Easily Enthused

This Story Gives Me the "Cold Scratchies"

2012-01-27T09:14:00.000-05:00

It might just be me, but this doesn't seem like much of a "good romance" story. Not only does she not really seem terribly in love with her husband (rather, she just seems to be doing it because he is dedicated and financially stable) but ... what about the original bus guy?

He just lost his best friend and girlfriend in one fell swoop when they decided to sleep together while he was taking care of a family emergency.

Because, you know, "GIRL POWER!"

Tales of Validation: The Beast's Affection

2012-01-20T22:46:00.000-05:00

Over the course of the past year or so, I've come to some realizations about my ability to converse on certain topics online without - well, losing it.

Probably my most "delicate" trigger is the concept of poisonous male sexuality. My upbringing in an anti-sex, second-wave feminist household (and being raised by my mother alone through puberty) meant that I grew up with the idea that male sexual affection is a burden borne by women.

It is not good, it is not noble - it is a disgusting, hurtful burden. This drove my "Nice Guy"-ism in earlier years and my regular placement in the FriendZone by women I was attracted to. Many of my female objects of affection were under the impression I was gay - and told me as much when I finally worked up the nerve to express my affection.

I eventually got over that - but there has always been a lingering question: Why would women appreciate affection from big, burly, hairy, masculine men? Our society clearly pedstalizes the physical beauty of femininity and women - how could women find pleasure in a man's affection?

Well, today I read a comment at NSWATM that was one of those once-in-a-lifetime "click" moments.

My mother was, and is, a horse-lover. We had horses on our farm and I was encouraged by her to learn how to care for and ride a horse. I still remember overcoming my massive fear of an animal far larger, stronger and faster than me. There was a point, after regularly taking care of my horse, Ginger, that she began to trust me, and I began to trust her. There was a surreal nature to our relationship - that a small boy like myself could care for and work together with an animal so capable of a life independent of me. I remember brushing her down one day, and I could feel her leaning into my brush strokes while wrapping her massive head around my back - and taking deep sniffs of my hair and shirt.

This comment was left by Katie Powell over at NSWATM:

things I find attractive in men:
...
men who hug me with their arms, their chest, and sometimes their pelvis or neck, as if being pressed up against me and holding me close is all they want to do,
men who make me feel a bit like I did when I was a kid and I’d hug the horses I used to ride and they’d wrap their big horse necks around and hug me back, awkwardly, distantly, and smelling of hay and leather, an animal not made for this mode of affection trying valiantly to give it a go.

And it clicked for me. I suddenly understood why my wife would give an appreciative but brief moan when I come up from behind and wrap my arms around her.

I can finally relate to the deep, inner validation that comes from receiving affection from something that isn't expected to do such things.

I know I'm not a beast - I know the women in my life haven't viewed me as one, either. But I am a human being whose chromosomes, hormones and genetics passed down from tens of thousands of ancestors have twisted and fortified my body and mind for battle.

I find it massively comforting to finally be able to identify with my wife's obvious appreciation for my affection. It feels great.

Conclusions on Feminism Part 2

2011-11-24T06:00:00.000-05:00

"Feminism is the radical notion that women are adults."

The problem in America is that we treat women like they are part child, part adult.
That's really, really it.
Too many Americans see women as "Adults Lite" or "Children Plus" and it is reflected in the way we employ them, use them in our armies, punish them when they commit crimes and mourn when they are abused.

As a society, we abhor men who sexually abuse young girls and boys. We somehow see women who do the same thing as slightly less culpable. I think this is similar to the way that we see less harm in a 19-year-old man having "consensual" sex with his 17-year old girlfriend than we do a 40-year-old man and a "consenting" 17-year-old girl.

Why do we do this? Sex with an under-age child is harmful to them no matter the age of the perpetrator, right? Not exactly. We think of that 19-year-old man as more of a child than the 40-year-old. And we certainly don't think a crime has necessarily been committed when 14-year-olds have consensual sex with each other, right?

Well, what's more child-like than a 19-year-old man? A 19-year-old woman. That's part of the reason why society doesn't care as much when an older woman has sex with an underage boy.

You could even make the case for eye makeup that embiggens their eyes and hairless bodies as the ideal vision of female beauty being tied to the childization of women.
(Yes, I just used two words that aren't words in one sentence. But you knew what I meant, didn't you? That's right. Deal with it.)

Hell, we even have a federal organization named "Women, Infants & Children."

I think this ties into one of the biggest problems facing Feminism today. The effort that has been put into getting women the right to vote and into the workplace has been crucial for women to physically, financially and legally "leave the nest" of child-like status when they were passed from parents to husband for custodial care hundreds of years ago.

But now, women are permitted the benefits of adulthood without many of the societal expectations and responsibilities we expect of adult men.

Women are still:
Able to avoid parental responsibilities via abortion, adoption or abandonment
Able to sidestep military drafts via exclusion from selective service
Able to sidestep career "duties" via relative ease of being a housewife
Able to sidestep or mitigate criminal sentences

Don't get me wrong: women being excluded from voting and employment opportunities are not the only ways that women have been and still are harmed by this mentality. Those were just the most egregious and systematic/institutionalized issues. Women still have many issues to deal with today - just add Jezebel to your daily reading and you'll be bombarded with (mostly) valid issues.

That said, there are certain benefits to being a woman today in the same way that there are things that are pretty awesome about being a kid (assuming you're not in an abusive home.) I think Feminists think that these "benefits" to being a woman either A) aren't really benefits at all or B) think they'll go away on their own as Feminism grows in popularity.

It is especially apparent when feminists stand up for women accused of crimes. They may outright defend them or may look for reasons (systematic/gendered or otherwise) to excuse their behavior. This is blatant childization of women. We do the same thing when a child is accused of a horrific crime - "What kind of home did they grow up in? Were they being abused? Were there drugs involved?" We excuse and mitigate the consequences of the behavior of juveniles because they are less developed than adults.

When you do it with women, you're saying the same thing. You're saying they're less culpable for their actions because they are "less developed." It's bullshit and I've only seen a few feminists speak up about this.

And that's why I butt heads with Feminists. Women have been committing crimes for the entire length of humanity because people commit crimes. Men, women and children, too. We are all human beings - animals with great intelligence, capability for good and evil acts and an incredible knack for adapting to our environments.

It makes sense for women to who are enjoying the recently-earned benefits of full adulthood to fail to recognize the increased responsibilities that come with that position. It's called a "catch." And right now, men are the ones primarily being caught by it.

To those of us wishing to change our environment - socially or politically - we'd best not forget the animals we're dealing with: Apes that want to get the most reward for the least effort. It's in our programming.

Conclusions on Feminism Part 1

2011-11-22T08:27:00.001-05:00

I said it earlier in the year, and I knew it would happen.

I reserve my space here on the somewhat anonymous internet to talk about things I feel confidently enough to espouse as the Real Me. This also ties into the name of this blog and me - "Easily Enthused." Because when I discover a topic or issue that I don't feel that I've "got a handle on," I very quickly get enthusiastic about it, passionately arguing and discovering until I feel I've reached a resting place, metaphorically speaking.

I knew this day would come. I've experienced it a few times before in my life.
The first was when I left religion and asked myself "Without God, how do I know what is 'good?'"

The answer eventually came in the philosophy of Universal Utilitarian Humanist principles. The long story short was that a good action is one that benefits the most people.
(Aside: The stumbling block is "then why not kill one person and distribute his organs to multiple people who need new organs" and the answer is "because although a few people would benefit from his organs, many more people would be harmed by the knowledge that they live in a world where one innocent person can be killed for their organs.")

The next question was "How can a moral criminal defense attorney defend people he/she knows is factually guilty?"
The answer came in two parts: A) no one has perfect knowledge of truth and B) our criminal justice system relies on the government 'behaving itself' when it comes to depriving a citizen of their liberty. Without someone to hold Government to task, more injustices are sure to come.

It was these two questions I sought answers to that brought me to modern-day feminism and gender in/equality issues. A handful of my atheism and law-related blogs ended up mentioning feminism over the course of a few months and I delved deeper into my own personal experiences and expectations of feminism as it relates to society.

I came into the topic with essentially one "sacred concept." This concept would never change, and most people I cared to discuss these things with should share this principle.

It was:
"Your gender or the gender assigned to you at birth should have no bearing on the treatment you receive, the expectations people have of you, or your value as a human being."

I thought that made me a feminist. Unfortunately, I found that I tended to disagree with a lot of other feminists (online, mind you) on many of the details. I was repeatedly told that I was not a feminist.

So what am I? What do I really believe? This blog chronicled this period of self-discovery.

I think I've come to my conclusion.

It's been said that "Feminism is the radical notion that women are people."

When I first heard this phrase a few years ago, it angered me. I thought it was as ridiculous - if you're not "people" then what are you? An animal? Pshht. Nobody thinks that.

I still think the statement, as it is currently worded would be useful in the Middle East and some other countries. Gender equality is a sliding scale, after all.

But in North America, I still think the phrase is relevant - sort of. I think it needs one small change.

Edit: I realized that I really need to flesh this out more and add a few more examples that I had. Right now, I'm going to break this into maybe a two- or three-part post so I can collect my thoughts more clearly and they will better stand up to the criticisms that I expect to come. Stay tuned.

Just Read This

2011-11-16T08:16:00.001-05:00

I'm not publishing this link to inflame, incite or rally anyone.

I think it's important that people on different sides of a debate make sure they listen very, very closely when a person on the "other side" expresses an emotion other than anger.

Here, we have an older radfem who feels hopeless and resigned that the Feminism of today doesn't reflect what she spent most of her life fighting for. It genuinely made me sad - not because I agree with her movement - but because spending your life working for something that doesn't work has to be one of the most crushing realizations a person can have when it comes to social justice.

Here's the link:
http://jezebel.com/5859818/why-wont-the-porn-industry-give-ladies-the-man-they-want?comment=44421919#comments

If you care what I think, I think that women like her (30+ years ago) had gotten so wrapped up in the inequity of gender that they successfully convinced themselves that something that naturally is pleasurable for many women is actually harmful for them. Maybe they thought that if they inspired enough women to abstain from sex that men would start treating women better - although I doubt they would admit to this "sex strike" technique even if it were true.

Then, things started changing. Year by year, women gained ground in business, government and education. We're getting to the point now where sniffing out gender inequality is more akin to CSI than forest-for-the-trees. It's getting to the point where men, rather than fighting feminism, are holding outstretched hands to it and asking "What about me?"

We're living in a world where increasing numbers of young women who read the great Feminist authors of more than 20 years ago are saying "this doesn't resonate with me and with what it means to be a woman in 2011."

That comment up there is proof. I'm glad her movement is dying, but I'm always sad to see someone fail at a "noble cause."

EDIT: Commenter Tim has pointed out that the comment on Jezebel has been moved to the (LOL) "ohhellno" category. Generally speaking, I am happy that they did this, but I'm also a bit torn by the ability of a feminist space to "hide" it's ass, so to speak.

On the other hand, I wish to do the same thing to the MRA contingent who continually espouse ridiculous attitudes towards women, so I guess I'm being hypocritical. I guess I'm just going to have to be happy that Jezebel realized how unproductive that sentiment is to the Feminist movement. Thanks, ~~girls~~ ~~women~~ ~~ladies~~ people!

DOUBLE EDIT: After reading through the comments, it seems the original commenter is from Germany. I am slightly more concerned for the entire world after reading that, as I thought radical feminism was a product of North America.

Of Forklifts and Potty Trips

2011-10-20T10:01:00.002-04:00

It's story time, again. From the ages of 14 to 17, I worked at a lumber yard and hardware store. This was a well-connected mom & pop type shop. It was a hard, minimum-wage job - and the only reason I kept it was a sense of duty. In my small town, jobs for non-country-club kids who weren't 18 yet were hard to come by. It was either this, or have no spending money.

There was a problem with this job, though. I wasn't allowed to use the fork-lift. Every time someone needed items that were either up on shelving, like a pallet of shingles, or 8x8 lumber (which is too heavy to lift) I had to run around the lumber yard trying to find someone who wasn't busy to bring the forklift over, get the items, then return to whatever they were doing.

Meanwhile, the customer just sat there. Eventually, a few of the regular contractors there refused to let me serve them.

I'll never, ever forget how that made me feel. I felt like less than whole - like a failure.

And all because of stupid paperwork that said I couldn't operate a forklift until I'd been on this planet for 18 years. I had my license - I could drive my Nissan across the country if I wished. But I couldn't use a forklift to move a pile of bricks four lousy feet.

Funny story (not really), I got in the habit of moving things with my hands that were too heavy - that I should've used a forklift to move - and because of that, I injured my back permanently.

OK, end of story.

Now read this:
~~http://www.chicagonow.com/high-gloss-and-sauce/2011/09/dads-wiping-butts-bad-touches-were-growing-up~~
(Edit: After some flak from Paul Elam and many people from A Voice for Men, it appears Jenna has taken down all of her offending articles. Register-her has saved a PDF of her original post with the first 100 or so comments. It can be found here: http://www.avoiceformen.com/portal/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Keep-dads-out-of-preschool-potty-duty1.pdf)

I keep having to take deep breaths while writing this. This one article has made me angrier than I've ever been since I started blogging.

As someone who notices the way that men are the victims of sexism, I'm used to seeing this - but never so unabashedly.

Unabashed sexism is exactly what this is - and if you read the comments (which I don't recommend) she has plenty of supporters.

Jenna Myers Karvunidis has displayed the holy trinity of bigotry: bad statistics, bad faith and bad logic.

First off, she blithely states "99% of sexual predators are men, only 1% are women and girls are over twice as likely as boys to be sexually abused" with absolutely no citing of her statistics.

That's because she pulled them out of her ass. People from Reddit have flooded her comments with correct statistics - and yes, there is a skew towards male perpetrators but it's certainly not 99%! The ironly is that skew towards men could very well be due to a society that sees women as incapable of harming a child sexually - a society perpetuated by people like Mrs. Karvunidis.

Secondly, she belligerently attacks the commenters who call her out on her sexism by claiming that they're only angry because they're pedophiles who want the opportunity to molest.

Wow, so I guess all those middle-eastern people who are angry over being profiled as terrorists by the TSA are ACTUALLY terrorists who want to sneak by security?

Lastly, she openly admits that she isn't concerned with logic.

She says it best in her very own words:
"Again, why are you guys trying to change my mind? IT WON'T CHANGE. You may use perfectly sound logic, you may use unsound logic, you may bully me, you may scare me, you may send hate mail to my house but I will never, ever change my mind on this."

And best of all, she calls herself a "Feminist." Holy shit! At least she admits that she "pick and choose when I'm a feminist because I'm not down with man-bashing."

Actually, Jenna, you look quited down with man-bashing to me.

(takes a deep breath)

Frankly - I have no idea how to deal with this type of issue or person. There's no way to change her mind (as she has made painfully obvious).

I'm a little afraid at what some of my friends in the Men's Rights community might do about this. As of this post, she's just been added to register-her.com, a site designed to highlight sexist, sexually abusive or false-rape accusers.

Her unabashed sexism makes it really hard not to take off the gloves - but I fear someone may go too far and take OUT the knives. I really, really hope that no one threatens her or her family with any type of violence or other inappropriate actions. Boycott her site, write letters to the editor, make blog posts like this one - but please, don't make it so she or her family can't sleep at night - no amount of bigotry deserves violence.

A Masculist Issue, And A Joke About Monkey Abuse

2011-10-12T16:01:00.002-04:00

The wife and I had a Google Chat conversation I felt like sharing. She works in financial aid.

me: Hey!

Did you know a transgender men are denied Pell grants because they aren't allowed to sign up for selective service?

Wife: yes, actually

they have to be legally female in order to qualify

or actually (and legally) male to register

Wife: also

same-sex marriages aren't recognized for financial aid purposes

even if they are legally married by state law

me: Oh really? I didn't know that

Wife: yup

me: What about polygamy?

Wife: those aren't legal anywhere

You can claim the wives/children as members of the household if you or your legal spouse provides 50% or more of their support

me: What about pets?

Wife: but if you're not legally married to your spouse and he provides support for you, you file your own taxes, and he claims your children instead of you, you'll have a tough time even getting them to count as members in the household

Wife: pets? uhh

me: what about monkeys?

oh oh! What about if you USE a monkey to make money - like an organ grinder, then use that MONEY to SUPPORT THE MONKEY?

