Wednesday, December 31, 2008

My over due Christmas round up

I know I might as well be a year late doing this since I'll bet literally everyone else in the blogsphere has already done theirs but here goes (and this gives us a small break before part three of "I knew they could see eye to eye!").

Went out of town to visit my brother and his family (wife and two daughters). Lots of food. Lots of alcohol. Lots of good time. Found out my brother has been trying to design a family crest as part of an original tattoo he wants. Depending on when he finishes it I will certainly work said crest into a tattoo for myself. I mistakenly slept through Christmas morning and missed my nieces opening their presents (they say they woke me up and I went back to sleep but I have no recollection of that...).

As for me I didn't come away with a lot but that's cool because I did get was cool. From the Secret Santa at work I got some books ("The Darkest Evening of the Year" by Dean Koontz, "Cross" by James Patterson, and "The Appeal" by John Grisham) and BADLY need wallet. Now I have some motivation to finish reading Harry Potter book four. From the company I work for I got a $25 card to WalMart and another from my boss. And they were well spent. I was able to get some necessities (it was Christmas and a few days before payday, I was broke) and the season 1 box set of Angel. I've been a big fan of the show for a long time and now that the box sets are only $15 at WalMart they will be mine...oh yes...they will be mine.

So maybe I didn't come away with a lot of loot but I am very thankful for the loot I got. All in all it was a good chance to relax. Unfortunately all that patience, calm, and tranquility was short lived.

I knew they could see eye to eye! Part 2

Okay last time I was talking about how the Feministing community was raking Britney Spear's new video, "Womanizer".

About a day or so ago I saw Glenn Sacks talking about the same video but from a different angle than the Feministing community.

Now instead of talking about one of the myths of male sexuality ("Men always want sex therefore its okay to treat them badly.") Glenn chose to focus on the violence the man in the video suffers at the hands of women and how it is received by an audience.

In his post he links to a clip of Good Morning America and the hostesses are talking about Britney. While talking there is a clip of the Womanizer video playing. Why does the audience cheer when Britney kicks the guy in the crotch?

I'm pretty sure that there is no way a mainstream male pop singer could get away with treating a woman like that. Try to imagine if Justine Timberlake was throwing a woman around like that, getting ganged up on and groped by group of men, kicked in the crotch, and then when he was "done" with her just tossed her to the side.

Male against female violence is definitely wrong but for some reason it gets policed more than female against male violence. If you look at out culture (namely sitcoms) you will see how violence against a woman is treated as serious business (as it should) while violence against a man is funny at best and encouraged (passed off as "empowering") at worst. And there is one simple reason why such things go on on tv, music, and commercials.


You know those same producers I talked about in part one that are willing to drag one group through the mud in order to gain the approval of the other groups? They are at work here too, feeding stereotypes about men. "A man can't be hurt by a woman." "A man can't be raped by a woman." "A man should never attack a woman but if a woman attacks a man then he must have done something to deserve it." "A woman can't rape a man." "If he had an erection then that means he wanted."(So far I've only heard that one from women, go figure.)

These days such myths and stereotypes are politically correct therefore its okay to play off of them.

I'd really like to see the day when those things are not only no longer politically correct but all pointed out for the sexist, misandrist, nonsense they are.

Okay you have a video that is clearly offensive to men and both sides recognize it. Why it is good to see that they do that alone is not what made me think to do this post. One more part to go.

(I know this seems jumbled but I had to get these thoughts down somewhere so I can sort through them.)

Tuesday, December 30, 2008

I knew they could see eye to eye! Part 1

Well they could if each weren't so busy trying to tear the other side's eyes out that is.

Go take a look at Britney Spear's new video Womanizer (I refuse to embed it).

So about two weeks ago there was a post on Feministing about it. The writer comes at this from the very valid angle of how this video perpetuates the myth of male sexuality.

Come on don't act like you've never encountered someone that thought that all straight guys (and perhaps gay men too and I just haven't seen it) think about sex all the time, want to have sex all the time, and if we could get away with it we'd have sex all the time. And based on that one can conclude that a man could never be raped by a woman. Why? Because "deep down inside he knows he wanted it".

That's what we call a myth.

Contrary to what pop culture may say about male sexuality this is not the case. First let's just do a gender switch. What is the usual reaction if a woman was raped and the notion came up that she really wanted it? Yes there are a lot of people out there that would believe that but there are also a hell of a lot of people out there that would argue against such a statement. So if its unfair to say that a female rape victim really wanted it then why is it fine and dandy to say that a male rape rape victim really wanted?

So the question is why is it okay to assume that since a man always wants sex there is no such thing as "against his will"?

The writer says that such a thing is a patriarchal value. That's close but I think there is something else that is just as powerful and (IMO) more widespread that that. Yes the notion that men always want it (and therefore cannot revoke consent) is an old and long ingrained idea but in this day and age I wonder why is such an old and wrong idea still being fed. I'm gonna say money. Hear me out for a moment.

Video producers are basically marketing the artists they produce videos for. And like any one else that is in marketing video producers are out to make the most money for the least effort possible (and by least effort I mean abiding by what is politically correct at the time). Unfortunately with this approach a lot of people will be offended and lot of toes will be stepped on. Commercials with idiot dads who are rescued by all knowing all forgiving wives. TV shows moms who are "too weak" to do things like fix a car, mow the lawn, or hunt. Music videos that say since men want sex so badly they are always consenting and therefore cannot be raped. It pays to insult or hurt one group to entertain the other groups.

And not only is such a video telling men that they cannot refuse consent but it tells women that since men want sex very badly it's okay to hit them, push them, and abuse them over it.

Okay this is going a bit longer than intended so I'm gonna split this one up.

This is what the MRM is talking about

Glenn Sacks put this up earlier today.

Alright most of us agree that minors should not have sex and in fact it is a crime to have sex with a minor. Well when two minors have "consensual" sex how does one go about dealing out punishment?

Well it seems that Pastorius Elementary School has decided that when a young teenage boy and girl have "consensual" sex only the boy should get in trouble. In this particular case the young boy was suspended for first 5 then 10 days from school while she received no punishment.

What kind of lesson do you teach your young girls and boys when you have two kids break the school rules but only one of them gets punished. Yes I know you're thinking double standard and you're correct to do so. This isn't the first time a female has gotten preferential treatment over a male (and damn sure won't be the last).

A couple of kids have sex and only one gets in trouble. Suspending them both would make sense. Not suspending either of them until the matter was investigated would make sense. But based on the info in that story it makes no sense that he got suspended and she walked away scot free.

PS: Yeah and I also notice that his name is dropped in the first sentence and then mentioned 10 more times. Take a moment to count how many times her name was mentioned.

This is what feminism is talking about

Renee put this up earlier today.

Okay I'm sure most of you will agree that violence is wrong and in the idea world no one would have to even consider resorting to it. However we do not live in an ideal world and violence is a common thing in this non-ideal world.

In fact many people go by sayings like "violence begets violence", "two wrongs do make a right", "an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind" and so on. But what if you are in trapped in a situation in which your body, and possibly your very life, is in danger? Would you be able to commit violence in order to prevent violence from being committed against yourself?

Well Charris Bowers was willing to do such a thing. However it would seem that committing violence in self-defense is a crime. Kinda reminds you of grade school when the bully would pick on someone until they fought back but the teacher would then deal punishment the kid that fought back instead of the bully.

A woman's husband tries to force her to have sex when she didn't want to so she fights back. If anything I would say perhaps both of them getting arrested until things could be sorted out but to only arrest one of them is not right at all.

PS: However Renee did mention one thing that I don't fully agree with.
Loranna didn't cut off her husbands penis because she got bored one day, she did it in response to the abusive relationship that she was involved in.

I wouldn't have a problem with what Loranna did if she had cut his penis off during a struggle or came at him head on. No she did it in the middle of the night while he was sleep. Yeah she just happen to snap while he was defenseless... One could say she pulled a Mary Winkler but since this came first I guess you could say Mary Winkler pulled a Loranna Bobbit.

Demonic Fury at Work

At first I thought I was gonna have some cool shit to put into my 100th post but so far this week has been so shitty that I just have to vent.

I know that I'm probably about one declaration away from claiming an activist title and all but some days after putting up with the bullshit that I put up with at work I just feel like committing violence. No need to be shy I'm sure you've had those moments in you life when things like patience, calm, and tranquility go straight out the window and the inner demon takes over. So let me ask you. When you think dark thoughts like that is there music playing in your mind and if so what is it?

Here's mine:

The song playing in the background is called Demon's Theme by LTJ Bukem. I'm most of you will recognize the video clips of Akuma (which roughly translates into devil or demon) from the Street Fighter series of video games. Pure unadultred violence...

