who “choose” to ironically embrace the
hilarious trappings
of rape culture, the ripples they make in the global
misogyny continuum aren’t
so funny: “I am a widow
and I have to feed my five children. I am illiterate and no one will give me
a
job. I hate to be a prostitute but if I stop doing this job my children
will
starve to death.”

Really, Twisty? A woman who wears heels or who works as a stripper is making the woman in Afghanistan suffer as a prostitute? Sorry- here I thought that was the patriarchy again. The sad fact is that a lot of women are pushed into prostitution out of desperation- here in the US, and abroad. It's sad. It's deplorable. But really, it isn't the fault of women who embrace sex work. It's the fault of societies that accord no respect to women, which have no safety nets to help impoverished families, and which often pass laws that make sex work a dangerous, unregulated sector of society that largely passes under the radar. This, along with the fundamental disregard society shows for "fallen women", makes their lot precarious.

Just because sex work has been labeled as "dirty" and "bad" by the patriarchy doesn't make it so. Women can and do choose to do this kind of work (as much as anyone can choose anything in an oppressive system). The answer isn't to limit women's choices. The answer is to legitimate all choices, and give more women the chance to choose.

As I see it, all of this hoo ha boils down to one real issue- short term v. long term goals. Short term goals tend to revolve around making things better for the people right here, right now. Changing laws usually falls into this category. Most of the big landmarks in the feminist movement- suffrage, access to education, liberalized divorce laws, liberalized employment laws, etc. fall under this category. These tend to be easier changes to make, because they are more concrete.

Then, there are the long-term goals. These are the "revolutionary" ideas of actually changing the philosophy that underpins patriarchy. This is the hearts and mind stuff. I'm not saying changing laws is easy, but it's a walk in the park compared to this. Change in these areas moves at a glacial pace- lifetimes go by with only the smallest shifts being made here.

Both are important. Both need to get done. People who focus on the long term, I am convinced, are the ones who see "funfeminists" as a disappointment. They want to go for the "big idea" things, start the revolution of ideas. But ironically, the spark that starts the revolution of ideas is usually the short-term goal action. The women who make sex work safer and more respectable slowly start to tear down the madonna/whore dichotomy. Women who focus on affordable daycare and health care normalize the consideration of "women's issues" as general quality of life issues. The winning of specific "rights" forces society to look at women as full citizens. See how it all hangs together?

People who care about women being treated as full human beings are feminists. Pretty or ugly, lipstick or no. We can differ on the particulars, but of that fundamental fact, there can be no argument. Divisions and labels are arbitrary, and are placed upon women by the patriarchy.

I don't want to prop up those divisions any more.

Plan B Panic

2008-07-25T10:10:00.000-07:00

Well, I just had every person who uses contraception's worst nightmare- contraception failure. It was actually more akin to "user error", but the end result- unprotected sex- was the same. The upside to all of this was that I was able to get my hands on some Plan B seven hours after failure, with very little hassle. The first drugstore I called- my local Walgreens- had it in stock, and the whole transaction took less than five minutes, and was totally hassle-free. That's no mean feat, considering I live in the highly conservative Kansas City metro area.

The moral of this story? Don't have sex at 3:00 AM when you are groggy and out of it. Having to rely on condoms can suck. Thank the Universe that Plan B is available as an over the counter drug, and fight like hell to keep it that way.

Oh, yeah. Wish me luck.

Don't Break Up- Break EVEN!*

2008-07-23T18:10:00.000-07:00

* Cheesy pun intended.

Here's some more world-famous Neko Relationship Advice. Nothing in particular inspired this, except for the paucity of reasonable advice about breaking up. Oh, sure. Advice columnists love to wax poetic about starting relationships and maintaining relationships, and even repairing relationships, but no one has too much to say about ending them. So here's my take on the whole deal. Notice I didn't say here's my reasonable advice. I'm not really sure if it is reasonable or not. It's just how I would like to be broken up with, not that it has ever happened like this. Or probably ever will. 'Cause the people I hook up with tend not to read this kind of stuff.

NOTE- This advice in no way pertains to people who feel they are in an abusive relationship, or who fear violence from their partner. If you are being abused, you don't owe anyone anything. Do whatever you feel you need to do to keep yourself safe. Really.

When you decide to end a relationship, it can be hard to know what to do. Emotions are running high, and often, people just make things worse when they try to make a graceful exit from a relationship. So, below are a few things you can do to help smooth the transition for yourself, and your soon-to-be-ex-partner.

A few helpful definitions- the following are terms I will be using:

Dump- This is what you are doing, really. You are dumping your partner. Aren't comfortable with this term? Good. You shouldn't be. Don't try to sugarcoat this. Believe me, it only backfires in the end.

Dumper, AKA "Bad Guy"- That would be you, at least from your partner's perspective. Get used to it.

Dumpee, AKA "Victim"- That would be your partner. This is how they see things.

Committed Relationship- If you have been with your partner for a few months or more, if you live with them, if you or they have used the word "committed", "serious", "exclusive", or "monogamous" to describe your relationship, if you have made big purchases/decisions together, etc., you have a committed relationship. If none of this applies, you have a casual relationship, and a quick good-bye phone call should be enough.

OK. Now we've established some definitions. Let's get to it, shall we?

1. Think before you leap. Nothing is worse than having the drama of a dumping, only to have the dumper come slithering back in a few hours/days/weeks begging forgiveness. If you are the dumper, this makes you look bad. If you are the dumpee, it makes you go through a lot of needless heartbreak. Either way, it doesn't do good things for trust in the relationship. A committed relationship, is,by definition, something both partners have invested some time and energy into, so be sure you really want to end things before you go through with it. You've been together for a while, what could a few more days or weeks hurt? Once you've made up your mind, don't waver.

2. Plan Ahead. If you live together, think about what the arrangements are going to look like post-dumping. If you live at your partner's place, have another place ready. If you both co-own or lease, have some contingency worked out to sublease, or be prepared to buy out their interest/sell out your interest. If it is your place, make sure you give your partner reasonable time to find someplace new. If you co-own things, have an idea of how to divide things up. Remember, it is you who is electing to leave. therefore, if there is any hardship to be borne, YOU should bear it.

3. Be direct and honest. Don't beat around the bush. Hopefully, you and your partner have been communicating about the relationship, so this dumping shouldn't come as a total shock. If not... it WILL come as a total shock to them. Be prepared for this. Know exactly why you are leaving. Don't say "I don't know." Don't lie. If another person is involved, tell your partner-- they will usually find out at some point anyway, and it's better they hear it from the horse's mouth. Be ready to answer questions. Your partner will likely have some. Again, you need to be firm. If you waver, you just make things harder.

4. Expect drama. The dumpee is going to have an opinion about what you are doing. they will usually express this opinion through crying, yelling, pleading, etc. That's OK. They deserve to have this chance to respond. You need to be ready for this, and you need to accept it. If they veer into the violent or crazy, get the heck out of there. If they don't, be patient, and take it. From their perspective, you deserve it. You are either going to hear it now, or hear it later. You might as well get it over with, and give them a chance to vent. Don't tell them you are sorry, don't tell them you don't want to hurt them, etc. You have weighed your emotional well-being against theirs, and decided yours was more important. You are entitled to make that call, but don't be patronizing about it.

5. Never, ever be "just friends". Ex lovers do not good friends make. It just keeps false hope alive, or continues the friction that necessitated the dumping in the first place. No, if you dump someone, you can't really qualify as a "friend". Maybe, after time has passed, and both parties have moved on, a cordial relationship can be re-established, but don't bet on it. Old hurts die hard.

6. No mercy fucks, last flings, etc. Again, when it is over, its over. Don't call them looking for love on a lonely night, don't accept calls from them looking for love. It never works out well.

Having a relationship end sucks, but you don't have to. Treat the other person LIKE a person, expect some unhappiness, and move forward decisively. One day, they'll thank you for it, and you will too.

More Dating Advice, Gender-Essentialist Style

2008-07-15T20:05:00.000-07:00

Oh, you know me and my dating advice. I can never get enough. Yahoo has delivered the goods again, this time with David Wygant's "Six Dating Behaviors That Scare Single Men Away".

First, I gotta say this guy is list obsessed. all of the other things he has written are "10"this and "14 "that. Most all of them, of course, are aimed at what women do wrong, or what men need to do to "catch" women. Ugh.

In the spirit of my usual flying finger to all gender-essentialist bullcrap, I offer the following counterpoints to Wygant's "Six" behaviors guaranteed to turn off single men.

Wygant- 1. Trash-talking your ex. Don't talk negatively about an ex-boyfriend in front of a guy you're dating. I don't care if you're on your first date or on your 15th date with a guy, don't ever trash-talk your ex. Your ex is somebody you dated, invited into your life, and with whom you spent a lot of time. So don't talk negatively about your ex in any way, because what a guy thinks when you do this is that if he ever becomes your ex that you're going to trash-talk him the same way. So, when a man asks you about your ex, you can politely say, "We are no longer together. It was a great relationship while it lasted, and I learned a lot." That's it.

Neko- 1. Don't Expect women to be soulless mannequins. Nothing pisses me off more than the old saw that men just want you to be perky, Perky! And talk about happy things like potato chips and the weather. Let them know you have-gasp- feelings, and baby, it's all over. This particularly pisses me off when many guys make a habit of specifically targeting women on the "rebound" because they think they'll be easier to manipulate. Better advice- Expect the women you date to have emotions. If you are knowingly dating a woman who has just ended a relationship, expect their to be some ex-talk. Of course, anyone going on in rude ranting-and-raving form is going to be a turnoff, but someone electing to share some of her feelings is not necessarily ranting and raving. And here's a shocker- women can and do experience anger, too. Sometimes emotions-talk will be about anger. If you want to make a person who is opening up about a past hurt feel better, be willing to share with her, too. Let her know you can empathize, and that you don't want to repeat old patterns, and before long, the talk is most likely going to center on this relationship and not the last one.

Wygant- 2. Paranoia Runs Rampant. Here you are dating a man you really like, and the first couple of weeks are going well. Then, that first boys' night out happens. In the beginning, you send him a text that says, "Have a great time tonight!" As the night progresses, however, seeds of doubt start forming in your mind about what he's doing, and you start to think "Is he cheating on me? Is he flirting with other women? Where is he right now?" So then, you lob another text in to him asking "What's going on? What are you doing right now?" Even though he tells you he's just hanging out with his friends, you proceed to make a major blunder:
You start checking up on him with continuous texts throughout the night. This paranoia will push a man away.
You start checking up on him with continuous texts throughout the night. This paranoia will push a man away. So when you are dating a man and he's out with his friends, respect his "guy time" -- it will make you the cool woman he's always wanted to find.

Neko- 2. The truth hurts. All women aren't paranoid psychos who are out to "control" men. sorry- it just isn't true. And if men don't like women checking up on them- they shouldn't cheat! Our society does a lovely job inculcating in women the belief that men just want to fuck around, and sooner or later, they WILL cheat. Add to that the actual experience with cheating partners many women have had, and you can't really blame them for getting a little nervous, can you? Better advice- Be honest and up front with women. If you want an open relationship, say so. If she doesn't, move on. Don't play up male cheating stereotypes by constantly ogling other women and flirting shamelessly in front of your partner. If you want to go on a "guys night" in a new relationship, and your partner is nervous, ask her along. Show her there is nothing to fear. If she's worth calling a girlfriend, she is worth treating AS a friend. Don't just dismiss her. if she gets too paranoid, talk to her. If she doesn't have legitimate reasons for her mistrust, move on. But above all else, be willing to communicate. Oh, and figure it out- women don't want to be "that cool woman he's always wanted to find". They want to be themselves.

Wygant-3. Trash-talking other women. A huge mistake many women make is trash-talking other women in front of the man they're dating. For example, you are out with him when a woman walks by wearing a skimpy short skirt. You say, "Look how promiscuous that woman looks! I can't believe she is going around in public like that!" What you are doing when you make comments like this to a guy you're dating is telling him that you're not confident in the way you look. It tells him that you don't love who you are and haven't embraced your own body. You are planting a seed of doubt in him, causing him to wonder if he he should date someone else who is more confident (and tolerant). Don't trash-talk other women. It makes you look really insecure.

Neko- 3. Don't be the pot calling the kettle black. Men trash-talk other men, too. News flash- insecurity happens. Any person who goes around 100% secure in themselves is either a liar or an egomaniac. Sure, trash-talking people is bad. No one should do it. But people do. All the time. So what to do? Better advice- Get to the root of the problem. I'll talk more about women's insecurities in the next point, but suffice it to say, everyone can use an ego boost now and then. Make your partner feel good about herself with honest compliments, pay attention to her, and don't make her feel like you are always looking to upgrade to a better model. It'll amaze you how much less she will feel the need to run down other people if she feels good about herself.

Wygant- 4. Fishing for compliments. This is something that can drive a man crazy. Here is a typical scenario: The guy you're dating looks at you and says, "You really look beautiful tonight!" Ten minutes later, you look at him and ask, "How do I look tonight?" Stop fishing for compliments. Real compliments come from the heart. Allow us to compliment you when we really mean it. If we don't give a compliment at the exact moment you desire it, just accept it and be OK with that.

Neko- 4. Don't expect your partner to be bulletproof. Women's low self- esteem is a feature of the system, not a bug. Women are taught from an early age that they are only as good as they look, and that they look awful. Pretty screwed up, isn't it? Any woman who isn't always secretly hoping for compliments either is fully liberated from patriarchal gender-norming and beauty standards, (pretty rare), or lying to you and herself. And if a woman does like her looks? She's branded a stuck-up, self absorbed bitch. Better advice- Give your partner compliments. Understand the fucked-up system she navigates, and applaud her for her strength, don't ridicule her for her weaknesses. Give compliments about things other than the way she looks too, and clearly communicate to her that you like the way she looks, but the rest of her is even more important to you. Don't expect a woman to be "OK" with your thoughtlessness.

Wygant- 5. Clingy and possessive. You don't need to do everything together. You're still getting to know him. If there are things he likes to do that simply don't interest you, be cool with it. You don't have to be joined at the hip. If you are going to a cocktail party together, you don't have to be next to him at every moment. If you see him speaking with some woman at the party, do not immediately run over and start grabbing his hand and giving him a big hug -- and certainly don't do this all night long. You are being clingy and possessive when you do this.

Neko- 5. Get over yourself, all ready. Wanting to spend time with a new boyfriend isn't necessarily being clingy. It's called infatuation. People in the beginning stages of a relationship often want to spend every minute together possible. it usually wears off after a while, and then- OMG!- people tend to miss the "good old days" when every minute together was bliss. Insecurity can also be a factor in "clingy" behavior too, so refer to #4 and #5 above. Better advice- Enjoy the infatuation stage while you have it. If you don't find yourself wanting to be with your partner a lot, ask yourself why, and be honest with her about the answer. Set boundaries early on, and if things seem to be getting out of control, talk to your partner. Try to find activities the two of you can do together, instead of just doing things you want to do. Don't take your partner to a cocktail party where she knows no one else and expect her not to gravitate to you- the one person she knows- all night. And don't get flirty with other women and expect for her to nod and smile. If you really just want to play the field, do it, and stop pretending to be a boyfriend all ready.