Wife: it counts as your income and the monkey is not counted as a member of your household

me: Is the monkey an asset?

cause I think it would be a liability

or a dependent

unless I put it in a blender - then it would be a liquid asset

Wife: -_-

the monkey is not counted as a personal asset, but rather a business asset

the same as a car or building

I wonder if his value can depreciate over time as he gets older and less cute

me: I imagine that if you bought him some groucho marx glasses, his value could be increased

depending on how much he wears them

I suppose you could staple them to his head, but that would certainly depreciate his value

Wife: but would that be a legal appreciation or not?

me: I guess it depends on if Animal Control sees the staples

Manliness is Not Next to Helplessness

2011-10-04T11:12:00.000-04:00

Pinpointing the exact reason for my hesitation to claim the title of "Men's Rights Activist" or a member of the Men's Rights Movement has been a tricky subject for me.

The movement for men is a collection of men (like myself) many of whom have been brought up to think that "real men" are never helpless. We are DO-ERS. We GET SHIT DONE, SON.
In general, our ultimate goals are the same. I'd like to see a world where traditional male gender roles aren't the only option for those born with a penis. I'd like to see a world where people who naturally grow facial hair aren't expected to be violent. I'd like to see a world where persons with testicles aren't seen as the only perpetrators of crimes.

But still, something keeps me from waving the high flag of Men's Rights - and I think today I had a breakthrough.

One thing that nearly every single male MRA has experienced is what it's like to grow up in a culture where men are expected to be Men you know, a Man's Man. A Manly Man or a MAN.

Thanks to Feminism (no, really, THANKS!) women are feeling less and less pressure to be "Woman's Woman" or "A Womanly Woman" or "WOMAN." Gender flexibility for women is increasingly prevalent and that's a good thing for women AND men.

No thanks to Feminism (No, really, NO THANKS) men are still being told by each other and many, many women that they still need to be MEN.

The result is the mentality that a man who cannot act upon his surroundings is no man. This is Male Potency - and it is one of the core attributes of what it means to be a man. Without it, we are impotent, pitiful, and even comical. Barney Fife.

For all our screaming and yelling – a habitual inability to affect any change is pitiable and unmanly. We don’t want to be Barney Fife – we want to be Andy Griffith.

Cool, calm, collected - but authoritative, effective and respected.

This hidden psychology is creating problems for men in the MRM, where they are drawn towards concrete issues with concrete solutions rather than the more intangible work of swaying cultural perceptions and overall societal biases.

If we do a quick run-down of the more concrete, policy-based issues that MRAs are concerned about, it might look something like this:

Military draft only applies to men
In custody disputes, women are considered default care providers
False Rape Accusations unfairly target men (and are hard to defend against if the accusation reaches the criminal court level)
Male adult victims of DV/rape/sexual abuse have essentially zero support resources
Sentencing disparities for crimes committed by men vs. women (doubly so for sex crimes)
Lack of parenthood choice for men - (Men's options for fatherhood end at conception, women may use Plan B, abortion or adoption)

And the following is a list of the cultural perceptions and societal biases that the MRM would like to overthrow:

Men being seen as the "expendable" sex
Men incapable of being "victims"
Men unable to control their sex drive - leading them to cheat/rape
Men being dirty
Men unable to "nurture"
Men being violent by nature

It’s not that the second list is unimportant. In fact, many of those general concerns are folded into the aforementioned issues - the ways that men are stereotyped relates directly to the policies and stigmas that men face in the first category. It’s just that we can’t directly fight against bias in the same direct way that we can fight for policy change.

This situation creates a whole new level of complexity when viewed through the lens of "Male Potency." Like any movement in its infancy, MRM must pick its fights in order to avoid the pitfalls of early defeat.

With that in mind, if you look back up at the issues men are facing - you'll see a problem.
All of the problems in the first category involve solutions that have the potential to harm women or children, though indirectly. If the amount of money being given to DV survivors is zero-sum, supporting men will mean taking support from women. If men are given an option to default "out" of parenthood, more children may be raised without child support. If we change the standard of proof for False Rape Accusations, rapists could go free and rape survivors could be wrongly charged with a crime.

Those are all bad things. But as it stands, MRAs are faced with the cruel reality that those issues are the only ones they are capable of changing.

So, the MRM faces a dilemma. In choosing its battles, will the MRM choose to tackle issues where satisfying, concrete change is possible, or will the MRM choose to tackle the more intangible, less directly actionable issues of public perception and stereotypes?

The first category allows men to feel potent and effective in directly tackling a problem with a face and a name, and seeing progress in ways which can be measured and quantified. But, it comes with the consequence of damaging the movement’s reputation when our actions are incorrectly interpreted as a battle against women and children. Sometimes Feminists may make this interpretation. Sometimes gender-inequality non-Feminists may make this interpretation - but either way it creates a Public Relations nightmare for our cause.

The second category would avoid that problem, as we are reaching out to create awareness and appeal to the empathy of others through outreach efforts. But it feels less satisfying, as change in public perception is so slow and so difficult to see or measure. You can’t really tell if anything you are doing is making any difference at all, and the efforts we launch now are likely to not come to fruition within our lifetimes. This is difficult for men who need action and want to feel empowered to create tangible change.

And I believe it is for this reason that the MRM has focused on policy changes and legislative action. It’s tangible, progress can be measured, and it is concrete. It isn’t that men don’t care about public perception - I'll bet most men would prefer a world where men aren't seen as "expendable" or "dirty." But how do we do that? You can't pass legislation to change public perception. Feminism has shown us that stereotypes and public opinion take decades, even centuries, to change — especially when the roots of such ideas are at the very heart of Western Culture. So instead, it’s that the MRM is drawn towards issues where concrete, effective change is possible, and can potentially be achieved quickly.

This focus is understandable, particularly for a group whose needs have been ignored and even ridiculed for so long. But it is backwards. Policy change flows from societal perceptions. Until stereotypes are challenged, there will be no political expediency to change policies to become less discriminatory towards men. And even more than that, when we fight the policies first, particularly with the potential negative consequences for women and children, we earn the movement a reputation as being anti-women or anti-children rather than being pro-men. In this way, not only do we fail to create forward progress, but we actually create extra work for ourselves, because we mustwork backwards through the negative reputation attached to our efforts.

Let’s look, for example, at the struggle for gay rights. At first, all attempts to legislate equality failed miserably, and in fact resulted in a backlash where religious groups attempted, sometimes successfully, to pre-emptively define marriage as being only for straight people, in an attempt to prevent gay rights from becoming legislated. This only changed once the movement focused primarily on public outreach - on encouraging gay people to come out of the closet and reach out to their family and friends and community. It was only once a majority of the public knew a person who is openly gay, that the stereotypes about what it means to be gay started to come down, people started to empathize with the plight of gay people, and public bias started to shift. Only then was legislative reform successful, when it came after a successful movement to shift public opinion.

And this is the reason why I hesitate to describe myself as a Men’s Rights Activist. Because my focus is on awareness, public perception, overthrowing bias and stereotypes. I can’t get behind all of the legislative policy change proposals of the MRM because I believe it will come at a cost too great to our movement. We have to do this in order.

* We, as in us gender egalitarians.

Choice for Men: A Hypothetical Situation

2011-10-03T11:00:00.002-04:00

Recently, a topic that never fails to get me riled up has been coming up on the gendersphere. The issue is "Choice for Men," and I think it is one of the few, genuine masculist issues out there.

As I've been mulling it over and talking with opponents of C4M (Choice for Men), (http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2011/09/20/why-choice-for-men-is-wrong/) I think I've drilled down to the core of their beliefs that prevent them from embracing C4M.

Embodied in two parts, I think it could be said like this:
1. Innocent children are due support from the people whose biological material lead to their conception.
2. Biology/bodily autonomy is responsible for women's ability to end pregnancy (and end the development of a fetus, which has no rights to support, before it becomes a child which does have rights to support.)

So now that I think I understand their position, I developed a realistic scenario that I want feedback on.

If you're reading this and have weighed in on either side of C4M before, I'd really appreciate it if you would please respond with what you think a just and fair child support system would do in this situation. You may leave an anonymous comment if you wish.

The Scenario

James and Janet are married and have two children, two and four years old, Sam and Max. They want to have a third child in the near future if Janet gets the promotion she has been promised. James is a stay-at-home dad with no income and Janet is a consultant. James and Janet are also in an open relationship, and a few times a year they arrange for a weekend to engage in NSA sex with people outside the relationship. (Don't judge!)

Three months ago, James and Janet went off for a weekend and had sex with other people. James has sex with a woman named Annie and Janet with a man named Richard. For simplicity's sake, Annie and Richard are both single. Both use condoms. Both condoms break. Janet and Annie both become pregnant.

Janet, who was not planning on speaking to Richard again anyway, has an abortion. She desired to have a child with her husband, not Richard.

Annie, is different. Annie in her mid-30s and due to a medical problem when she was younger, was told by doctors that she was sterile. She contacts James and tells him she is pregnant. James says that he will pay for her to get an abortion - as he realizes he is partially responsible for her pregnancy. Annie refuses to have an abortion. She knows that James is well-off - he was wearing nice clothes and driving a nice car. Plus, he offered to pay for the abortion. She decides she will try to raise the child on her own, and if she cannot, she will get financial support from James.

She knows that this may be her only chance to have a biological child of her own. She decides to keep the child and gives birth to Charles.

Unfortunately, Annie underestimated the costs related to having a child. Unable to take the time off from work to care for Charles, Annie is forced to take a lower-paying job that allows her enough time to spend with her baby.

Caught in a difficult situation, Annie applies for child support, as she cannot supply her Charles with all of his needs on her income alone.

Unfortunately, James does not have a job - he is still a stay-at-home dad.

Imagine you are the judge who is making the decision about this situation. You have Annie, Charles, James, Janet, Sam and Max in the courtroom with you. How would you rule? What would be most fair to all the people involved?

Would you force James to get a job to support Charles, while taking him away from his own biological, planned children?

Would you take money from Janet to support the child - as she is the one who supports James in the first place - thereby removing support from Janet and James children Sam and Max?

Would you simply award 20% of James income to Charles - which essentially amounts to $0 - and only hope that Annie can find some form of support for her child through charity or fortune?

Would you work out some other arrangement?

Hopefully this exercise has made you think a lot about what presumptions you have when it comes to the way our child support system works. Now, I present one last challenge:

Imagine this situation in a gender-equal world where James and Janet could either be the sole breadwinner in the houshold. If men start becoming income-less house-husbands on a wide scale - do you think women would still be having babies and supporting them alone? Or do you think more women would abort their pregnancies because the man that got them pregnant has no income?

Actually, Not Dead

2011-09-05T21:07:00.003-04:00

Heads up to my readers: I'm not dead or stopping posting, NOR do I feel the need to "take a break" which is the sure death-knell of any one-person blog.

Simply put, I've been working far too much and through far too many weekends and holidays. My first priority is my wife, my second is my career, my third is my leisure time, my fourth is my health and my fifth is my continued education about the world and its workings.

This blog falls under the fifth priority. I have a handful of posts tumbling around in my head that I can't wait to write out - as soon work stops being so demanding, I'll get them out there. In the meantime, here's a picture of a beautiful vehicle:

http://the-ic.deviantart.com/art/Mazda-RX9-2012-Concept-WIP5-171278550

When the Baby Should Be Thrown Out with the Bathwater

2011-08-12T10:24:00.010-04:00

Mary Daly was one messed up lady. I've never read her books, but I've read interviews and other writings she's done. I have a hard time following her - she's a bit too Postmodern for me - and I can't follow her points because of the flowery prose she writes with.

Mary Daly was also trans-phobic and misandrist, although, without a doubt, she would say that misandry is impossible because men are the ruling class.

Realistically speaking, Mary Daly was, in my opinion one of the few, true, unarguably misandrist Feminist leaders the movement has had. I'm aware many MRAs will point to countless others they believe to be misandrist, and that's fine. They might be right.

But Mary Daly's misandry is beyond doubt. This quote makes my point:

"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males."

I don't appreciate it when people say she was calling for genocide here - notice she was saying that evolutionary process would be responsible, not human intervention.

But still - her belief was that men - by definition of having penises - were going to bring about the end of humanity. Men are unredeemable - there is no salvation for them.

She might as well have said "Men are intrinsically evil - they can never do good for humanity."

Now, to test if a statement is misandrist, all we have to do is plug in some other language ... so let's give it a shot:
"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of white people."

Yup - that's hate language. Mary Daly hated men - no further discussion necessary.

Back to the point of this post, now.

The question has arisen - can we salvage any of Daly's work when she held these terrible views?

That question was posed just yesterday at Feminist Critics. Danny said:

If its unfair to dismiss Daly and all her work because of her misandry (which BTW most feminist sites acted like they didn’t want to acknowledge) and declare that she is not a feminist then how is it then fair for feminists to point to Spearhead and the selective writings of manboobz as supposed evidence that the entire men’s rights movement is nothing but a vehicle of hatred that hopes to keep women oppressed so men can have the right to beat and rape their wives at will?

Ah, the "baby and bathwater" dilemma.

Let's run an experiment, shall we? Let's remove gender issues and feminism from the mix - because we're all a bit prejudiced here on that issue.

Let's say you're having trouble in your garden behind your house. Your tomato plants aren't growing tomatoes, your pear tree is an ugly yellow color, your grass is spotty and gray and your roses smell like tuna fish.

You call up two gardening consultants to help you fix your lawn.

The first consultant, Gary, spends 30 minutes examining your back yard and gives you some recommendations about watering, trimming and fertilizing your garden, lawn and bushes. He explains a little about the soil composition in the area and the amount of light your back yard receives and how that affects your plants. As you pay him for his time, and walk back towards his truck, he engages you in polite small talk and mentions how none of his advice will matter because the world is coming to an end in a week, and he knows this because aliens are projecting their plans into his head when he sleeps at night. You nod, thank Gary for his time, and say goodbye.

Later that same day, the second consultant you hired stops by. Roger spends 30 minutes examining your back yard and gives you some recommendations that are a little bit different than what Gary advised. As you pay him and walk him back to his van, he explains to you that he knows how to take care of plants because they can speak to him. He says that the plants are planning a secret revolution and will soon be our rulers. He said that your garden is doing so poorly because the plants are angry with you because you drive an SUV and don't recycle your plastic bags. He advises you to trade in your car and start using reusable grocery bags if you want your plants to forgive you and your garden to flourish. You nod, thank Roger for his time, and say goodbye.

You go into your house, close, lock and dead-bolt the door, and now must choose whose advice to follow.

Both gardening consultants are, to be kind, operating with some very faulty conceptions regarding how the world works. Less kind folks would call them crazy.

But ultimately, you can only follow one of the consultants advice. I suspect most of you would follow Gary's advice. Gary held some wrong views, but they were not related to his area of expertise.

Roger's views were intrinsic to his gardening advice - and even if he had some good advice for you in general (reusable bags and trading in your SUV) his purposes behind that advice is indelibly linked to his perverted perception of reality.

Now, what does this mean about his advice? I believe that, in the same way that a broken clock is right twice, the fact that Roger may have given you some good advice - you can not rely on him because of this taint. If you want to find GOOD reasons to take his advice, you can (such as saving money and reducing waste by switching bags and cars) but you can't use "Because Roger Said So" when trying to convince others.

Therefore, I claim that any and all works by Mary Daly (relating to gender issues) may not be used due to her unrepentant misandry.

If she has some cookbooks somewhere that I don't know about - feel free to read and quote from them.

But you don't take investment advice from a communist.
You don't take legal advice from a guy in jail.
You don't take dieting advice from fat people.

Don't expect to improve gender issues while quoting and reading Mary Daly.

Seeking Validity: Romance

2011-08-10T21:13:00.009-04:00

This is a true story from my youth. I've done my best to recall the details of the day to the best of my ability - but it was an important day for me - so I remember it well.

Tara, Ron and I were sitting at the large, circular unused teacher's table during lunch of my senior year. We were all in Drama class together - and we were lumped into the same lunch block because of it. Incidentally, this was the only year in high school where I didn't share lunch with my two best childhood friends. Tara and Ron were new friends to me - because we spent so much time together during rehearsals after school - we made a pretty strong bond relatively quickly.