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

I guess the gong was broken...

Saw this today over at Bikerbernie's.

Okay first off yes I do think that some of the stuff he was talking about in his routine was offensive. Most of the time when someone goes off on a comedian all you hear about is the fact that said comedian said something offensive and they check some privilege or something like that. What I want to talk about (and other than at Bikerbernie's I've yet to hear a peep about this from anywhere else) is the fact that one of the two women that confronted him on stage actually punched him.

I have no problem with the fact that they thought his material was offensive. I have no problem with the fact that they wanted to say something about it. But attacking him? They could have walked out. They could have continued shouting at him. Hell they could have even somehow got a mike of their own and cracked jokes on him until the crowd turned against him (well they were shouting some jokes about him but if I heard them right they were the usual "insert insult about a man's sexual performance that women like to resort to" stuff.

Anyone reading this is gonna have one hell of a time convincing me that if two guys ran up on stage and one of them punched Paul Poundstone in the middle of a set they would not have landed in jail. The bouncers would have descended on them like vultures.

The fact that a woman can just walk up to a man and punch him in the head ON FILM and not get pounced on...

Sunday, December 21, 2008

Doing good things can feel so good

I was reading this a few days ago and I started thinking about the acts of kindness I've performed over the years. Freshmen year when I chatted up a woman who was waiting for a cab at 2am on an empty campus. Helping the young girl my friends and I encountered walking down the street late one night (in her prom dress). This past Black Friday when I helped a woman out by putting a trampoline she bought into the back of her SUV. It would seem I have another one to add to the list.

I live in what people call the boondocks. By that I mean that in order to get anything beyond the bare necessities I still have to "go to town". When I do this I have two choices on where to go. East or West. For as long as I can remember I've always gone west. In fact I had not gone beyond 10 miles east of my house in over 10 years. Well a married couple I hang out with wrecked their car (the deer around here are like no other) and needed to get a rental replacement while it was in for repairs. I agreed to take them to the rental spot which was 1 hour east. Why not I haven't been out there in over 10 years. It would seem that it was a good thing I did.

After finishing up with my friends and taking time to ponder life while staring out at the ocean from the beach (yeah I live barely 1 hour away from The Outer Banks in North Carolina and have not been out there in that long) I head back home. Just to give a description of the 60 miles 40 of them are a stretch of road where there is NOTHING but woods and canals deep enough for cars to totally sink into on both sides, soft shoulders, and wild animals (namely bear, wolves, foxes). Not only that but NO cell phone service works in this space. I'll put it to you like this: My dad is a 59 year old retired cop and he won't drive back there at night unless it is the dire straits emergency.

So anyway I'm heading back with just enough time to cross that 40 mile stretch before sundown (I spent too much time at the beach) and I see an SUV and a family of five on the side of the road stuck in the mud at the start of said 40 mile stretch. With their luggage and Christmas presents out on the ground it looks like they had tried to push it out but to no avail. One of them was trying use her cell phone but her carrier doesn't work in that area. I offer help in the form of my cell phone to call for a tow truck. After about a 45-minute wait a tow truck came and got them out of the mud and they were on their way.

It was a good thing that they had gotten stuck where they were. If they had been about 20 miles further east (where even my cell phone would not have worked) and about 1 hour later (after sundown) their is no telling what would have happened to them (they were from Florida so they had no clue about the area). Interesting that going that way for the first time in over ten years put me in a position to help a stranded family out.

It didn't cross my mind to respond to their offer of payment with anything uplifting and spiffy like, "Just pay it forward.", but I'm sure that wasn't the main point here right? Just a simple "No thanks." and off I went.

Friday, December 19, 2008

It's illegal to fight off a stranger?

I have a scenario. Imagine you are the parent of a 12 year old girl. A breaker goes out and you send said 12 year old daughter to reset it. Once your daughter gets outside three men in a van pull up and try to drag her off, calling her a prostitute.

You're inside the house and you hear your daughter screaming for help. What do you?

I think it's safe to assume that anyone reading this would have rushed outside at top speed ready to lay someone the fuck out for attacking their child right? And more than likely it said defense would be justified right? Apparently this is not always the case.

Read about this incident from about 2 years ago that is still haunting an innocent family.

Yes you read that right. Three cops who were responding to a report that three white prostitutes were soliciting a white male and a black male. Well it would seem that even after going to the wrong house they mistook the young girl for one of the protitutes in question because she had on "tight shorts". Nevermind the fact that this young girl is African-American though.

You would think that it would end there right? Oh no its not that easy. After getting out of the hospital for two black eyes and throat and ear drum injuries (I wonder if they had the right woman would they still have started off with such rough treatment. I though you had to identify yourself as a cop before moving for the arrest...) it would seem that the police decided that the girl and her father who went out to help her after hearing her scream for her Daddy have been arrested for assulting a peace officer.

So there you have it. A girl fights back against strangers (the cops were in plain clothes) who are trying to drag her off and her dad comes out swinging to protect her like a parent should and they get arrested for it. It goes without saying that this is more than likely that this arrest is nothing more than the city trying to save face. The police don't want to admit they screwed up by going to the wrong location so now they want to cover it up by crying that they were "just doing their job".

A little girl is terrorized by the police and a father that fought to protect his daughter are they are the criminals?

Thursday, December 18, 2008

A Thin Blurry Line

Cara over at The Curvature has a post up. The subject of the post touches one of the biggest issues in science: robots and human relations.

The post in question is about an image of a what appears to be a woman with a game controller extending from her waist. Was the image in question meant to depict a woman that has had her humanity and free will stripped and reduced to a object of pleasure or an object of pleasure that, while looking like a woman, is not meant to be connected to a real woman in anyway whatsoever?

Now I personally think of that pic as an object that should not be construed with a real woman but I can fully understand how someone would conclude the image does indeed depict a woman that has been reduced to a controllable thing that exists for the pleasure of her controller. So that has me thinking, where is line between fantasy and real and what is considered to be crossing it?

Perhaps the line is based on how much of the woman is depicted:

1. If that image is reducing a woman to a pleasure object then who is to say that a fleshlight is objectifying due to the fact that all the "unnecessary" parts a woman's body are removed and the user is only left with the "important" part.

2. Perhaps if you take that fleshlight and add a basic rubber body around it. Now its been upgraded from a portable vagina to blowup doll. Now that its in the crude shape of a woman does this mean that it has now become offensive to women?

3. Now take away that crude rubber skin and add a lifelike cyberskin. The device is in the shape of a woman and has "skin". Is it Objectifying yet?

4. Okay this time we'll add facial features, breasts, hair, fingernails, movable joints, a voicebox, etc. The result would be something that Geppetto would be jealous of.

At what point do you say that the line has been crossed and you no longer just have a sex toy for your sexual pleasure but have decided that all the parts of a woman's body are not needed and its best to just discard the the useless ones?

I have to say that the mentality of the owner of the object can offer quite a bit of insight into that. How does the owner treat the women in their life? Do they tend to stay away from real women? What types of fantasies does the owner have about women?

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Good idea....Bad idea...

After years ofhelplessness at the hands of the husbands that abandoned and beat them and the corrupt police officials that would not help them women of India's northern Uttar Pradesh state's Banda have decided to band together to form The Gulabi Gang.

Now I'm sure that most people will agree that there is nothing wrong with using force, even lethal force, against someone that is attacking you and threatening your life. However if this story is true (with emphasis on the if its true part). I think someone has either gone a bit too far or the Minority Report Rule is in effect.

It would seem that in order to resolve the conflict that has been tearing two villages in Papua New Guinea apart for the last 20 years the women of the villages decided to kill all newborn boys. Apparently the train of though is that men cause conflict therefore if there are no men there will be no conflict. Get it? Instead of killing the ones that are actually causing the conflict just kill ALL the males so that there is absolutely no chance that conflict will break out. Why wait until they actually commit the crime when you can just kill them before they are even old enough to comprehend what crime, violence, and murder are?

Now you have two instances in which violence is being used in the name of justice but I'm sure you can tell that they are not the same. In one case you have people fighting back against their actual attackers. In the other you have people preemptively wiping out an entire gender on a count of the future violence they might cause.

And don't think I didn't notice the biased reporting in the PNG story. In the Gulagi Gang coverage the article is correctly focused on the women who have suffered at the hands of evil husbands and corrupt police. But for some odd reason in the PNG story its all about the women who were forced to commit such horrible crimes (I guess it really does hurt the parent more than the child...). But considering that there are no victims to speak to the reporters had to take whatever information they could get.

I really hope that this is story in Papua New Guinea is not true (from what I can tell people are still trying to verify it and there are some claiming that it is not real) because it if is I really don't see why they should be allowed to get away with village wide gendercide like that but more importantly to think that an entire generation of boys is gone is just shocking.