Wygant-6. Pushing friends on him. Avoid pushing friends on us too soon. Example: A woman will hang out with a guy on the first or second date and say to him, "You have to meet my friends Jenna and Amy. You also have to meet my friends Phil and Anne; they're such a great couple, and you'll love them!" A man hears this and thinks, "I don't even know you yet. Can I get to know you for a month or two before I have to go meet all of your friends and be put on display as 'the boyfriend?'" We don't want to be "the boyfriend" right away. It's too much pressure. We want to get to know you slowly and learn what you're all about. Believe me, once we get to know you -- and like you -- we will be more willing to get to know all of your friends.

Neko- 6. Stop being antisocial. Women are taught that they gain status through relationships, and the romantic relationship is one of the most important status-givers for a woman. She's also showing off her "assets" to you- see how many people like her? Think this is screwy? No duh. Patriarchy is pretty illogical. But it's the system that gives you your male privilege, so you better not piss on it too much. Better advice- If a woman invites you to meet her friends, take it as the high compliment that it is. Again, set boundaries. Let her know how much time you are willing to spend with people you don't know. And if you don't want to be "the boyfriend" right away? Walk away now. Because I'm betting you won't feel like being the boyfriend any more in six weeks or six months. Seriously. if you are dating someone, and you don't even know if you "like" them yet, you are the one with the problem.

Wygant- Snappy conclusion. Following these tips will help you get past the first month of a new relationship with a man and avoid some of the major pitfalls that can end a new relationship before it even starts. Be the confident woman you really are so we have a chance to embrace you. Don't scare us off before we have a chance to get to know you!

Neko- Exasperated conclusion. Following these tips will help you see your partner as a real human being, and not just a cardboard cutout! Heck, it might even help you see that you are not, in fact, the center of the universe! And if these don't work? The relationship probably wouldn't have, either. Better to get out quick, rather than drag both people through the muck.

Oh, and if you know we are "confident women" you want to embrace, what's all the pissing and moaning about in the first place?

The Shame Machine

2008-06-24T12:11:00.000-07:00

Here are more of my promised ruminations about the Modern Screen magazine I bought. I have been busy writing and FINISHING (yay!) a novel, which I will talk about in a later post, so I am slow in getting this up. I will make the promised scans later. The Lysol Douche ad really needs to be seen to be believed.

I grabbed this one up because of the screaming "Divorce- the Shame of Hollywood" headline on the top. It made me laugh, what with the irony of it all. Divorce in 1950 Hollywood was shameful, but not nearly as shameful as divorce in 1950 middle America. But both still happened.

Why?

Well, all of the obvious reasons, I suspect. People finding out they just weren't compatible, infidelity, mismach of agendas, etc. So what did Modern Screen have to say to the whys of this Shame Epidemic in Hollywood? Nothing, actually.

The article in question starts out saying that statistics DO NOT point to there being more divorces in Hollywood than the general population. That, in and of itself, is interesting. The article went on to say that actually, there was just a lot more media coverage of Hollywood divorces, and that was what made them seem more numerous. Wouldn't the fundie-nut 50's lionizers just shit a brick when they realized that people of that time period were not, in fact living the Ozzie and Harriet dream? I am very surprised that the article is intellectually honest enough to admit the "Show Business" types weren't a uniquely sinful aberration in an otherwise peaceful marriage-loving society. What the article really is about is the toll divorce takes on children. As this was before joint custody became the norm, there were some odd and truly egregious situations befalling children of divorce who were often completely abandoned by one parent (usually the father), or torn apart from siblings in what was then a regular practice of awarding custody of one child to one parent, and custody of others to the other parent. The article actually goes to point out celebrity splits that work (Ronald Regan and Jane Wyman were cited as divorced parents who dealt well with the child-rearing issues). Why then, the sensationalized "Shame of Hollywood " headline when the article itself didn't match the tone?

You have to read the rest of the magazine for the answer to that. This magazine was obviously marketed to women, and all of it's contents point very strongly at a propping up of conventional gender roles. This magazine is a great "how-to" manual on Ideal Femininity, Circa 1950's. Every story, every picture, every ad glorifies femininity, chastises women who aren't feminine enough, and offers ways for women to buy their way into the good graces of society, and the men in their lives. Almost every ad plays upon fear, so it makes sense that the headline would, too. Women were obviously used to reacting to shame, and it probably felt good to them to think that someone else might be shameful, too.

Unfortunately, we haven't gotten too far from that shame tactic. Ads targeted at women still extol model femininity, and still imply that most women don't measure up. Advertisers have just gotten a little slicker in their delivery, and have had to dump some of the most patently dangerous and offensive material.

Modern Screen 1950

2008-06-17T21:56:00.000-07:00

I just found a February, 1950 Modern Screen magazine at a local thrift store today. Wow, is it packed with goodies! I'll probably spend a couple of posts delving into all of the stuff in here. For example, did you know that the ladies of the early 1950's :

were obsessed with douche
sometimes still used regular soap in their hair
thought the men in their lives would leave them for things like bad breath
were dismayed that Hollywood stars got divorced
measured their desirablity by how smooth their hands were
apparently didn't have dress sizes below 10
all looked like they were 35-40 years old

Hmmm. Some things have changed so much; others are just the same today as they were then. I know I'll have fun looking at all of this, and I'll try to provide lots of good scans, so that you can enjoy my little find, too!

Hmm- Are All Women A little Bit "Bi"?

2008-06-13T21:25:00.000-07:00

This is the question asked in a Salon.com article about women's sexuality. http://www.salon.com/mwt/broadsheet/2008/06/12/bisexuality/index.html?source=refresh The answer they seem to come up with is "yes". I think they were asking the wrong question, personally. I think the better question is, Are all people a little bit bi?"

Yes, they are, and is that really breaking news? I mean, how long has the whole "continuum" model of sexuality been around? Oh, yeah, that's right- since Kinsey in the 1940's. Silly me- that's just too recent for most people to have heard of, especially sex researchers, right?

Apparently, that's the case, because according to the article, researchers are still doing experiments designed to test whether or not "straight identified" people will respond to same-sex stimuli sexually. Why would this be, you ask? Here is my humble opinion.

First, let's back up to what the article says.

"Why are women so turned on by watching other women?" asks a doctor in a story on women and bisexuality in the New York Times. The
story, pegged to the screening of a new documentary called "Bi the Way,"
explores the idea that women's sexuality is more fluid than men's -- something
that most of us understand anecdotally, whether from pop-culture reports of
dalliances between Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson or from simply logging a
little time in college dorms.

Now, maybe I've been living under the same rock as the behind-the-times sex researchers I just took a swipe at, but I've never seen anything that would make me believe that "women's sexuality is more fluid than men's" except maybe for the proliferation of porn that purports to show lesbian sex, but that obviously is created by men for men, so that doesn't really count. Actually, from where I sit, lesbians are about the most invisible segment of our population, sexually. Quick quiz- when I say "homosexual", do you think two men, or two women? If you answered "men", you are probably in the majority. Lesbians make nice fodder for men's sexual fantasies (I think that's what fuels the old "women's dorm" trope above- I've never seen tons of hot lesbian action in dorms, and I've lived in/ been around several of 'em), but when it comes to, you know, actual lesbians having actual sex, society pretty much closes their eyes and turns the other way. And bisexual people in general are given short shrift, so I'm sorry to report that both in my personal experience, and in the larger media, I just don't see much out there about bisexual women.

The article goes on to say:

What's key to cranking hetero females' dials is sensuality -- images of
masturbation, of couples having sex, regardless of their gender. And yet, when
one researcher asked subjects to rate their arousal to watching certain videos,
both gay and straight women rated videos of other women highest. One doctor
suggests that there "may greater potential for bisexuality in women than in
men."

What I think is different is the fact that women are willing to talk more openly about sex/sexuality. Women are allowed to sit around and talk about what turns them on with their friends. Women are encouraged to scrutinize their own bodies and other women's bodies, and to see them as sexual objects. Women are encouraged to have tight bonds with other women- we even call it having "girlfriends"- bonds that may cross the border into the sexual, or may at least appear to do so. We also trivialize lesbian sexuality, making it less of a "deal" if a woman admits to sexual experimentation with other women, because lesbian sex is often seen as not "counting", especially if it is not penetrative.

Society, for the most part, allows men very little wiggle room on sex. They are supposed to want it all the time! They are supposed to be totally, 100% het! And aside from "conquest stories" or dirty jokes or talk on a sex chat line, men aren't supposed to talk about sex, and they especially can't seem to be too interested in it from an emotional standpoint. Wham, bam, thank you ma'm is the order of the day. So, if men are straight-identifying, but experimenting with homosexuality, they aren't likely to talk about it. If men find other men attractive, they aren't likely to bring that up in a conversation with their friends. I doubt they would even respond honestly in situations like the research cited above. And since men are encouraged to have "buddies", not "boyfriends", even things that could be taken as homosuggestive- naked locker room bulshit sessions, sports with lots of physical contact- all get framed in very masculine terms that leave little room to interpret these relationships as sexual. I bet that makes it seem a whole lot like men are less "fluid" in their sexuality.

Frankly, I think people don't really want to rock the male hetronormative sexuality boat, so they spend a whole lot of time looking at female fluidity of sexuality , and not much time looking at male fluidity of sexuality . It's a lot more fun to prop up popular stereotypes that are safe and fun, but seem to be a little transgressive, then to push at the monolith of male sexual privelege. I doubt lots of straight-identifying females are going to freak out after reading this article, or seeing the mentioned documentary, and attack the person(s) responsible just to prove once and for all that they "ain't no fag". A documnetary about all men secretly being a little bi? Oh, yeah. I could see all sorts of bad things befalling the person brave enough to put something like that out.

Besides, I bet the guys who watch the documentary on female bisexuality will get all hot watching scenes of "lesbo" action!

Isn't that the point?

It's Been A While, But I'm Back!

2008-06-12T10:50:00.000-07:00

A big shout-out to the three people who read my blog! I've been pretty busy over the past few months, but I'll try to start posting again over the summer, as I have more time. What's on my mind right now:

Macho men and their macho cars. Yep. The penis car isn't dead yet, according to this mind-numbingly stupid and stereotypical article featured by my favorite source for grade-F schlock, Yahoo. http://finance.yahoo.com/loans/article/105031/Macho-Movers-Top-10-Cars-Driven-by-MenIt seems that most of the outlandishly expensive status cars are owned by men. It couldn't have anything to do with the income gap between men and women, or the constant barrage of socialization men receive to "like" cars from day one, or anything:

Nah. That can't be it.

Politics. I can't really get too excited about the current crop of candidates. Sure, the Dems had a historic primary, with a woman battling an African-American for the nod, and that was cool, except for the fact that neither candidate was/is at all inspiring from a policy standpoint. Clinton, who became my sentimental favorite in the primary due to her having the same sex chromosomes as myself is the definition of the Establishment candidate policy-wise. Obama? What exactly does Obama stand for? After reading his slick website http://www.barackobama.com/issues I feel like I have a better idea of what he wants to do, but not the how. As ambitious as his calls for "change" are, that makes me nervous. He feels a lot like Kennedy in '60, who unfortunately translated into a lot of feel-good talk, and not much real action. McCain? Well, he's just... Yikes. I mean, all of his unscripted rancour is good for a laugh, but as a president? Hell, Nooes! He's horrible on women's issues, his support of the Iraqi invasion is scary, and his pandering to the Family Values nutbags, despite his own checkered past is dissapointing. Bob Barr for the Libertarians? No thanks. The Greens are still up in the air- Cynthia McKinney looks like their best hope at the moment, but we'll have to wait until after the convention in July to know for sure what they will do. Frankly, they need to get a lot more energetic in their bid for ballot access if they want to have even a symbolic impact. So, for the moment, I guess I'm for Obama, but with reservations. I just get all itchy when someone seems to be too good to be true, because he probably is.

"The Pill Kills" Day. Last Saturday was coined "The Pill Kills Day" by the American Life League. I'm interested in seeing if anyone actually buys that crap. Seriously. WorldNet has an article from the ever-nutty Jill Stanek chastizing "pro-abort" forces for keeping the "truth" that the Pill "kills babies" from women.http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=66215 She says they do so because they get so much money from the sale of the Pill. Really? Who is it who makes big bucks off of the Pill? Oh yeah. Pharmacutical companies, those dastardly "pro-abort" monsters! Who else could she be talking about? None of the advocacy groups like NARAL make money off of the Pill, Planned Parenthood sure isn't rolling in the dough from providing the pill for free or at reduced rates, so I guess that just leaves the drug companies. I wonder if Jill and Co. would really like to go on record saying drug companies are the "pro-abort" profiteers she hates so much. I bet not- it probably wouldn't do good things for her stock portfolio.

Ghost In The Shell, Stand Alone Complex. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_in_the_Shell#Television_series Good stuff! I can't say I liked it better than the original movies, but I think it gives more substance to the franchise, and explains the techno-angst it portrays a little more completely. I like that the Major is a strong female character- she runs the show when she is on a mission, and no one can match her. I'm now working my way through Second Gig.

Dawkins' Deluded Detractors

2007-11-15T20:41:00.000-08:00

I finally got around to reading the God Delusion last week. Though I am in agreement with 99% of Dawkins' views on the subject of God, I do have to say that the book was a little weak in some areas. As a person who spent most of her life around academic debate, I just couldn't help wondering why Dawkins would jump straight into the "does God exist" fray without doing a better job of defining the terms of the proposition. "Existence" and "God" are never well-defined, and as a result, he never really scores a knockout punch on ol' SkyDaddy. On the other hand, I love "The Mother Of All Burkas" at the end, where he vividly describes how very little of the world we actually see. I'm not sure this really extends his argument, but it sure is a great wakeup call nonetheless.

As much as I think Dawkins could have done better, his critics have resorted to the most shoddy counter-arguments I have seen outside of a high school novice debate round.

From Depak Chopra, at Beliefnet.com:
1. Science is the only valid way to gain knowledge. Nothing about God is needed to explain the world. Eventually science will uncover all mysteries. Those that it can't explain don't exist.

This is the bedrock of Dawkins' argument, as it is of most skeptics and scientific atheists.
Only it's not. Not by a mile. Dawkins NEVER says things science can't explain don't exist. Ever. This is not the last time Chopra comes off looking like he didn't even read the book. He goes on about how the sainted Einstein believed in God (he didn't, and Dawkins went to some effort to point that out), he continually said that Dawkins said the universe was created by random chance (wrong again), and even referred to one of the analogies Dawkins debunked (the 747 put together by a hurricane) to support his arguments about the non-random nature of the universe. Sheesh. This guy calls himself a doctor? He also obviously woefully misunderstands quantum physics, and mistakes Dawkins for some sort of 19th century objective materialist who subscribes only to the narrowest interpretations of Newtonian physics. Of course, this is all crazily off-base. And his coup de grace? His way of knowing there is a God? Because consciousness transcends matter. We can think thoughts with our mind, which has to be more than just the chemicals it's made of. Well doesn't it? He even petulantly asks, "Do you think you are conscious and intelligent, or are you being fooled by random chemical reactions inside your skull?"

I think Chopra's chemicals must be pretty random for this to seem like an argument to him. Here's a crazy idea- consciousness and intelligence are byproducts of certian chemical reactions. The two things aren't mutually exclusive. Oh, did someone say neuroscience? Chopra must have been too busy listening to his "greater consciousness" to hear about that little fringe field of study.

While Dawkins makes a better argument for skeptical agnosticism and a general mistrust of organized religion than atheism, he sure does a better job than those who wish to disagree with him.