Being born in New York and transplanted to the rural south at a young age can be traumatizing. I don't expect anyone to quite understand that unique pain that comes from being a Yankee in Billy Bob's Court. Especially when you're a child.

So, growing up - I never had girlfriends. Not even the lame kind where you never talk and just wave in the hallway. It wasn't until I was 14 that I actively started to want a girlfriend - and when a year had passed, and I was 15 still with no girlfriend - I started to get frustrated. Luckily - I got through being 15 by convincing myself that I needed to have a driver's license and a car to have a girlfriend.

That bought me some time - or so I thought. The reality was that when I did finally end up having a drivers license, awesome parents who would let me drive where and when I wanted (within reason), and a completely awesome car:

Oh man, do I miss that thing.

Wait ... no I don't.

Where was I?

So when I finally turned 16 and had a car, money to spend and permission to take girls out on dates - my singleness became almost unbearable. Luckily, I had a new female friend, Tara, who I could vent on.

Tara was a tall, shapely blonde and our salutatorian. She was extremely intelligent if slightly condescending. Bad acne and a poor family (little make-up and ill-fitting, out of date clothes handed down from her older sisters) meant that she didn't get much attention from the boys in our school.

Ron was new to the school - he'd transferred in after some trouble (bullying?) at another school district. He was very, very poor but extremely good looking. That said, he had self-confidence issues and wasn't very smooth.

Tara, Ron and I made a close, if odd group of friends that year. I regularly vented to both Tara and Ron about my inability to find a girlfriend. Ron was no help at all. He kept offering pickup lines. Tara wasn't much help either - but one day she got sick of my complaining and decided to lead me to water and shove my head into the trough.

"So exactly how many girls have you asked out?" she said.

"Well, I asked Amanda after rehearsal a few weeks ago, I asked Leslie out last month," I offered.

"Right, but those were your friends before you asked them. You can't do that. You need to find a girl you think is cute, and just ask her."

I scoffed. "Right! That would not end well. She'd probably laugh in my face - there's no way that would work."

She crossed her arms and sat back in her chair. "You've never tried it. You don't know that."

"Fine! I'll do it right now - just to prove you wrong!" I spun around in my seat and decided to find the most attractive girl I could at the table behind us. Of course, I wanted to be right more than I actually wanted a date with a girl at this moment, so I picked the absolute hottest girl at the table behind me. Kirsten Sweetwater (yes, that was almost exactly her name - although I didn't know it at the time.)

She had long, natural blonde hair - cute freckles and a beautiful smile. She was athletic and wore nice clothes. I chuckled to myself - I was sure to crash and burn and prove my point.

At the last second, I hesitated. I spun back to my table - there's a certain self preservation instinct that makes it hard to face unavoidable rejection. "That would be rude."

Tara rolled her eyes - "It won't be rude, it will be a compliment. Trust me."

Ron spoke up - "Look, dude, I'll do it, it's easy."

Suddenly, a fire rushed over me, from my spine, over my shoulders and down the front of my chest and through my legs. I was not going to let Ron ask her. I spun around.

I tapped on her shoulder in the noisy lunchroom. She turned around. "Hey, I've noticed you before, I wanted to know if you'd like to go out on a date with me."

The girls sitting with her made bug eyes. I braced myself. "Uhhhh ..." She turned beet-red. "I'm not sure." She started laughing.

"Ok, thanks." I turned around - that wasn't nearly as bad as I expected. I looked right at Tara. "See? What did I tell you!"

Tara gave me this face:

"Are you serious? She did not turn you down! She said she didn't know!"

"Isn't that the same thing?"

"Of course it's not the same thing! Did you see her face? She was smiling like an idiot and turned bright red! She was clearly interested!"

"Really?" I said.

Tara and Ron chimed in unison, "Yes!"

I turned around again, and tapped the girl on the shoulder. She was still red. Her friends stopped talking.

"So you said 'I don't know.' What does that mean exactly?"

"Well I'd have to ask my parents first."

"So ... you mean would go out with me on a date if your parents said you could?"

"Oh, yeah! Of course."

"Great!" I said, and turned around. Lunch was almost over. Tara was the embodiment of I-told-you-so. Ron gave me an approving smile. I fought an epic war internally to contain my excitement.

Kirsten came by after she took up her tray and handed me a note with her name and home phone number and walked away saying "Call me tonight, OK?"

Long story short, her parents said no to a proper "date" but they did invite me over for dinner (I got along really well with her father) and allowed us to spend the day at a local fair - and sit together and watch fireworks that night. It didn't matter - at that point in my life I wasn't terribly concerned with a first kiss or more - I was 16 and desperately seeking romantic validation - and I got it by randomly approaching a cute girl and asking her out.

Blame the Victim?

2011-08-08T07:42:00.001-04:00

This local story has me a bit befuddled.

Shoplifting-suspects-presumed-dead-in-drowning

Is it ok, in this situation, to say "Well they shouldn't have been running from the loss prevention officer. If they hadn't shoplifted - they wouldn't be dead right now ... etc.?"

Maybe I'm Being Oversensitive

2011-08-05T20:43:00.002-04:00

But this internet meme rubs me the wrong way:

I resent the idea that a girlfriend is "best" when she watches you play video games.

FUCK THAT - PLAY WITH ME!

Who wants a woman to shout "Kill him!" when she could be saying "Let's kill him!"

A Blue Shirt Confession

2011-08-04T20:55:00.008-04:00

A good deal of conversation has been going on regarding men feeling sexy, men feeling sexually harassed and men's sexuality.

I wasn't quite sure how to respond.

I completely realize - and experience - the way that men's sexual value is minimalized, fetishized or parodied in mainstream, heterosexual media.

The idea that women could be sexually attracted to men is taboo. They can be attracted to his wealth, his power, prestige, fame or talent - but his body? Hah! C'mon now ... we're being SERIOUS.

Now of course GAY men find men attractive - that's because they're men! Men in general find all sorts of things sexually attractive - women, other men, children, animals, high-heeled shoes ... that's cause they're perverts. No more discussion needed.

So earlier this week I wore my totally out-of-place Carribean Blue dress shirt to work.

The men in my office have a uniform. It is the blue pinstripe shirt with black or dark blue slacks. Close your eyes - think of wall-street execs minus the tie and jacket. Boom - that's my office (other than the women who wear dresses like this vvv ... but that's another post.)

But it was laundry day, so I wore that blue shirt with some black slacks. I pulled in to the parking garage behind a small Corolla. She got the space closer to the office building, I had to pull in a few spaces down from her. I grabbed my coffee and lunch and got out of my car.

As I headed towards the office building, I saw a short, mocha-skinned (Filipino?) woman about my age get out of her car and open her trunk. It was the same woman who I pulled in behind.

(Edit: I understand how important a woman's appearance is, so here's the best description I can give: She was about 30 years old, 5'1" and 100 lbs. She was wearing a tight tan skirt that came up about 4 inches above her knees, and a very light blue button-up blouse. Her hair was the same as the woman in the photo below, and she was wearing heavy-but natural make-up to cover her lightly pock-marked cheeks. She has olive-shaped eyes and full lips.)

She opened her trunk, slung her shoulderbag over her shoulder, and in one swift movement, tossed her hair back, made eye contact and gave me "the smile."

That is the smile. It's mostly in the eyes - but it's absolutely different from the "friendly smile" and the "cordial smile" and the "professional smile." [I'll be happy to talk about these later, but for now, I need to stay focused.]

So she gave me a smile that I don't get very often. She got her bag, closed her trunk and headed towards the main building. At this point I was about one pace behind her. We walked out from the parking garage toward the covered walkway that led to the office building.

A couple dozen feet from the door, she looked over her right shoulder at me - first at my chest, then up to my eyes. She was smiling.

She grabbed the door, opened it and let me go through first. I nodded at her and walked through first. I hesitated after walking through - looked behind me and watched her as she followed me through the door, and started walking next to me.

I said, "I'm not used to women holding the door and letting me go through first."

She replied, "I like your shirt. It's uplifting and festive. It makes me feel alive."

As she said "alive" she looked up at my eyes as we continued walking.

I did my best to respond quickly, "Well, I'm a philanthropist of sorts. I actually hate this shirt but I wear it to cheer up women's days."

She did the giggle. (The giggle is really hard to describe. But it's usually a sign of flirting because she's laughing at something that ISN'T actually funny - the other possibility is that she's just trying to occupy dead air time.)

We walk the rest of the way to the elevators, and she presses the UP button. I suspect she was being polite with her "giggle" so I whip out my Blackberry and look at it intently.
(Of course, my Blackberry is a piece of shit, so I was actually staring at a blank screen while it struggled to activate it's main screen, but that's not important.)

"So what do you do for AMC?" She wasn't trying to be polite. The giggle was a flirt. The blood drained from my face. I can deal with women I don't know - as long as they're not flirting with me. Attractive women flirting with me is so far out of my everyday experience that it causes a meltdown of sorts in my reasoning cortex.
(I don't actually work for AMC - I work for the equivalent of A&C ... but people often confuse the ampersand for an M ...)

The elevator arrived and I let her in first. I entered and pressed the 7 button. She stepped forward and pushed the 6 button.

I spent the rest of our solitary elevator trip up to her floor (6) telling her about my job.

The sixth floor arrived - she got off, looked over her shoulder and said "It was really nice talking with you," and swished her sexy little ass around the corner.

The doors closed.

I realized, shortly after that I had been holding my lunch box in my left hand - obscuring my ring finger. Even later, I realized that there were no offices on the sixth floor of our office building (It's very new, many floors haven't been leased yet.)

Now to the confession part: My interaction with her made me feel GOOD. I felt invigorated and confident. It's been a while since I felt that way - because no matter how much encouragement your spouse gives you, an "outside opinion" is always bolstering to your self confidence.

From here on out, that blue shirt is going to be my 'sexy' shirt, and there's not anything anyone can do about it.

Request Aggression Formula

2011-08-01T11:26:00.002-04:00

In a thread over at Daylight Atheism, a commenter named "monkeymind" makes this statement:

"The more trust you are requesting, the more unearned the trust is, the more aggressive the request."

Of course, this thread was relating to Elevatorgate - which I've promised I would revisit.

I've become more soft towards Rebecca Watson's position in the past weeks. It isn't because I had any sudden realization, or some reasoned argument I've been given has shown me how I was wrong.

Actually, in hearing so many people try to express online why Rebecca Watson was right to say what she said and others explain why she shouldn't have said it - I realized that there was a >0% chance that I had misunderstood her original comment.

In her first video, her exact words were: “A word to the wise, guys, uh, don’t do that.”

I initially thought that Rebecca was saying "To the men who want more women to participate in Atheist conferences, uh, you all must stop propositioning women at these events."

That interpretation really rubs me the wrong way. Luckily, I don't think that's what RW meant anymore.
(Although I would not be surprised if she held this position - I think she's gone on record saying that this would be a good way to get women to participate more - but either way, that wasn't what she was getting at in this video.)

But now that more people who know her have spoken out, it seems that she was probably saying "Men - it is a bad idea to proposition women you've just met in an enclosed space - you will make them feel uncomfortable and it's socially unacceptable."

This interpretation doesn't raise my hackles nearly as much. It could be wrong (based on how likely it is for women to feel uncomfortable and its social acceptance - but I don't want to discuss that right now) - but it's not as offensive as my original interpretation - that she was basically calling for men (and only men?) to postpone their sexuality during a convention.

OK, so that's my stance regarding Elevatorgate.

But regarding monkeymind's statement - I thought it was incredibly ... succinct. It is a really insightful way to look at how we make requests of other people and how aggressive those requests are.

I feel like there should be some sort of mathematical formula for it.

For example, something like

(Objective Value X Portion of Wealth) / (Requestor Trust Level) = Request Agression

So let's say my life-long best friend in the world (RTL=10) asks to use a car (OV=3,000) but I have another car of equal value (PoW=50%) I can drive.
(3,000 X .5)/10= 150

So in that case, the Request Aggression would be a score of 150.

If we contrast that with this situation:
Let's say a person I just met in a bar (RTL=2) asks to use my car (OV=3,000) but I have another care of equal value (PoW=50%) I can drive.
(3,000 X .5)/2= 750

In that case, that person asking to use a car of mine is much higher Request Aggression score of 750.

So let's just play with this model for a bit and see if we can break it - let's see if it makes much sense.

Let's say a complete stranger (RTL=1) asks for $5 for lunch (OV=5) but I have a bank account with $2,000 in it so (PoW=0.0025%) however, because this complete stranger does not know about how much money I have in the bank, he loses the benefit of the PoW.
(5)/1= 5

So we can see that, in reality, the aggressiveness of this request is rather low at only 5 points.

Although I'm not entirely happy with the way this works out - it would make a stranger asking you for $150 as aggressive as your friend asking to borrow your second car - which seems way out of wack.
Also, there is no mechanism for the likelihood of returning something. With a complete stranger, you just can't know. Whereas my best friend would be throwing away an entire lifetime of friendship and trust if he failed to return my car after borrowing it - a stranger would have far less to lose.

Also, this method doesn't account for the reality of the situation. I really don't have a problem buying a homeless man a lunch or some food. I've actually done it before when I used to work downtown. I also don't completely despise giving them pittance in change. However, I never, ever, ever take my wallet out at someone else's request in public. I just don't do it. I don't take out my smart phone at someone else's request, either - not event to check what time it is.*

So in this way, a person with a RTL of <4 would be laden with the entire value of my bank account by whipping out my wallet in front of him. Whereas a person with a high RTL >7 would only be held to account for the actual property I gave them, not that which was made available - For example:
If a friend wants to borrow a nice set of pans so he can cook dinner for his wife, I might lend him my keys to my house to pick them up while I'm at work. Technically I'm giving him access to nearly all of my worldly possessions, but his high trust level privileges him to have ACCESS to that which is not actually granted access to. If we do some coding- maybe the formula should look like this:
(OV/PoW) [if RTL is >7, leave as is] /RTL = RA
(OV/PoW) [if RTL is <4, increase OV to level of increased access exploit] /RTL = RA

So then, we'd see that if a stranger with a trust level of 1 asked me for $5, which required me to take out my wallet (OV of wallet, including Identity Theft, is $5,000) then I could easily claim this man's RA to be much, much higher than my friend asking to borrow an extra car.

I dunno, but this was fun to think about. I'm not a math person. I'm only barely capable with simple arithmetic, and my attempts above at algebra are probably open to improvement.

But I ask, if you are going to tweak my formula, please try to do it with math that an average 13-year-old can understand, because that's my math skill level - and I'd like to try to understand what you're doing with my formula.

*The risk of me taking my wallet/smartphone out (and you now having the ability to grab it and run) is not worth your mild inconvenience of needing to make a phone call or knowing what time it is. If you are bleeding and need me to dial 911, that's another story - as your medical needs over-ride my fear of having my phone stolen from me.

Tall or Short

2011-07-31T11:51:00.002-04:00

FUCK YOU. If I could be taller or shorter than I am now - I'd rather be shorter. Yeah, I said it: SHORTER.

I could fit into a Ferrari or a Porsche or a Miata. A fucking MIATA.

Shorter, thank you.

Why? Because I like to drive cars. Cars are made for shorter people.

If I wanted to be a rapper, I'd want to be black.

If I wanted to be a gymnist, I'd want to be a woman.

If I wanted to do motivational speaking, I'd be handicapped.

And you know what - I want to drive cars - ALL CARS - so I want to be shorter. Fuck anyone who doubts me.

Good Relationships Are Better Than Good, They're ...

2011-07-21T19:46:00.006-04:00

My wife has recently become employed after our move to a much larger city. We moved because my job moved - either move or become unemployed. Easy choice, huh?

So she came back today after her third day of working and her first day with her new schedule - one that means that she comes home about an hour and a half later than I do.

For the past 2 months, my wife has been dutifully fulfilling the roles that a non-working spouse should: basically everything regarding maintaining the household. And trust me, I've appreciated it.

But now that she's working, I need to pull my weight. So, before she got home, I emptied the dishwasher, loaded it full of dishes, and started cooking dinner. Because my ex-housewife (now just "wife") had so much extra time, she got into raiding in World of Warcraft. Becoming a part of a team isn't something you can just stop doing, so she had to run off to join her raid after she got home tonight.