(PS - I'm kinda upset over the fact that in some of the comment sections on sites with the PNG story is posted there are people actually saying that exterminiting all those boys was a good idea. Misandry at its finest...)

Monday, December 1, 2008

This is what feminism is talking about...

Okay anyone that has ever read my blog here can conclude that I am not the biggest fan of feminist. I really don't have problems with the base premise of equality but once its members begin to splinter off into their own variations of feminism things get dicey. But even as a non-feminist (not to be confused with anti-feminist) it's as plain as the nose on my face that shit like this not cool.

I saw this over at Renee's earlier today.

I don't agree with everything that feminists are talking about but I can totally understand where they are coming from. Pirelli is a tire company that makes an annual calendar for its top clients. Well it seems that this year's calendar was designed with a certain "exotic" flavor. Mind you by exotic I mean showing "other" cultures as wild, beastial, and abusive. And there is also the part where the women of that culture (and women of "the normal" culture as well) are targets of the abusive and violent ways of that "other" culture.

When are people going to get to the point where they can do things without resorting to -isms for inspiration?

Friday, November 28, 2008

Forgive me for I have sinned...

We all know yesterday was Thanksgiving. Plenty of food, drink, laughing, and merriment. So I'm just gonna skip to something someone said late last night. I was over at my sister's place and a cousin of one of her friends was over. He had already eaten one Thanksgiving meal and we were all joking about him eating so much. But one thing that he said rang through my head though.

I make sure to clean my plate because there are people that don't have this much food.
Good point.
Last night I ate only one meal but in that one meal I ate so much that I had indigestion all night and even though that meal was about 6pm last night I am just starting to get hungry again. I'm sure there are countless people who only had enough to satisfy their basic hunger and countless more that went hungry last night.
Ever since I can remember I've always said that I was thankful for my meals but I've never really thought about that on Thanksgiving (or at any other time of the year for that matter)before he said that but its so true. And it makes me feel horrible. The fact that I have access to enough food that I can actually get sick from eating while there are people who are sick because they do not have access to enough food to eat.

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Oh come on...

I just finished watching this week's Law and Order:SVU. If you don't want spoilers then stop reading this.

Long story short Judge Donnelly (played by Judith Light) actually steps in as the prosecutor in order to prosecute a woman who had been on the run from a murder charge for 34 years. It turns out when the woman was originally charged Donnelly was the ADA assigned to prosecute and the suspect managed to escape (by requesting a private meeting, asking to go to the bathroom then escaping).

As a result Donnelly was humiliated in the DA's office and spent years working her way back up. I can see how tough it would have been for a woman trying to make her way up in the judicial system in the 70s (she even commented that before being offered the case her boss actually asked her husband if she had permission to take the case).

Once the trial starts she comes after this woman with everything she had. Despite her assurances of the contrary it really looked like her interest was not justice but revenge for having her career setback and "setting back the image of women". But at the end of the trial (yes at the end, not by the end) she has a change of heart. The suspect is found not guilty of the murder but is found guilty for going on the run. Even more than that Donnelly then recommends probation. The suspect and Benson both wonder what prompted the change of heart. Her answer:

"Back then I...was trying to so hard to be one of the boys...I...forgot why I became a lawyer."

So it wasn't because she realized that she was motivated by revenge and not justice. It was because she was trying to be "one of the boys". While it is true that women are often pressured to do things they would normally not do (which I guess is why some people will try to associate negative things like anger, violence, and the desire for revenge with maleness) in order to get ahead I find it hard to believe that Donnelly's motive for pressing that woman so hard was because she wanted to fit in. I'll put my money on revenge.

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

I take this hand...

Okay one thing I've noticed is how people are so quick to claim their ally status with another group of people. Now I can agree that to claim ally status is an attempt to reach out to said group and show them that you wish to assist them in their efforts in any way possible (from marching with them in rallies to linking to their blogs to get the word out).
There is nothing wrong with that but at the same time I've never felt right claiming ally status with any group (and if you've been reading my ramblings for any amount of time you will notice this). There is a reason for that.

I don't think its my place to claim ally status with another group.

Now don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying that I don't want to help other groups in their efforts. What I am saying is that in doing the things that I do to help other groups I just don't think ally status is something I can just claim and then act accordingly to maintain it.

Under normal circumstances when it comes to ally status its a two way street. The nations that formed the Allied Powers during WWII all agreed to form that alliance. It wasn't as if the United States just said one day that they were in an alliance with the other nations and the others just fell in line with it. Someone proposed the idea to the nations in question and it was up to them to accept or decline the offer. If one of the nations had declined I'm pretty sure the US couldn't or wouldn't just go around claiming to be allies of that nation. Now I am aware that the situation changes a bit when it comes to ally status between different groups.

Okay let's take the GLBT community for instance. Now if I wish to have ally status with that community I would have to actually do things to aid them and further their cause. Such tasks would be to change my own ways to ensure that I am not committing the same offenses that the community is speaking out against. Another would be to help spread their words (which other than asking questions is about as much as I could do since I am not a member of that community) to as many outlets as I can. In the midst of performing such deeds I just don't think it would be my place to claim that I am an ally of the GLBT community. That makes it sound like I'm encroaching on their territory. It seems to me that it would be up to the GLBT community to claim me as an ally.

I'm not trying to put any burden on them by saying this but I do think that it is up to the community (or at least members of it) that you are trying to assist to decide if you are an ally to their cause (which I think would most likely be based on whether or not what you are doing is aiding their cause). Again its not like I'm trying to pass the buck to them but in fact I'm trying to say that it is on me to earn their trust. It is up to me to help them in the best way I can. It is up to me to offer my hand. They just have to decide if they want to take it or not.

Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Who got game? She got game.

You don't get too many Jackie Robinson moments in pro sports so find it interesting to have one happen during my life time. The gender barrier in Japan's profession baseball league has been broken by 16 year old Eri Yoshida.

According to the article she drew inspiration from Boston Red Sox pitcher Tim Wakefield and his (not as in he invented it but he is one of few major pitchers to use it effectively) knuckleball pitch, which is a difficult pitch to learn much less master or use on a regular basis.

The team manager says, "Her sidearm knuckleballs dip and sway, and could be an effective weapon for us,".

Not to say that she wants to but perhaps as she gets experience and fame in Japan we may one day see her on the list of talents being brought from Japan to America to play. I hope she has a great career.

(For the record I think watching baseball is the one thing in this world that can actually bore me to tears but everyone gets down their own way.)

Friday, November 14, 2008

Nation-Wide Protest Against Prop. 8

Petulant over at Shakesville is helping to spread the word on a nationwide protest of the recently passed Proposition 8.

For those of you that don't know what Prop 8 is it is a measure that was passed in the state of California last week that bans gay marriage.

I've already expressed my displeasure at this proposition. I wish I could make it to one of the locations (I'm going to be in Greenville, NC but I'm gonna be tied up the entire day) so I can get a chance to speak face to space with gay rights advocates.

Hopefully there will be a great turn out for this tomorrow and plenty of attention will generated from it and even more hopefully some positive change will take place as a result.

Sorry Renee

Okay in the last year or so my attention has been drawn to various human right issues. Now as person who doesn't know a lot as well not being a member of many of the groups one reads about you're gonna get my bumps and bruises (whether they are my own fault is another story). And along the way you will genuinely incur the wrath of other bloggers and other bloggers will just auto-hate because you agree with them. But I think to day I almost had the former happen because of the latter.

Over at Womanist Musings Renee put a post about how one group's rights (in this instance the rights of gays) should not take precedence over another. She gave her own interpretation of what the poster the person in the picture is carrying and I offered a different one.

Well since some people just can't stand to hear a different opinion they resort to childish tactics. Accuse them of derailing, insult you, and my personal favorite call them a troll. Just think of it like calling someone a witch or accusing someone of conspiring against the establishment. They can't confront you on what you say so they have to pick other avenues. That is pretty much what happened to me on that thread.

Well when it happens you can do one of two things. You can either try to defend yourself or you can just leave. Now defending yourself is a noble thing. Who wants to be attacked, especially when its uncalled for? The problem is when you do that you run the risk of taking the discussion off course which in turn proves the people right that you were trying to take the discussion off course.

And that is what I was about to do to Renee's discussion today. I went in tried to say something got attacked in my efforts to set the record straight I ended up taking things off course. And it really didn't help that in responding I said some pretty mean stuff too. My bad Renee. So now that I've decided to defend myself and almost ruin the topic what else is there left to do? Leave. And that is I'll do. Sure I'll lurk it but it would be better for me to stop commenting.