Next: the man who tortures logic in the service of God

Even Catgirls Get The Blues

2007-11-12T20:26:00.000-08:00

Yeah, I know. It's been forever since I posted, and I've all ready written about the whole "women don't like sex" cultural stereotype thing. However, I feel like I need to say it one more time.

Women like sex. We really do. And, believe it or not, we ARE visually stimulated. When I see a hot guy, I react. I think most women do. The whole "men are just more visual" evo psych drivel is just that. As a matter of fact, I have my own modest little counter interpretation of the sexual proclivities of women.

Women, on average, have a HIGHER capacity for visual stimulation than men. The fact that women can still get off, even when they don't have blatant, in-your-face sexual imagery like mainstream porn would suggest that to be true. I go one further still, and say that many women are so sexual, they don't even need visual stimulation at all. A racy story, a smooth voice singing a song, and many women are ready to go. Why else would romance novels be such a hit with many women? Boy bands? Or fanfic? Read any of that stuff lately? If women can get off thinking about cartoon characters or characters from a novel, I'd say that is indicative of a high degree of sexuality.

Well, there I go. My theories are just as plausible as anyone else's. I get SO tired of the MSM telling me that I'm really not supposed to be that in to sex...

I Heart Olympia Snowe!

2007-10-02T21:10:00.001-07:00

Who says liberals can't like Republicans? If I lived in Maine, I'd be proud to vote for Olympia Snowe as my Senator. Whenever I hear of some bill I really like in the senate, I almost always hear Olympia Snowe's name attached to it. Net neutrality? Yep. Olympia's on the case. Repealing the global gag rule? Snowe is there. She became a personal hero of mine when I heard she supported the historic McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill. Sure, she has her missteps, like voting for the Patriot Act, but all-in-all, she is the kind of senator a progressive independent can really get behind. And as a bonus, she has a really kickass name.

Go, Olympia! Keep showing those conservo-fascist fundie turdballs that they don't own all of the Grand Old Party just yet.

LAF-ing at the Ladies

2007-09-17T16:12:00.001-07:00

Oh, yeah. This is the good stuff. On Feministe, they posted about a site called "Visionary Daughters". Of course, it really should be called "Retrograde Daughters", as it deals with all of the Biblical Submissive woman stuff we know and love. They do a pretty good job of picking that particular site apart, so I'll spend my time commenting about an interesting site the "visionaries" would have us link to. It's called...get ready for it... "Ladies Against Feminism", or LAF for short.

The motto of the site is "promoting beautiful womanhood". The site is rife with Victorian clipart depicting such "beautiful ladies", and as I commented on Feministe, it leaves me wondering if they are laboring under the illusion that the Bible was written in 1880, or if perhaps they have it confused with a Harlequin romance novel. I actually find it pretty disheartening that the "submission" crowd has appropriated the Victorian Lady as the symbol for the movement, as it makes me look at my collection of period illustrations (I'm a history buff)in a much less favorable light. Looking at these pictures and reading that motto are really as far as one needs to go in order to understand the point of the site- women are meant to be pretty objects for men to control. I've all ready addressed how the Christian Discipline movement is really S&M dressed up in Bible-ese, and you can cross-apply everything I said there to the whole "submission" movement in general. This website is actually a great how-to manual for master/slave relationships.

They do go to great lengths to point out that they don't endorse abuse or cruelty, or see women as less than human, but of course all of this is firmly negated by the actual content of the site. Here are some of the "useful" tidbits I picked up from my reading:

1. Dating is really wasting time on relationships that go nowhere. If you don't plan on marrying him, what's the point? Oh, you say you enjoy dating? Silly girl- relationships aren't about enjoyment, that are about finding a good "head" to boss you around. Oh,and have baybees with. Happiness can only be found as a function of adhering slavishly to what the Bible may have/may have not said about the role of women. THE END.

2.A woman's role is as a "helpmeet". A helpmeet's (is that even a word?!)job is to help her husband. Period. Women with ambition need not apply. It's empowering to be this kind of woman, don't you know? You need to pray for the inspiration to be the best slave... er... helpmeet you can be. And if something happens to your husband, and he no longer wants your help, or if he dies? Well, I guess you can pray for God to take you away real soon, too, because women are obviously just not cut out to lead.

3. Modesty is FUN! Yeah! Evil "feminists" want you to shed your clothes, but the real cool kids are daring to keep it all on! It's so fun to try to meet the moving target of "modesty", which is "so much more than denim jumpers". Although, if it is your Godly husband who is telling you to put on the saucy little jumper that reveals all that ankle, is it really immodesty, or just wifely duty?

4.Women who are TOO involved with the church risk "feminizing" it! Oh Noes! Men aren't as religious as women, studies show. Obviously, this is the women's fault. If men don't take back their role as head of everything, women are going to take over, declare themselves competent to lead, and you know what that means... The gays are sure to follow!

So what have we learned today? Women are property. You don't shop around for your owner, your owner shops around for you. If you get lucky, you'll get a good Christian owner who leads with compassion. If not, well, that's God's plan, too.(Women's)Bodies are bad, because other people may look at them with "impure" thoughts,and should be covered, unless, of course, your "head" says otherwise. Femininity is a virtue, and obviously leads to increased devotion to religion, but it isn't good for the church (!?), and should be avoided there at all costs. War is peace, love is hate, lies are truth... Oh, wait. That's Nineteen Eighty-Four again. Silly me. I always get Big Brother/Patriarchal God mixed up.

That feminism stuff, you know, the idea that women are people too, really IS bad, isn't it ladies. Thanks for the heads up.

http://www.ladiesagainstfeminism.com/artman/publish/

The Public Face of Women's Personal Lives

2007-09-15T22:49:00.001-07:00

Carol Hanisch's "The personal is political", an oft-quoted, and oft-misquoted concept, is as true now as it was in 1970. The fact that as a society, we still don't "get it", is extremely distressing. Here are some examples taken from recent media stories and blog posts:

1.Your body is your only real asset. Britney Spears is FAT! Hear that, folks? Her recent, less- than- triumphant television appearance has provoked a shitstorm of negative attention, most of it centered around how "gross" she looked in her outfit. Please. I'd pay to look that "gross". I'd bet most women would. I bet she's all of a size 5 or 7. That doesn't really matter, though. She dared bare her belly after her sex symbol status had been revoked, so she HAD to be mocked. All women should try to be sexy, but only certain women can BE sexy. If you aren't one of those women, you better not try too hard (but you still have to try, and no, we won't tell you where the line is), or we'll have to tear you down by saying one of the two most devastating things that can be said to a woman- "you are ugly" or "you are fat".

2. Your body is your only real asset, part 2. Women in miniskirts are HOS! Kyla Ebbert, a woman trying to board a Southwest Airlines flight to Tucson, Arizona was reprimanded by a flight attendant for immodest attire. She was wearing a tank top covered by a shrug, with a miniskirt. I've worn outfits like that to work. It's a cute outfit. Back in the late sixties/early seventies, Southwest Airlines flight attendants wore outfits with miniskirts and hot pants. But hey, double-standards are just a daily thing for women, especially women who work at Hooters, dare to have attractive bodies, and want to fly on airplanes. There is that sexy-but-only-when-we-say-so thing again.

Women and airplanes just seem not to mix in general these days. Remember the Saudi princesses who were kicked off of the British Airways plane in July for being too modest to sit next to male passengers? Can't win for loosing, can you?

3. Your name is not your own. The name change thread has been revived at Pandagon, which is partially the impetus for this post. It seems people can't get enough of shaming women for complying with the patriarchy, and women can't get past making excuses for their compliance. It's simple, folks. Women take their husbands' names because it is the socially expected thing to do. Period. Women define themselves through relationships. Because of this, women find it especially important to have a "family" name, or distance themselves from a family name that has negative connotations. Women go on about taking a husband's name to get rid of a bad father's name. They talk about wanting the same name as their kids. Sure-- I get all of that. I also get that adult people can change their names at any time, for any reason. They can also elect to give a child the mother's name, or choose a totally new name for the whole family. Overwhelmingly, they don't. Why? Because society will beat them up for it.

Women have a lot more pressure on them to have "pretty" names, too. I hear women say they thought their husband's name was "better" or "nicer" than their own. Of course, that doesn't negate the fact they could have just changed their name at any time, or the couple could have picked a new name together, but hey, when a woman gets a chance to increase her palatability socially with a better name and a more respected status (married), of course she jumps at the chance.

4. Your body, which is your only real asset, does not belong to you. Want over-the-counter emergency contraceptive? Want an abortion? Want to get your tubes tied? You'd better hope you are in the right place at the right time. Apparently pharmacists and pharmacies all over the country are just arbitrarily deciding they don't want to give out Plan B because it is against their moral judgment. And if you are a rape victim? Don't go to a Catholic hospital. Apparently, they don't have to make EC available to you. I'd also not go to a Catholic hospital if I suspected ectopic pregnancy. Apparently, they won't give you a shot to end the pregnancy (and keep you from dying)-- rather, they'll remove the whole fallopian tube. Feels a lot less like abortion to them that way, see? And If you want the "A" word, and you live in Ohio, you better fight against a ludicrous piece of legislation that would require a man's permission before you abort ( I say a man's, rather than the father's, because there is no real way to determine the father at that point). Want your tubes tied? You had better be way over 30, with at least two kids, or good luck finding a doctor who will do it.

5. Women are single-handedly destroying the world. Women who choose not to have children in countries like Japan and Russia are causing the economies of those nations to be imperiled because of negative growth. White women in America who are choosing not to have babies are letting the immigrants take over. Women who have too many babies are unfairly using up too much of the planet's resources. Women who use hormonal birth control are releasing it in their urine, which is polluting the water. Personal choices, you say? No one else's business, you say? Men have input into reproductive matters too? Water pollution from 1,000 other sources is more pressing? Please. Stop making excuses.

Sigh. If Eve was weak, I'm glad that other women are not. Surviving all of this crap takes a lot of fortitude.

THIS is What A Child Prodigy Is Supposed To Look Like

2007-09-03T09:49:00.001-07:00

Not this.

Female, black, beautiful AND smart? That just can't be. This strange aberration MUST be newsworthy. (snort! gag!puke!)

What next? Are they going to dare tell us that she's NOT just there to "catch" a husband?

Maybe they'll post some bikini pics. THAT would be more like it!

Porn Problem

2007-08-31T18:41:00.000-07:00

On Feministe, the perennial porn v. feminism debate is being revisited. I haven't chimed in, because I honestly don't know where I stand. Porn is one of those issues I constantly flip-flop on. I have no theoretical objection to the portrayal of sex or sexuality, but the reality of porn has some very troubling undertones I have a hard time reconciling myself to.

First, my personal story. Growing up, I had almost no experience with porn. I thought Playboy was about as graphic as it got, and had only seen tiny bits and pieces of porn here and there. It honestly wasn't something I even thought much about. I was always very comfortable with the idea of having sex, I just never really thought much about media portrayals of it. When I went off to college, I very quickly and happily became sexually active, and at the same time had my first real exposure to porn. My boyfriend/husband-to-be/now ex-husband had a little stash of magazines, and they really blew my mind. I never even knew there was "hard core" versus "soft core" porn. The novelty factor was high, and though I didn't find the porn particularly titillating, I did find it a bit humorous. The totally unrealistic portrayals of women and sex rang untrue even to a novice like me. He soon "got rid" of his porn, and I never saw it again, and took him at his word that it was gone. It had made me feel vaguely uneasy, but I had never asked him to get rid of it. Years passed, and he nor I ever really brought up porn. Then, at the end of our marriage, I stumbled across some magazines hidden in the basement. They were of the "Barely Legal" variety, and due to the fact that the problems we were having in our marriage stemmed from his inappropriate relationship with a minor, they really freaked me out. The depictions of the young women were creepy, and the whole idea of fantasizing about young girls was upsetting. Of course, the hidden nature of his porn consumption was also quite distressing.

I am now with another man who was pretty heavy into internet porn and video porn when we first met. Again, I was intrigued by the images, and the levels on which they were trying appeal to their demographic, but this time around I was carrying a lot more baggage related to porn. Older, more feminist, and less trusting of men, I began looking at porn much more critically. Frankly, I didn't like most of what I was seeing. It still wasn't titillating, and the violent, objectifying, and oppressive themes were hard to ignore.

I also didn't like what the porn seemed to be doing to my partner. It seemed like a borderline addiction, and it put strain on our relationship. I began to realize that every experience I had with porn and a significant other seemed to have strong undertones of deception woven into the consumption of the porn. I had always assumed porn was something used in lieu of actual partnered sex, but it really seemed to function on a very different level. Though I had always tried to be open and tolerant about porn, my partners who used it always seemed very reticent about openly sharing it, using it, or sharing details of its use. The enjoyment seemed to come from the covert, exclusionary nature of its viewing. I came to see porn, and internet porn especially (the ease of its use, the potential for interactivity, and the extreme nature of much of it was particularly unnerving), as a threat to the trust in our relationship, and asked my partner to significantly decrease his consumption of all porn, and eliminate his use of internet porn all together.

My experiences with porn make me believe it is more about control than sexual stimulation per se. The ability to control the women depicted, and use them for any sexual purpose desired without their consent seems to be a primary draw. I also think some of the pleasure from its use (in the cases I witnessed) came from the porn user actively excluding his real-life partner from that aspect of his sexuality. Instead of the porn use being an additional enhancement to partner sex, or something thrown in occasionally for variety, or in lieu of partner sex when it was unavailable, it seemed to function as an entirely discrete, separate form of sexuality.

So, that is my personal take on porn. I have a hard time reconciling that with my steadfast belief in freedom of speech, my disdain for legislating morality, and my sincere desire to see sex work decriminalized so that sex workers may be treated as full citizens with full protection. I also have a real appreciation for sex and sexuality, and genuinely would like to find depictions of sex that are titillating for me, without upsetting my feminist sensibilities. I also respect each person's full right to express themselves sexually in any way they choose, so long as they don't hurt others in the process.

So haw do I deal with the disconnect? I'm not sure. In some ways, I feel like I am a microcosm for what is going on in the feminist community at the moment. On one hand, it is very much my inclination to be sex positive, and embrace sexuality as a valuable part of the human experience in all of its forms, and on the other hand, I fully understand how people can be upset by the demeaning images in porn, and the very negative impact it can have on real people. I want people to be free to express themselves, I want to be free to express myself, but at the same time, I am tired of always getting the short end of the porn stick.

What's Love Got To Do With It?

2007-08-18T21:25:00.000-07:00

I watched a documentary mentioned on the blog Tokyomango called "The Great Happiness Space" about "hosts" from "host clubs" in Japan. These "hosts" are young men who get paid by the hour to create the illusion of a relationship for women who come to the club. They talk, and sing, and drink mass quantities of uber-expensive champagne, all the while acting like the women who are paying them are the loves of their lives.

These attractive, well-dressed young men make staggering amounts of money being good-time boys- up to the equivalent of $50,000 a month.

The movie gives a very intimate view of the goings-on at the clubs, as well as some candid questioning of the hosts and their clients. You slowly start to understand that most of the women who are the big spenders in these clubs are themselves the female equivalent to hosts or prostitutes. The business of "love" is sapping the female sex workers, who come to the host clubs looking for release, and the hosts are made miserable by the grueling demands placed on them while at the club. Both sets of people are miserable, yet they continue to engage in this dance of deceit and simulation, chasing happiness they never quite find.

Obviously, this was a powerful look at a subculture in Japanese society, with larger implications for that society as a whole. Upon further reflection, however, I feel "The Great Happiness Space" has a lot to say about relationship dynamics in this country, too.