We didn't get to do the usual bonding time that we're used to when I come home from work. Instead, she scuttled off (freshly-made-plate of Chicken Alfredo in hand) to join her raid with her guild.

After I cleaned up a bit and went to my office, the following conversation took place over Google Chat: (reposted with assumed permission)

Wife: Are you OK with me still raiding now that I'm working and might not be home til 630 or 7 some nights?

Me: Of course

I know how to find you when I need you

Wife: OK. I don't want you to feel unloved or neglected

Me: No, but I will let you know if I feel that way. Thank you for being mindful - that means a lot.

Like - A LOT.

You're an awesome wife

Wife: :D

I felt bad just running upstairs after unloading my whole day onto you

and after you'd cooked dinner and did the dishes

Me: It's ok - we have a give-and-take relationship

Wife: I give you shit

and you take it out of my ass

I am so in love with this woman.

"Rape for Men"

2011-07-20T12:36:00.003-04:00

This started out as a comment - but I think it's too long.

It's in response to Ozymandias post at her blog: Myth of Male Power Rant

In her post, Ozy calls Warren Farrell (the founder of modern masculism) out for drawing an analogy between some things that happen to men and the rape that women experience.

I have to say, although I don't worship Warren Farrell as some sort of masculist god, this post raises my hackles a little bit.

Also, I haven't read the entirety of "MoMP" so judge me accordingly.

Warren writes from a position that many men who were raised in progressive circles in the 1970s and 1980s can relate to - and those men, like me, often view rape as a relatively unique violation that only women can be victimized by.

(Obviously: We are quickly learning that the number of male rape victims is greater than we suspected - so our views are changing.)

But with (the false, yet thoroughly ingrained mindset that) rape, being a violation only women can experience, it is a useful analogy for men to use to examine their own violation.

Most young men who grew up in the 70s and 80s view the violent rape (date or stranger) as one of the most heinous crimes imaginable. Many would kill anyone who did that to a woman they care about. We see rape as a unique, grotesque violation of that which we love - women.

By the same token, we were still taught that we, men, could not be victims. Either we deserve what we get, or we should've been strong enough to fight off our attackers.

I think what Warren was trying to do here was to use the visceral reaction we have of rape as a unique crime against women - and attempt to draw some line of similarity between these two gender-based injuries.

Ozy, if you subscribe to the oppressive concept of women as "sex objects" and men as "success objects" then I can perhaps help you see where I'm coming from:

If a woman's worth is seen as a "sex object" then to "violate" her in only a way that she can be violated is to take/use/destroy her sexuality and sexual agency. Rape, disfigurement (acid splashes and box-cutters) and genital mutilation are some common ways of doing this - I think we all agree here.

But the flip side is what I think you are misunderstanding from Warren's point of view. If a man's worth is seen as a "success object" then to "violate" him in only a way that he can be violated is to take/use/destroy his ability to provide for his family or himself.

In this gender concept, women who use child support systems to take wealth from the man are a form of "gender identity violation." When women encourage men to "rape them" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4hNaFkbZYU&feature=player_embedded) they are asking a man to engage in behavior that could put him in jail, ruining his reputation, ending his career and destroying his ability to perform as a "success object."

Child support can be $800 a month. That's $172,000 over 18 years going towards a woman and her child who should've used a sperm donor but who decided to be deceptive.

I know men who'd rather be raped by a stranger than pay $172,000 that they may never even be able to earn.

Men and women who grow up identifying their self worth in either their sexiness or wealth have different vulnerabilities - that is the point that Warren Farrell was trying to get across.

We can either divorce our genders from these notions of sex and success - or recognize that men have a unique way of being injured that women experience through sexual violation.

My Penis and This Post

2011-07-12T22:42:00.003-04:00

I read this post at No, Seriously, What About Teh Menz and started writing a comment. It got too long (hehe) and decided to post my response here.

A word to my wife, first of all: I THINK I've told you all this, although maybe not in all detail. It regards my penis size and my exes. If you don't want to read about it and would rather hear it from me personally, just let me know.

I am a well-endowed man. I am, "unfortunately" for me, a grower -- not a shower, and uncut. What that means, in realistic terms, is that during my normal, everyday duties, my penis has the appearance of the average man's thumb, tucked in against itself. It is pitiful and makes no knowledge of its presence. Add to that a foreskin that completely shrouds my "penis" and it feels forgettable.

This was how I went through life, convinced that I had a small penis. A forgettable, small penis. Through high-school shower rooms, college bathrooms and invitations to skinny-dip in college.

Of course, during sex with my handful of partners during these years, I never heard them complain. I even enjoyed the odd "complaint" from my 5-foot 1-inch girlfriend who said "you're a bit to take." That was all that was said on the matter.

Fast forward to a year after graduation from college. My current girlfriend and two other women I worked with were at my basement apartment enjoying some food and drinks I had made them. The four of us were playing truth or dare (can you imagine 22+ year olds playing such a game?) and I excused myself to the bathroom.

After my business was done, I headed down the long, carpeted hallway back towards the kitchen only to hear my girlfriend say "Truth." "Laura" (The intern) asked her "How big is 's dick?"

I stopped in my tracks. I didn't want to hear the answer - my girlfriend, the woman about to answer this question, had more than 40 sexual partners before me. She was 6 years older than me. This was NOT going to be good. The best I could hope for was "He's pretty average." I froze - not wanting to hear the answer but afraid to move.

She replied: "The biggest I've ever had."

I thought to myself: "A 28 year old woman with more than 40 partners, and I'M THE BIGGEST?" But she was a brutally honest person. She never, ever lied - even when it was in her best interest. I felt I had spent too much time in the hallway and strode into the kitchen. I felt eyes on me.

I pretended to wash a dish in the sink. "Is it true?" my co-worker asked me. I feigned ignorance ... "Is WHAT TRUE? Heather, what did you say?"

Heather said, "I told them about your ... endowment," she said, with slurred speech. (Heather was very Christian like that, she'd not say the word but participate in enthusiastic adultery in the dark.)

I replied, "I have no idea - I've never been able to compare myself to other men."

With that, Heather (my girlfriend) got up off the floor with her wine glass in hand and came over to me as I leaned backwards over the sink. She put her elbow into my crotch and pointed to her wrist with her free hand. I looked up towards my two co-workers with no expectation of what to expect. There were cries of "Holy shit!" and "Can I see?"

That was the day that I learned that I was well-endowed. Because of my life as a grower-not-a-shower, I was convinced I was smaller than most men (because I never had the opportunity to be around excited men.)

Because of my time watching porn, I was convinced that I was, AT BEST, average.

I spoke to Heather after wards - I needed to know - was I THAT large?
Yes, I was.
Here I was, in my mid 20s and I just now found out I had a big 'ole penis. For Fuck's Sake - seriously?

In the days and weeks after I broke up with Heather (religion, in case you were wondering why we broke up - followed almost immediately by the infidelity of the forementioned intern from the Truth Or Dare story above) I spoke to exes on Facebook - asking, bluntly, about my penis.

The results were unanimous - I had a gigantinormous penis.

Well, isn't that special?

I even had my ex of 15 years tell me that my penis size had ruined her. She couldn't enjoy P-I-V sex with her 10+ partners since we'd dated like she could with me.

So I should be feeling pretty damn awesome about my junk right? Well I didn't. Big doesn't equal beautiful. Big is just big. Hard is just hard.

Fast forward a couple years. I was laying in bed with my (now) wife after sex. The lights were on. I was laying on my back, overheated, like I am after sex, and she was laying over towards me, her head on my chest. Her hand was holding my penis - I could feel her tossing the weight of my half-erect penis around in her hand. Her head was angled down towards it as she played with it.

"I love your penis," she said.

And for the first time in my life, I felt like my penis was beautiful. I felt like the woman who loved me, loved my penis, too. Me and my penis - both loved.
And that's a good, good thing.

For me, her, and my penis. For everyone involved.

It's Lonely On This Side

2011-07-06T08:59:00.000-04:00

Well, the atheist community has spoken, and I find myself on the outside looking in on my favorite bloggers. It appears, I disagree with the vast majority of mainstream atheist bloggers on the Elevatorgate issue. I also happen to agree with Richard Dawkins.

Wow, against the odds, I agree with his Lordship Richard Dawkins. I should be giddy with intellectual indignant pride.

But I'm really not.

Adam Lee, the founder of Daylight Atheism is the blogger I admire most in the world. He talks about complex issues that challenge what we know about truth, justice, morality and ethics - and no matter the position he takes - I always found myself agreeing with him. Always.
But not now.

Hemant Mahtma, founder of the Friendly Atheist has always been the voice of reason in the community. He blogs about important events in the atheist community almost instantaneously. He is always approachable. I don't agree with him on vegetarianism, but he's mostly spot on. I especially appreciate his friendly, not-in-your-face strategy when dealing with atheist Public Relations issues.
But not now.

P.Z. Meyers, the founder of Pharyngula, is a fiery, angry atheist in the most stereotypical vein of thought. I don't like P.Z. I'm going to come out and say that. There are people in the world I disagree with, but like. P.Z. is a guy I generally agree with, but dislike. I don't like his tone, I don't like his blog style - it's all too angry for me. He probably is a fine person - but as a blogger - no me gusta. That said, he's usually right about issues. He may speak arrogantly, but his point is right on, and I agree with him.
But not now.

Lastly, Jen is the founder of BlagHag, and next to Greta Christina, probably the most famous female atheist blogging right now. Jen is a sex-positive, science-loving not-straight feminist atheist blogger. In the past, she's called out feminists for it's failure to embrace science. I particularly like her because she can poke holes in evolution misinformation. And generally, she's got the movement right and we agree.
But not now.

When I find myself on the opposite side of "party lines" I usually use that as an indicator that I need to re-evaluate my position.

Surprisingly, I think I can clear up this problem, and the above bloggers probably aren't going to like what I have to say. This comes down to which you are first - a humanist or a feminist?

Borrowing from Hemant's blog, here's the rundown of the situation:

1) Female 1 is at a bar after giving a speech on sexism in the atheism community in a foreign country. She announces she is tired and goes to the elevator.

2) Unknown Male approaches Female 1 in the elevator and says: "Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?'.

3) Female 1 says no and then goes to her room.
…

4) Female 1 makes a video in which she mentions the situation, that she felt creeped out, and tells men "not to do that."

5) Female 2 responds to the video saying that situation doesn’t sound as bad as Female 1 made it out to be and that although Female 1 has a right to feel creeped out, she has no right not to tell men not to do that.

The situation progressed a little further when Female 1 called out Female 2 while giving a speech where Female 2 was an audience member. But that is a separate matter and not something I care to address.

For most of my regular readers of this blog, the situation may not seem like a big deal. But this is a HUGE deal - both for the atheism movement and for feminism.

For what it's worth, I stand very firmly on the side of Female 2 (Stef). In some ways I can identify with Unknown Male (Elevator Guy) because it's possible that he really did find her interesting and wanted to talk to her more before she probably left his country. That said, of course I think Female 1 (Rebecca) had every right to feel creeped out. However, when she sent out a APB to other men saying "don't do that" she was taking a subjective experience that creeped her out and saying that it creeps all women out - therefore there is no good reason to do that.

Rebecca makes a serious error here - because not only does she impede Elevator Guy's freedom to engage in polite conversation - but she speaks for other women by branding his actions as something that is universally deplorable. It was this second point that I think prompted Stef to make her video.

If you're having trouble understanding Stef's point of view, how would you feel if a member of your sex made a blog post that said "Please stop complimenting us on our hair. It creeps us out - and we imagine you making little hair dolls of us."

You might say "Wait a second! I got a compliment on my hair the other day and it really lifted me up! And just because you are afraid of someone making strange hair-dolls out of your hair, doesn't mean that I get that mental image when someone compliments me. LET THE HAIR COMPLIMENTS CONTINUE!"

This is the difference between Feminists and Humanists.

Feminists want to maintain the class differentiation between men and women - and give women improved protections from men (because men are physically stronger than women) and maintain female victim status. In other words, they want to keep up the fence between men and women, put a gate in between it and only allow women to pass through to the other side. They see men's side of the fence as having the greener grass and the richer soil. It's got more sun, more shade and higher property value. They want to mosey on over to the men's side so that things are "equal." When men express interest in heading over to the women's side - the reply is simple "No, no no, that side is shitty and there's no reason for you to go there, so you just stay over here on the nice side."

Humanists want to tear down that fence and give everyone the freedom to enjoy the entirety of the human experience. Sometimes that means sticking to one side of the field - but the most important thing is the ability to pursue the act of being your own person. You should not be held back by other people for any reason, especially race, sex, ability or orientation. Genetics and fortune will already do enough to hold us back - we don't need other people to do it for us.

From a humanist perspective - the admittedly "not threatening" behavior of Elevator Guy could not have reasonably been expected to ilicit a creeped-out response in Rebecca. Therefore, he was acting reasonably in approaching, conversing and then ending the encounter after she declined his offer. These were simply two people - on of whom with power and fame (Rebecca) and one without (Elevator Guy). He made a request to spend more time with her. In a humanist world, every person, regardless of sex, class, race or orientation has the right to speak to another person in respectful manner. It doesn't matter the time or location. That is a human right.

From a feminist perspective - the subjective experience of the woman in the situation (Rebecca) is paramount. She has unique perspective on the actions of men and how they relate to the oppression of women. Her uncomfortableness is valid, and that valid uncomfortableness is the direct result of another persons behaviors: therefore that other person's behaviors are WRONG. FULL STOP.

I can be pretty cruel to feminist ideology on this blog. But the above sentence is intended to be a real, honest attempt at summarizing the feminist position here. I'm doing that because I realize that feminists aren't evil - but their ideology is based on a flawed idea of gender classicism that, if we continue to follow it, will result in more suffering than is necessary. That's why I'm a humanist before I'm a feminist - because sometimes the answer to society's problems isn't "More Feminism."

There is another angle to this - and it's how atheism deals with the lack of women active in our groups. But I'm going to save that for another post.

P.S. I, personally, would never engage in any meaningful conversation with a person I'd not met previously in an elevator. I have a few reasoned, rational reasons for this:

A) Elevators constrict our movement. Body language is important in gauging a person's mental state and emotions.

B) Possibility for conflict. You can never be sure when someone will "go off." If I mention to someone, for example, that I'm about to get my tax return, they could've just been informed that they owe millions in back taxes and could have an emotional breakdown that I will have to be party to for the remainder of the trip.

C) Possibility for extended discussion. I might hit a sweet spot with the other passenger - they may want to tell me a story longer than I have time for - I don't want them to hold me up from getting to my floor.

D) Possible false rape accusation. I'm just saying, it's possible.

Now many of these issues are "non-issues" at a convention when you know the person. That's why I don't give Rebecca any slack. In fact, at a convention, I'd be MORE likely to strike up conversation in an elevator. That said, I would not proposition a woman I had JUST met on an elevator while she was heading back to the room - because I know I would have about a 0.00001% chance of being successful. 1 - Because I'm not much to look at and 2 - because typically an intelligent woman speaking at an atheist convention wouldn't be turned on just by my looks and I'd need to develop some rapport for her to comprehend my "assets."

P.P.S. Some people - trying to get it across to white, privileged men what it feels like to be propositioned in an elevator have offered this analogy:

Suppose you were in an elevator, and a big (bigger than you) thug said to you "How about we go up to my room and I fuck you in the ass."

My honest response would be to laugh and say "No thanks, I'm sore from playing Halo." And if he continued, I'd say "You would not survive the attempt; I'll cut your balls off."

I'd rather be dead than a violent rape survivor.

Everything Means No - OR Why I'm a Post-Feminist

2011-07-05T10:15:00.001-04:00

Why I am a Post-Feminist

People have criticized me elsewhere for describing myself as a Post-Feminist. They say things like "There are still millions of women being raped every day across the globe - how can you say we don't need feminism anymore?"

This weekend I was blessed with a perfect rebuttal.

Feminism has been shouting for decades that No means No.

Imagine the following scenario: A man says to a woman "Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you very interesting, and I would like to talk more. Would you like to come to my hotel room for coffee?" The woman says "No, thank you." Hearing this, the man says no more to her and leaves her alone.