Sorry Renee.

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Just who in the hell does she think she is?

I really don't care that much about the lives of celebrities but this one is a real trip. Recently Guy Ritchie had a heart felt reunion with his two sons Rocco and David. For the time being he has custody of the two boys but it looks like Madonna has a set of demands that Guy should be abiding by while he has them with him.

1. Under no circumstances should they read newspapers magazines or be allowed to watch TV or DVD.

A parent has the responsibility of being mindful of what their children watch or read but this is crazy. Certain shows, certain DVDs, and certain reading material makes sense but none at all? This sounds like she is trying to control their exposure to the outside world.

2. They must adhere at all times to a macrobiotic, vegetarian, organic diet with no processed or refined food.

I can understand this. A parent wants to make sure their children are eating proper.

3. All water they drink, even when it is dilute organic juice, should be Kabbalah water (mountain spring water blessed by leaders of the Kabbalah religion she follows).

In addition to item 2 I can also see the religious significant of this.

4.They should wear the clothes Madonna has sent with them on the flight. If they need to be bought they should not contain man-made fibres.

Same as 3.

5. Their hands should be regularly cleaned with disinfectant spray if they are in public places.

I can understand the parental instinct but this almost borderline OCD.

6. They should not be bought toys which are spiritually or ethically sound.

Maybe this is my agnosticism speaking but I really don't see how religion should make a difference in what toys a child should be able to play with.

7. Guy should not discuss the separation with them

Yeah I agree the goal here should be to not upset the kids with such negative things but I wonder if she is mindful of this when she has custody of them...

8. Madonna should have phone contact with the boys as much as three or four times a day at time set by her.

I'm all for staying in contact but wonder if Guy would have this prerogative if situations were reversed.

9. The boys should not be introduced to Guy's new friends, especially any new female friends he has attracted since the separation.

This is just controlling. And I'm sure she realizes that to abide by this would mean that he would have to choose his children over his new friends, especially female ones.

10. Madonna has encouraged the access to give him time with the boys, rather than his parents spending large amounts of time with the boys.

So Guy's parents are not good enough for them?

11. The boys should not be photographed while with Guy. It is his responsibility to organize security so that does not happen.

So one of the queens of parading around with adopted children from foreign nations is suddenly worried about them being photographed with their dad?

12. At bedtime, Guy should read David the English Rose books Madonna.

She even wants to control what he should read them at bed time. He can't read them Jack and Beanstalk or some story of his own?

I can't believe the nerve of this woman. She is really trying to be the dominant parent from a few thousand miles away. There is no doubt what the reaction would be when if this were reversed and Guy was trying to be the dominant parent from thousands of miles away. Then it would be him trying to exert his control over her and the kids or something like that.

To paraphrase Simon the Digger: "Just who in the hell does she think she is!?!?"

Tuesday, November 11, 2008

I blame American Pie...

When I was in high school (in the mid 90s) I realized I had a thing for older women. At that time when other high school guys are checking out teachers and students their own age I noticed that I was paying a bit more attention to the teachers. Even now I can recall my teachers (especially my history and Spanish teachers) more clearly than the girls in my class.

In college it was the same thing. I was looking at the grad students and professors than I did the women around my own age (and I even had a crush on a classmate that's 10 years older than I but that is a another story for another day). Well around that time a movie by the name of American Pie released.

Even with all the nonsense and comedy in that film (but I do like that fact that they centered around four different guys to show that not all high school guys think like that) it was pretty funny. But more importantly that movie introduced the term M.I.L.F. For the two of you that don't know what that means Mother I'd Like to Fuck. At first I embraced the term as a label for my attraction to older women. But now I almost wish no one had ever put that phrase together.

The term does not even scratch the surface of what I (and I'm sure other people) feel about older women. American Pie made it sound like an attraction to older women is just the desire to shag a "mature woman". And even porn sites have picked up on it (just take my word that you DO NOT want to search MILF in a search engine) There is more to it like there is more to being attracted to any person. You enjoy their looks. You enjoy being with them. You want to talk with them. You want to hear them talk. And while part of the attraction may be sexual its only just that...a part.

They don't all want to maintain their violent ways...

Borrowed from Llencelyn.

People like Dortel Williams are living proof that some prisoners, even those who have no chance of ever seeing the outside world again, do not want maintain their violent and criminal ways. Its a shame that such programs are not getting the support they need. With recidivism rates so high one would think that such programs would be springing up all over the place. But considering that people get so much pleasure out of "predicting" that most inmates become repeat offenders I can see why they would not be motivated to actually help criminals stay out of prison once they get out or at least try to improve the lives of the ones that are there for life.

Black Male Privilege Eh? Part 3

Okay I know its been a while but I've been a bit busy. Back in parts 1 and 2 I started my break down of Jewel Woods Black Male Privilege list. Here goes the third and final part of my critique of the his list.

66. In college, I will have the opportunity to date outside of the race at a much higher rate than black women will.
67. I have the privilege of having the phrase "sewing my wild oats" apply to my sex as if it were natural.
68. I know that the further I go in education the more success I will have with women.
69. In college, black male professors will be involved in interracial marriages at much higher rates than members of the opposite sex will.
70. By the time I enter college, and even through college, I have the privilege of not having to worry whether I will be able to marry a black woman.
71. In college, I will experience a level of status and prestige that is not offered to black women even though black women may outnumber me and out perform me academically.
72. If I go to an HBCU, I will have incredible opportunities to exploit black women

66. I wonder why that is. Is it because black men are more willing to go outside the race than black women, women other races are more willing to date black men than men of other races are willing to date black women, or maybe something else?

67. Since that plays off of the stereotype that men (especially black men) are mindless beasts that only want sex this is not a privilege. Being assumed to have sex on the brain all the time is natural is not a privilege.

68. True...but is that because women moreso than men look to "marry up"?

69. How is that a privilege?

70. Not being expected to marry a black woman? Agreed.

71. Agreed.

72. Not sure about that one...

73. What is defined as "News" in Black America is defined by men.
74. I can choose to be emotionally withdrawn and not communicate in a relationships and it be considered unfortunate but normal.
75. I can dismissively refer to another persons grievances as ^*ing.
76. I have the privilege of not knowing what words and concepts like patriarchy, phallocentric, complicity, colluding, and obfuscation mean.

73. Agreed.

74. Agreed but should I choose to be emotionally open and communicate in a relationship I run the risk of having my masculinity questioned.

75. Agreed.

76. I get the feeling this is the obligatory, "I have the privilege of being blind to my privilege." statement. Given the solid material in this list I really hope he is not trying to throw this in there as the usual, "Anyone that doesn't agree with me is just refusing to acknowledge their privilege." trump card.

77. I have the privilege of marrying outside of the race at a much higher rate than black women marry.
78. My "strength" as a man is never connected with the failure of the black family, whereas the strength of black women is routinely associated with the failure of the black family.
79. If I am considering a divorce, I know that I have substantially more marriage, and cohabitation options than my spouse.
80. Chances are I will be defined as a "good man" by things I do not do as much as what I do. If I don't beat, cheat, or lie, then I am a considered a "good man". In comparison, women are rarely defined as "good women" based on what they do not do.
81. I have the privilege of not having to assume most of the household or child-care responsibilities.
82. I have the privilege of having not been raised with domestic responsibilities of cooking, cleaning, and washing that takes up disproportionately more time as adults.

77. Same as 66.

78. That I don't agree with. Its often thrown in the faces of black men that they are responsible for the failure of the black family. Being told they we knock up women then, run out on our children, out on the streets "hustlin" and "gangbangin". And while the target of such harassment may not be the black man's "strength" it is often his integrity, loyalty, and intelligence that come under fire.

79. Agreed and I also have the privilege of being more likely to get blamed for the divorce (I must have cheated on her, abused her, etc...)

80. Agreed.

81. Agreed and my spouse also has the privilege of not having to assume most of the outside of the home work.

82. Agreed.

Church & Religious Traditions
83. In the Black Church, the majority of the pastoral leadership is male.
84. In the Black Church Tradition, most of the theology has a male point of view. For example, most will assume that the man is the head of household.

83. True and this seems to be prevailant in all churches.

84. True and this seems to be prevailant in all churches.

Physical Safety
85. I do not have to worry about being considered a traitor to my race if I call the police on a member of the opposite sex.
86. I have the privilege of knowing men who are physically or sexually abusive to women and yet I still call them friends.
87. I can video tape women in public- often without their consent - with male complicity.
88. I can be courteous to a person of the opposite sex that I do not know and say "Hello" or "Hi" and not fear that it will be taken as a come-on or fear being stalked because of it.
89. I can use physical violence or the threat of physical violence to get what I want when other tactics fail in a relationship.
90. If I get into a physical altercation with a person of the opposite sex, I will most likely be able to impose my will physically on that person
91. I can go to parades or other public events and not worry about being physically and sexually molested by persons of the opposite sex.
92. I can touch and physically grope women's bodies in public- often without their consent- with male complicity.
93. In general, I have the freedom to travel in the night without fear.
94. I am able to be out in public without fear of being sexually harassed by individuals or groups of the opposite sex.