After reading bell hooks' All About Love: New Visions earlier this summer, I have been thinking about the difference between cathecting and loving. (Cathexis is emotional investment in someone/something.) hooks would have us see love as a more active thing than cathexis, a willful lifting up, an active caring for and about the object of our love. I have struggled with the separation of the emotional from the active, as a conceptual construct, but "Happiness" gave me some unexpected clarity in this area.

The thing that was being sold in the host bars was an illusion of love that emphasized the actions that we interpret as signs of cathexis- the thing we most often call being "in love". The romance, the play, the deep and exclusive interest in a love object-- these are the material "things" of love, the signposts we look for as confirmation of the loving state. In Japan, there is apparently great interest in creating elaborate romance rituals and an almost gamesmanship ethic of love. Perfect form is held up as the ideal. In theory, this makes a great deal of cultural sense in Japan-- a blending of Eastern emphasis on form, aesthetics, and ritual with voluptuous, decadent Western ideals of romance. Form, however aesthetically pleasing, is ultimately only an empty shell if actual cathexis, and the caring work of love are absent. The profound sense of loneliness, sadness, and despair communicated in the movie seem to stem from the disconnect between societally created pictures of "perfect love" and the emptiness of the reality of the emphasis on form. Whether you are a host caught in the cycle of illusion with your client, or a woman or man caught in the cycle of illusion with your significant other, in the end, you find yourself doubting the sincerity of the other, even as you feign sincerity yourself.

Far from being an exclusively Japanese phenomenon, I believe the same sort of disconnect is functioning in the US today, with much the same result. Without the same culturally embedded emphasis on form, American expectations for love have settled on the myth of marriage instead as the sought-after ideal. In our country, while we do place value on the giddy romanticism of newly minted relationships, the ultimate expression of love is seen as the joining of two people in lifelong, monogamous partnership. The final, logical goal of all romantic love for all people is marriage. Even love that has been traditionally seen as taboo, such as same-sex pairings, seeks the cultural sanction of marriage in this society that holds marriage to be the ultimate end-game of romantic love.

The problem with that idea is that marriage is NOT the traditional standard-bearer of fully realized love. As a matter of fact, prior to the nineteenth century, love was often seen as an ancillary product of marriage, not the main goal or concern, and was by no means seen as a sure thing. It was understood, even expected that many marriages would never develop into love. Love was often posed as a stumbling block for fools rather than a cultural good, and was certainly never seen as a goal in and of itself. Marriage was a social contract, designed to enhance the productivity of individuals, and create a home economy. It required work and investment from both parties, and was never designed to be a vehicle for creating or enhancing emotional connections. Marriage was fueled by production, not cathexis. That cathexis sometimes occured was largely incidental.

The problem with us, like the Japanese, is that we believe love is the answer, instead of the question.

We want to fix love as an ideal (romance! marriage!) and strive with all of our might to get there. If we do, we feel a sense of disappointment, because the reality doesn't match the hype. If we don't meet the goal, we feel bad and defective. And either way, we feel so very alone. The Japanese do all of the hard work, with the expectation that it will create emotional payoff, and the Americans expect the emotions to make the relationship work.

Neither group, it would seem, ends up very happy. Does love make a person happy? Is there a formula for love? Does love even really exist?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6186147595582048109 Watch "The Great Happiness Space" online.

An Open Letter To The Christian Right

2007-08-07T11:46:00.001-07:00

Greetings. I am a member of the Liberal Left in the United States, and I think the time has come for me to say a few things to you.

First, I think it is important to let you know who I am. I am young, well-educated, and female. I am a mother, a wife, and a professional. I am a member of my neighborhood association. I vote in local, state and national elections. I am well informed, and follow both the mainstream and alternative media. I attend church regularly (Unitarian Universalist) because I value the community and the values of social justice it supports. I am a home owner, a taxpayer, and an engaged citizen.

Secondly, I do not hate you, nor do I want to be your enemy. I believe you have a right to believe whatever you wish, and practice your religion free from governmental interference, so long as that practice does not cause harm to others. If I saw you stopped on the side of the road, I would stop to help change your tire, regardless of the bumper stickers you displayed on your vehicle. If I saw your child being bullied or mocked, I would rush to her defense. I would offer to share my umbrella with you if we were caught in the rain. You are my neighbor, and I am yours. Our children play together, we are coworkers, and sometimes, we are friends. I value your contributions to our community.

I am concerned, because I hear a lot of rhetoric being used by your leadership that marginalizes and demeans me. I hear disturbing talk about raising an "Army of God" to fight against "Godless liberals and secularists". I hear your leaders talking about packing the Supreme Court with justices who will impose your beliefs and morality on all Americans. I hear you calling this a "Christian Nation", even though you know many of your neighbors are not Christian. I hear your leaders urging you to oppose me at every turn, though I offer no specific threat to you or your beliefs.

I believe that all Americans deserve equal rights and equal opportunity. I support a woman's right to abortion because I support the bodily integrity of all citizens. If you do not believe in abortion, it is your right to say so, and to not have an abortion, but it is not your right to keep others from having or providing abortions. I support the right to gay marriage, because I believe all people should be free to love whom they wish, and should enjoy the same legal protections under law. If you are against homosexuality on principal, you have the right to say that, and to reject homosexuality as your lifestyle, but you do not have the right to dictate that others should, too. I believe that all people, regardless of race, sex, or orientation deserve to have an equal right to education and jobs. I believe that people have a right to health insurance that is not predicated on their employment, and I believe that everyone deserves a helping hand when times get tough. I believe that we must deal compassionately and fairly with people who seek a new life in our country, addressing the root causes of their exodus if possible. I believe the government plays a role in facilitating these things. You may disagree with me, or propose other solutions to these problems, but you do not have the right to malign the names of certain people or groups as a tactic to switch blame for or attention from problems. I support a strong division between church and state as a bulwark against tyrannical and theocratic rule. You may disagree with me on which, if any religion is "right" or "wrong", but you do not have the right to impose your religion on me.

I reject the war on terror, both because of the way it is being conducted, and the indiscriminate nature of its targets. I believe the right of this country to protect itself must be balanced against the rights of individuals. Guantanamo Bay, rendition, the Patriot Act, recent amendments to FISA, the disregarding of the Geneva Convention, and the attack and subsequent occupation of Iraq are inappropriate means to fight terror that place all of our freedoms in jeopardy. The demonization and the singling out of Muslims is an inappropriate and short-sighted solution to terror. I support strategies of engagement with other countries and the world community, because the current policies of hegemonic domination support the subjugation of other peoples, which is an ethical bad in itself, and an engine for ill will towards America.

As I said before, I don't want to be your enemy. I don't want to keep you from believing what you believe, or living how you wish to live. If you force me to, however, I will stand in unwavering defense of what I believe is right. I will point out the inconsistencies of your arguments. I will oppose your chosen politicians. I will move to counter your actions at all levels of government. If you choose to use your religion as justification for your actions, I will attack it mercilessly, too. In short, I will not let you take away my rights or co-opt the integrity of this country in the name of your God.

I believe we can live in peace and harmony. I hope that we can sit down and discuss our differences rationally. I hope we can continue to be good neighbors to one another. This is a big country, with a proud tradition of coexistence of diverse groups. There is room enough for all of us, if we stop trying to push the other out.

Are You Dateable? That's Debatable

2007-08-05T00:21:00.000-07:00

There is a man who calls himself Justin Lookadoo. He is a Christian book author and speaker, who does youth ministry. He writes relationship advice books for teens. He is quite possibly the scariest man I have ever seen.

I have a real interest in crappy relationship advice. Call it a hobby of mine. So, after reading a post on Pandagon about a crazy fundie youth group, I followed some links to Lookadoo land, and found Dateable- the book he co-authored about teen relationship advice. It claimed to be a bestseller, so I looked it up.

I did the Amazon Look Inside thing, and I wish I hadn't. Yikes! From what I can tell, the main thrust of the advice is: 1. Teen relationships aren't real and are bound for failure; 2. girls need to pretend to think guys are funny, "keep their mouths shut" and not dominate discussion with lots of squicky personal stuff, and stay mysterious, so the guy will "want" them; 3. under NO circumstances should a girl have sex, because she will feel "dirty and used" when the guy leaves her (which is inevitable) and starts bopping someone else.

It basically tells girls they should live their lives like a montage from an 80's teen movie (Splash in the ocean with your friends! Try new food, even if you don't think you'll like it! Go on a roller coaster riding marathon! Write poetry on the front of your notebook!). Really- do fun, spontaneous, original things-- but only so guyz will think you are a real keen free spirit cool gal! I mean, screw it if you don't LIKE roller coasters, or poetry-- that's NOT the point. You are just trying to be catnip for boys.

Oh, and girls have just GOT to stop daydreaming about that perfect, romantic, caring, sweet "Mr.Right". Why? Well, to a girl, every guy becomes Mr. Right when she falls for him, but he's really a gnarly crudball, and holding him to those high expectations isn't really fair, and the relationship will just go nowhere... because of HER unrealistic expectations. You got that? So instead, a girl should just have three criteria a boy HAS to meet- 1. He MUST be Christian; 2. he MUST NOT smoke; 3. He can't EVER try to have sex. Yep, those are the big three, according to Mr. Lookyloo and Co.

The sex is really the prime point. They REALLY want to drive home the idea that sex outside of marriage is bad. Why? It uses you up. Once you've had sex, you're damaged goods. Totally. See:

Question?
Would you buy a beat up old used car at a new car price? Think about it. Would you look at this car that is all scratched up with dents and high miles on it, pay the full sticker price and think, “Wow, what a great deal!” No way. But that’s exactly what happens when you get into sex without being married. When you keep having sex and pushing further and further what you are actually doing is turning yourself into a used car. Then you are expecting someone to come along and make a full price commitment for a ragged out, used car.
Every new sexual experience, when you are not married, puts another ding, another scratch, another scar on who you are. You keep running your car into other people, and then you wonder why no one treats you special. You can’t understand why no one wants to make a major commitment.
You are in control of this. You control what kind of condition you are in. If you treat you body like an old clunker, don’t be surprised when everyone wants to take you for a spin, and then go get a new car. You are valuable. Keep yourself new. Keep yourself unused. Then you will be the one everyone wants and they will be willing to make the long-term commitment to have you. You will be desirable and Dateable.

Now, none of the above states whether it is for girls, or boys, or both. But as you'll see, I think we can guess who gets used up by sex according to the authors. Surprise! Its the girls!:

The biggest test of a man is passed when he can say he’s not ready yet. You will show strength and wisdom in saying “I’m not ready for sex. I’m not ready for all that comes with it so I’m not ready for it.” The most powerful men in the world are the men who have control of themselves and their sex drive. If it has control of you, you lose. But take control and your power and passion for life will multiply. Sex will be great when you are ready for one woman for life.
And girls your biggest test is passed when you can control your emotions and see beyond your imagination. You show amazing grace and beauty when you won’t sell out your body for love. You become a woman of mystery when you don’t allow your emotions to lie to you about something you don’t have. The power of a woman is in her ability to manage her emotions and not let her emotions control her.
Your challenge is this, man must control his physical body and a woman you must control your emotional body, do this and you will be totally Dateable.

Well, we finally DO see some boy advice. Keep it in your pants! Sex is baddd. It will control you. Until you are married. Then its all OK.

So really, this is that rarest of things- a book about how NOT to have a relationship. Because, what all of this stuff really boils down to is to strive for as little intimacy as possible. Glancing blows, that's all. A few noncommittal sort of dates to go riding roller coasters or eat new foods, but NO physical contact, and none of that blab blab lovey-dovey emotional diarrhea girls always go in for- mysterious and cool- that's the way (Not telling the boy your name is really preferable). And probably no second date. But hey, some day you'll get married, and then ALL OF YOUR WILDEST DREAMS WILL COME TRUE! WOO HOO!

Yeah. That's so real world. That's why according to the Barna study in 99, Born-Again Christians had a slightly higher than average divorce rate, and in 2001, they were in a statistical dead-heat with non-Christians. Sure. Because marriage is this God-sanctified happyland, where the livin' is easy, and the sex is good. All you have to do is believe, I mean really BELIEVE that, and you'll... end up divorced, just like everybody else.

If you take Dateable's advice, you're just as likely to get divorced as those crummy non-Christians you were WARNED to stay away from, but you'll also not have had much fun with dating, so you'll be a REALLY sad and miserable person.

But hey, you can hold your head up high, and tell the world you aren't a used car! (Well, technically, after you divorce, you WILL be, but... um... that can be one of those little "mysterious" details you never tell about yourself.)

PS- Justin? You might want to loose the bleached spikes and the "totally rad" threads. You look like a 40 year old trying to look 20. And some folks might get the impression you need to go through the Exodus program again. That's a real cred killer in your line of work.

Think Ted Haggard.

'Nuf said.

A Word On Breastfeeding Nazis and Feminism

2007-08-03T12:24:00.000-07:00

I am really tired of all of the Breastfeeding Nazis and their propaganda. Really.

Yes, I know "breast is best". I've only heard that about 75,000 times or so. I internalized those words, and made a real go of it, when the opportunity presented itself. Breastfeeding ain't for everyone, as I soon found out.

I wish the Breastfeeding Nazis would get the memo, too.

I am also aware that mothers who wish to breastfeed often face hurdles as far as being ridiculed for doing it in public, and a lack of accommodations made for breastfeeding by employers and society at large (remember, I've been in this boat before). Yes, that's wrong. And bad. And should end.

But honestly, if you are a self-identifying feminist, do you REALLY think you are helping the plight of women anywhere by pinning them between the devil and the deep blue sea? Because honestly, that's what the militant pro-breast feeders are doing.

Here is the comment-- form a totally non-breastfeeding related post on feministe, by the way-- that started it all.

Breastfeeding not any better than formula? *GUFFAW* That was satire, right?

It’s a good thing I steadfastly refuse to call myself anything but a feminist in the context of, “believes in equal rights for women and men, requiring society to give women greater rights than we currently have in order to level the playing field of rights,” because stuff like this really makes me wonder about the movement sometimes. I mean, when we have to pretend a can full of powder cooked up in a lab is as good for a mammalian baby as the stuff it ought to be obtaining naturally from its mother just so some random woman somewhere won’t have to feel guilty because she didn’t even try, what exactly is this movement trying to accomplish again?

I’m sorry, I know this is off-topic (mostly) and I know a lot is expected of mothers that shouldn’t be and it’s pretty sick. But I see feminists denying that they want women to be like men ALL THE TIME and yet… An argument like this seems to infer that only when women, like men, don’t have to breastfeed children will we be truly equal to men. My response is, since when should women have to be like men in order to be equal, and why are you having a kid anyway if you’re just going to let chemicals and machines raise it for you?

Yes, starting breastfeeding is harder than starting a bottle. Assuming proper training and no physical defects in mom or baby, however, in the final tally breastfeeding is EASIER than bottlefeeding: cheaper, no prep needed, no washing bottles, and hardly any spitup. You don’t even have to hardly wake up to feed your baby at night if you’ve got them sleeping next to you. I’ve done both methods of feeding and it was such a contrast when I BFed my second child that it was just breathtaking. I will never touch formula again if I have another child.

I feel sorry for women who have to struggle more with BFing logistics because it’s work or be in abject poverty. But again, pretending that formula grows on the Boob Tree and is just as good as human milk does no one any favors. We should be expending that energy instead to ensure that nursing mothers can feed their children with as little inconvenience as possible. It’s THAT kind of thing that will ultimately make women equal.