Feminists should be happy with this outcome. But they aren't.

No, because feminists want a world where men can't initiate sex. They might say that what this man did was wrong because:

1) It was 4 a.m.

2) They were alone in an elevator

3) He was drunk

But none of those things matter - it might've been 4 a.m., but hookups happen at that hour, too. He also probably didn't ask in the company of other people because he wanted to give her the option to be discreet. He also probably wouldn't of had the courage to ask her if he were completely sober.

But no - none of this matters because No means No isn't good enough apparently. The new feminist moto is "Everything means No!"

Jack & Jill and the "Burdensome Bucket"

2011-06-22T22:09:00.010-04:00

I love the title of this post - it's like some cheesy middle-school mystery novel. But in reality, this is WAY more fun - it's a chose your own adventure story! Yay!

Jack and Jill were in love. They lived at the top of a hill. Unfortunately, a drought was coming, and they needed water, and the only well was at the bottom of the hill.
They needed three buckets full of water to last through the coming drought. It was getting dark, they only had three buckets and there wasn't time to make two trips before it got dark.

Returning with less than three buckets full of water would result in them both not having enough water to drink for the coming drought.

Jack and Jill headed down the mountain, three buckets in tow, to fetch the water they needed for the upcoming drought. They knew that come midnight, that night, the seasonal drought would come and last for the next 10 days. The well would be dry and this was their last chance to get water. When Jack and Jill reached the bottom of the hill, there was a sign next to the well. It read:

Women must carry two buckets up the hill. Men may only carry one bucket up the hill.
~ The Patriarchy

Jack and Jill obeyed the sign. Jack took the blue bucket and Jill picked up the red and yellow bucket.

After about a quarter of the way up the hill, Jack has to take a break to pee. He sets down his blue bucket and heads off into the bushes. Jill realizes that carrying twice the load of water up the hill is unfair. Jill:
A) continues all the way up the hill without complaining - because the sign did seem official - and she didn't want to upset the status quo.
GO TO A#

B) attempts to convince Jack to take the other bucket when they reach the half way point.
GO TO B#

C) forces Jack to take the third bucket - or else she will not carry any buckets to the top of the hill.
GO TO C#

D) decides to sabotage Jack's bucket.
GO TO D#

E) decides to sabotage all the buckets to teach Jack a lesson.
GO TO E#

-------------------------------

A#) Jill, recognizing the apparent unfairness of Jack's distribution of buckets, but still bound by the sign, carries both buckets, one in each hand, to the top of the hill. When they reach the top, Jack asks for a back rub, but Jill's hands are too sore to rub his back.
GO TO A1#

B#) Jill, realizing that the arrangement is unfair, speaks to Jack rationally and explains that the sign doesn't have to be obeyed - and that they should do what is fair. Jack, who loves Jill very much, doesn't want her to suffer unfairly. "To hell with the Patriarchy!" Jack says, and promises to carry both buckets when they get to the halfway point. When they get to the halfway point, Jack:
B1) honors his promise to Jill, and takes the yellow bucket from her.
GO TO B1#

B2) realizes that carrying one bucket is actually harder than carrying two buckets. He realizes that the Patriarchy was trying to protect women from the more difficult job, and refuses to take the second bucket.
GO TO B2#

C#) Jill, angry that Jack so readily agreed to an obviously-unfair arrangement, demands he take the extra bucket. Jack, wanting to please Jill, does so, but feels bitter she would be so angry about it. As he waddles up the hill with Jill by his side, he thinks to himself "Why couldn't she just ask nicely?" When they eventually reach the top, Jill's back hurts quite a lot. Unfortunately, Jacks hands are too sore to massage her aches. Jill thinks Jack is just bitter that she forced him to carry the two buckets.
GO TO A1#

D#) Jill decides to teach Jack a lesson. She quickly fills up Jack's bucket with dark smooth rocks before he returns. He comes back (without even washing his hands! EW!) and hefts up the rock-filled bucket. He carries it, alongside Jill to the top of the hill. As they pour out their buckets into the water barrel, Jack finally realizes his bucket was full of rocks the whole time. Exasperated, he looks at Jill. "Don't look at me, Jack. You'd better hurry, double-time down the hill and get that third bucket of water. If you're quick, it will only be dark for your trip back up the hill." Jack, recognizing that Jill already carried two buckets up, takes off down the hill in the dusk to bring his second bucket up. His back already sore from carrying the single, unbalanced bucket up the hill, considers taking two buckets. Jack decides:
D1) take one bucket down the hill, because two buckets might make him too slow to get back before dark.
GO TO D1#
D2) take two buckets down the hill, to get more water and save his ailing back.
GO TO D2#

E#) As Jack is relieving himself in the bushes, Jill decides to make her own "contribution" to the buckets of water. Jill, driven insane by the unfairness of their situation (coupled with the unimaginable fact that this type of unfairness has been occuring to millions of OTHER women because of that DAMN SIGN), brings the tainted water back up to the house and pours it into the water barrel. Later, as the drought ravages the land the next day, the putrid smell of the water barrel clues Jack in to Jill's deeds. He confronts her and she readily admits what she's done.
GO TO E1

--------------------------------------------

A1#) Both go to bed in pain, unable to comfort the other - but not quite sure who to blame. After all, if they switched roles, then Jill would be going to bed with a sore back and Jack would have sore hands - and just how would that be any better?

B1#) Jack takes the yellow bucket from Jill and begins up the second half of the hill. After just a few steps, Jack realizes that carrying two balanced buckets is actually easier, and is grateful to Jill for making the rest of the trip easier on his aching back. Jill is relieved because she can now carry the remaining bucket in one hand, giving one hand a rest at a time. She switches the bucket back and forth for the rest of the trip to the top. When Jack and Jill get to the top, they take turns giving each other a back rub - because both of their backs hurt a little, but neither of their hands hurt too much to give a rub. They then have passionate monkey sex all night long. (Ok, it was actually more like 10 minutes - but it was a REALLY good 10 minutes.)

B2#) Jack carries the one bucket the rest of the way up the hill. Jill is bitter at Jack for having the "easier" job, and Jack is bitter that Jill doesn't recognize his sacrifice. They both go to bed in pain, but also resenting the other person's attitude and inability to see the suffering they are enduring.

D1#) Jack grabs the bucket, empties out the remaining rocks, and charges down the hill. He gets to the bottom and fills up the bucket. He charges up the hill, his back nearly breaking from the awkward weight. As he nears the house, he hears the sound of wolves howling, and turns to look behind him. He tweaks his already-weak back and tumbles off the hill, smashing his brains on the rocks below. Jill, safe at home with her two buckets-worth of water and only sore hands, is comfortable, but ultimately lonely.

D2#) Jack grabs the two buckets and charges down the hill. He fills up both buckets, ignoring the sign, and begins the long, slow haul back up the hill. Unfortunately, he is too slow and it gets dark. He is eaten by a Gazebo. Jill, safe at home with her two buckets-worth of water and only sore hands, is comfortable, but ultimately lonely.

E1#) Jack and Jill spend the coming weeks drinking the foul water, becoming ill and ultimately dying of dysentery.

THE END

I hope you enjoyed reading that more than I enjoyed writing it. I had this idea because I wanted to get across the idea that not only is it important for feminists to chose the correct tactic when it comes to solving problems of gender roles in society, but it is important for men to have the right attitude when it comes to fixing it.

In case it isn't obvious the following "solutions" are allegorical of the following ideologies.

A 1 is the result of non-feminist mindset maintaining the status quo. I don't think that this is very likely at this point - I think we'd have to take steps BACKWARDS to have this happen regularly.
B 1 is the ideal ending and is the result of non-retributive gender egalitarianism by both women and men.
B 2 is the result of gender egalitarian women being held back by (well-meaning) non-gender egalitarian men.
C is what would happen if we get a non-gender egalitarian men coupled with gynocentric feminist women. It results in a similar situation to A 1, oddly enough. This could be the result of what would happen if misogynist MRAs and misandrist feminists got their way - the gender wars would be in full scale blitzkreig.
D 1&2 is the result of gynocentric feminists who practice the "zero-sum" battle for equality. (This aspect of feminism was responsible for the poorly-thought-out domestic violence and paternity laws that are currently responsible for a great deal of suffering on the part of men and also, consequently, one of the best recruiting tools that MRAs could hope for.)
E is the probable result of gender-segregation radical feminists and their ilk.

As a way of analyzing my own allegory, I'd like to point out the interesting similarities that I think we face in A and C. I want to state this plainly: if men don't get on board with gender egalitarianism, we are lost.

Secondly, I want to address the likelihood of A and E. I think the probability of sliding backwards into a pre-feminist state is about as likely as fully-implemented gender-segregation (meaning: not very likely at all.) I also think that these two groups overestimate the likelihood of the other taking hold (i.e. rad fems warn of backsliding, non-feminists warn of "feminazi" death camps.) That said, I think we need to speak out equally against BOTH groups. I think if either group got its way that suffering would be increased among all of us.

Wordpress?

2011-06-22T08:32:00.002-04:00

I've been considering switching to Wordpress - but I'm not sure how easy it is to transfer an entire blog. Does anyone have any experience with this?

An Honest Question

2011-06-21T23:14:00.006-04:00

I have heard a great deal about victim blaming in the past few months. Honestly, it was a new concept to me.

The more I think about it though, I get more confused.

So I want to pose a simple question:

Man A heads into the bar district of his local city late on a Friday night. He finds a tall, muscular man wearing tattoos and piercings. He walks up to him and says "Hey, pussy. You look like a piece of shit, and I wouldn't fuck your mother with a AIDS-infested dick."
Man A is punched and kicked by the tall, muscular man until he is unconscious in the gutter. He is permenantly brain damaged for life, and undergoes 10 years of physical therapy to regain the ability to walk.

Man B is walking home from his office late on a Friday night. He is stopped by a tall, muscular man wearing tattoos and piercings. The tall, muscular man pokes his finger into Man B's chest and says "I don't like the color of your shirt!"
The tall, muscular man punches and kicks Man B until he is unconscious in the gutter. He is permanently brain damaged for life, and undergoes 10 years of physical therapy to regain the ability to walk.

Assuming that physical violence is never appropriate, other than in the case of self defense, is Man A or Man B more culpable for the injuries he sustained?

2011-06-21T21:19:00.000-04:00

Just a little joke for the homebrew geeks out there.

Sleeping Through Spring - A New Life

2011-06-13T18:06:00.003-04:00

I have returned with a new life.

I don't plan on posting a large amount of personal information on this blog. I feel like I have enough people in my life - through Facebook and other, real life venues - that I can adequately vent the often unoriginal frustrations I face. (traffic, red tape at the DMV, etc.)

I reserve my space here on the somewhat anonymous internet to talk about things I feel confidently enough to espouse as the Real Me. This also ties into the name of this blog and me - "Easily Enthused." Because when I discover a topic or issue that I don't feel that I've "got a handle on," I very quickly get enthusiastic about it, passionately arguing and discovering until I feel I've reached a resting place, metaphorically speaking.

This is my area to explore ideas and challenge common knowledge - and that doesn't really have much to do with my day-to-day life.

In the past few months I've been rather engaged in modern feminist movements. As a child and young adult, I was taught and saw the world in a rather post-feminist way. When I bumped heads with some women in the atheist movement regarding "women's voices," I was schooled in pre-conceived my post-feminism arguments were.

Before this time, when I heard some right-winger bashing feminism, they got the eye-roll and hand-wave. Terms like "man-hating" and "Marxist" were discounted out of hand by me.

But this new (to me) face of feminism (especially on the Web) forced me to admit to myself that not only did I have a pop-psy idea of feminism, but it was possible that in my life I had not listened to some people who might've had a good argument because they were dismissive of feminists. If the feminists that they were dismissing were the same radical feminists I'd bumped heads with - well maybe I had to reconsider all points of view.

This prompted me to create this site and to make a concerted effort to better understand modern Feminism. Irony of all ironies - this decision would come right before and as I made one of the most gender-oriented actions of my entire life: getting married (to a woman.)

Simply signing some papers and exchanging loops of metal wouldn't quite be ironic enough, so chance decided that my college-educated and gainfully employed now-wife would also be forced to quit her job and become a housewife (until she could find a new job in our new city.)

This change has some very obvious financial aspects that I won't bring up here: that's nothing new. But both my wife and I came to a startling conclusion after about two weeks of my 9-to-5 absence while she played the role of housewife.

Our relationship (going on 4 years now) has seen every type of stress related to "workload" there is.
At one point she was the college student, and I was the low-income-professional barely scrapping by.
At another, I was the well earning professional while she was off studying abroad in an open relationship.
Most recently, we were both well-earning professionals pampering our cat and spending too much on food that would rot in the bottom of the fridge.
But now, we play the role of well-earning professional and bored-at-home housewife - and it feels so odd.

Our responsibilities have been divided in a very simple way: I pay the bills and bring heavy things upstairs in our 3-floor townhome - she takes care of the cleaning, laundry and most food preparation.

Since I spend most waking hours in my office at work, I had to rely on my wife's opinion of how her day compared to the "working world."

Her response was shocking. I've said that my dream job is Househusband. I love to cook and although cleaning isn't my favorite thing to do, once I get started, I surprise myself at how satisfying it can be.

My wife's response to housewifing has been - mostly boredom. She has time during the day for a nap and she said that once we get into a grove (we're in a post-move mess right now) that the amount of work for her in a day doesn't add up to the amount of time she'll have to get it done. (That would change drastically if we had a child or pet, but we have neither at the moment.)

During a drive, we were discussing it and believe we've come to an answer: appliances. If she didn't have the benefit of the dishwasher, washer and dryer, stove that didn't need to be constantly stoked, etc.... taking care of a house would be a full-time job, and then some.

But as it stands right now - coming from a professional used to working 40+ hours a week, it just isn't. The argument is that second-wave feminism has more to thank from Kenmore than MacKinnon.

Luckily for me, my wife is a post-feminist. She, who graduated from a small liberal women's college after studying American Culture recognizes that her life is not so different from that of men - and certainly not so different that it makes her "oppressed as a class." It's easy for her to be thankful for the hard work of first and second wave feminists and to facepalm the arguments of modern, man-hating Marxist feminists.

I didn't know this (explicitly) before I married her - but I'm not surprised. I know she's smart.

Victim Blaming

2011-05-04T23:40:00.003-04:00

Check this story out. Incredibly sad:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/05/6-year-old-girl-killed-in-hit-and-run-driver-sought.html

Did you read the comments? Victim blaming is not isolated to rape, FYI.

Hibernation Warning

2011-05-02T14:38:00.001-04:00

To those of you who have started following my blog, I thank you. Unfortunately, until the first week in June I will be unavailable due to personal business, including moving to a new city.

During the next three weeks I will have very little access to the Internet and/or my e-mail. I still have a lot to say, including quite a few partially-written posts waiting in the wings.

I promise I will resume writing here, but duty calls. See you soon.

EE

Bad People Doing Bad Things

2011-04-26T21:38:00.005-04:00

This is hard to watch.

But I encourage you to try. After you watch this, who do you blame? Society? Black people? Women? Transgendered people?

Victim Blaming

2011-04-26T20:51:00.006-04:00

This is a short post. Hopefully someone who disagrees with me will pop in and answer this question I have.

How does anyone equate this:
"Wearing provocative/slutty clothing while alone in a bad part of town is an irresponsible thing for women to do."
with this:
"It is OK to rape women who are wearing slutty clothing while alone in a bad part of town."

That's it. Simple question.

I understand it's easy to make a similar jump if you assume bad intent on the part of the original proclaimers.

I assume good faith. When people say that women shouldn't wear slutty clothes, they're grasping at straws trying to change SOMETHING that will prevent it from happening again. The rapist, the one who really deserves the blame, has already disappeared into the night. The only person left is the victim. It's wrong that it works this way - and we should try to discourage it.

And the way to discourage it ISN'T by screaming "VICTIM-BLAMER!" at the person offering the offensive advice. I should know - I was once in that position.

What we should do is to calmly and firmly inform them that clothing has nothing to do with if a woman is victimized like that. It's just not an issue.

"Common sense" tells us that the rich people hopping around in their Armani suits and British coupes should be the biggest victims of robbery and carjacking. But alas, it is not the case. Poor folks are most often stolen from.

I want to admit, up front, that I had a problem with "victim blaming" for most of my life. I used to blame the victim. Until the day my car got "broken" into and my GPS unit and CDs were stolen. I complained on Facebook and was blamed for leaving my car unlocked. When I talked to the police they actually chuckled at me when I admitted I had left my car door unlocked. (It wasn't on purpose, I had arms full of groceries and forgot to go back out to lock the car after bringing them in.)

Eventually I realized victim-blaming is in no way limited to rape.

But just a few days ago I found the cure to victim-blaming. It was called "research." In all my life, no one ever took the time to show the evidence that what women wear is not correlated to their chances of sexual assault. But no, they decided to simply call me a victim-blamer and assume bad faith rather than uninformed ignorance. Pity for them and me. But mostly them.

You Might Be an Asshole If ...

2011-04-25T17:31:00.004-04:00

So, I took my first stab at making a comment at Feministe. I wasn't going to link there here because I don't like the idea of dogpiling. A bunch of supportive dissident feminists showing up there would quickly turn into a clusterfuck. But the thread has been closed, so I'm not worried about sending folks there.

It was closed because of an asshole infestation. I might've been one - I'm not sure.

For the relatively small commenting crowds that show up at non-controversial posts at Feministe, I feel that I could do a decent job on my own of representing dissent. The reason is that if you (as a dissenter) have one point you want to contest, and someone who agrees with you ... oh fuck it. Analogy time:

You make the complaint to the "Baker's Bureau" council that they are selling fattening cupcakes at Store #5. Valid retorts come back from the council saying that the cupcakes aren't that fattening, they don't sell many, etc. An invalid retort comes back saying that the milkshake stand next door to Store #5 is just as bad and you should go bother them.

It's easy for you to say "No, I'm talking to you about your cupcakes at Store #5, don't bring in other issues."

With me?

Now imagine another person, angry with the Baker's Bureau about Store #5 appears next to you and shouts out "Store #5 sells honey-drizzled croissants, as well, with the same calorie count as the cupcakes!"

Yes, Honey-Croissant-Person is on your side, and almost certainly agrees with you about the cupcakes. They are an ally.

But if you are just looking for an answer from the Baker's Bureau about those damn cupcakes, you don't want to start talking about croissants!

I hope that wasn't too hard to follow.

Back to the Anxiety post: My first post was an honest question: if women are more anxious than men, and this study says it's because of the way we're raised, how SHOULD we raise our children? I also threw in there a reference to the high rate of male suicide -because anxiety plays a role in any suicide.

I thought I was on-topic with this. I don't think it got off-topic until Eve posted, claiming that the anxiety women experience could be correlated to "the constant stress of being threatened with sexual violence."

She derailed the conversation about female anxiety into blaming rape culture.
Her original correlation was related to this finding about infant mortality among minorities:
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2007/09/28/20099/racism-may-affect-infant-mortality.html

She bought the story as reported hook, line and sinker. She turned "racism may affect infant mortality" to "sexism certainly affects female anxiety" with ZERO link in between.

The thread quickly went down hill from there, and I don't blame Jill for closing it. I didn't intend on stirring up that much shit, and I don't even know how culpable I am.

Eventually, PrettyAmiable turned my rhetorical question into a weapon and I knew the thread was lost. She really thought that I was asking "Do all women feel like you do?" was one I honestly expected an answer to, so she came back with a snarky "Well, I happen to know that all women feel exactly as I do all the time."

Considering that I wasn't even asking her, I knew the thread was lost.

Shortly after that, I realized that being skeptical of "rape culture" brands one an asshole. Fantastic.

I'd also like to say that I'm a little disheartened. I started this blog hoping to better understand my own experiences with Feminism, feminists, sexism and gender.

It now seems that my options are limited:

Read pro-feminism blogs that stringently delete, dogpile or moderate dissent
Read and comment on pro-feminism blogs that will quickly identify me as a dissenter and therefore disregard any rational argument I make
Read MRA sites that are far too misogynistic (and rarely chastise their own)
Read the barely-updated FeministCritics.Org
Suck Hugo Schwyzer's penis
Continue to post rarely-read and even-more-rarely-commented-upon posts at this blog and hope enlightenment comes

Deconstructing "Rape Culture"

2011-04-20T17:07:00.011-04:00

This post originally started out as a response to Miguel's post "Ass-smacking dude." But eventually, as I realized I had a whole lot more to say than was reasonable to say in a blog comment, and as I realized I'd probably want to link to this post in the future, I realized my blog might be a better place to lay it out.

Aside: I have read Feminism 101's post, Rape Culture 101, and I'm doing my best not to get "offended" (or as Shakesville would say, "contemptuous") when I am repeatedly told to read the Feminism 101 blog. I realize that there are a bunch of people out there who don't understand feminism and want to go online and spout all types of strawfems and logical fallacies in their anger at Feminism. These people would do well to read Feminism 101. But for the rest of us who have read the entire site and still disagree with certain points, I get really sick of being referred there. I only see two possible solutions:

Start every comment, post or e-mail I write with a disclaimer stating that I have already read all of Feminism 101, along with a link to a scanned picture of a notarized print-out of every page of the blog.
Have some sort of code language - like ISIREAF101AIYRMTTSIWBRPO* with a link to this blog post embedded. (*I swear I have read everything at Feminism 101 and if you refer me to that site I will be royally pissed off)
Ignore people when they refer to that blog.

End Aside
For starters, I'd like to say how well the Rape Culture 101 post at Shakesville was written. Hopefully, astute readers will realize that by the title of this post, I do not agree with Shakesville's definitions and conclusions regarding rape culture -- that said, seeing that Rape Culture 101 is one of the most commonly seen links in discussions about Rape Culture, I think it warrants saying that it is an EXCELLENTLY written post and still serves a useful purpose - I"m glad it's there.

The problem with Rape Culture 101 is that the author, Melissa McEwan, buys into the Rape Culture theory and therefore, isn't a reliable, objective guide to whether it's true or not.

Luckily, early in the post, Melissa flatly states what Rape Culture is with a handy definition:

A rape culture is a complex of beliefs that encourages male sexual aggression and supports violence against women. It is a society where violence is seen as sexy and sexuality as violent. In a rape culture, women perceive a continuum of threatened violence that ranges from sexual remarks to sexual touching to rape itself. A rape culture condones physical and emotional terrorism against women as the norm.

In a rape culture both men and women assume that sexual violence is a fact of life, inevitable as death or taxes. This violence, however, is neither biologically nor divinely ordained. Much of what we accept as inevitable is in fact the expression of values and attitudes that can change.

Tonight I'm not going to concern myself with the latter half of Melissa's post because there is so very, very much wrong with what she is saying. Just to illustrate this point, I'm going to pull out this line:

Rape culture is treating straight sexuality as the norm.

No, treating straight sexuality as the norm is called HETERO-NORMATIVE, and you know that, Melissa. The fact that you want to lump something that has already been identified, codified and vilified (rightly) in with another "bad thing" term you and your Feminist friends have come up with is indicative of the dishonesty of your cause.

However, right now I'm going to dissect the definition that Melissa provided point by point and offer some sympathy, apathy and disdain for each aspect.

Let's get to it.
A rape culture is a complex of beliefs that encourages male sexual aggression and supports violence against women.

This sentence is a summary of what is to follow. Right off the bat, in North America, this is half-and-half false. "Encourages males sexual aggression" is true. I won't argue, nor will I allow others to make an argument against this. Men are encouraged to ask for dates and initiate physical affection in North America. Dutch-dates and women initiating sex is marginal and relegated to established relationships. Men must PENETRATE, both socially, financially and sexually in popular culture.

Rape Culture 1, Real World 0

The second part of that sentence causes problems however. "Supports violence against women" has to be the most obscene public expression that I can imagine in North America. Allow me to demonstrate. Violence against women in the real world is not tolerated. Violence against women in MOVIES/TV is only done by villains (and sometimes they are defined by it.)
As a society, we DO NOT CONDONE, ENDORSE OR ABIDE violence against women by men. Unless you are operating on a bizarre, unknown definition of "violence," there is no excuse for holding that belief.
(As a side note, I fully recognize that this point would be valid in Saudi Arabia or many other countries/societies/cultures. However, the VAST VAST MAJORITY of Feminists we encounter are North American or European and cannot claim this aspect of Rape Culture exists where they live.)

Rape Culture 1, Real World 1

Let's move on to the next sentence.

It is a society where violence is seen as sexy and sexuality as violent.

Again, it seems that the Feminists are going to win another point. And with this statement, they should. I fully agree that violence is seen as sexy and sexuality as violent.
I'm tempted, however to only award half a point here. Yes, violence is seen as sexy (but that works for both men and women.) The half point is being held back for "sexuality as violent."

What if sex IS inherently violent? There are loving human interactions that could be seen as violent to an outside observer. Chiropractic medicine comes to mind. A quick look at animal biology shows that as a biological process, sex is painful and unfortunate for females in many cases. But not all. Most of us could imagine the slow, loving, embracing type of sex that is often seen on soft-core porno. But for the vast majority of humans, that type of sex doesn't result in orgasms. I'm sorry that Rape Culture-ists have a problem with human physiology. No, really, I am. I'm lazy and would love to have orgasms from that slow, undulating type of sex. But that's not going to happen for me or 90% of the population. That doesn't mean that the "violent" appearance of that type of sex is bad.

Still, I will award you your point because we're tallying by sentence (and also because I know you winning this point won't matter in the end.)

Rape Culture 2, Real World 1

The next sentence:

In a rape culture, women perceive a continuum of threatened violence that ranges from sexual remarks to sexual touching to rape itself.

At this point, my kid gloves are coming off. Let's get down to it, shall we? The reason this definition is so obviously false is that it gives women's POV a power that no one should hold: to dictate reality simply by perception. Women perceive a continuum of threatened violence = therefore it exists.

This is so offensive to science-minded folk that I hope I don't owe any more explanation. I don't owe it, but I will give it:
KKK members perceive a continuum of minority invasion that ranges from "taking our jobs" to "raping our women."
Hopefully I don't need to say any more. Perception does not equal reality.

Rape Culture 2, Real World 2

Let's move on:
A rape culture condones physical and emotional terrorism against women as the norm.

Well, hmm. You've used an inflammatory word here. "Terrorism" I'm trying not to get angry at the blatant disregard for escalation in your post.

The common definition of terrorism relates to the goals of said activity. If a suicide bomber ran into a market filled with people and blew himself up to PREVENT PEOPLE FROM GOING TO THAT MARKET - that would be terrorism. If a suicide bomber ran into a market filled with people and blew himself up BECAUSE HE THOUGHT THE PEOPLE IN THE MARKET WERE FILLED WITH JEWELS AND GOLD - that would NOT be terrorism.

Rape Culture apologists want us to believe that rapists are doing the patriarchy a FAVOR when they rape. They imagine a smoking-jacket-wearing man, puffing on his pipe saying to himself "I'm sure glad that those rapists are out on my streets scaring my wife and daughters into obeying me!"

This concept is abhorent on its face. The vast majority of men and women in the world would be dancing in the streets if there were no more rapists in the world. To say otherwise is borderline conspiratorial.

Rape Culture 2, Real World 3

Next up,

In a rape culture both men and women assume that sexual violence is a fact of life, inevitable as death or taxes.

I must confess: I'm not sure where to start here. If we look at this statement from a skeptical point of view, if sexual violence is a fact of life, then should violence itself be a fact of life?

You are opening such an old and rusty can of worms by implying that VIOLENCE ITSELF is not inevitable. Please, if you want to end sexual violence - GO FOR THE ROOT. End violence. If you think that a world where no sexual violence can exist (yet other forms of violence can exist) you are beyond naive.

Rape Culture 2, Real World 4

And next:

This violence, however, is neither biologically nor divinely ordained.

Because you say so? Oh, OK then. My bad.

Rape Culture 2, Real World 5

Lastly:

Much of what we accept as inevitable is in fact the expression of values and attitudes that can change.

I'd like to take this last opportunity to break down into the greatest detail possible this last "take away" statement - and then retranslate this into what a rational person SHOULD read from this.

"Much of what we accept as inevitable"
Should be read as:
"Since sexual violence is inevitable, violence is inevitable, and we accept violence as acceptable, so ..."

"is in fact the expression of values and attitudes that can change."
Should be read as:
"since we think that people who are more powerful than us are ACTUALLY more powerful than us, we should stop THINKING they're more powerful than us and we can end their power over us."

Rape Culture 2, Real World 6

You are a rational person's nightmare, Melissa. Your expression of the entire Rape Culture theory is a SHAM. You've expressed these thoughts to tens of thousands of people on the internet as though they were gospel.

In reality they are no better than a late-night infomercial.

You lure your audience in with some great (and true) promises - but the more you talk the less you say.

Club Fem

2011-04-13T22:30:00.003-04:00

“Club Feminista” was relatively new in town. It catered to only the most intelligent, philanthropic and enlightened people in New Carolina, and James thought he fit the bill. He parked his car around back and headed up front.

James was in his late 20s. He had light brown hair and an unassuming face. He blended in well. He was wearing a suit with a t-shirt underneath ala Gregory House. He did splurge by wearing dress shoes tonight though.

The dance club was busy.

James was a little surprised at the popularity. The sister club “Club Feministe” had a really bad rap. It had basically become a dive bar after it hit its peak in the late 1980s with regular appearances from bands like the Sexua Harris Men with folks wearing Pat Eternity suits. But that place was basically abandoned since the late 1990s.

James filed in at the back of the line and was surprised how fast it was moving. He fumbled for his wallet and pulled out his R.A.P. E-Card that his cousin had given him. James had been told the card would allow easy access to the club and even access to the R.A.P. room upstairs.

He reached the female bouncer at the door. She looked like the spitting image of Reese Witherspoon in Legally Blonde. She held her arm out and, in a Georgia accent asked “do you believe in equality of the sexes?” James replied, “Well, of course! In fact, I have this card here …”

“Great!” The bouncer cut him off and shoved him inside.

The interior was crowded. In the first corridor of the club, the hallway was lined with anyone who was ANYONE in New Carolina. Politicians, newscasters, newspaper editors, college students, professionals, librarians. James had to squeeze his way past them to get to the dance floor and bar. He had to bump a few elbows and make a few apologies to get past them.

James was surprised to see that the actual dance floor and bar was smaller than the outside led him to believe. But size notwithstanding, there was a SERIOUS party going on in here. The speakers were POUNDING, the dance floor was packed with people and the bartenders were working feverishly behind the bar. An optimistic smile slid across his face. “I think this could be a great place to be,” he thought to himself.

James headed to the bar. He quickly sidled up to an open bar stool between two attractive women and caught the bartender’s eye. He was still holding his wallet and R.A.P. E-card in his hands. The bartender, with long, dark hair pulled back into a ponytail and a tight black tank-top that did a poor job of hiding her cleavage, came to him and leaned over to hear his order.

Suddenly, she leaned back just as James was about to order a White Russian. “You’re at the wrong bar!” she suddenly exclaimed.

“Wrong bar?” James said, thinking she was joking.

“Your R.A.P. E-card in your hand. You need to be upstairs, at the R.A.P. room.” the bartender said.

“What’s up there? I like the dance floor and the atmosphere here.” James resisted.

“Trust me, if you’ve got that card you’re going to want to be up there,” she insisted, gave him a reassuring look, and headed down to serve another patron.

James knew enough to trust a bartender. When the bartender said you’d had enough, they were right. When the bartender said you should go talk to that girl, you should go talk to her. And when the bartender said you should go somewhere else, you should go somewhere else.

James headed over towards the ivory staircase that said “R.A.P. Members Only” and met with the female bouncer at the bottom of the staircase.

It hadn’t occurred to James before now, but nearly every member of the staff here was a woman. And, in fact, although the split of women and men this close to the dance floor was about 60/40 (women to men) the men weren’t doing much. They were mostly sitting around the outer edges of the room, watching the women dance. But like most clubs, there seemed to be about the same split between men: half the men were there to ogle the women and the other half were there to dance to the beat - either way they were strangely inconspicuous about their leering or dancing.

“Please, up this way.” The bouncer looked like one of the dancers from “Addicted to Love” with her slicked back black hair, vibrant red lipstick and tight black dress. She had done just enough to say “Yes, I’m a woman” but no more. Feminimalism.

Her loose grip, but quick pace brought a sense of seriousness about the R.A.P. room they were heading to. James took a quick look down on the dance floor as they ascended the staircase. He wasn’t quite sure, but there didn’t seem to be any men actually on the dance floor itself …

They had arrived at the steel door of the R.A.P. room. The Robert-Palmer-esque bouncer quickly descended the stairs, leaving James facing two very serious-looking female bouncers guarding the door. The bouncers reminded him of a picture his mother kept of him - when he was about 12 years old and dressed up for his Middle School graduation ceremony.

“Good evening. Welcome to the R.A.P. Room at Club Feminista - New Carolina. May I see your R.A.P. E-Card?”

James handed over the plastic card. It was accepted by the bouncers with ginger care, as if it were made of ice. They slid it smoothly through a card reader, and a green glow appeared at the top of the machine. A subtle click sounded from the door. The bouncers exchanged a glance that betrayed the slightest hint of relief. The bouncers seemed instantly less threatening.

James noticed their new found friendliness and seized the opportunity. From the moment he had stepped into the club everything seemed to be moving quite fast.

“I’m sorry, it’s my first time here and I’m not quite sure where I’m going,” James admitted.

“The R.A.P. Room? The R.A.P. Room is reserved for our most important guests. Anything goes in here - there are no tabs, the drinks are free. You may dance to any beat you wish. All sorts of designer CockTales are available to you here, including Raige, Mysan Dry and Genaside.”

“Wait, Genaside? Wasn’t that outlawed 50 years ago?” James asked.

Her eyes tightening again, the bouncer didn’t answer. She asked “You had a relative give you this card? What was her name?”

James tried to disarm the bouncer “Look, I’m no narc, I’m just looking to socialize.”

“What was her name?”

“Her name? It’s “he.” His name is Paul.”

The door clicked locked. “There’s been a mistake,” the bouncer announced to no one in particular.

“But the card worked. I don’t understand.”

Before James knew what was happening, the bouncers had looped their arms under his armpits and was quickly ushering him down the steps. “Are you saying Paul isn’t a member of your club?”

“Yes, he is, technically.”

“Then why are you throwing me out? My card worked didn’t it?”

“That was a glitch,” the bouncer snapped, almost rehearsed.

“I don’t understand,” James said with exasperation.

“You wouldn’t,” the bouncer replied, and before James knew what was what, he was back on the street, a few yards down from the Witherspoon-esque bouncer that originally let him in.

The line to get in the club had disappeared for the moment. James collected himself and began his walk back to his car, all the while trying to figure out what just happened. The walk brought him past the first bouncer.

“What are you doing out here?” the question wasn’t asked with concern, but with consternation.

“Well, apparently that club’s not for me,” James said.

What the bouncer heard on the other hand, sounded more like “I don’t want to abide by the rules of that club.”

What James was trying to say was “Well, apparently that club doesn’t intend to have someone like me in it.”

The bouncer, with her golden hair and fair skin pounced on James and grabbed him by the collar. “How can NOT believe in equality between the sexes?” she asked, incredulously.

“I do, I DO believe in equality … but I don’t think I’m welcome.” James stammered.

“Nonsense. We need your patronage. You are a welcome guest. Besides, I suspect you’ll get free drinks since we’re a little low on men tonight,” she said with a wink.

James felt a little hopeful - it was nice to feel wanted and a free drink is never a bad thing. He reentered the club.

He tried to focus. He was going to get a drink, head to the dance floor, mingle a little bit and just see where things went from there. He was just there to enjoy the company of the other club goers, maybe meet some new people and get a little tipsy. He still had to drive home at some point, right?

He maneuvered over to the bar and tried to get the bartender’s attention. He caught her eye a few times, but she never seemed to acknowledge his attention-getting head nods. She would just glance at him blankly like sous chef checks a pot about to boil.

10 minutes pass. On the next pass, James calls out, “White Russian?”

“Of course, just one second” she replies.

20 minutes pass. “How’s that Caucasian coming?” James asks with a smile. The bartender is obviously very busy.

“Yeah, it’s coming. Do you have a choice of vodka?” She asks.

“Stoli?” James asks, hopefully. The bartender doesn’t respond, and resumes her feverish pacing behind the bar.

For the first time in half an hour, James notices that the bartender hasn’t actually been pouring any drinks. Mostly, she has been grabbing receipts as they come out of a small, black printer at one end of the bar - rushing to the other end of the bar and impaling them on a small spike. Every now and then, she wipes down a drink menu and hands it to a customer. Once or twice she pops a Maraschino cherry in her mouth and takes a sip of water from a large plastic cup at the back of the bar. She looks tired.

She may be tired, but James is thirsty. “Hey, hey, hey. What’s going on with my drink? I haven’t seen you pour a drink since I sat down.”

“It’s coming, just be patient.” she reassured him.

“I can be patient, I’m just wondering what’s so important right now that you can’t make me my drink.”

“I have to take care of my other customers, you know,” she sounded slightly annoyed.

“I understand that, but you haven’t made one drink for them yet! Why not?”

“Well they are still deciding on their drinks,” she said.

“I have an idea,” James offered, “why don’t you make me my White Russian while they decide?” He was sure this would make sense to the bartender - he smiled to himself at his logic.

“Oh now I couldn’t do that. That wouldn’t be fair.”

James’ brow furrowed.

“They were here first,” she said, as another receipt printed out. She turned to grab it and James stared at her, mouth gaping. He decided to head to the dance floor.

James weaved through the crowd towards the tiled floor, his left hand grasping for a drink that he felt should be there.

As he got closer to the dance floor, James started to feel upbeat. This was why he came tonight, anyway. He could’ve stayed home and enjoyed some microbrews and good times with his friends at his local watering hole - but he came to Club Feminista to see some new faces. And based on his view from the ivory staircase, the dance floor was PACKED with activity.

As James got closer to the floor he noticed something odd. The floor was raised, about two feet above the floor of the club. It was kind of uncomfortable to get your leg up that high and there weren’t any stairs.

And even though the floor wasn’t packed with women dancing, whenever he tried to step up on the floor, a crowd of women on the stage would -juuuust- crowd the area so he couldn’t get his balance and get both feet up. He tried circling the floor to find a way up, but there didn’t seem to be one.

James had a surreal feeling. He turned to one of the handfuls of men lined up in splotches along the edge of the dancefloor.

“Is there a way to get up there?” James asked incredulously.

“Sure, of course. How do you think they got up there? Jet-packs?” one of the men replied.

James laughed. “Of course - I’m just being daft. There must be a way.”

Another man chimed in “Anyway, man, you don’t want to be up there now. The DJ’s playing the women’s song.”

For the first time that night, James paid attention to the music that had been pumping since he pulled his car into the narrow parking spot behind the club. It was the same beat - the same drums and cymbals - faintly like Daft Punk’s Revolution 909. The kind of beat that is at the same time obnoxiously repetitive but never gets old.

James enjoyed the soundtrack. He also felt comfortable in the presence of these other guys. He watched the women dance. He nodded his head to the music.

Suddenly, James remembered he was still thirsty. He didn’t need a White Russian, he needed water - or anything. Just a sip. He looked at his new “friends’” glasses, all empty. He looked back up to the bar, no bartender. He looked and looked, but no one had anything in their glasses. They were all empty.

There were no drinks, one song and an inaccessible dance floor.

“What am I doing here?” James wondered aloud. “There are no drinks, there is dancing but not for me, the music never changes and worst of all: no one else will admit anything is even WRONG with this place.”

It was mere seconds after the “wrong” left his lips that he was scooped up and literally thrown from the door of the club.

“Reese” stared at him. “What did you do?” she accused.

“That place,” James stammered, “is … is … BULLSHIT. Have you ever been INSIDE that place?”

The bouncer got defensive, “I don’t have to go inside. This place is important. If we weren’t important, we wouldn’t be the most popular club in New Carolina.”

James didn’t have the energy to argue. “Argumentum ad populum,” he mumbled as he shuffled toward his car.

The bouncer, with her youthful good looks, shouted after him, “Where are you going? Are you going to just abandon the entire club? What are you going to do?”

“I dunno,” said James, “maybe I’ll write a review online.”

Feminism Is, Except When It Is Not

2011-04-12T18:31:00.005-04:00

Women get to change their minds, men do not.

I'm posting this here for posterity.

http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2010/08/10/why-blame-the-feminists/

There's a commenter here "Sheelzebub" who embodies the worst aspects of the liberal feminist world.

Look forward to an allegory later, but I just want to highlight some of Sheezlebub's real golden moments.

Q: "How does rape culture benefit non-rapist men?
A: First, she lists off a bunch of non-benefits, like "wag their fingers as they lecture us about our terrible judgment if we are raped." That is an action, not a benefit. Now if you said "every time a woman is raped, the men who didn't rape her get a gift card to Starbucks," THEN you'd have a point. Anyway, she lists off a few non-benefits and then she hits us with concrete proof that she has severely handicapped reading comprehension:
"Rape culture propagates the myth that rapists are creepy dudes hiding in the bushes, not your friend, boyfriend, husband, or coworker. So “nice guys” don’t rape, and since Joe/Nigel/Steve is a nice guy, he couldn’t have raped you, you see."
Did you catch that? Let me spell it out for you: Rape culture benefits non-rapists by making it easier for non-rapists to rape. The second part, about nice guys not raping is summed up this way: Rape culture benefits non-rapists by fooling non-rapists into thinking their rapist friends are actually non-rapists. Yes, Sheezlebub, because being FOOLED ABOUT THE CRIMINAL STATUS OF PEOPLE CLOSE TO YOU IS A GOOD THING.

Q: Why are you so disturbed by men commenting on how the patriarchy hurts men?
A: "I wouldn’t go into a WOC’s blog and go on and on about how racism hurts Whites too and what about the Whites and BTW you’re judging me based on mean white people who have more power than me."
Here, she betrays the "secret" motivation behind feminism for a very large number of women. Feminism is about "gender equality" but only when it benefits women. (See Correction) And here's your proof: Her analogy betrays her bias. A WOMAN OF COLOR blog would be concerned with WOMEN OF COLOR - white women ARE NOT "of Color." So bringing up comments about white-people problems WOULD be inappropriate there.
In case I need to spell it out: Feminism is about GENDER EQUALITY, not just women. If you don't agree with this definition, find a new term for yourself. May I recommend "bigot?"

Update: I've tried to contact Sheelzebub to see if she could come up with a good explanation. But she hasn't been seen online since 2007, from what I can see.

Correction: As April pointed out in the comments, this wording, and the subsequent conclusions one could (rightly) draw from it are incorrect and embarrassing to me personally. If I could reword it, I would do it like this:
Here, she betrays the unspoken bias in modern feminism: Feminism is about "gender equality" but only when it benefits women."

Dan Savage Was Not Annoying

2011-04-12T18:28:00.001-04:00

I've always thought that one should point out when people you normally disagree with get something right.
Quiet Riot Girl has an ongoing series of posts titled "Dan Savage is Annoying" that I'm quite fond of. I never really liked Dan Savage - and although I think he gives good advice, generally, there was something about him that I didn't like. I assumed that it was latent homophobia or something. I was happy to find that another progressive didn't like him.
So, when Dan was asked this question at Cornell University - I thought I knew what he was going to say.

Cornell professor Ritch Savin-Williams said in the New York Times that he's concerned that it's not about gay youth, but about gender-atypical kids. Is the "It Gets Better" campaign too narrowly focused?

I expected Dan to say that because gender-atypical straight kids were straight that they would be OK and didn't need the reassurance that the "It Gets Better" campaign afforded them. But no, he did a good job here. In fact, he pointed out that their campaign misses out on a key of their demographic (gay kids who can pass for straight) and still didn't denigrate the experiences of the straight-yet-gender-bullied tomboys and sissies out there.

In high school I scored very low on the hetero score among the guys in my school. I didn't play any of the sports that mattered (the ones ending in -ball), I enjoyed acting in drama and never dated any of the girls from my school. One year, a guy in my English class showed the determination to call me "fag" whenever he referred to me - for weeks on end. He said it out loud, often within earshot of the teacher. "Good job on your paper, fag." "I'm not gay." "It's OK if you're a fag, fag. You can be comfortable in your faggotry around me." (This boy is now a minister at a Southern Baptist church in Virginia. I Googled him.)

You might be asking why the teacher never called him out on this. Well, she was a closeted lesbian. If she had written up the pastor's son (did I mention that) for sexual harassment of another male student - well I don't think it would've been good for her career wise. One day she asked me to stay after class. She wanted to let me know that if I was gay, that I shouldn't be ashamed, or hate myself or anything. This was too much for me. I looked her straight in the eye and said "I'M. NOT. GAY!"
Her attitude towards me changed very quickly. She had no problem with me enduring slurs - as long as I was straight. Maybe she lumped me in with all those homophobic rednecks in Appomattox. Maybe she liked to see infighting amongst the "enemy." Maybe she didn't believe me.

Either way, Thanks Dan, for getting it right.

And if anyone is wondering why I got so angry at being called "gay" if there's nothing wrong with being gay - let me put it this way:

If you own an empty hotel and someone keeps putting up a "no vacancy" sign on the lawn, wouldn't you be more than a little pissed?

What Some Feminists Could Learn From Racism OR "Schrödinger’s Racist"

2011-04-05T18:43:00.002-04:00

To start with, I want to post an odd etymological statement about the nature of words.
Racism = the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races
Sexism = the prejudice that members of one sex are intrinsically superior to members of other sex
Atheism = the prejudice that members of reality are intrinsically superior to imaginary, made up beings
Feminism = the prejudice that members of society who are femenine are intrinsically superior to members who are masculine

Ok, I'm being silly. But ...

Ok, settle down boys and girls. Uncle Easy is going to tell you about a story from his youth.

It was a surprisingly warm September night when Uncle Easy, then a young college sophmore, had a hankering for a Subway sandwich. He and an Egyptian friend headed out of the small southern city they were going to school in (Easy studying English and History and his Egyptian friend studying Religious Studies) to the Subway located on the edge of town. It was located at a gas station.
I parked my car along the side of the building and we headed around front to go inside. It was around 11:30 p.m.
Three youngish black men who were hanging around the front door leaned up from the walls and yelled something at my friend and I - we were approaching them to enter the building.
My friend said "Huh?" (Neither of us understood them.)
Two of them came towards me, bumping chests with mine. I said nothing, in shock.
The other began to punch and kick my friend, knocking him to the ground. I started to step back, so I could move around them. One produced a very very short pen knife and said "What you gonna do, white boy?"

I'm going to stop talking about the events now, they are bothering me far more than I thought they would, now 9 years later. Besides, that wasn't the story - that was the prologue.

The story here is what happened in the 9 years following. I'll tell it chronologically.

In High School, years before this event took place - you could probably call me race-ish-ist. I was dating a black girl, but I believed, genetically, that black people were more inclined (by n%) to be violent and or conniving. No stats, just anecdotes and observations. Embarrassing, in hindsight.
This event in college sent me reeling into far more dangerous mental territory. My theory, now proven by an act of unprovoked random violence by (of all the races in the world) a group of BLACKS, was cemented.

But what wasn't cemented was my actions. What do I do? What do I say? How do I deal with the "reality" that every thuggish-looking black guy is a potential attacker?

About 3 or 4 nights (it was always the nights that were worst) later, sleeping on my air mattress in my dorm, I, reenacting in my mind what I should've done, gripped the plastic of the mattress so hard that I ripped it, and my fingernails tore the flesh of my palm. I sat on the floor and looked at my bloody hand and cried for the first time since it happened.

This anger/pain lasted for a solid 2 years. Angry night-thoughts (because I wasn't asleep) would occur a few times a month.

For this period of time, I lived in complete fear. I started carrying a loaded shotgun in my car at all times. If I saw young black men at a place I wanted to go at night, I would keep driving. If I saw a black man on the street, I would turn the other way or cross the road.

Over time, I met more and more black men in my academic experience. I realized that the fact that these good people existed wasn't really consistent with racial views. So I started blaming culture. Young black men that fit that "culture" were my new targets. Thugs. Baggy pants, etc.

That stage lasted for the next year or so. Eventually, I had enough incidental contact with young, thuggish black men that I started to get cocky. I was older now, and had gone over how I'd deal with a confrontation like that time and time again in my head. I was prepared for someone to victimize me again.

I started to test fate. Often armed with a hidden knife, I'd take opportunities to engage these thuggish black men. But take care in what you're about to read.

I realize now that what I REALLY wanted was a "round 2" for that night in 2001. I wanted to be back there, but this time to defend myself.
I'm not a thug. If I went looking for a fight I'd be no better than they were.

No, I had to play the "victim" ... I had to wait until they had made the violent action before I could react. I could not provoke or insult. I was going to be the good guy.

So you know what this meant for my little "plan?" Engaging thuggish black men in honest, polite, everyday conversation. I went looking for vengeance and found catharsis.

Any intelligent reader of this blog won't wonder what happened next. After a couple years of talking to young thuggish black man after young thuggish black man - the men I had been cringing at and avoiding for the previous 3 years - I never got a chance to use my defensive tactics.
Hell, I never even got to the point of THINKING about using those tactics. What I found were mostly uneducated (but not always) poor young men who were living some tough lives. The were decent human beings. Sometimes they were filling up their baby-momma's cars with gas because she lost her job. Sometimes, they were waiting for the bus to drop off a job application. Sometimes they were having a shitty day because they spilled COFFEE ON THEIR SHIRT. No shit man, I can fucking relate.

And eventually I came to the realization: those guys who attacked us almost a decade ago weren't evil thuggish black men. They were people who did a bad thing.

After this realization (and at this point I REALLY thought I'd figured out this whole deal) I realized something wrong that I did that night.
I looked at the ground and gave them a wide berth as we walked towards the entrance. I didn't make eye contact, I kept away from them (as did my friend.)
Maybe I was the 30th white person to do that to them that night. Maybe I was the 10,000th white person to do that to them in their lifetime. Maybe I was the millionth.

As I look back, if as soon as I had walked around the building, I had smiled at them and said something like "How's it going guys? Having a good night?" that violence might not've happened.

If I'd treated them like human beings, instead of unstable animals, I might've been able to not only stop the violence that happened that night, but stopped some violence to someone else down the road.

------------------------

Ok, boys and girls, story time is over. Make sure you brush your teeth and leave the toilet seat the way you found it. Now it's time for the adults to talk.

This is a very old post "Schrödinger’s Rapist: or a guy’s guide to approaching strange women without being maced" that inspired this.

When I read that post, I instantly recognized the perspective of the afraid woman. It was exactly how I felt as I was psychologically recovering from my assault (and in case it isn't clear, what they did was wrong and I wouldn't hesitate to defend myself if it happened again and I DO think they should be arrested and charged, there is no excuse for violence). HOWEVER ...

What Phaedra Starling doesn't realize is that when she behaves in such a way, she is limiting her exposure to the vast, vast, vast majority of strangers who will never raper her and the vast majority of strangers who would never rape her. (notice, please that there is a difference - there is a possibility to come into contact with a rapist who does not rape you.)

This is all fine and dandy, but the real reason I wrote this is because of something I found on another feminist site (critical of Phaedra) that gave this statistic:
1 in 6 women will be the victim of a sexual assault in their lifetime.

Now I've heard that before, but only this post juxtaposed that with this one:
1 in 6 men will be the victim of a random violent assault in their lifetime.

Phaedra's example and I are the same. We're both the same afraid people going through life afraid of the cat in the box that we can't see.

We both thought the cat was alive far, far, far too often. And we ended up hurting people because of it.

Feminism Benefits Men

2011-03-30T22:47:00.000-04:00

So tonight, stuck in my hotel, I went downstairs to the bar to ask for a fork. Just a fork.

Long story short, I ended up playing devil's advocate for feminism to a 47 year old white guy and a 52 year old black man. They kept buying me drinks and preventing me from leaving to continue the conversation.

This has left me with some conclusions:
A) Sexist men are generally of my father's or older generation. I still haven't met men my age who spout their unfiltered sexism. They are a dying breed.
B) Just because a man (or men) buy you drinks and discourage you from leaving doesn't mean they want to have sex with you (even in the case of these old, sexist men.)
C) Confidence is international currency among men. I went down there wearing gym shorts and a ratty t-shirt. When the two men began to berate me (shortly after meeting them) for my clothes, I quickly and shortly responded that I didn't need to be swathed in nice clothes to feel confident at a bar (which was a self-fufilling prophecy) and when they responded "The women aren't going to think much of you" I responded with "Then I won't think much of them." without hesitation. I had their unspoken respect from that point on.

Men are so easy to manipulate when you know their game plan. Man, I feel like a woman.

::trumpets and shit::

Feminism Matters (as in "It's Important")

2011-03-23T19:36:00.001-04:00

I wanted to step back for a bit today to illustrate two things that might not be obvious to someone reading this blog.

1) Equality feminism is a movement that only a few, privileged cultures need.

2) Pickfork & Torch Feminism is still needed in the rest of the world.

Let this link illustrate my point:

http://jezebel.com/#!5784793/the-virginity-tests-forced-on-egyptian-women-protesters

This is a travesty. This is horrible. This is disgusting and wrong. We need feminists to fight this battle. The enlightened men of the world cannot come in and fix this (as much as we might want to.) This is the dirty, uphill battle that the women there need to fight and I hope they come out victorious as soon as possible.

Bring the biggest guns you can find to that gun fight. You have the right to do that.

But when both sides' guns run out of bullets, fight with knives.
When both sides' knives become dull, fight with fists.
When everyone's fingers are broken, fight with words.
And when there are no more words, fight with peace.

When a movement comes closer and closer to its goal, you MUST de-escalate or risk becoming the tyrant you fought in the first place.

North American feminists have won every battle that they had a battle plan for. But now, the battle plan is gone, the patriarchy's walls have been breached and soon (within the next 20 years) the bonfires of male domination will be extinguished in this culture. It is time for the "All Pornography Is Rape" feminists to be stamped out and the equality feminists (or ifeminists) who can be reasoned with to reclaim their mission. But this isn't the kind of thing men can come in and do. No, we have to let the women fight this out - but only if those reasonable feminists (fun-fems - teehee!) recognize that their hard-earned title is being hijacked by radfems.

2011-03-18T09:17:00.002-04:00

A TRUE Story

2011-03-17T22:29:00.001-04:00

I wanted to tell you folks about this. I felt that I needed to.

I went for a run after dinner tonight. It was a beautiful night. The moon is full and I wanted to unwind after a long week of work. I was responsible. I wore a bright, white vest so cars could see me.

About one mile into the run, a car full of black men in their teens or early 20s drove by me. One of the passengers leaned out of the car window and screamed at me. He said he wanted to shoot me in the face. It scared me. But it has happened before and I had my dog, my phone and my goody bag with me, so I was pretty confident I would be okay. Still, I spent the next mile constantly looking over my shoulder (which caused me to twist my knee).

I decided to shorten my route to avoid a dark patch of road. But as I approached my house after just two miles, I felt good and wanted to keep going. I decided I would keep running and loop around the neighborhood. And then, a car full of blacks drove by me and one of the passengers leaned out the window and screamed at me. I went straight home.

I walked in the door far less relaxed than I had been when I set out. In fact, I was furious. Why is it, I wondered, that as a white person jogging alone at night, it is my responsibility to bring my phone and my dog, check over my shoulder regularly, and plan my route based on street lamps, and yet, these black people feel no responsibility for not harassing me or behaving civilly?

If something had happened to me during my run – if I had been attacked – and the incident made the paper, do you think most people reading the story would have first thought, “Why do those blacks behave that way?” Or would their first thought have been, “Why was that white guy running alone at night in that neighborhood??”

Well? What do you think?

Oh SHIT. I'm so sorry. I meant to type all that shit out myself but I accidentally copy and pasted some insane feminist's experience and then went through and changed some language to make it identical to an experience I had in college. SHIT, MY BAD!

I guess, since I'm an honest person who cares about the truth that I should post the original post here with a track back. SORRY HELLO LADIES! MY BAD!

I went for a run after dinner tonight. It was a beautiful night. The moon is full and I wanted to unwind after a long week of work. I was responsible. I wore a bright, white vest so cars could see me. I took my big dog with me so I wouldn’t be alone. And I carried my cell phone and a bag of dog sh*t in case I ran into trouble on the road. That’s what it takes for me to feel safe running at night.
About one mile into the run, a car full of young men in their teens or early 20s drove by me. One of the passengers leaned out of the car window and screamed at me. He said he wanted to shove something up my ass. I didn’t catch what object he wanted to use. It scared me. But it has happened before and I had my dog, my phone and my goody bag with me, so I was pretty confident I would be okay. Still, I spent the next mile constantly looking over my shoulder (which caused me to twist my knee).
I decided to shorten my route to avoid a dark patch of road. But as I approached my house after just two miles, I felt good and wanted to keep going. I decided I would keep running and loop around the neighborhood. And then, a car full of boys drove by me and one of the passengers leaned out the window and screamed at me. I went straight home.
I walked in the door far less relaxed than I had been when I set out. In fact, I was furious. Why is it, I wondered, that as a woman jogging alone at night, it is my responsibility to bring my phone and my dog, check over my shoulder regularly, and plan my route based on street lamps, and yet, these young men feel no responsibility for not harassing me or behaving civilly?
If something had happened to me during my run – if I had been attacked – and the incident made the paper, do you think most people reading the story would have first thought, “Why do those men behave that way?” Or would their first thought have been, “Why was that woman running alone at night?”

And the original post:
http://helloladies.com/2010/10/personal-responsibility/

Disclaimer: Some people are going to read this and assume I'm saying "black people" or "black men" are bad/evil/etc. Absolutely not the case whatsoever. There is only one point to this post: to point out that this instance of "victimization" of women by men is the same thing that whites experience can experience by blacks - BUT THAT DOES NOT MAKE BLAMING ALL BLACK PEOPLE FOR THE ACTIONS OF A FEW A MORALLY ACCEPTABLE ACTION.

Femitropes

2011-03-15T22:04:00.000-04:00

So I have a confession about this blog: I've recently come across a series of blogs, posts and comments that were the straws that broke the proverbial camel's back. I bundled those straws into a twig because they each came from different sources: two atheist, two law and one cooking blog.

It's the F-word. Feminism.

See, I was raised by a second-wave feminist. Anti-porn, pro-woman-workforce feminist. Now, being a child, I didn't have an opportunity to view porn to make the judgement about whether or not porn was objectifying towards women - so I was forced to consume and evaluate her other feminist ideals. And they have stood the test of time:
I am a woman. I:
- am capable of anything that a man is capable of, other than the biological production of sperm cells.
- will improve, not hinder, your existence as a man with my opinions, feelings and perspectives.
- am as complex as you are.

I was initially skeptical of these feminist stances my mother held, but as I reached adulthood, I realized their truth. Since that time, I have without hesitation called myself a feminist. Because the opposite of "feminist" was "misogynist," and I obviously wasn't one of those, was I?

If I wasn't a feminist, I would obviously have to hold the opposite opinion:
- Women are incapable of things that men are capable of.
- Women will handicap men by bogging them down with their silly opinions, feelings and perspectives.
- Women are simple. Men are complex.

So here we are, decades later and I find myself being confronted by wave after wave* of feminist saying that my definition of feminism (and the actions that people like me take in an effort to be in line with feminism) ISN'T TRUE FEMINISM.

Now this would be a shitty blog post if I left it at that. No True Scotsman is screaming out loud right now, and I heard it immediately. I looked around online and began to see that this infighting among feminists is quite common. And actually, quite a few things are quite common. Some of them are infighting, many of them are related to the censoring of male (or as I recently discovered, transgender) voices.

So I've decided to begin cataloging them here. I shall call them ... Femitropes.

1. Making a blog post complaining that men always need to assert their opinions on women - then being shocked (SHOCKED, I SAY) when men show up to rebut/comment on the post.
Here's an idea: set up a religious blog and make a post saying that Muslims constantly try to censor blog posts - then when Muslims show up to say that's not what they think: they've proven your point!

* See what I did there?

But WHAT ABOUT THE MENZ?????!?

2011-03-15T19:27:00.000-04:00

Yeah, so ... hmm. What about the men?

Attention Deficit Disorder

2011-03-12T16:18:00.000-05:00

A.D.D.

Attention Deficit Disorder. I have this disorder. I was diagnosed with it when I was 12 years old - about the same time that the disorder was first being recognized by the medical community.

Pre-diagnosis (and pre-"treatment") I was a C or D student. I would study, pre-test, and pop-quiz myself with the help of my totally (even overly) attentive mother. It never did any good. She tried so hard.

One day, my mother read a magazine article and she took me to Duke University for "free" testing for a newly diagnosed disorder "Attention Deficit Disorder" that my mother was convinced I had. For me, a 11-year-old who was massively unpopular (for numerous reasons, including my yankee accent or my lack of academic or athletic skills) I looked forward to this chance to escape from school. I HATED school.

This was the summer between 5th and 6th grade when I went down to Duke. I am pretty sure I was down there for only 2 or 3 days. I only have a handful of memories from my time there, being tested, but two stand out:

1. Looking at an illustration of an squiggling lines - then being shown 3-4 sets of squiggling lines and being told to select the one that looked most like the first set.

2. Being told to navigate a metal pencil down a narrow set of lines on a piece of paper. I was told I could take as much time as I pleased.

There were a dozen or so other tests, but I don't remember the details of them. I do remember all of my tests taking place in a small room with a rather large mirror along one wall. I didn't realize it at the time, of course, but the senior Duke doctors in charge of the study as well as my mother were in that one-way-mirror room watching me take all of my tests.

In fact, the only time I remember acknowledging the mirror was as I was taking the "squiggly line test" where I tried to memorize a page of squiggly lines and point it out when the page was turned. If I recall correctly, I had gone through the first 6 or so pages of "spaghetti" without error, and I had made each decision in a matter of seconds. It all seemed really easy to me.
My main distinct memory of this test came as I quickly pointed out the last plate of spaghetti (unbeknown to me CORRECTLY) and my test-taker looked at me with bug-eyes and then shifted her gaze to the mirror. It was the first hint I got that there were people behind that mirror watching what I had been doing.

Eventually the tests were over. My mother and I returned home and I resumed my 6th-grade summer activities.

Before school started the next year my mother attempted to explain to me that the Duke University doctors had determined that I had A.D.D. (but not A.D.H.D.) and recommended "Ritalin" as a treatment medication. I was soon put on the medication -- twice a day at 8 a.m. and noon.

Seventh grade held a number of changes for me. I was now thrust into the multiple-classroom setting, where I moved from classroom to classroom during the day, rather than sitting in the same class all day long.

Eventually the first semester of my first medicated year went by - my interim report came home. It read As and Bs -- not a C, D or F to be found.

I am not going to venture a guess as to my parents' thoughts regarding my grades at this time. Suffice to say that I came home to warm encouragement and enthusiasm.

It obviously appeared to be a miracle drug. "TURN A C-D STUDENT INTO AN A-B STUDENT!"

But things weren't that simple. Living the Ritalin life was hard. For some reason it 'reset' my ability to "get" jokes. Sitting at the lunch table caused my funny bone to break. It took years for me to be able to understand A=B=C to make funny comments.

But in the meantime I was getting top grades, and what parent could complain? So I graduated and went to college thankful for my GPA and my recommendations.

What I didn't realize was that my disfunction would follow me after I graduated college and went on to the "real world."

Why This Blog Exists

2011-03-10T21:34:00.000-05:00

I will shortly begin pointing to this page as I go gallivanting across the Internet spreading my opinion in the comment sections of some of my favorite blogs.

I mostly wanted to point out a few things about who I am and why I'm taking the time to put up and maintain this blog.

First off, I am a former journalist with a degree in journalism. Because of this, I put a great deal of weight in words -- how they are used and what is being said. Fact-checking, detecting logical fallacies or misdirection come naturally to me at this point, so when I butt heads with others on the internet I thought it was important I'd have a place to take my time to rebut or explore my opinions.

This is that place.

I am a man of many changing passions. Food, beer, cars, guns, computers, video games, technology, law, feminism, ideology, science, evolution, religion and politics (although the last hopefully minimally) are things that I've dabbled in over the past 10 years and have inclinations towards. Some inclinations are strong - some are weak. Others, still are belligerent. But this is my place to share them.