85. Agreed. I just have to worry about being called a coward, not being believed, or even being arrested myself instead.

86. Hold up. If this were a privilege this would in imply that women should have friends that they know are abusive. Its a problem indeed but a privilege?

87. Agreed.

88. Agreed.

89. As many cases that are popping up these days of women doing the same thing (and getting away with it) I'm not sure this can be considered male exclusive anymore.

90. This is often an unavoidable biological fact. Even in the utopia the many human rights activists dream this will still hold true. What would be removed is the desire to do so. But the fact that it is possible is not a privilege. And weapons can be pretty damn good equalizers...

91. Agreed.

92. Agreed.

93. Agreed.

94. Agreed.

Well there you have it. Am I silly enough to think that my breakdown of this list is some prophetic message that will open everyone's eyes? No. Am I silly enough to think that everyone will agree with the things I've said in this series? No. Am I silly enough to think that my opinions on this list are absolute and unwavering? No. But hopefully anyone that disagrees will be civil enough to talk it out.

Part 1
Part 2

Wednesday, November 5, 2008


We now have a new president coming in. And I have to say that having Bush leave office in a few months and knowing that the next in line is not an older white guy is a nice birthday present indeed (which is coming up in a few hours).

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to say that all older white guys are bad presidents I'm saying that it is refreshing to see people get over the assumption that the leader of the free world has to be on.

And I'm not naive enough to think that Obama's successful run for the White House will remove all the problem plaguing this country, namely racism. I'll bet that even as you read this somewhere there is someone calling him a nigger, coon, uncle tom, etc....(and I'll bet they aren't all white). But what his run for the White House means is that things are getting better. Think about it. Do you think that Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would have had a snowball's chance in hell going for the White House in '64? I'm sure we can all agree he wouldn't have.

We (and by we I don't mean just black people but ALL of us) can't afford to rest on our laurels yet but a big stepping stone like this is just too big to overlook.

And the identity of the next butt in the chair of the Oval Office was not the only thing up in the air yesterday:

Proposition K:
This was a measure on the ballot in San Francisco, California. If passed it would have stopped police from "enforcing laws against sex workers and eliminate funding for anti-prostitution programs." Such a proposition would have been a great help to sex workers. It would have taken away some of the fear of going to police when they need help. Just like any other occupation sex workers face job hazards and should be protected. OSHA is there to make sure construction and industrial areas are safe. There is legal recourse for people who are treated unfairly by their employers. So adding some protection for sex workers makes sense right?

Then why was it voted down? I don't live in San Francisco and I don't live in California. I've never been a sex worker and I've never known a sex worker (mind you I may have known them and they chose not to tell me). But even I can tell that this measure was logical and sound idea. Don't believe me? Then check out the word of a woman that fits two of the four things I named (she is a sex worker and knows many sex workers).

Proposition 8:
This makes me sad. How in the world can anyone with a straight face vote for a measure that would ban marriage between two loving adults based on nothing more than the fact that the two loving adults are the same gender? That's it. They are adults. They are both consenting. But because they would both use the same bathroom at a public place they can't get married in California.

And in a very close race in for the governor seat here in NC Beverly Purdue became the first female governor in our states history.

Okay I was gonna add more but my left forearm is killing me. I think carpal tunnel may be kicking in...

Friday, October 31, 2008

There's a lot going on this week

Okay I've been reading Womanist Musings for several months now. I haven't agreed with always seen eye to eye but I have to say that I'm feeling a lot of what she says:

The Oppression Olympics are a damn waste of time.

She questions why European style hair is the norm and deviating from the norm can lead to a racist confrontation.

Proclaims that she will not be ashamed of her naturally occurring bodily functions.

Gets the word out on missing children(and she also has a small gadget on her site that that a displays alerts on missing children.

But like I said I don't always see eye to eye with her.

Recently in the Dallas area the Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) bus system began running an awareness campaign on domestic violence. I would like to say that most people would agree that DV is wrong no matter who the abuser is and who the abused is but I don't think that is the case.

On a daily basis you can find stories about people who are attacked by their spouses/significant others and the media will dance around the term domestic violence. Some of those victims are men. Some of those abusers are men. Some of those abusers are women. Some of those victims are women. Sadly when people try to bring attention to certain stories they get attacked.

One of the people trying to bring attention to that ad campaign in Dallas is Glenn Sacks. Why is he bringing attention? Because so far but ONE of the ads (and that one is about suicide) portray men as abusers and women as victims. Thats right according to this "awareness" campaign all DV abusers are men and all DV victims are women. Well given that Glenn Sacks is an MRA (men's rights advocate) he has a problem with this and is encouraging people to contact DART about such misleading ads.

So what is Renee's reaction?

Well it should come as no surprise to anyone that Mr.Sacks (I won't link to him) is continuing on with his misogynistic attacks against women. In his teeny little world, it is all about the penis, and if you don't have one your story does not deserve to be told. We certainly cannot have a world where women speak out against the violence and the oppression that they face at the hands of men, that would be far to threatening to patriarchy.

She starts off with accusing him of making it all about men when it is indeed about men and using this as a chance to back up her personal attacks against MRAs.

This is a series of ads that are raising awareness about DV by starting off with the assumption that only men commit DV and only women can be victims of DV. No one questions that more women are targets of DV than men but for some reason trying to say something about female abusers is "silencing" female victims.

One of the commentors is actually making some sense:

I agree with you that that's exclusionary and hurtful to male victims of intimate partner violence, Danny. What I'm saying is that a guy for whom that was the real issue would mount a campaign to get ads depicting male victims up there, too--not to have the existing ads removed.

Now it would be constructive to start a campaign to focus on male victims and female abusers (since there are a LOT of people who refuse to admit that either exist). And in fact Glenn has done quite a few posts on men who were abused by women but the article he would be speaking of would often call it everything but DV.

So I have to admit trying to put focus on male victims and female abusers would be a viable option rather than ending the campaign.


The only people who find this offensive to fathers have a vastly lower opinion of most fathers than I do.

Not so. I would say that the people who find those ads offensive to fathers have a low opinion of the masses upon masses of people who buy into the all abusers are men and all victims are women nonsense. Call me cynical all you wish but agencies know that they can use misleading ads to fool the masses.

Well it looks like some effect has been made. One of Glenn's posts on the subject has links to before and after versions of the "Signs of an Abusive Relationship" page at The Family Place site.

Yes this post is muddled. I started it at like 1am and I've been sleep deprived for the last week. But I felt it important to get these down before lose them.

Sunday, October 19, 2008


What was the first thing you thought about when you read the title of this post? I'm sure I know but I wanted to ask for a reason.

More than likely when you read that word the first thing you think about is how black men were hanged by white plantation owners during the days of slavery. Thing is lynching was also a very common method of execution for pirates.

The reason I bring this up is because I'm helping my local volunteer fire department put on a haunted house next week. One of the guys working it had wanted to put up some skeletons in nooses as part of the decoration. Now I've known this guy for several years and I am certain that since he is big fan of pirates he clearly meant it as executing pirates and not hanging black men. However since most people would not understand what his point was they would just decide that he was being racist we decided not to go with that idea. (And we're in the South to give an idea of just how big the "outrage" would be).

On one hand I'm all for calling people out on their racism but can you call it "calling out racism" if you're just bullying someone into doing or not doing something because people may be likely to take the most negative interpretation of it and run with it?

Thursday, October 16, 2008

...but that's not the main issue at hand here.

Anyone who has been paying attention to the GLBT community recently knows about Proposition 8. In case you don't know Prop 8 it is a measure that will be on California's ballot this year. What is the measure you ask? It's a measure designed to eliminate the right for homosexual couples to marry.

To say that the gay community has had a hard lot in life would be a severe understatement. Targeted for all sorts of things from name calling to countless acts of discrimination to even murder. Yes there are several walks of life that have faced those things and many facing those things even as you read this. Yet the gay community has to deal with one thing that most of those other groups don't have to deal with. I've had my share of mistreatment due to being born into the combination of being black and male. Women the world over have been and are being mistreated just being born female. There are men who have to put up with mistreatment due to their gender. However as long as those women, other men, and myself are heterosexual we don't have to worry about being targeted for harassment over who we fall in love with.