Now, all due respect to RE, or
Radical Earthling- she has a good blog, and says lots of interesting stuff. She does use qualifiers, like she knows mothers have a lot expectations placed on them, and she feels sorry for those who struggle with logistics... but then she goes off and proceeds to tear women who choose formula a new orifice, because obviously, they are just deluding themselves about the appropriateness of bottle feeding.

Sheesh. I mean, this day in age, I can't imagine there are many women out there who choose formula because they think it is the ideal food. They often choose formula because of those nasty "logistics" RE talks about. My story is a fairly common one. I got all of the haranguing about "breast is best", and resolved to breastfeed. I never had problems with insufficient milk. On the contrary, I had an overabundance, which caused me to leak constantly, so that I was perpetually soaked, stinky, and uncomfortable. I pressed forward, but unable to afford an expensive breastpump, I found myself unable to keep up with all of my daily responsibilities AND feed. I was a grad student with an assistantship, so "maternity leave" was out of the question. My son actually slept through the night fairly regularly after the first three weeks, which I thought was a blessing, but I soon realized it was a curse when those night feedings shifted to day feedings that I could not accommodate with my meager pumpings from my cheap breastpump. After about two months of sopping, stinky, candle burning-at-both-ends misery, I went to the bottle. It really saved my sanity.

It's really the same thing as the mom who buys her kids frozen dinners because she doesn't have time to cook. Sure, in HappyLand, everyone would have time to do everything, and no one would have to eat less than perfect food. But this is Reality World, and it isn't so pretty. Feminists who really care about the plight of other women should not denigrate them for having to make hard choices that involve compromise.

I get what RE is saying about helping women better accommodating feeding, but I live in Reality World, so I really have to ask what those accommodations might be? If a woman has a job at a company with no on-site daycare (which is most of us), what can you really do? There is pumping, but even assuming you can afford the decent pump, feeding breastmilk out of a bottle usually means you have to go completely over to the bottle at some point because of "nipple confusion". That's a WHOLE lot of pumping. Pumping isn't something you can do in a 3-hour marathon in the evening while you work on the computer or read-- it has to be done in shorter, regular sessions to approximate feeding in order to ensure the milk supply. How, exactly, does that work for women on the job, again? What about women who have jobs that just don't accommodate pumping at all(think outdoor jobs, etc.)? And longer maternity leave is great, but since I don't see that as a centerpiece of ANYONE'S political agenda, that'll be a long time in coming, and meanwhile, there are hungry babies to feed...

No, the BEST way to help women in the short term is to support their choices--whatever they might be. Long-term reform is great, but it is no substitute for dealing compassionately with the problem on the ground right now. Know a woman who is struggling with breastfeeding v. bottle? Offer her encouragement and advice. And offer sympathy for whatever route she decides to follow.

Oh, one more thing. No woman should ever feel compelled to breastfeed. It's a very personal decision. I think logistics are probably the #1 reason women decide against it, but if a woman decides she just doesn't want to breastfeed, that's fine too. Bottle feeding, while not ideal, has empirically been proven safe through decades of use. A woman who decides not to breastfeed is not abusing or neglecting her child in any way. I can honestly say that even absent the logistical problems, I probably wouldn't have made it to the recommended one year mark with breastfeeding because the sticky, leaky, stinky stuff was driving me pretty batty. That doesn't make me an abuser. Or a bad mom. It makes me a person, a person with a right to bodily integrity.

Shame on the breastfeeding Nazis for forgetting that.

The REAL Problem With Potter

2007-07-30T17:46:00.000-07:00

Evil? Pro Occult? Hardly. The REAL problem with Harry Potter is that it should have been called Hermione Granger. Harry, bless his heart, is a bit of a dullard, and it is really Ms. Granger who keeps things on track.

SPOILER ALERT! If you haven't read Deathly Hallows, you may not wish to continue further.

If you have read my previous Potter post, you will know that I am new to the Potterverse. I just started reading the books this summer, but I have marched my way through all of them, and now that I know the whole story, I have some definite opinions about the books.

Harry Potter, though an entertaining story, is, for a lack of a better word, conventional. Too conventional, I am afraid. After hearing all of the hoopla the Religious Right was spewing, I really thought the Potter stories were going to be a bit transgressive, perhaps even downright revolutionary. They aren't.

In no way does Potter disappoint more than in its treatment of the sexes. Most obviously, there is Harry himself. Now, I am quite sure Ms. Rowling chose a male protagonist for the reason many authors of kid lit chose male protagonists- the beliefs that boys won't read about girls, but girls will read about boys. In order to reach the widest possible audience, it is seen as advisable to have male protagonists. My take on this: no duh! Because, you see, you have just made a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you reinforce stereotypes, they stay strong. I wish Ms. Rowling would have defied the stereotype, because she had a character who I think would have appealed-- does appeal, as a matter of fact-- to both sexes. Hermione, who, from day one, was the real brains of the operation.

Not only does Ms. Rowling not make Hermione the main protagonist, she makes her the victim of much sexist malfeasance in the books. Not only is Hermione smarter, and better at magic, but she is just a better friend than Ron. She gives real advice, shows real loyalty, and has the confidence to get things done. In Deathly Hallows, this is made clear when Ron leaves Harry in his hour of greatest need because he succumbs to the influence of the horcrux. Hermione, too, felt the power of the horcrux, but she resisted it because she knew Harry needed her loyalty. It was do or die time, and per usual, Hermione wasn't about to play dead. Despite all of this, it is always Ron who is portrayed as Harry's "best mate", and his preference for Ron is made clear on multiple occasions. And, perhaps even more insultingly, Ms. Rowling makes Ron Hermione's love interest throughout, and in that travesty of an epilogue in Deathly Hallows, features them as a married couple. Hermione is simply too strong, too smart, and too capable to be chained to a liability like Ron. A male character of Hermione's caliber would never be paired with such an unworthy love interest.

It is no wonder Hermione can't catch a break- the Wizarding World itself is not set up to be kind to women. Just think about that phrase, oft used throughout the books. Wizarding World, though women are constantly referred to witches, and their magic is witchcraft, not wizardry. The use of these two words- wizard and witch- are suspect to start with, as witch has by far the more negative connotation, which Ms. Rowling couldn't help but be aware. She has no problem making up a totally new name for "regular" folk- Muggles- so why does she stick to such sexist old terms for the magical folk, instead of creating new ones? And though the Wizarding World is ostensibly equal opportunity, we have men running all of the shows- Headmaster Dumbledore, Ministers of Magic Fudge and Scrimgeour, acting Minister Shacklebolt. You do, of course see women in power- they just never have as much of it as the men. The fountain Harry sees at the ministry tells the tale- a Wizard, standing tall, flanked by a shorter witch, an adoring House Elf, and a respectful Centaur. Though Rowling makes much of the subservience of the other magical beasts, she never points out the fact the witch is overshadowed, too.

Ms. Rowling also indulges in a lot of sexist prattle in the books. From the insulting bits about Ron rejecting "ugly" girls as possible dates to the Yule Ball in Goblet of Fire, to Harry's clearly disdainful treatment of Cho when she showed her vulnerability about Cedric in Order of the Phoenix, to the constant "Girls are SO inscrutable" crap, we see sexist stereotypes reinforced again and again. The pickup book Ron gives to Harry in Half Blood Prince? That was real forward-thinking, wasn't it? Ron's retaliatory "snogging" of Lavender Brown, who was made out to be a first class airhead and bore? Great. I mean, what better messages to send to a young audience? String one girl along to make another jealous- after all, they are just girls.

Women, in Rowling's world, are stereotypes. We have the spinsters- prim and proper McGonagall, "toad like" Delores Umbridge, whiny fake Trelawney( a closet boozer who drinks that most feminine vice, cooking sherry), castrating bitch/wannabe gangster moll Bellatrix Lestrange. We have our resident housewives- Molly Weseley, that "fabulous" cook who knits embarrassing sweaters for her offspring, never misses a chance to nag, and gets all bent out of shape the moment one of her "brood" might be in trouble, Petunia Dursley, that mean-spirited Muggle with a mania for cleanliness and a blind eye for the faults of her only offspring, Dear Dudders, and Narcissa Malfoy, cold-blooded society matron who only melts at the thought of her son, Draco. Then we have the Madonna herself, Sainted Lily Potter, who's one act worth remembering was saving her baby from the dastardly Voldemort. We also have the pining Nymphadora Tonks, morose self-pitying "Moaning Myrtle", giggly Slytherin sycophant Pansy Parkinson... Rowling paints a lot of unflattering pictures of men, too, but only her women hew so closely to expected gender stereotypes. She even has "hags" as a class of magical beings unto themselves...

The last, and greatest insult, is the epilogue in Deathly Hallows. It's nineteen years later, the kids are all grown up, and guess what? They are all married... with children. Children, who, of course, act in stereotypically gendered ways. And by the amount of time devoted to the kids respectively, you just know who the movers and shakers are going to be (Surprise! The boys!)If the sexism of that tableau isn't enough to nauseate, the heteronormativity is.

I guess it was naive to expect too much from a child's story, but darn it! Children's literature is exactly where we need to be tearing down these stereotypes! Sure, the story maybe sweet going down, but that's because its just so much treacle.

Full Frontal Feminism- A Review

2007-07-30T16:05:00.000-07:00

Full Frontal Feminism, the book by Jessica Valenti, created quite a stir in the feminist blogosphere this spring when it was released. I finally had a chance to read it tonight, and here are my thoughts:

1. Yes, the cover art is squicky. Apparently, this was the focus of a lot of the early criticism of the book by the feminist community. I agree, a picture of a thin, white, nude, disembodied female torso is a strange choice for a pro-feminist book.

2. When I said I read it in one night, that's no exaggeration. Though I am a quick reader, the book is pretty spare. I do have to give Ms. Valenti props for readability, though. She keeps the tone light and breezy (one of the causes for earlier criticism, but I'll get to that in a moment).

3. Ms. Valenti calls the book a "love letter to feminism", and it reads as exactly that. It is full of effusive, "Golly, feminism sure is great!" language, and doesn't concern itself with a lot of the details of what feminism is, or was, or is fighting against. The book explicitly says, on page three, that, "Full Frontal Feminism is not an exhaustive review of all things feminist". So, the reader is forewarned that this is not going to be the next addition to the Feminist Theory Cannon.

4. The book is explicitly aimed at the 15-25 year-old crowd, especially those who have had little contact with organized feminism. Ms. Valenti makes this clear throughout. She uses a lot of swearing and slang, no doubt in an effort to build rapport with that age group, and also because she admits that's just how she writes/talks.

Bearing all of this in mind, I think this book is exactly what it claims to be- a starting point for very young women who know very little about feminism. In that respect, I believe it succeeds in its mission. I work with people in this age group on a daily basis, and I can honestly say that keeping the book light on details as well as in tone is actually the right thing to do. I don't mean to assail the intelligence of youth, but honestly, they get preached at on such a regular basis that "heavy" intellectual works are usually a turn off for many of the "casual" readers Ms. Valenti is targeting. Less is more when trying to capture the attention of a group of people all ready over saturated with media and heavily invested in the problematic culture this book is trying to address.

I do have to say, however, that some of the arguments she advances are not the strongest, nor in my opinion, the most convincing, she could muster. I especially have problems with her "anti-abortionists hate sex" argument, because; 1. that is a gross simplification, and; 2. it is likely to be overly confrontational to a lot of the supposed audience of this book. Conservative Christian morality, which is at the base of a lot , if not most of the anti-abortion movement in this country, may very well take a dim view of sex, but that is not the exclusive drive behind the anti-abortion campaign. Though I applaud Ms. Valenti's blunt and truthful statement of her beliefs about abortion: "All I can say is that I think there is nothing wrong with abortion, that the right to control our bodies is one of the most important there is, and that those who are seeking to end that right are concerned not about "life", but control.", I believe she would have done better to give the opposing viewpoint a more nuanced treatment than "anti-abortionists hate sex". Yes, I agree that control, not "life" is the center of the abortion debate, but I think Ms. Valenti should have spent a little bit of time deconstructing the conservative need for control. As many of her readers will likely have grown up in a system that takes for granted the idea that moral control is "good", the automatic response many readers will have upon reading that anti-abortionists just hate sex will be, "No they don't! My (aunt, father, preacher, friends) just want to keep people from making hurtful mistakes, and ending innocent lives." I'm all for skipping over the "heavy" stuff when spending time on it will not do a lot of good, but this is one place, at least, where delving a little deeper and being a little less pat might have done some good.

People criticize the book because of Ms. Valenti's use of cursing and jargon. I'm actually fine with both of these things, though I do think they limit the appeal of the book to a wider audience. I also think the "right now-ness" of the book will limit its relevance in the future. However, its hard to have your cake and eat it too, and I understand the choices that were made here. As a regular reader of Feministing, I also recognize this to be a part of Ms. Valenti's signature style. I, for one, enjoy the slightly deeper and more nuanced writing on Pandagon, Feministe, I Blame The Patriarchy, etc., but I think Feministing is a great entry-level feminist blog, and I still like to go there for quick bites when I don't have time to digest the heavier fare somewhere else.

So, then, I think Full Frontal Feminism can, and should be read in the the same way Feministing is. In a way, the book is just a compilation of the kinds of posts you would find on that site. And in its own way, that's good, because that is what will, in my opinion, best pique the interest of the intended audience. Seen in that light, even the squicky cover art can be viewed in much the same way Feministing's mudflap woman flipping the bird logo is-- a catchy, iconic image that at once buys into and at the same time subtly subverts popular objectification. That is, if you skip over all of the "heavy" details, and keep your eyes on the larger prize of turning new people on to feminism.

I recommend this book to people in the teen age group who are not self-identified feminists, or even particularly interested in feminism but feel something is not quite "right" about the dominant paradigm, or older individuals who want a very clear, simple introduction to feminism. Ms. Valenti has done an excellent job of writing a book that does exactly what she intended it to do. She has done it so well, as a matter of fact, that I believe the book is, in some ways, a victim of its own success.

Dating Advice Part II: Too Bad I Can't Sue This "Doctor" For Malpractice

2007-07-20T16:55:00.000-07:00

Another example of "Relationship Advice" gone terrible wrong. From the same Yahoo link as Mr. Katz's little missive on why we are all just stereotypes, Dr. Trina Read tells us to "Give Your Partner A Flirting Pass". She tells us couples should lighten up, and allow flirting to go on with outside people, because of the "good couple energy" it can produce. Then, Dr. Read tells us:

The fine art of innocent flirting has created many an after-party fight.

Sound like "good couple energy" creation to you? 'Cause it sure doesn't to me. But wait, she goes on:

The idea is, the more positive feelings you share with other people, the more you will get back.

Yeah... So, I "share" good feelings with my coworker by flirting with him, and he flirts back, and so I feel good...about my coworker. How does that help my relationship with my SO? Dr. Read illustrates by telling us how it works for her:

Ever since my partner emerged out of his I-can't-look-at-any-other-woman box with the freedom to flirt, he feels better about himself. He feels and acts sexy. He is more fun to be around. The end result is our relationship is stronger and healthier because he brings that positive energy home to me.

Ahh. NOW I get it. It's the same argument that women used to use about "letting" men have affairs. He feels sexier, (because OUR boring sex life just wasn't cutting it, poor thing)he comes home all revved up,(thinking about the other woman)and I can then pretend it's me he is all stiff over! Yay!

I just bet that does LOADS of good stuff for a relationship. I feel even more "sold" on the advice when Dr. Read gives her next line:

The irony is that he does not really even flirt. It's simply that he has been given a pass-card to flirt that has made all the difference.

Dr. Read sure does feel the need to qualify her "Flirting is Fab!" position with the qualifier "he does not really even flirt". I sense a little subtext, here. As long as he just feels like he can flirt, but doesn't, that's "good couple energy". If he started to actually, you know, flirt... Kinda reminds me of those "invisible fence" systems for dogs. Gives 'em the feeling of freedom, without actually being free. I also notice a distinct lack of narrative about her flirting. Is that because she leaves flirting to the "menz", or because she doesn't want to talk about what she really feels when she's chatting up some other guy?

Dr. Read downplays a "friend's" negative reaction to sanctioned flirting in a "conversation" she had on the subject (pretty convenient, eh?), and brushes aside the notion of being "insecure" as a barrier to such action. As a matter of fact, she waxes rhapsodic about the positive effects of jealousy in a relationship, provided it doesn't get "twisted into a full blown fight"- though she never tells us how to avoid that outcome. And that's an important deficiency, if you remember her pithy comment from earlier:

The fine art of innocent flirting has created many an after-party fight.

She tells the reader about setting mutual definitions of flirting, and boundaries, but that doesn't really solve the jealousy problem, does it? Because jealousy almost inevitably erupts over people stepping over the boundaries of "good clean fun". So the whole "jealousy is good" thing becomes a non sequitir, and the only "benefit" we are left with is the whole "trickle-down passion" thing.

"Trickle-Down" Economics was a bust, and I think "trickle-down" passion is, too.

Maybe Dr. Read and her partner are happy with their flirting agreement, though by her own description, I'd wonder if the whole thing wouldn't turn sour tomorrow if she felt he was "really" flirting. I, for one, think the whole premise of bringing "happy couple energy" in from someone who isn't a part of the "happy couple" a bit dodgy. I particularly think telling people who probably feel "insecure", as Dr. Read's "friend" does about opening the door, to toss inhibitions aside and go for it pretty suspect. But what does Dr. Read care if people read her hack piece on Yahoo, "give a free pass on flirting", and screw up their relationships?

It's not like a Doctor of Sexuality can get sued for malpractice, or anything.

http://dating.personals.yahoo.com/singles/relationships/1981/give-your-partner-a-flirting-pass

The Dating Advice Industry, Or Why Should I Have To Deal With YOUR Lack Of Personhood?

2007-07-20T15:32:00.000-07:00

I have Yahoo set as my homepage, mostly because the stuff on there is an unending source of fodder for blogging. A couple of days ago, the big "Y" came through for me again, in the form of some ultra-treacly "Luv Advice" from the rather large-eared gnome in the picture, a Mr. Evan Marc Katz. Mr. Katz's timely advice consisted of "11 Things Women Don't Know About Men, Plus One Thing They Do Know, But Probably Won't Admit".

This isn't "advice", it's the same old gender stereotypes, repackaged in nauseating list form. Any 10 year-old could probably regurgitate these old saws about "menz 'n wimminz" without much prodding:

1. Getting angry at us for not reading your mind is like getting angry at yourself for not being able to fly. It's not just futile, it's physically impossible.

2. Yes, we do think Jessica Alba is hot. Sometimes we're even dumb enough to admit it.

3. Don't ask us to understand your shoe fetish. Asking us to respect it is even sort of pushing it.

4. You do look good without makeup, just not as good as you look with it.

5. Ever notice how we don't fight with our male friends? That's why we get so frustrated when we fight with you.

6. You care what you're wearing infinitely more than we do. In fact, if you're naked when you open the front door, you won't hear an argument from us.

7. You don't like to get hit on in public, you don't want to date online and you don't want to be set up on blind dates. Tell us if sending messenger pigeons is an appropriate way of courting. Because if it is, we're all over it.

8. There should a statute of limitations on stupid things that we said that can come back to haunt us
There should a statute of limitations on stupid things that we said that can come back to haunt us. I propose 24 hours.

9. Cooking dinner for a man is like buying flowers for a woman, except it takes a lot more time, effort and thought for you to do it. Thanks. We appreciate it.

10. We actually like your girly pet-names for us, but please, not in front of the guys!

11. Just because we like looking at the women in Maxim doesn't mean we want to actually converse with the women in Maxim. Not for long, anyway.

12. Your nice guy friends are the most reliable source for telling you if your new boyfriend's a jerk. And he probably is. (By the way, you might want to consider marrying that nice guy who's giving you advice about the jerk.)

I'm not going to waste my time deconstructing this sexist wank-wank. If you are interested in that, Amanda did a good job on Pandagon a couple of days ago. Rather, I'd like to contemplate the kind of damage this stuff does to real people in real relationships. Even people who get that this is thinly-veiled bullshite end up paying an alarming price in their daily lives. When dating and relationships become "Us against Them", even if it is only OTHER people's relationships, we all loose. So, here is my list of "5 Ways Bogus Relationship Advice Torpedoes Actual Relationships" See how much more parsimonious I am than Mr. Katz? I don't even need to add in the patronizing "one you probably all ready know" for good measure.

1. When people start using gender-based shorthand to describe how other people think, it becomes a lot easier to dehumanize a partner.

2. People will live down to low expectations.

3. Pitting "Men" against "Women" introduces a win/loose mentality to relationships that justifies any behavior, so long as it allows you to "win".

4. Sexist stereotypes give convenient excuses for why things go wrong in relationships, allowing people to stop looking for the real sources of conflict.

5. Looking at relationships as "things" to "fix" misses the point entirely.

So, your saying, "No duh! Like any smarmy little list of relationship how-to prattle, everything you just said is obvious." And it is obvious, sitting here, reading it. But when you are in the throes of a dying love affair, or the heat of a fight, or having a dating loosing streak, social conditioning often kicks in, and the obvious flies out the window. When people are constantly bombarded with the same old tripe, day in, day out, a little can't help but seep in, around the corners. And that's bad. Nasty things get said to loved ones, feelings get hurt, and barriers get reinforced, which usually ends up escalating things even more.

What is even worse is how the people who buy into the stereotypes all of the time negatively impact the whole society. Here are a few examples of how this works. Example 1: Man buys into the idea expressed in Mr. Katz's #1. Women Expect Men To Be Mind Readers. He becomes bitter about situations where he has received messages from women he couldn't interpret. When he goes on dates with women, he decides that anything less than a, "No, I do NOT want to have sex" is either a "yes" OR just a bitch who wants him to read her mind, and he date rapes women on a serial basis. Example #2: Woman buys into #3. Women Are Supposed To Have Frivolous Spending Habits. All ready insecure about her own "femininity", the woman sees going on massive buying sprees as a way of "proving" she is a woman. She spends and spends, until she has spent her way into bankruptcy. Think stuff like this doesn't happen? Start looking around. And of course, both of the above scenarios have an impact on the wider community. And both, unwittingly, feed into the whole stereotype mess that started it all.

Oh, and Mr. Katz? That "nice guy"- the one who's supposed to be a woman's perfect love match? He's the real jerk. He plays women like instruments, too intent on "wining" the "game" to be honest about his feelings from the start, waiting to get an "in", pretending to be concerned about the woman's welfare, right up to the point he becomes her lover, when he starts comparing her unfavorably to Jessica Alba and whining about her shoes.

But you'r a Nice Guy (TM). You know that all ready, don't you?

Harry Potter: The Half-Baked Prince of Darkness?

2007-07-17T21:11:00.000-07:00

OK. I'll admit it. I was never a big Harry Potter fan. I was in my early 20's when the series started, so I was too old to really get in on the phenomenon, and my son, born in '99, was really too young. Add to that the fact that I have always had an instinctive disdain for things deemed "popular", and it is no wonder that I had only the barest knowledge of what was going on in the Potter universe.

Until now, that is. My son will be entering third grade next year, and he struggles with reading. I have been looking for a series of books to read with him, and Potter seemed like the perfect fit. So, I started to read the books this summer, and I have now finished the third installment. That is why a particularly odd screed on the internet caught my attention- a little treatise on the Evil of Harry Potter.

Now, I was vaguely familiar with the fact that some people were against the Potter series, but as I had no basis to form an opinion one way or the other, I never paid much attention. Now that Potter is on my radar screen, I have started to pay more attention to such opinions. And to those who would call Potter a gateway to the practice of evil, I have only one thing to say: "Thppppth"!

Really, it's all quite absurd. Perhaps in the latter installments of the series, I'll see the gates to Hell flung wide, but the books I have read contain no such objectionable material. They are children's books, and that means they follow a pretty predictable formula. We meet the Hero, who is a misunderstood child (as most of the readers will fancy themselves to be) living in woeful circumstances. It is revealed to the Hero that he is, in fact, Special, and not of the sad and pedantic folk he has been surrounded by. He is whisked off to a Magical Place where he is able to develop and refine his Special Powers, in the company of sympathetic and like-minded individuals. However, Specialness comes with a price, and our Hero must face a variety of Villains intent upon his destruction. Through the uses of his Special Powers, and because of his Good and Brave nature, our Hero overcomes the villains in a spectacular show of wits and perseverance, and saves the day. There are sub themes of friendship, and coming to terms with the past, and the superiority of childish daring and initiative v. following adult rules (this is meant to appeal to kids, after all). However, at NO point is there any lifting up of "evil", and the "magic" used in the book is pure fantasy, and not in any way related to "real" witchcraft theory or practice. This is Star Wars without the spaceships, the Wizard of Oz without Oz.
So, when people say things like this, I've got to laugh:

"The premiere of Harry Potter the movie will lead to a whole new generation of youngsters discovering witchcraft and wizardry....Increasing numbers of children are spending hours alone browsing the internet in search of Satanic websites and we are concerned that nobody is monitoring this growing fascination." Peter Smith, general secretary of the British Association of Teachers and Lecturers [1

Oh, come on. "Satanic" sites? True "witchcraft", the religion Wicca, is no more Satanic than tying your shoes is "Satanic". "Satan" is from Abrahimic faiths, so THEY and THEY alone could be claimed to have "Satanic" content (It isn't a coincidence that the true "Satanist" movement has a "black Mass" and borrows liberally from Christian iconography.). Besides, if parents are concerned kids may be stumbling across evil websites, I'd think the answer to that would be better parental supervision on the internet, not a banning of Potter books or movies. The anti- Potter brigades talk a lot about what God "hates", and indoctrination in "Godly" ways, but oddly enough, hate and indoctrination seem to be largely absent from the Potter books themselves. At no point in MY reading have I seen anything that suggests anyone should "hate" God, or anything else (Hate is the root of the Villain's evil, and his downfall. The love of Harry's mother saved him as a baby from the wrath of hate). The books never try to indoctrinate anyone into a belief system, because there is NO belief system articulated in these stories, other than Good should triumph over Evil, which is pretty standard stuff.

So, other than the massive commercialization and cross-branding that always takes a good thing and reduces it to its tacky, commercial worst, I see no evil in Harry Potter. I do think the folks railing against it are a pretty scary lot, though. A day in a "godly" house that emphasized the proper "fear and reverence for God" would probably make Harry's summers with the Dursleys look like a day at the park.

The Family Values Crowd Should Stop Lion

2007-07-09T14:44:00.001-07:00

I'm going to let you in on a little secret: The Family Values crowd hates marriage.

Oh, they do. They really do. The above three pictures were featured on the blog of a woman named Jennifer Roback Morse, entitled "The Three Stages of A Man's Life". The first picture is "single", the second is "married", and the third is "divorced". Taken together, they say a lot about the real agenda of the FV brigade.

Ms. Morse is a part-time Research Fellow at the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty. The Acton Institutes's mission is "to promote a free and virtuous society characterized by individual liberty and sustained by religious principles." In other words, Family Values-ville, USA.

Again, it is my contention that Morse, along with her FV buddies, really hate marriage, contrary to their positioning as a pro-marriage, pro-family front. The FV folks are actually anti-woman, but they can't come out and say it. Yes, even though Jennifer Roback Morse purports to be a woman herself, her anti-woman agenda is clear.

Let's go back to the enchanting little lion pictures for a moment. Now they, in themselves, are nothing extraordinary. They are just a variation on the old "ball and chain" jokes that have circulated endlessly since time immemorial. You know; men, left to their own devices live a fancy-free existence, until a woman "ensnares" them, and makes their lives miserable. The new twist, courtesy of the liberalization of divorce laws in the last century, is the notion of the woman leaving the man "flat broke" and used up after divorcing him. Not a real glowing portrait of marriage, is it? Yet, this is a picture replicated with startling regularity by the FV crowd. If marriage is so "bad" for men, why do the FVers beat the drum about the importance of marriage all of the time?

Two reasons. First, they know the Lion scenario is false. Second, and most importantly, they support marriage as a means to an end, not an end to itself. Men don't suffer from marriage. They prosper as a result of it. According to the Heritage Foundation, A FV stronghold if ever their was one, married adults are happier and less likely to commit suicide. Other studies have shown that men in particular reap health benefits from marriage, and the economic benefits of marriage have been documented as well. The real agenda of the FV camp is social control. They want to keep a certain group- affluent white males- at the top of the the pecking order.

Marriage, as it currently exists, is but a shadow if its former self. In the not too distant past, it served dual-duty in the service of the patriarchy. It kept women in their place, by defining a very narrow "acceptable"role, and by putting them under the direct control of a man at all times. It also excluded the "unwashed masses" from full participation in society, because it was often difficult for people at the lowest economic rungs to enter into marriage, the maintenance of family was an all-consuming activity for the middle rungs, and the advantages of political alliance through marriage and inheritance were kept safe for the top rungs of society. In effect, marriage kept people at the bottom chasing their own tails, freeing up the top of the heap to do what they wanted. While today's "egalitarian" marriage does not exert the same kind of control, it is the best thing the FV crowd has at the moment, and that's why they are sticking to it. Make no mistake, though. Today's "egalitarian" model of marriage is NOT what the FV folks have in mind when they think about the "ideal" form of the institution.

Need more convincing? Look to the opposition the FV camp throws up to same-sex marriage. Remember my statistics from the Heritage Foundation earlier? The statistics that show people are better off when they are married? Well, this is the recommendation from the folks at Heritage in regard to same-sex marriage: " Adopt an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to protect the traditional definition of marriage." Yep. They don't care AT ALL about the well-being of the people in the relationships. Allowing for same-sex marriage would run counter to the REAL goal of the FV crowd, so of course, they aren't going to support it. Their disdain for the egalitarian ideal is made manifest with quotes like this, again from the Heritage Foundation, from a piece called Soft Patriarchs, New Men: How Christianity Shapes Fathers And Men:

The primary cause of this national crisis, that is the decline of the family, is
the feminization of the American male. The first thing you need to do is sit
down with your wife and say something like this: “Honey, I’ve made a terrible
mistake. I’ve given you my role. I gave up leading this family, and I forced you
to take my place. Now I must reclaim that role.

Of course, the piece concludes that the ONLY way to"reconnect" men with their family responsibilities and make them "sensitive" to their wife's needs is for the wife to submit to the "leadership" of her husband. Because the problem they see is NOT men doing less than they should, but women having more power than they should.

FVers hate women. And gays, and brown people, and basically anyone they see as standing in the way of the white male privilege juggernaut. They do not "love" marriage, despite what they say. They tolerate it, in its current form, only because they see it as a tool for reestablishing white male superiority. The minute they succeed in reestablishing the social order they want, all thoughts of "loving family relationships" will fall to the wayside. Because FVers don't really value families. They value what families can DO for white men.

Let's call shenanigans, and tell the Family Values crowd to stop lion.

Don't They Ever Get Tired of Saying "Pregnant Woman" In the Jessie Davis Case?

2007-06-24T18:14:00.000-07:00

In case you haven't heard, a 26 year old woman named Jessie Davis was murdered in Ohio. Apparently, she was abducted from her home, and the only witness was her terrified two-year-old son. Predictably, her boyfriend is the main suspect, and has been arrested.

Oh, yeah. Ms. Davis was pregnant at the time of her slaying.

Now, the very fact that this woman was abducted from her home in the middle of the night, after a struggle, in front of a terrified child, makes this a fairly shocking story for me. Apparently, to the people who write news headlines, the only relevant fact was her pregnancy. "Autopsy Reveals Body Is Missing Mom", "New Arrest In Death Of Pregnant Woman", "Pregnant Woman Missing"- you get the picture. All of the headlines seem to point to the only relevant fact in the case being the fact that Ms. Davis was 8 months pregnant. Yes, that she was pregnant is a relevant fact, worthy of note in the article(s) about her dissapearance and murder. But, wouldn't this be newsworthy without that fact, too? The headlines seem to suggest otherwise.

Women are walking uteri, and only the contents of that organ are of any consequence. I see this being Laci Petersen, Part II. Who cares about the vibrant young woman who was murdered, or the sad things these cases say about domestic abuse and assault? Its all about the right of the fetus! Let's protect those fetuses! Women ARE important- as fetus carriers! Let's throw the book at the murderer(s), not because of the slaying of a woman, but to send a message to would-be murderers to find non-pregnant victims, 'cause we mean BUSINESS when it comes to fetuses! Long live the fetus!

If only Ms. Davis' (female) fetus had been saved, it could have grown up to be a fetus carrier some day, too! What a waste of a life.

*Sigh*

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070624/ap_on_re_us/pregnant_woman_dead http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/19/missing.woman.ap/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/24/missing.woman/index.html

I Like Sex

2007-06-22T23:23:00.001-07:00

I do. I really like sex. I know that isn't the most socially acceptable thing to say, especially as a woman, but it is true. And I am betting I am not the only one. So why, WHY do we still see the endless repetition of the same tired old chestnuts about men having higher sex drives than women, wanting and "needing" sex more? I get so sick of it: 1.) because it makes me seem disordered for liking and wanting sex; 2.) because the suppposed disparity gets used to excuse all sorts of bad behavior by men; 3.) because it trivializes women by excluding them from the "boys only" realm of sexual gratification we supposedly don't care for; 4.) it places an undeservedly high premium on female virginity, as if it is something hard-won by men ; and 5.) it reinforces the madonna/whore dichotomy. There are probably other things this does that I don't really like. Insert those here.

I have a higher sex drive than my husband, and my ex-husband, too. I have never spent a single day of my life worrying about how to fend off unwanted sexual advances. I am sure this doesn't hold true for all women, but I would like to see more cultural acknowledgement of people like me.

Yes, I like kitties and poodles and all manner of pink, girly things. I like to cuddle and snuggle. I like to talk to my partner and do silly, romantic things.

I also like to fuck like a bonobo chimp as often as I can.

Is that so wrong?

Poodle- 1, Ten Commandments-0

2007-06-22T22:56:00.000-07:00

Yeah. This just goes to prove- cute beats... um, I don't know WHAT to call it... Creepy? Preachy? Every time.

Recently, both the Japanese and the Vatican have been worried about issues of public safety and motoring. The Japanese response to unsafe street crossing? A cute little poodle who crosses on command on his hind legs.

The Vatican response? A strange riff on the Ten Commandments- this time, aimed at motorists. It would be blasphemous, if it wasn't so lame.

Here- judge for yourself.

TOKYOMANGO: Pluto the Poodle Promoting Public Safety

Vatican issues 10 Commandments for drivers - CNN.com

I know which I would want on a t-shirt...

Sorry, Folks: CDD=S+M

2007-05-12T08:12:00.000-07:00

Thanks to Jesus' General for introducing this to me.

CDD, or "Christian Domestic Discipline" is a new one on me. I know the Bible blathers on about women being obedient to their husbands, and sanctions domestic abuse, but hey, it also sanctions slavery and plucking out people's eyes if they offend you, so ... Let's just say, I didn't think many people probably took it too seriously any more when the Bible perscribed proper whipping rod sizes and such.

Wrong.

Apparently, there is a whole subculture dedicated to reviving "Biblical" relationships in marriage (translated: domestic abuse). At first. I wondered how anybody in their right mind would want to go back to that, especially women. Then I read some of the stuff at: http://www.christiandomesticdiscipline.com And now, I finally understand. CDD= S+M. Fundies wat to put some fun back in "fundamental", but they can't exactly go parading in to the local leather scene without seriously damaging their cred, because everyone KNOWS Christians dont do "that" stuff.

And lest you think I'm some libralislamofacist Christ-hater, I'll let YOU be the judge:

sa·do·mas·o·chism /ˌseɪdoʊˈmæsəˌkɪzəm,
1.
interaction, esp. sexual activity, in which one person enjoys
inflicting physical or mental suffering on another person, who derives pleasure
from experiencing pain.
2.
gratification, esp. sexual, gained through
inflicting or receiving pain; sadism and masochism combined. Abbreviation: S-M,
S and M

From "Wisdom Worker" at Christiandomesticdiscipline.com

“No, no, no,” she whimpered. “Please, no
more.”

“Have you learned your lesson?” he
asked softly.

“Yeesss,” she cried, “I
promise. . .please. . .”

Lucas put the
belt down next to her on the bed and removed his jeans. Alyssa’s heart
picked up in rhythm when he lifted her further up into the bed and moved her
legs apart to lie between them. She could barely breathe as he entered
her, so afraid he’d hurt her. He was such a big man. If he was still
angry with her. . .

Lucas made love to her
with exquisite gentleness, tenderly cradling her sore bottom in one hand while
he held her body close to his with the other. Though she didn’t feel like
reaching her own climax, his lovemaking comforted Alyssa, and by the time he was
through she had stopped crying and her heart felt much better. They lay in
each other’s arms for a long time
afterwards.

“Now that is what I came home
for,” Lucas said with a kiss to her forehead.

Scare Tactics

2007-05-07T16:33:00.000-07:00

Oh, yeah. I'm mad. Really mad. I just saw the most incredibly misogynist public service announcement, courtesy of Pandagon. Check it out. It really, really has to be seen to be believed. http://majikthise.typepad.com/majikthise_/2007/05/think_before_yo.html

Done watching? Good. Now I'll start ranting.

Please, please, patriarchal killjoys, get the message: the Genie is out of the bottle. Young women are on the internet, and they WILL, in fact, post things, including pictures of themselves, to websites. These women are not all naive bubbleheads. As a matter of fact, a good number of these young women know a lot more than you patriarchal overlords do about the internet. They know exactly what they are doing, and exactly how to do it. And that is what really whips your polyester-blend boxers into an uproar.

The young women aren't playing your game by your rules any more, are they?

They are operating in cyberspace- free of physical threat to their physical bodies, which has been the dominator's stock-in-trade since times unrecorded. As long as men could actively threaten women with physical force, it was easy to keep them under control. Of course, the second-best thing to use was community-wide condemnation, keeping women in check through fear of harassment and ostracization.

But that doesn't work as well on the Net either, does it?

So, you're stuck. You want to control, commodity, and keep for your own private use the bodies of women, but the internet makes that so much harder to do.

Little morality tales like the ad above are all you have left to fall back on. Scare women into believing they are at imminent risk of harassment, stalking, or worse, in an effort to bring them back in line. Tell them to "think before you post", inferring they are not very bright, and aren't really qualified to make choices like what to put on Facebook or Myspace without "oversight". Shame them with stories of "bad girls" with all sorts of shorthand for promiscuity- tattoos, people knowing what color of underwear they have- so that they don't ever doubt that "good girls" wouldn't DO this internet posting thing. And finally, emphasize the fact that society will not interfere in any way with those who would harm imprudent posters- it is the posters who must protect themselves if they want to be in society's good graces.

Yes, pat yourselves on the back for your little masterstroke. Score one for the patriarchy while ostensibly looking out for the public's well being. But your victory is a hollow one. Because, like it or not, the invigorating freedom of the internet will not be so easily thwarted. Young women want to be able to walk in the open air, with the sun on their faces, unapologetically, for all to see.

Until that time comes, Myspace, Facebook, and the internet at large will have to do.

Sorry, fellas. Maybe you should move on to the "Think Before You Listen To Your I-Pod" ad.

Marriage Is Not The "Magic Bullet"

2007-04-28T19:42:00.000-07:00

There has been a lot of discussion lately over the statistics released this month that point to the overall ineffectiveness of abstinence-until marriage sex education. I hate to be the one to pour more cold water over the abstinence crowd (OK, maybe I don't hate it THAT much), but the poor job it does keeping young, unmarried people out of harm's way is really only the tip of the iceberg.

Marriage is no panacea regarding STD's (or anything else, for that matter). The fact that someone "waits" until marriage is no guarantee they will never be infected. This seems like common sense, but even the mainstream medical community does a poor job of communicating this. Consider the following statistics: 22 percent of men and 14 percent of women admitted to having sexual relations outside their marriage sometime in their past, according to a study done in the 1990's. The same study found that 70 percent of married women and 54 percent of married men did not know of their spouses' extramarital activity. On top of that, consider the fact that annual well-woman exams rarely include STD testing for women who self-identify as married or in a monogamous relationship, and most men do not go to their doctors at all for regular checkups. The following quotes from the University of Tennessee Medical Center give insight into the prevailing attitude of the medical community regarding STD's:

Your care provider may want to perform other lab tests to make sure you
are healthy. Sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) are a big problem in
women who have multiple sexual partners and don’t use condoms.

They go on to say:

Many times women are not aware that they are infected because they
have no symptoms. For this reason, women at any age with a history of
risky behavior or evidence of problems, may need special tests.

Now, it would seem the fact that women often fail to notice symptoms would be reason enough to test all women for STD's, but the "risky behavior" clause is again thrown in. Considering the statistics above about infidelity, how many people who feel "safe" in a marriage are really unwittingly in the "risky behavior" category?

So, we have folks going around, telling teens and young people that the best way for them to avoid STD's is to avoid sex before marriage, and they do so by framing it in mystical, loaded language that relies on religious "sanctification" of the act. Here's an example I found on a site about the "Top 10 Reasons Why Sex Should Wait Until Marriage".

Premarital sex breaks the 10 Commandments given by God. The 10
Commandments are given to man by God to make man happy. They are
not outdated and they are not restrictive. If we follow these laws, we
can create happy and prosperous lives. If we don't follow them, we will pay
a heavy price in divorce, disease, abortions, illegitimate children and loneliness.

We see marriage portrayed as a sort of "Get out of Jail Free" card. If you just wait until marriage, you don't have to worry about things like divorce, disease, abortions, illegitimate children, or loneliness. And don't just take MY word for it-- this is God's law, after all (?!) Now, I expect as much from the radical right, but it just appalls me that the medical community has fallen in lockstep with such absurd notions. So we have married people who think they are protected when they are not, and who the medical community just ignores as potential infection risks. Except, of course, when a woman is pregnant. Because anyone who has ever been pregnant knows that, as a matter of course, all women (married or otherwise) are given a full battery of STD tests during the course of their prenatal care.

Because, you know, we've gotta keep those embryos and fetuses safe, even if that means admitting married people sometimes get STD's.

My recommendation is simple. All annual checkups (for women or men) should have STD tests as a part of the regular battery of tests to perform, regardless of their relationship status. People should opt out, rather than opting in to these crucial tests. And, of course, we should dump the abstinence until marriage education, and paint a more realistic picture about what marriage and the transmission of disease really look like. That assumes, of course, that we're really worried about lowering STD infection rates, and not just indoctrinating people with "family values" falderall about the sanctity of marriage.

My first marriage was one of the 17 percent of marriages that end in divorce due to infidelity. I never saw it coming, and to this day, I don't know what kind of sexual activity my ex-husband may have participated in with "the other woman" while we were married. Never once, until I expressly asked for it (after finding out about the infidelity) did any of my doctors offer me a STD test while I was married except for when I was pregnant. Marriages provide little enough protection from the vagaries of human emotion, let alone the transmission of disease. Society needs to be honest to people about both.

Believe Me

2007-04-27T17:51:00.000-07:00

Oh, all ye people of little FAITH! See what is before you and TREMBLE at the awesomeness of my Awesome revelation! For I finally have CONCLUSIVE, IRREFUABLE proof of extraterrestrial life visiting this planet! Feast your eyes on the above pic! What do you see? To some, it is a strange zig-zaggy light. To others, it might seem like the camera was bummped while taking a picture of something bright in the dark. I, however, know it to be none of the above. It is, in fact, a picture of an extraterrestrial being in the shape of a large light dog zipping through the earth's atmosphere! Staggering, isn't it? But there it is. I think these light-entities are taking the form of dogs because they know we consider dogs to be human's best friend, and they want to communicate their friendly intentions. Aren't they way smart? They may even be interdimentional as well as intergalactic travelers-- I just don't know yet.
So, you may ask, "How do you know these are light-dog entities from another galaxy?" A very good question, for which I have a very good answer. I believe it to be true. And that's all I need. Because belief is stronger than the strongset steel. More immovable than the largest mountan. More inpenetrable than the deepest fog. As really Super Spectacluar as the picture is, I don't need it. Because I have faith in the illumicanines (that's the name I have coined for our most Revered and Stupendous guests), I just know they are there.
That is the beauty of faith. It is what it is. If you have it, it is real. Faith doesn't need proof, it has itself. I mean, how elegant is THAT? I am a real supporter of faith. Well, as long as it isn't stupid faith. That, I've got no time for. Like , for example, those Native Americans who call G-d "the Great Spirit". Please. Yahweh. Now THAT'S a name for G-d. Or, the Holy Ghost! I don't know about you, but that just resonates. Even Allah has got a ring to it. How do I know what the right name for G-d is? I just do. Cause that is faith. And GOOD faith, the kind I like-- well, that's the STUFF!!
The other day, Jimbo and I were on our way to the mall when we got behind this car that had a really great bumpersticker that drives home this point. It said, "If you think you are perfect, try walking on water". Yeah. Can't do it, can ya? Well, it just goes to show you... yeah. THAT, my friend, is the power of faith. If you are a Believer, you KNOW you can't walk on watter. You take it on faith. But all of these other, science-y types, they have to go falling in to the lake, getting all wet, and maybe drowning before they know the Unalterable truth. You can't walk on water. That's what MY faith gives me. In your FACE, un-faith types!
Those un-faithers out there kinda worry me. I mean, if they don't think like I do, what's to keep them from practicing their un-faith all rampantly, and squeezing out MY faith? I think that is a really big concern. What if everybody just went around believing or not believing as they wished? Hmm? What then? I shudder to think.
Greeting to the Illumicanines
Oh! Great glowing Dog of the Cosmos! Thank you
for gracing me with your presence. I am here, and I have
FAITH!!!