You can try to think about that and goodness knows I have. To have to be worried about what gender you are attracted to. I've never been in a relationship but I just can't think about how it would feel to not be able to make public displays of affection with the woman I'm in love with. Or pretending to be heterosexual because I don't know who may attack me for being gay. Or hiding my feelings out fear of losing friends or being disowned from my family. Do us both a favor and go check out the perspective of a woman who can think of how it would feel.

Most activists are angry and they should be but honestly I'm past anger (not to say that anyone else should though). I've gone into sadness, confusion, and pity. To know that there are people in this day and age that have to keep it a secret who they fall in love with makes me sad. To know that there are people in this day and age that think someone's sexual orientation makes them fair game for harassment confuses me. To know that in this day and age anyone who thinks that sexual orientation is a proper way to base how they treat someone, such people have my pity.

Now I'm sure you're a bit confused by the title of this post. The title is because of one other part of the ad. When the "Gender Auditors" measured the couple for inspection why did they have to throw in a penis size joke on the guy? That ad could have very easily gotten its point across without resorting the age old tried and true formula of insulting the size of a guy's penis. And even though it would be just as wrong I didn't hear them make jokes about the woman's labia not being symmetrical or taking pictures of them. So to explain the title of the post it means, "Yes this ad is making fun of men but that's not the main issue at hand here.

Tuesday, October 14, 2008

Either they are responsible or not...

We are all constantly told that children are below the age of consent and therefore should not be held accountable for their actions within reason. A kid starts a fight at school and they get suspended. A boy graffiti tags the side of a building he gets community service. A girl shoplifts and she gets arrested. All of those things sound like reasonable measures for the crimes they commit. But what about when "the crime" is something outside the norm or when victim ends up getting punished for being a victim?

First there's the under aged boy who was raped by an adult woman. Yes I know the word rape does not come up in that article but at the time of the sexual acts she was 19 and he was 15. To make matters worse she got pregnant as a result. To make it worse still the under aged boy has been sued for child support. To make it even worse still a judge ordered him to pay $50/month in child support. Stop to take that shit in.

Yes an adult woman raped an under aged boy, got pregnant by him, sued him for child support, and won. Okay how can this happen? So you have a person who has been declared unable to consent to sex due to age. But at the same time this person, who was declared unable to consent to sex due to age, has been deemed responsible for the child that was produced as a result of him being raped. And that doesn't even cover the fact that a rapist is keeping custody of the child that was born out of her raping the child's father.

Next we have an under aged girl who distributed nude photos of herself to other minors. Now as mentioned before under aged kids are not able to consent to sexual acts because of them not being old enough. So why has she been arrested and now faces two charges: illegal use of a minor in nudity-oriented material, a second degree felony; and possession of criminal tools, a fifth degree felony?

When a child is forced by an adult to pose for nude photos for distribution we all know that is a crime due to the fact that a person is being forced and that person that is being forced is a child. But when a child decides to pose for her own nude photos and distribute its a crime? A person under the age of consent is declared to not be able to consent to sexual acts. The charges she faces implies that she is of age and knowingly performed illegal acts.

So on one hand you have people who have been legally declared to be unable to consent to sexual acts but on the other hand those same people are being treated like of age adults for the sexual acts they commit. Either they are under aged kids that cannot be held responsible for their actions or they are not. Can't have it both ways.

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Help me out here...

Read this.

Eighth grade girl texts nude a photo of herself to some male classmates at her school. One of the guys (13 years old) who got the picture has been arrested, suspended from school, and spent a night in a juvenile detention center. What is wrong with this?

1. Why is only one of the recipients of the photo in trouble? They seem to know that several people received the photo yet only one is doing down for it. Maybe the others have already deleted it from their phones. Or someone took a look at the sender's phone to see who received it. Whatever the reason it seems odd that only one of many is getting in trouble without explaining why.

2. Why would a receiver of the photo get in trouble and not the sender? If this were an 13 year old boy that sent a nude photo to a young girl he would be under the jail by now. But for some reason when the sender is the girl all of a sudden she is a poor victim. If he had gone out of his way to get the photo (like sneaking into the girl's locker room to take a pic) I would say that he should go down and go down hard.

What in the world has happened that has caused blatant shifts of responsibility like this? How can an underaged child distribute a nude photo of herself and then walk away free while a receiver of the photo get in trouble? This reminds me of the woman in Las Vega earlier this year that blew all of her money gambling and then tried to sue the casino because they didn't try to stop her from gambling. Is it so hard for people to take responsibility for their actions?

BTW I bet this woman won't get in trouble either.

Friday, October 10, 2008

So I won't mess up the flow over there...

Warning: Sometimes I ramble. Sometimes I ramble when I speak. Sometimes I ramble with I type. This is one of those times.

Last night I was reading a post about fat men and feminism. A few things came up in the comments that lead to general "men and feminism" discussion. I decided to add to them and in the course of things I derailed the damn thread. The people responding to my posts are giving advice and recommendations and I want to respond to them but my responses end up causing them to give more advice and recommendations. A vicious loop indeed. While not related to to the topic of fat men and feminism those comments have lead to things I want to talk about without destroying the discussion over there. Well since I have my own corner of the universe to iron things out why not put it to good use? Go read the post at Shapely Prose to see how this all started then come back here if you are interested in my side ponderings.

Some of the last responses to the last comments I made:

fillyjonk, on October 10th, 2008 at 5:06 pm Said:
Pretty sure I’ve read it before and its good stuff. However it does not entirely address what I’m talking about.

You should read it again. In fact, I’ll pull out the relevant parts for you:

“It’s not ABOUT me, always. And even if it is about me, so what? I’m not perfect. Why shouldn’t I have to take some shit once in awhile? Heaven knows I dish enough out in a day. Would it kill me to get an attitude adjustment? Would it kill me to listen to someone unlike me for five minutes?”

“What we aren’t doing is taking care of them. Nurturing them. Putting their feelings first. Looking out for them, making things safe for them. We aren’t making them the center.”

“Everything else IS centered around y’all. Everything else–you guys got the talk radio to take care of you, the ESPN, the CNN, the New York Times, the advertising industry–you can’t bask in all that adoration day in and day out and then pitch a fit because a handful of blogs on the internet don’t recognize your awesomeness.”

I understand that it takes you out of your comfort zone to hear women talk candidly about men and know that they’re not talking about you specifically, nor have they asked for your specific story. But what I said was that feminism has something to offer men. That doesn’t mean it’s a place where individual men’s beliefs, histories, or feelings take precedence over the deep need for equal rights and the defeat of misogyny. Feminism has something for you, if you’re willing to accept it, but that doesn’t make it ABOUT you. It’s fundamentally the one thing that’s NOT about you.

A lot of that first paragraph sounds a lot like, "They aren't always talking about me but when they are talking about me and what they're saying is true I should let it go because I do the same thing to other people." Yes I do the same thing to other people and as far as I'm concerned its just as wrong. Listening to someone different from me is not the problem in fact I like to hear from people different me because they are different, they might cause me to think of something I haven't thought of yet. And about the attitude adjustment, if I'm misrepresenting you or treating you unfairly then by all means adjust away. Kinda like right now.

You're right I shouldn't be the center of attention in your world and in your own world your feelings should be first. If you decide to help me make things safer for me thanks but if you don't then so be it.

"Everything else IS centered around y’all. Everything else–you guys got the talk radio to take care of you, the ESPN, the CNN, the New York Times, the advertising industry–you can’t bask in all that adoration day in and day out..."
This is what I'm talking about. The assumption that just because I'm male that everything is geared to towards every indvidual male.
...then pitch a fit because a handful of blogs on the internet don’t recognize your awesomeness.
I don't need my "awesomeness recognized". In fact those handful of blogs that don't talk about me might sound interesting...until they start putting words in my mouth.

I understand that it takes you out of your comfort zone to hear women talk candidly about men and know that they’re not talking about you specifically, nor have they asked for your specific story.
The discomfort is on me and I'll deal with that in my own way. You say the word specifically. That word is of interest. When I am being addressed specifically and words are being put in my mouth I don't like and that is what I was trying to get at this whole time. As as far as my story is concerned remember that I said "If you want my story ask for it and I’ll tell...". If you don't ask thats fine. But don't decide to not ask then try to tell me what my story is.

The generalizing statements you hate so much are either a) not about you at all, because you are a happy exception to the generality (but that doesn’t make the generality untrue), or b) about you and you’re not getting it. In either case defensiveness that people aren’t taking you seriously enough is not a fair response, especially in a discussion that was patently not about you in the first place.