Safe, Legal, and Rare- A Perspective On Gun Control

2007-04-26T19:05:00.000-07:00

“Safe, Legal, and Rare”, is the quotation we often see attached to the debate about abortion, but I contend that it is perhaps better applied to the whole discussion about gun control. In the wake of the Virginia Tech shootings, those in favor of stricter gun control laws are bringing to the forefront of the national discourse the inconsistencies of the national policy towards gun ownership and use. The only way, in my opinion, to make sane legislation in the US regarding gun ownership and use is to approach it with this framework in mind. Our goal in this country should be to make sure that guns are used safely, the right to own guns is protected, and the real and perceived need to own guns is greatly reduced.

First, efforts should be increased to ensure the safe ownership of guns. A clearer national standard as far as who may and may not purchase guns needs to be instituted. Notice, I never said “stricter”. Frankly, you can’t legislate for every contingency, as far as who might be a “good” candidate for gun ownership, as opposed to a “bad” candidate for gun ownership. Overly strict restrictions on who may and may not purchase a gun only invite circumvention, and make enforcement much more difficult. The federal government, then, should concern itself primarily with: 1. A unified age for gun ownership (I would suggest 18); 2. Proof of satisfactory completion of a gun safety education course; 3. Clear rules about who may be barred from gun ownership (felons convicted of violent crime, or gun-related crime, and people who have been ruled to be mentally incompetent are obvious groups here); and 4. Proof of citizenship or legal status. States, of course, should be able to legislate more restrictive standards, but the federal standards should act as the minimum baseline. There need to be clear standards regarding how states report information to the national database, and a clear timeframe for them doing so. I also believe it is time to demand more accountability from gun and ammunition manufactures, and clear federal standards should be enacted to make all guns and ammunition more easily traceable through microindentification marks.

Secondly, we need to be sure to respect the constitutionality of gun ownership. Like it or not, the constitution is very clear about the right to own guns. Though the core reason for the amendment- the notion that people should be able to defend themselves against tyranny- is not particularly relevant today (not to say the danger of tyranny has abated; rather, the ability of even a well-armed populace to resist it has), there are clearly other reasons why gun ownership is still relevant in a modern society. The use of guns for sport, the use of guns in certain professions, collecting guns for their intrinsic value and artistic merit, and the use of guns for personal protection are all legitimate reasons for modern citizens to own guns. It is also important to note that the state should not be second-guessing the capacity of rational, law-abiding citizens to make decisions about what is or is not appropriate for them to own when no imminent threat of harm or actual harm to society has been established.

Finally, we come to the “rare” part of the equation. The sanction of violence and belligerent behavior that pervades our culture makes gun ownership and gun use much less well examined than it ought to be. Though there are several perfectly legitimate reasons for owning a gun, many people own them because they mistakenly believe that it makes them look “tough”, or that gun violence is the only sure way to resolve conflict. Unrealistic portrayals of how easy—and accurate—guns are only serves to encourage people to buy and use guns irresponsibly. It is the duty of educators, the media, and other concerned citizens to counteract these destructive messages with honest information about the high human cost of gun violence, positive messages about self-esteem that are not linked to stereotypes of “toughness”, and honest messages about the difficulty of using a gun well, especially in adverse conditions. In addition, non-lethal modes of self-protection need to be made more widely available and better understood. None of this, of course, will be able to change the culture of violence overnight, but these steps are perhaps the most important and long-lasting forms of “gun control” available to this society.

This Just In: Resumes Trump Logic On Issues Of Public Policy

2007-04-26T19:02:00.000-07:00

Sigh. This is the response to the letter I wrote my state Representative about HB 213, which was ostensibly designed to safeguard intellectual diversity. Aside from failing to address a SINGLE argument I made in my letter, this response is really... Yeah. I'll let it speak for itself. if you are interested in reading my letter or the actual legislation text, see my previous post.

Ok, I can't stand it. I've just got to point out that the plaintiff in the case that was the inspiration for this piece of legislation is named Emily Brooker- hence, the "Emily Brooker Intellectual Diversity Act". He refers to it as the "Booker" case. That really makes me feel confident he is telling me the truth when he says "I have read the Bill carefully several times."

But hey. He's got a law degree from UMKC.

Kristie,
Thanks for the email on HB 213. I have read the Bill carefully several times. My academic experience includes, undergraduate study at William Jewell College , with Honors study at Oxford University and a Law Degree from the University of Missouri at Kansas City . I have also served as an Adjunct Professor at William Jewell College for nearly 14 years. During my 15 years as a practicing lawyer, a large part of my practice has been representing plaintiff’s for employment discrimination. These claims have included race based, gender, age, and first amendment, and whistle blower protection claims. I am comfortable in the analysis of constitutional issues.
The Diversity Act is directed at view point discrimination and is neutral on whose view point is protected. Additionally, many universities have adopted policies that have essentially many of the same guidelines as set out in HB 213. Mizzou was the example raised during floor debates. The main difference is that the public educators would have to report to the General Assembly that they have adopted a policy against view point discrimination. For most professors, this law would have virtually no impact on them. For most schools this law will have no impact on them.
Missouri State, however, is the example of what can go wrong when a university forgets what their mission is, open education and not discriminating. In the Booker case, she refused to sign an “advocacy letter” the professor had crafted as it was against her philosophical convictions. The University initially backed the professor and interrogated the student. It took a law suit to force the issue and secure a real remedy.
The Bill as written would protect both a liberal and a conservative student. A Student of Muslim faith could not be discriminated against if he would not agree to sign an advocacy letter that violates his religious beliefs. The socialist student would be free to speak and write as he or she wished and not be graded based on view point, but upon skills in displayed in promoting their ideas.
A pro life law student would not be subjected to different treatment and nor would a pro choice law student.
There has been much proclaimed about this Bill. I do not know if it will be pursued in the Senate. Even so, I think it is important to raise this issue so that students do not have to resort to law suits and faculty is both highly educated and diverse as well.
Thanks for writing to me about this important issue.
Best Regards,
Tim Flook

Missouri Residents Be Warned! HB 213 Is Not What It Seems To Be

2007-04-18T14:47:00.000-07:00

Below is a copy of the letter I wrote to my state rep. about HB 213. If you want to see a copy of the bill text, go to: http://www.house.mo.gov/bills071/bills/HB213.HTM

Representative Flook:
I am writing to you today in regard to House Bill # 213, also known as the “Emily Brooker Intellectual Diversity Act”. As I understand it, this piece of legislation was granted first round approval on April 11th of this year, and is waiting on a final vote before it can move on to the Senate.

As an educator and a proponent of true intellectual diversity, I urge you to vote against this piece of legislation. Though it sounds like an affirmation of basic freedom of speech and intellectual tolerance, a close reading of the bill’s text would suggest otherwise. In addition to the basic premise of the bill being flawed, there are two key areas of the bill which are particularly troubling.
First, the whole notion of legislating intellectual diversity is problematic. The bill never provides any rationale for why such legislation might be necessary. As a matter of fact, the inciting incident for the bill seems to have little to do with the topic of the legislation. A Missouri House communication dated April 11th states,

Rep. Cunningham’s legislation comes on the heels of claims from a student
studying social work at Missouri State University that she was threatened
with a lower grade if she did not sign an advocacy letter to the Missouri
legislature in support of gay adoption. The student, Emily Brooker, sued the
university which quickly responded with a settlement.

Clearly, the above situation is an example of a questionable grading policy in a particular classroom, not a system-wide threat to intellectual diversity. In addition, I would like to point out that only one section of the legislation, line 2j, directly deals with such situations. Ironically, the definition of “intellectual diversity” provided in the bill, “…the foundation of a learning environment that exposes students to a variety of political, ideological, religious, and other perspectives, when such perspectives relate to the subject matter being taught or issues being discussed.” would actually be upheld by the assignment in question, as it clearly exposed Ms. Brooker to a viewpoint different from her own.

Secondly, the bill seems to be an attempt to do exactly what Representative Cunningham states she does not wish to do – “micromanaging” the affairs of colleges and universities. As a matter of fact, at one point, the bill actually suggests the creation of an entire new office—that of Intellectual Diversity Ombudsman—just to deal with all of the paperwork generated by this bill. In an era of dwindling funding for education across the board, the creation of yet another bureaucratic position seems to be a poor use of funds.

Finally, and perhaps most troubling, the bill seems poised to do exactly the opposite of promoting intellectual diversity. Line 2e admonishes institutions to take steps like: “Include intellectual diversity concerns in the institution's guidelines on teaching and program development and such concerns shall include but not be limited to the protection of religious freedom including the viewpoint that the Bible is inerrant;” At first, it sounds like a positive move for institutions to “include intellectual diversity concerns in guidelines on teaching and program development”. When you look to the end of this statement, and the decision to only specifically name the viewpoint that the “Bible is inerrant” as protected, a different, decidedly less intellectual diversity –friendly agenda clearly emerges. It is telling that this viewpoint, which could actually be argued to be the dominant paradigm in most of Missouri today, was selected for specific protection, as opposed to something that might truly be considered a minority or subversive view, like the inerrancy of the Koran, or the illegitimacy of the Bible, for example.

In short, the Emily Brooker Intellectual Diversity Act is a poorly conceived, overly bureaucratic attempt to stifle the very thing it allegedly promotes. This piece of legislation is nothing more than a well-disguised attempt to frighten postsecondary educational institutions away from supporting real minority viewpoints, and force them to accommodate the will of the majority.

Planning on a Family? The Real Choice

2007-03-27T20:41:00.000-07:00

Ooh. The "C" word. Bet you're thinking about abortion, right? Unfortunately, the concept of parental choice usually gets essentialized down into the most extreme manifestation- the "Hail Mary Pass" if you will, of reproductive control.

It' shouldn't.

Focusing on abortion misses the much larger point. As long as society continues to promulgate the unrealistic (and in my opinion, dangerous) message that all people were designed to be parents, the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy is fairly meaningless. Let me explain.

The mainstream messages circulated in society today have a few things in common. First, they presume EVERYONE, sooner or later, will become a parent. It is treated as a "right of passage" most adults will participate in. Secondly, it is presumed that parenthood is a natural, totally "instinctual" function of all humans, and all people are equally equipped to be parents. Thirdly, it is presumed that there are intrinsic, tangible awards to parenthood. The only problem with all of this is-- none of it is true.

Lie #1- Everyone will become a parent at some point, unless something is "wrong" with them. You only need to look to the booming infertility business to see this one in action. They sell people (mostly women) on the notion that a "biological clock" in their body is impatiently ticking away, waiting for them to fulfil their destiny by having a child. They convince people that not having children is a sign of disorder, and promise to "fix" them by allowing them to conceive or carry. And what about not wanting kids? Well, that's just self-centeredness.

The Truth We Need To Be Telling People: Obviously, infertility has been around for a long time. You see it in every organism that reproduces sexually. Actually, it is very natural to have a certain percentage of the population that is unable to reproduce. Having a child is not any one's "destiny" per se, and beyond the basic urge to reproduce (read: have sex), there seems to be precious little evidence for a truly "biological" clock. The desire to have children seems to be as much a learned, societal expectation as anything else. And the self-centeredness critique? Why is it wrong for a person to put their own considerations first when making a decision as momentous as to be or not to be a parent?

Lie #2- Parenthood is totally instinctual, and all people are equally equipped to be parents. Anyone can be good parent if they try hard enough.

The Truth We Need To Be Telling People: Wrong! Having sex is instinctual, parenthood is not. Certain parental functions may be influenced by instinct, but again, in all sexually reproducing organisms, we see a wide variance as to how individuals carry out that task, and many fail to do so at all. People are no exception to that rule. Some people seem to have a strong "instinctual" response to parenting; others do not. Some choose to devote themselves to parenting; some do not. Some seem to be well equipped to handle the difficulties of raising a child; others are not so well equipped. The bottom line: not everyone is cut out to be a parent.

Lie #3- Being a parent is more rewarding than it is taxing. There are intrinsic rewards to parenthood every parent will realize. The bond between parent and child is immediate (especially for mothers), and you will feel "blessed" by your child's presence.

The Truth We Need To Be Telling People: Being a parent is very hard. It will kick your butt, and good! Often, there will seem to be no light at the end of the tunnel. Having a kid will radically alter your life, and usually, not for the better, especially in the beginning. The rewards are often fleeting, and the amount of work you will put into being a good parent is awesome. You may feel an instant bond with your child, and then again, you may not. Having a child will impact your other relationships, and will quite possibly put strain on them. Being a good parent requires putting your child first, so other things, like professional goals, and leisure time activities will also take a backseat as well. Some parent-child relationships will always be rocky. Some children are just not very lovable. Even good parents sometimes will have troubled children.

These are the lies we tell ourselves about parents and parenthood. They are replicated endlessly across the full spectrum of our societal discourse on the subject of procreation. It is not good for would-be parents to have these lies as the basis of their procreative decision making process, and it is terrible for would-be children as well. Every child should be a wanted child-- wanted by well-informed parents, for the right reasons. As long as we frame "choice" as a stop-gap measure until people fulfil their "destiny" by "planning" their family- the right number of kids at the right time with the right person- instead of opening it up to the more fundamental choice of whether to plan for a family at all- "wanted" will remain a relative term.

So, while I am a steadfast champion of the right to birth control in all of its forms, including abortion, I truly believe people who are worried about issues of women's rights, children's rights, and even population control and sustainability need to take the message to the street about why, in fact, everyone doesn't need to become a parent to be a fulfilled, happy person (and how having a kid may actually be counterproductive in that regard), and how some people are just not designed to be parents- and why that isn't so bad.

I believe it is a much better strategy to define the playing field in terms that support true reproductive freedom from the start, rather than always defaulting to that longshot pass we call abortion, which leaves the supporters of true choice just one fumble away from loosing the whole game.

Watch This Space

2007-03-08T20:29:00.000-08:00

In a couple of days, I'll be fully functional here in the litterbox, ready to scratch up lots of dirt on any number of my favorite topics. Until then, I'll leave you with my most recent poetic effort as a taste- albeit a tame one- of things to come. The lyrics interspersed between the stanzas are by Placebo. If you have never listened to Placebo, do so. It's good stuff.

95 Miles Per Hour On I-29

Black sky, black asphalt streaming by in a blur as I push the pedal down harder and farther,
hoping that I can push back all of the faces and words and details of a life gone terrible wrong,
In the 10 seconds it takes to go from 0 to 60 on I-29.

I'm coming up in infrared, there is no running that can hide you, coz i can see in the dark. I'm coming up on infrared, forget your running, I will find you.

Base pounding out a beat as tortured lyrics spill out of the glowing face of the radio reminds me that my heart’s beating too.
I turn it up a little louder and toss my head as my hair streams in the sonic wind.

I'm coming up in infrared, there is no running that can hide you, coz i can see in the dark. I'm coming up on infrared, forget your running, I will find you.

Outpacing the recent past is easier and easier as the needle creeps up to 85, now 90.
I’m a real-life mechwarrior tearing up the horizon in my artificial limb
that shifts, then shakes as the dial reads 95.

I'm coming up in infrared, there is no running that can hide you, coz i can see in the dark. I'm coming up on infrared, forget your running, I will find you.

Living becomes more real as the white line between control and destiny divides me from the rest of the world, and I revel in my minor infraction against a lesser deity
as I accelerate away from the twinkling lights of civilization and into the void.

I'm coming up in infrared, there is no running that can hide you, coz i can see in the dark. I'm coming up on infrared, forget your running, I will find you.