Here's a breakdown of those A and B type generalizations. An A type would be someone saying, "In my experience black men have been trouble makers". Now even before you get to the black men part I know that does not include me because I've more than likely never crossed paths with you and I'm not a trouble maker anyway. Another would be something like, "Overweight women have low self esteem." That doesn't even apply to me and thats that.

The B type ones are intersting because sometimes they really about about you and you really don't get it and sometimes people like to try make the generalization fit you just so they can feel smug about the "fact" that their generalization still fits. "For the most part men usually don't have to worry as much about walking alone at night as women." For a long time I would say to myself that "Gender doesn't matter when to attacker." This is not so and I had to realize that while it is dangerous for men to walk alone at night for the most part it truly is a bit more dangerous for women. Another generalization would be "Anyone that doesn't take up the feminist title is a rape apologist and has no respect for women." Now being a person that doesn't claim the title of feminist it bothers me to think that someone is pushing the idea that not claiming the title of feminist is a surefire indicator that said person is a rape apologist and has no respect for women. That's a pretty serious charge and laying charges like that on people is where the defensiveness comes from.

I've rewritten parts of this a few times due to thinking about that points I'm addressing and drawing new conclusions. So even if I don't fully agree with what the folks over there are saying it was still a stimulating experience. I just wish I could have done without almost proving them right about making it all about me. So I guess one thing to work on is how to deal with people who may talk about me or a group that I fall in with in an unfair and untrue manner. And another would be to not fall into the trap of making it all about me in my effort to correct them.

Thursday, October 9, 2008

You mean there's a name for it?


Okay you mean to tell me that there is now a term for women that put on those fake displays of homosexuality?

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

An attempt at goodwill...

Sometime recently Glenn Sacks and Lisa Kansas had some sort of interaction. I'm not sure about the exacts of the interaction but that's really not the reason I'm posting this.

Most of the time when Glenn crosses paths feminists (and its usually not under the best of circumstances) he will extend his hand to them in the form of an invitation to post on his site as a part of the "Feminist Dissent" series. What is that you ask? Well its a series of posts on Glenn's site that are written by feminists to give them the chance to tell their side of things.

Now I know you're thinking that since Glenn is an MRA he obviously has no (and the posters on his site) desire to get an understanding of how feminists think. Well you're wrong. It's not everyday you see feminists and MRAs interacting with each other without it turning into the war to end all wars. Now yes there are some on that site that use the series as chance to lash out at feminists but there is good interaction going on there too.

While I don't want to speak for Glenn I'm pretty sure that any feminist that wanted to could contact him with interest in making a post in his "Feminist Dissent" series.

Don't be scared to check it out.

Monday, October 6, 2008

Mary Winkler did it and so can you...

So apparently killing your husband in your sleep is about to become the latest craze. What we have here is a 75 year old woman who killed her husband in his sleep. She does say that she killed him because she "was at her wits' end". How many times have men killed their wives "because she made him mad"? How much sympathy does he usually get? Not much because he will be called the murderer that he is. But since this is a woman (and an elderly one at that) I'm sure she won't have much trouble drumming up some sympathy. I wonder if she'll get an interview with Oprah so that she can tell her chilling tale and how she decided enough was enough and bravely fought back.

I'm not going to pretend that I know what her experience was like but the fact that she killed him in his sleep has to count for something. It's not like they were in the middle of a fight or he was on his way home after threatening her over the phone or something. She waited until he was sleep, shot him once, saw him move, shot him twice more, and then watched as he died. That wasn't self defense. That was cold blooded murder.

So I wonder what kind of slap on the wrist "sentence" she will get away with?

Friday, October 3, 2008

Hundred Dollar Biscuit and and Joe Six Pack of beer

This is two different stories but I don't feel like making another post. Well that and I want something funny and serious for my 50th post. Anyway on with the show.

Good News: I was ready for work 20min. early this morning.

Bad News: I was 10min. late to work this morning.

Good News: I got a Ham & Egg Biscuit for breakfast this morning.

Bad News: I paid $100 for that Ham & Egg Biscuit this morning.

Good News: I have until December 10th to pay for the $100 Ham & Egg Biscuit.

Bad News: I have until Dec. 10 because the trooper that gave me the $100 Seatbelt ticket I got after I left the house 20min. early to get my Ham & Egg Biscuit also gave me an continuance instead of giving me the next immediate court date (10-29).

Now on to the seriousness. Okay last night Joe Biden and Sarah Palin met for the Vice Presidential debate. Well due to the fact that her oppenent named Joe there were plenty of "average joe six pack" moments appearently. Well in honor of that reference we have this from Feminsting. Take a moment to look at it.

Get it? The joke is a play on words. Since Biden is supposed to be "Joe Sixpack" someone edited a photo of him onto the body of a man with six pack-style abs. Now I'm all for a good joke but I have to ask: What makes this okay but the slightest reference to the faintest inkling of the tiniest hint of a sexist joke against Palin warrants a rallying call to gather the troops?

Its possible to crack a joke on someone without resorting to sexism.

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

Black Male Privilege eh? Part 2

Back in part 1 I mentioned a Black Male Privilege list compiled by Jewel Woods. This part is just a continuation of my two cents on his list. Not trying to prove it wrong or anything (in fact I agree with quite a bit of it), just my two cents. Part one covered items 1-14. I'm going to go a bit farther this time so I can finish this in three parts. Now on with the show.

Sex & Sexuality

15. I can purchase pornography that typically shows men defile women by the common practice of the "money shot.”
16. I can believe that causing pain during sex is connected with a woman's pleasure without ever asking her.
17. I have the privilege of not wanting to be a virgin, but preferring that my wife or significant other be a virgin.
18. When it comes to sex if I say "No", chances are that it will not be mistaken for “Yes".
19. If I am raped, no one will assume that "I should have known better" or suggest that my being raped had something to do with how I was dressed.
20. I can use sexist language like bonin’, laying the pipe, hittin-it, and banging that convey images of sexual acts based on dominance and performance.
21. I can live in a world where polygamy is still an option for men in the United States as well as around the world.
22. In general, I prefer being involved with younger women socially and sexually.
23. In general, the more sexual partners that I have the more stature I receive among my peers.
24. I have easy access to pornography that involves virtually any category of sex where men degrade women, often young women.
25. I have the privilege of being a part of a sex where "purity balls" apply to girls but not to boys.
26. When I consume pornography, I can gain pleasure from images and sounds of men causing women pain.

15. Who decides what is an act of defilement? In many porn production companies the actors and actresses have a say in what they will and will not do. So perhaps he means that it is defiling in the sense that money shots are meant to appeal to a male sense of dominance? If that is the case them what is the difference between the man doing other dominant things like choosing the sexual position? What makes a money shot an act of defilement but a woman tying a guy to bed and giving him a golden shower just "how they get down"?

16. I wouldn't call that a privilege. Guys like that are just being assholes and not paying attention to the woman they are with.

17. "I have the privilege of not being a virgin..."? This sounds like there is just some place out there that men can just go to to turn in their virginity or something. I would have worded it something like, "I can expect my significant other to be a virgin whether I am a virgin or not."

18. Mistaken or ignored? Yes there is a difference.

19. True...they will tell me that, "I should be thankful." and then drown out my complaints by reminding me that women can't rape men.

20. And women use sexist language like "puttin' it on him.", "making it mine.", "riding it like a bronco.". Yes both sets are wrong but there is not reason to act as if one does not exist.

21. I have to look it up but I'm pretty sure that polygamy is illegal for men and women in the US meaning that any man doing it is breaking the law. Not sure about the rest of the world but it is my understanding polygamy is still legal in other parts of the world for men only.

22. How is a preference in sexual partners a privilege? Now acting as if all members of the gender(s) I'm attracted to MUST conform to my preferences? That's a problem.

23. I agree.

24. I feel about the same way as I feel about 15 (about defilement and degradation) as I do here. But I do know that the majority of porn is geared towards men leaving women with much smaller selection of porn to choose from. For the most part men watch a lot more porn than women therefore most porn studios target men with their films. And would the "degradation" any less bad if it were older women (why bother pointing out that most of the women are young)?

25. True. I've always found it a bit unfair that a boy's virginity has been deemed worthless by society whereas a girl's virginity is the greatest thing in all the land.

26. Odd wording. The fact that men might get pleasure from seeing and hearing a woman in pain is not a privilege, that is just being a sicko. Now being taught that it is okay to get pleasure out of someone else's pain (while still imposing the idea that someone else is not supposed to get pleasure my pain) I agree is a privilege.

Popular Culture

27. I come from a tradition of humor that is based largely on insulting and disrespecting women; especially mothers.
28. I have the privilege of not having black women, dress up and play funny characters- often overweight- that are supposed to look like me for the entire nation to laugh.
29. When I go to the movies, I know that most of the leads in black films are men. I also know that all of the action heroes in black film are men.
30. I can easily imagine that most of the artists in Hip Hop are members of my sex.
31. I can easily imagine that most of the women that appear in Hip Hop videos are there solely to please men
32. Most of lyrics I listen to in hip-hop perpetuate the ideas of males dominating women, sexually and socially.
33. I have the privilege of consuming and popularizing the word pimp, which is based on the exploitation of women with virtually no opposition from other men.
34. I can hear and use language bitches and hoes that demean women, with virtually no opposition from men.
35. I can wear a shirt that others and I commonly refer to as a "wife beater" and never have the language challenged.
36. Many of my favorite movies include images of strength that do not include members of the opposite sex and often are based on violence.
37. Many of my favorite genres of films, such as martial arts, are based on violence.
38. I have the privilege of popularizing or consuming the idea of a thug, which is based on the violence and victimization of others with virtually no opposition from other men.

27. Agreed.

28. Agreed.

29. Agreed.

30. Agreed.

31. Agreed.

32. Agreed.

33. Agreed.

34. Agreed.

35. Agreed.

36. Agreed.

37. How is liking violence a privilege? Now the fact that men are taught its okay to resort violence while women are taught they should never violent? That could be called privilege.

38. Agreed.


39. I have the privilege to define black women as having "an attitude" without referencing the range of attitudes that black women have.
40. I have the privilege of defining black women's attitudes without defining my attitudes as a black man.
41. I can believe that the success of the black family is dependent on returning men to their historical place within the family, rather than in promoting policies that strengthen black women's independence, or that provide social benefits to black children.
42. I have the privilege of believing that a woman cannot raise a son to be a man.
43. I have the privilege of believing that a woman must submit to her man.
44. I have the privilege of believing that before slavery gender relationships between black men and women were perfect.
45. I have the privilege of believing that feminism is anti-black.
46. I have the privilege of believing that the failure of the black family is due to the black matriarchy.
47. I have the privilege of believing that household responsibilities are women's roles.
48. I have the privilege of believing that black women are different sexually than other women and judging them negatively based on this belief.

39. I'm not sure I'd call that a privilege exclusive to black men since just about every walk comments on the "attitude" of angry black women.

40. Is this saying that I have the privilege of defining black women's attitudes without having my attitudes as a black subject to the same treatment? If that is what he is saying then I don't totally agree. The concept of "Angry Black Man Mode" didn't come from nowhere. I'm gonna have to ask Jewel about this one.

41.That is because the breakdown of the black family is being blamed squarely on black men. Or at least thats what I and am told.

42. A lot of that belief comes from people who are doing studies that link criminal activity among young men to lack of a father in the home.

43. That is obviously not limited to black men.

44. Agreed.

45. No. The belief is that feminism is anti-male. All males regardless of race or class.

46. Just like 41. Most of that blame is place on black men.

47. That is not limited to black men.

48. Agreed but as usual this is a two way street in which the other street is conveniently ignored.


49. I will make significantly more money as a professional athlete than members of the opposite sex will.
50. In school, girls are cheerleaders for male athletes, but there is no such role for males to cheerlead for women athletes.
51. My financial success or popularity as a professional athlete will not be associated with my looks.
52. I can talk about sports or spend large portions of the day playing video games while women are most likely involved with household or childcare duties.
53. I can spend endless hours watching sports TV and have it considered natural.
54. I can touch, hug, or be emotionally expressive with other men while watching sports without observers perceiving this behavior as sexual.
55. I know that most sports analysts are male.
56. If I am a coach, I can motivate, punish, or embarrass a player by saying that the player plays like a girl.
57. Most sports talk show hosts that are members of my race are men.
58. I can rest assured that most of the coaches -even in predominately-female sports within my race are male.
59. I am able to play sports outside without my shirt on and it not be considered a problem.
60. I am essentially able to do anything inside or outside without my shirt on, whereas women are always required to cover up.

49. Agreed.

50. Agreed.

51. Agreed but Mike Jones was certainly on to something with his line, "Back then they didn't want, now I'm up they all on me." Amazing how money makes people attractive...

52. Agreed and I can work outside the home as well as work inside the home and still be told I'm not doing enough.

53. Agreed.

54. Is this meant to say that when such emotional expression is not done while watching sports it is percieved as sexual? If so how is it a privilege to be limited in how emotional expression is deemed, "okay? Not sure what the line of thought is here...

55. Agreed.

56. Agreed.

57. Agreed.

58. Agreed.

59. Agreed.

60. Agreed.


61. I have the privilege of being a part of a sex where the mutilation and disfigurement of a girl’s genitalia is used to deny her sexual sensations or to protect her virginity for males.
62. I have the privilege of not having rape be used as a primary tactic or tool to terrorize my sex during war and times of conflict.
63. I have the privilege of not being able to name one female leader in Africa or Asia, past or present, that I pay homage to the way I do male leaders in Africa and/or Asia.
64. I have the ability to travel around the world and have access to women in developing countries both sexually and socially.
65. I have the privilege of being a part of the sex that starts wars and that wields control of almost all the existing weapons of war and mass destruction.

61. Agreed.

62. Agreed...I have the privilege of simply being killed on sight.

63. The wording of some of these items throws me off sometimes. I interpret this to mean, "I have the privilege of having most of the African and Asia leaders, past or present, that I pay homage to are members of my own gender." If that is so then I agree.

64. Agreed.

65. How is that a privilege? Must get clarification.

Well now you see why it took me almost two weeks to get this up (and I still have to sit and think of my next Song Title Link post). Part three shouldn't be this long since its the end of the list (items 66-94) but I do have to think of my conclusion.

Part 1
Part 3

Two things missing...

Alright first I want you to read this.

Now can you tell me two things missing here from this article?

1. There is no mention of the word rape.

It's not like we are talking about a 17yr. old and a 15yr. old having sex. She was 25 and he was 12 when they started having sex with each other. As we all know 12 year old children are not able to consent to sex. We all know that when people have sex and one of the parties involved does not give consent, cannot give consent, or is rendered unable to give consent it is rape. So due to the fact that this 12 year old boy is legally not able to give consent he was raped by Kelsey Peterson.

2. Even though it come up later I notice there is no mention of sex offender registry.

So you mean to tell me that Genarlow Wilson was staring down the barrel of 10 years in prison (thankfully he only served two) and sex offender registry for performing sex on a 15 year old girl while he was 17 but this woman was only sentenced to six years for having sex with a child that was only half her age and there is no mention of sex registration. I really hope this will come up later.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, there is a double standard when it comes to child sex offenders. If this had been a male teacher and regardless of the child's gender he would have gotten at least a decade in prison and he would have been put on the sex offender registry before he walked through the gate of the prison.

Okay now that I've taken a moment to say something about this I have other things to work on.

Sunday, September 28, 2008

Do you value the uniqueness of others?

It would seem that since young Matt Alsip's method of expression doesn't mesh with what is "acceptable" expression his uniqueness is not valued. The black makeup that he wears has been deemed extreme or distracting according to the school rule that is cited as the reason for making him take it off. Let's cut through the bull here there are two simple reasons why they want him to take it off and neither is because the makeup he wears is extreme or distracting.

First off it's not that the makeup itself is extreme or distracting (simple black lipstick and black eyeliner) its the fact that a boy is wearing makeup that is extreme or distracting. If a girl were to go to school with all black makeup on she would get funny looks and people would whisper behind her back about how she worships Satan, writes sad poetry, is obsessed with death, and wants to commit suicide (more on all that in the next paragraph) but the administration would not tell her to take it off. It would be one thing if there were/are complaints from the other students because at least then it would be a distraction. That would not magically make it okay to put this young boy through such hell but at least then it would fit the criteria for a distraction. But doesn't it seem like the school administration is creating the distraction they don't want?

I'm sure you can already think of the second. Goth. Even though he didn't not say it himself at a quick glance it would be very easy for one to assume that he is of the gothic persuasion. Note that I say look like because all black attire and makeup a goth does not make. (I even dress goth sometimes but I don't consider myself goth, more like goth-friendly.) And to the uneducated masses and the masses that refuse to believe otherwise goth people are believed to be the ones that commit suicide, think they are vampires, sacrifice people to Satan, and most frightening of all shoot-up schools. The school administrators are probably patting themselves on the back for preventing their school from becoming another Columbine.

By all that is holy goth people are not the telltale sign of school violence. They have been around for decades and no one seemed to bother them that much until the mainstream found out about them. Check out this vid clip of Voltaire on Fox News to get you started on finding out what goth really is and is not.

And while I'm giving a shoutout to Voltaire allow me to link to Anastasia, one of the most beautiful songs ever: