Tuesday, March 30, 2010

Enter the Mad Machine and Chase The Dream of the Angel of Loneliness

Anime and 80s rock with synth sounds and female vocals. You can't miss!

All three of these tracks are from a late 80s anime called Bubblegum Crisis (not to be confused with Bubblegum Crisis 2040 which is a late 90s retelling of the same story). It was some pretty cool stuff. Typical 80s science fiction robot action and the soundtrack was typical rock. And to top it all off there is the blatant nodding to the 80s science fiction classic Blade Runner (in fact one of the main characters of Bubblegum Crisis is a woman named Priss who has a band named Priss and The Replicants).

So for your listening pleasure I present to you three tracks from this cool series.

Mad Machine

Chase the Dream

Angel of Loneliness

Stay Frosty!

Small update on Cantu case

A hearing to suppress evidence in the case against the woman accused of kidnapping, raping and killing 8-year-old Sandra Cantu has been postponed for the second time.

Originally set for April 12 the hearing has been rescheduled for May 10.

Trial is set to begin on October 18

Monday, March 29, 2010

I'm back

Okay I've been out of the office so to say for the last several days. Lots of weird shit, family dog died, became a fan of Clockwork Cabaret, realized I'm a souless monster (or perhaps I have a soul and its just empty and I need to find out where to get it filled), made plans to get reacquainted with my old buddy Wellbutrin, and found out today I gained 6 pounds since my last doctor visit. Or as I affectionately call it, the usual.

Well it seems during my time off I totally missed a Theater Thursday post. My apologies and I assure you I shall be correcting that soon with a make up post.

But first I want to ask a question. Am I the only person that hates to share the kitchen when I'm cooking?

I mean it seems like a curse that states whenever I start cooking in the kitchen my dad absolutely MUST come in and look at what I'm doing, fiddle with things, make suggestions, conveniently need to get some food/drink, etc. Gets on the very last of my nerves (which are in short supply to start with).

So along with stealing my stuff and keeping me awake for no justified reason while I'm trying to sleep you can now add "coming into the kitchen while I'm trying to cook" to my list of things that piss me off to no end.

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Not perfect but a start I suppose

It would seem that the powers that be in our fine government have finally gotten around to realizing that preventing openly gay people from serving in the military is not such a great idea.

While not being fully repealed there were a lot of changes made to the policy, both good and bad:

* Peers who accuse service members of being gay will have to testify under oath, making it more difficult for hearsay, rumors, or vengeance to trigger a homosexual inquiry
* People who are motivated by a wish to cause "personal or professional harm" to suspected gay people--i.e. homophobes or even those who oppose gays in the military--will not be considered viable informants for the purpose of starting an inquiry
* The officer conducting the inquiry will now have to have a rank of O5 or higher, making it harder (but hardly impossible) for a low-ranking homophobic officer to end a gay person's career through a rogue investigation
* The standard of evidence for an actual hearing before a military board will be raised to a "preponderance of the evidence," rather than simply "sufficient evidence," again making it harder for the process to end in discharge
* The use of the notorious phrase "propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts" has been limited (but not eliminated), meaning that the focus will be shifted to actual conduct or statements rather than someone's idea of what might demonstrate a likelihood or possibility that a soldier will, at some point, engage in homosexual conduct
* Observed behavior by a third party which "amounts to a non-verbal statement" of homosexual identity in the eyes of a "reasonable person" is no longer considered admissible evidence to trigger an inquiry
* Service members will be protected from discharge in their confidential conversations with clergy, psychologists, medical professionals, lawyers, and security clearance investigators

So from the looks of things it appears that the ante has been upped on those who try to get someone discharged (because let's face it if someone is using DADT to get someone kicked out chances are, but not certain, they have homophobic motives) over their sexuality. Hopefully the days of just whispering to the commanding officer that crewman/woman "_____ is gay.", and then standing back and watching in joy as their career goes down in flames will die with this. Also I think requiring actually sworn in testimony instead of just hearsay will help keep the cowards and gay hatred in check.

Along with this there are limits on acceptable sources of admissible evidence. Now homosexuals will have their confidential conversation with clergy, psychologists, medical professionals, lawyers, and security clearance investigators. I can imagine this would lift a major burden off of their shoulders.

However as I say this is just an easing of Don't Ask Don't Tell, not the total removal of it:

* The full steps the White House and Pentagon could have taken, including full suspension of discharges by executive order, or announcing that no "findings" under the law should be made, were not taken
* The level of rank for initiating a discharge is not as high as it could have been (1 star instead of 2 or 3 star), and Secretary Gates said that was because, the higher rank you require, the fewer officers there are who can practicably initiate a discharge; some of us were hoping that was the point!
* Third-party outings were not barred, just restricted
* History shows that earlier attempts to make a bad, unnecessary, harmful failure of a policy "more humane" have been unsuccessful, in part because the changes were not enforced consistently, and in part because beating your wife gently is still beating your wife.

Obviously the fact that DATD still exists, albeit in a lesser form, is a downside to this. From there its still a problem that the rank restriction on initiating a discharge was not raised as high as some had hoped, thus there are still a lot of officers that can initiate the discharge proceedings. While third party outings will be more difficult to pull off they are still possible. Meaning that while it won't be as easy as simply whispering to the commanding officer to ruin someone it is still within the ability of a third party to do damage. And there is something to be said about easing up on harmful policies. I mean yeah she may have only kept you from visiting your kids a few times, but she still violated your visitation rights.

So while this is most certainly not the ideal fix for the DADT policy (that would be to get rid of the damn thing altogether) it is a good start. This does not mean that gay troops have been relieve of their worries because as you can see their worries and fears are still very, very real.

Under Construction....Again

Okay you may have noticed that I'm changing the house around a bit. Keep an eye out for things that may not look right or not function right and let me know if you find anything weird. Oh about the comments. Even though all the threads have "0" comments that's just the counter being reset. I've looked at a few threads and all the comments are still there.

But for the life of me I can't center align my title and description...

The Plague of Modern Masculinity

A pretty interesting read.

Written by Paul Elam

Authors note: This essay is a revision, a radical overhaul and expansion rather, of an earlier piece, “Killing the Alpha Male.” Writing that piece caused me to rethink and revisit the subject of modern masculinity. I was also prompted to consider other factors after reading Pelle Billing’s piece “Feminism and Chivalry” and the comments there regarding the symbiotic relationship between feminism and masculinity. It is part of a developing treatise on modern masculinity so criticisms are most welcome, either in the comments or by email. Thanks.

Scores of our young men today are stranded at an impasse on the road to realizing manhood. They are bogged down in the confusion of a generation lost to treacherous forces they never saw, for reasons they were never able to comprehend. They are struggling and starving; unable to feed their souls in a world that finds them increasingly unnecessary and burdensome.

They have come of age in a time of coerced impotence, their nascent masculinity gutted and stripped long before having the opportunity to shape their character and their destiny. In that they are suffering from the loss of things never held, from things missing but never known. They are, quite literally, a lost generation of the walking wounded, wandering blindly from a battlefield on which they never knew they stood.

In that light, the path they are on is not really the road to manhood, but simply a retreat from the effacing malice woven into the very fabric of their developmental lives. And it takes them not to safe ground, but directly into a dismal culture of shallowness and self indulgence; a realm of options without obligations; of self gratification without self awareness or self discipline. It is the death march of the western male, destined for a withering end ensured by intellectual, psychological and moral atrophy.

This aimless, narcissistic existence is a forced escape from lives shrouded in shame; from manhood being reduced to an evolutionary joke in the eyes of a culture that holds it in contempt, even as the elders deny it is happening. With the wholesale whitewashing by society and abandonment by the fathers more or less complete, the newly (de)engineered young man is all but defenseless against this downward spiral into terminal insignificance.

It’s happening all around us. One only need look at current events to see that the world of men is quite literally circling he drain; disappearing from the stable foundations of education and employment. They are targeted with disinformation about crime and domestic violence, and about deviant sexual proclivities with women and children. These are no longer just the ruminations of twisted ideologues. The demagoguery now emanates directly from the government, backed by men with gavels, and men with guns. The judicial apparatus has been reshaped, not to pursue justice, but to incarcerate men at every opportunity, even to enable and encourage false accusations to accomplish that goal. This isn’t just about male bashing any more. It is about male subjugation. And it is not being executed by feminists or women, but by men.

We might proffer that the solution is a redirection to days past, when we imagine that men made masters of sacred codes; when they possessed strength and purpose and would stand against this growing tragedy and defeat it. We would be wrong. We can only find that Thomas C. Wolfe was right. You can’t go home again. And what’s more, you really don’t want to. It was, in a sense, home that got us here. And that is a truth we must face, no matter how natural or compelling the tendency to point to any other “outside” force and satisfy our frustrations with the simplistic convenience of an easily identified enemy.

As always, our true enemy is in the mirror. The only thing that will save us is to face up to that and act accordingly.

In the fitful and often strange world of the men’s movement, we attempt to answer this social malady; to create a haven, if only an intellectual one, for the refugees of this godforsaken gender war. It is a mission often hobbled by our own hands, yet the work goes on, limping toward solutions. We strive, I think, as men who have taken the red pill and seen through the Matrix, to formulate an appropriate response, and in our own way to push some sanity and balance back into the collective consciousness; to force it past the architects of institutional misandry, both male and female. But even as we exert pressure, we don’t have a firm grasp on what it is we are fighting.

We have not ascertained, nor have we even really thoroughly tried to, what role traditional manhood plays in the problem. Unfortunately, what we have too often done is practice the obstinate politics of wounded children who insist that they have no role in whatever befalls their lives. We have, at times, angrily and energetically reacted to misandry, but have balked with equal vigor at seriously examining how we fostered and enabled it with masculine codes of conduct. Consequently, all of our efforts rooted in this approach have failed, and miserably so. We have made some progress, and will no doubt eventually mature into a more effective movement, but not before we embrace more than the hostility we feel for perceived enemies.

Our most functional response thus far is to check out and go our own way, but I contend that an exit is not a destination, but just a needed removal from the line of fire; a chance to collectively regroup and rethink. Remember that the young men festering at those crossroads have, in their own way, checked out, too. It isn’t looking too good on them.

And it forces us, sooner or later, to swallow a pill that some will find bitter. And to face a reality that some will find unconscionable.

The feminists were right. Masculinity has, as it relates to modern realities, corrupt, oppressive and destructive elements that need to change.

And yes, I mean that literally. And no, I’m not kidding.

In fact, the entire thrust of my argument is that the monstrous social degeneration we are now witnessing, more than anything else, is the result of outmoded and horribly misguided masculinity.

Of course, once we dig more than a nanometer deep into the subject we find that objectivity and reason veer us onto an entirely different philosophical trajectory than the pathologically twisted and apoplectic mindset of feminist ideologues.

To chart our course, we will do two things that feminists never did. First, we will look at the subject without a politically driven agenda for unjustified revenge, or a mandate to dominate the other half of the population. And two, we will proceed with the sincere goal of benefit for everyone, not just an elite group.

The only sensible place to start is with a more grounded understanding of masculinity itself, something that can’t be done in a 3,500 word essay, but can, with even marginally appropriate treatment, arrive at far better conclusions than the last forty years of women’s and gender studies. We can rely on the combined contributions of history, mythology, politics and, most importantly, human sociobiology. For in the end we are a species of animals whose very existence depended on the development of reproductive strategies, the primary of which is that the most aggressive and powerful males are selected for mating by the most reproductively viable females. Those strategies arose from an environment of necessity and produced an effective way to produce offspring with the highest probability of survival. As a function of survival, that strategy, and not patriarchal conspiracy, shaped the male hierarchy, as well as what we now call masculinity.

Some dry facts- The hierarchy of men:

Despite the numerous male archetypal figures of history and legend, there are truly only four basic types of men. Three of the more commonly known are the alphas, betas and omegas. The fourth I will address later.

Alpha males are a very, very small fraction of the male population. They are highly dominant men who reside at near the top of all populations, from social groups to national governments. These men are generally characterized by the ability to force the deference of other men, often mistaken for leadership, and to obtain and hold power, which lends them dominance in being selected for mating by the most desirable females. There is no evidence to suggest this is any different now than at any other time in history, and there is no way to underestimate the importance of the mating strategy in the phenomenon of the alpha male.

Success often has its price. Alphas also tend to be obsessively controlling, abusive and megalomaniacal. If you point to any despot in world history that slaughtered scores of his own people, for the need to maintain control, or for sheer sadistic pleasure, you are pointing at an alpha male. With alphas, you can throw your imagined codes of honor out the window. Those codes are nothing more than tools used to force betas and omegas into compliance with their agendas. All romanticism aside, the code of the alpha male is to conquer and control, both the objects of his desire and the men he exploits and expends to acquire them. Characterologically speaking, they are a minute, worst representation of the male of the species. But they also get things done, and with great efficiency if you don’t factor weigh the loss of freedom and human life.

Incidentally, their characteristics are also the same ones that feminists have erroneously used to define masculinity in one broad stroke, painting all men as domineering and oppressive. Success at this enabled them to take other microscopic minorities of men and attribute their characteristics to men in general as well, e.g. abusers, pedophiles, rapists, etc…

Historically, the challengers to alphas frequently came from other alphas and often from the ranks of beta males, who form the next tier down in the male power structure. Betas serve as the alphas enforcers, the strong-arms used to maintain control over greater numbers. They also play the role of “yes men,” affording them their own realm of power and putting them within striking distance (or scavenging proximity) of the alphas position and status, including sexual primacy. Like roadies for a rock band, fortune often filters its way into their hands, and beds.

At the bottom, and most heavily populated part of the hierarchy, are the omega males. These are the pawns on a chessboard, often under the direct control of alpha, or by proxy, beta males. This is the common man, and the one most vulnerable to the hazards of common life.

A good way to look at this is to take a look at the military chain of command. The general tendency is that the alphas, betas and omegas shed increasing amounts of blood in descending order and claim the spoils of victory in ascending order.

Government runs in the same way. In the simplest of terms, alpha lawmakers use beta law enforcement officers to exercise their will on the generally omega population.

Or rather government used to work that way, but it really doesn’t any more.

The political sell out that changed the world.

Alpha males in government didn’t just collude with feminist ideologues in order to garner a sizable and dependable voting bloc. They had wives to contend with, many of whom were supporting feminism, which effectively reduced everything to the biological imperative. Alpha males are no less, and arguably even more disposed to take whatever measures are necessary to ensure sexual status. Faced with a perceived threat to that, they effectively ceded the alpha position and became beta enforcers for the feminist agenda. You won’t find better examples of that than Barak Obama or Joe Biden, or George Bush for that matter. These alphas became the beta muscle for a feminist Mafioso, maintaining rank and privilege through enforcing ideological imperatives on the defenseless masses beneath them. They became cops hauling men to jail on the simple accusation of their wives. They became judges bludgeoning men with their gavels in corrupt courtrooms; politicians passing ever more misandric legislation; C.E.O.’s of pharmaceutical companies pushing drugs like Ritalin to sap the vitality and strength out of our boys, to make them more malleable in female hands once the father had been removed from the home.

Isn’t this ironic? The supposed pinnacle of strength in the male hierarchy was revealed by feminism to actually be the pinnacle of sexual weakness. This series of events is also a lesson in real power, and where it resides, which in the realm of sexual selection has always been in the hands of the women who did the selecting.

But an even greater irony is revealed. Women, who have bemoaned a lack of power for ages, and in fact still do, found out four decades ago that all they had to do to gain almost complete control was step up and demand it be handed over, playing the sex card as they did so. And it was handed over, by the most powerful men in the world, who in the presence of these women became like butlers offering cocktails on a serving tray.

I am not fond of that conclusion. In fact, as a man who continually struggles to break old world ties, I am rather embarrassed by it.

Nothing learned, nothing gained.

Nonetheless, what happened here on the whole was that women, their raw biological power masquerading as feminism, have taken the dominant alpha status in our culture, and the result is quickly becoming an age of oppression and injustice more insidious and intractable than any other. It is in the biological, survival oriented nature of women to enhance their lives through the utilization of male labor and male expendability, without compunction or moral constraint, and that is exactly where our culture has ended up on an Orwellian scale.

Defeating this monstrosity requires the insanely formidable task of battling (figuratively) through beta enforcers masquerading as alpha controllers, not to a command post with someone in charge, but through a pervasive ideology that snakes like countless invisible tentacles through the consciousness of the population at large, and that emanate from the very heart of human evolutionary psychology.

And the first strike in that battle should be, must be, at the elements of masculinity that allowed it all to happen.

Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

They say there is nothing new under the sun. History infers wisdom in those words. We can see with proper discernment that the women’s movement was not really a new era for women at all. It is, on close inspection, just women and men practicing their biological strategies in a highly successful manner. So successfully, in fact, that it is rendering large portions of the male population even more expendable. So expendable, in fact, that we are now creating reasons to get rid of them.

It was destined to happen once male control of the environment made it safe enough for women to start acquiring power and resources outside the traditional and protected realm of the home. This is why you see feminism with its strongest foothold in industrialized nations founded on the rule of law. And it is why you see that law itself is now being manipulated away from the idea of justice (which was its intent in a man’s world) and toward the funneling of added protection and resources to women (which has always been the intent in the world shared by both sexes).

It is not the pursuit of equality or the love of egalitarian values that has led to feminist governance, but pure blind human biology, practiced in the same way it was on the plains of Africa a million years ago. And the stunning successes of men making all manner of advances since then has now begun to take us out of the picture.

Quite simply, men have worked themselves out of a job.

As noted earlier, we have already begun to disappear from the ranks of the employed and educated, and the government is adopting policies to accelerate that process. It doesn’t take a conspiracy nut to understand that this will eventually become a disappearance from the planet. In practical terms, there are not near as many men needed proportionally as there once was. The ones that remain will be of increasingly lower status and will be subject to ever more draconian control.

But of course, there is one factor that will turn the tide before it’s over. It is the instinct for survival. It is the only instinct stronger than sex, and it has already shown signs of emerging. We call it the men’s movement; MRA’s, MGTOW, and the like. We are the evidence that men transcending biology is possible; proof that there actually can be something new under the sun. And we are growing rapidly because more and more men are beginning to see misandry for what it is; a loaded gun pointed directly at their heads, and at the heads of their sons.

Unlike feminism, which is simply a normal, functioning part of the female sex role advanced to destructive levels, masculism is the exact polar opposite. This is the first time in human history

And this is precisely the battle we need to fight! Not with women and not with feminists of either sex, but with the aspects of masculinity that are leading to our destruction because they are now outmoded, archaic and self defeating. What remains of chivalry is better described as toxic waste in the water supply. And just as we depart from the old definitions of masculinity, we must do the same with chivalry. It may have once also been a code of honor used by alphas to control other men, but in the modern world we all know it has but one meaning- female privilege. And so now we can call chivalry by more modern, more appropriate names, e.g. VAWA, primary aggressor laws, Title IX, rape shield laws, Title IV-D, family court, prosecution on false accusation, media bias against men, or, if you prefer the short and simple version, misandry.

The fourth type of man- the zeta male.

As previously noted, the men’s movement is a unique and literally unprecedented phenomena. It will bring with it some other firsts. One of them is the socio-sexual warrior, and I refer to him for the purpose of this discourse as the zeta male. The tag remains faithful to the Greek alphabet classification of the other three types of men, but there is more purpose to the label. I took it from the star Zeta Persei. I liked the navigational metaphor of the star as it is applicable in the context of the lost generation. But I was also intrigued to learn that Persei is a variation of Perseus, the first of the Greek mythological heroes. Perseus had a remarkable talent for slaying archaic monsters, Medusa the Gorgon among them, who as a mortal woman possessed great beauty, and was self enamored and struck with the power of her sexual allure until she was turned into a hideous monster by Athena, who later used her severed head as a weapon on her shield.

In 1940, an article by Sigmund Freud was posthumously published, entitled Medusa’s Head (Das Medusenhaupt) in which he postulated that Medusa represented castration in a child’s mind related to discovered and denied maternal sexuality.

Even more interesting is that in modern times, feminists (Women: A Journal of Liberation, 1978) adopted and reinterpreted the image of Medusa as representative of women’s rage, and it served as a binding symbol of feminist solidarity.

So Perseus, namesake of Zeta Persei, was the slayer of oedipal shame (control) and the murderously powerful raging feminist archetype.

The zeta male.

This classification of a male is new because this is a male that until recent times was never needed, and indeed was never there. He is emergent and unpolished and struggling to find his legs, but is doing so thanks to the fertile, safe ground, provided by, of all things, other emerging zetas on the internet. He has no allegiance to tradition or nostalgia for the past, and in fact is charged with plotting a new course. He cannot be shamed into control or intimidated into silence or seduced into capitulation. He doesn’t fit in the classic hierarchy, and would gladly bring it down in the name of his cause. When someone says he needs to act like a real man, he smiles and says, “No, thank you.”

He doesn’t seek power, but justice. And he has one overarching feature largely absent in the world around him.

He cares about those lost young men who were ambushed coming out of the womb. And he will strive to make himself an example, living proof that there are other roads to take than the ones that lead to self hatred and self destruction.

Friday, March 19, 2010

Update on Possible Male Birth Control Options

Found this (via this from Robert Franklin) article giving some information on various methods of male birth control that are still in the testing stages. Make sure to go check out the post from Robert because unlike the source he talks about another method call RISUG that is in Phase III testing in India (where RISUG has been in various stages of testing for the last 15 years).

My only gripe is this last part in the source post:
Men may have more options for birth control in the future than women did in the past.

I find it odd that the writer would compare men's future options to women past options. Maybe because if the writer had compared men's future options to men's past options they would realize that men have pretty much had nothing but condoms, vasectomy, and celibacy since the beginning of time. Oh well.

Considering that once a child is conceived women have had more control over their own involvement in the child's life but also the privilege of controlling a man's involvement in that child's life I think its more than high time that men had more options in choosing their level involvement in parenting or not parenting.

"He had thoughts of lovin'; she had other plans for him"?

That is the subline to this article.

The article?

Its case in which Renada Williams allegedly lured her former lover with sex and after he stripped his clothes off she had two guys came in and for nearly 24 hours beat and sodomized him. How did she get them to deliver such horrible torture? She told them her former lover had raped her.

So can you see how wrong such a subline is?

(And a special shoutout to those that think there is no incentive to falsely accuse someone of rape.)

Related links:
Toy Soldier
City and Local

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Reinvention of the Wheel

Anyone with any familiarity with domestic violence is probably aware of the Power and Control Wheel based on the Duluth Model. That wheel is good for only one thing, pointing out male abusers and female victims. And while that is a good thing it doesn't take a genius to realize that male against female DV nowhere near covers all types of DV, not that that stops people from acting like all DV is m vs f or that other types happen so rarely they are not worth talking about.

Well thankfully Stop Abusive and Violent Environments (SAVE) has developed a gender neutral power and control wheel. Now of course this does not mean that the Duluth Power and Control Wheel is somehow obsolete (and I'm sure those who profit from the delusion that DV is only m against f won't let it die) but does mean that there is a far more inclusive model that accounts for many more instances of DV.

The first step to preventing DV is for people to come to terms with the fact that it is not specifically gendered.

Here is a direct link to the wheel.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Harmless joke or feeding a vicious stereotype?

After being called on having a "control a woman" remote for sale a Melbourne bookstore had to defend itself for offering such a product.
Katie Robertson told ABC Radio she was "troubled" by the toy, "mainly because it encourages a stereotype of women as submissive, who are to be controlled".

"There are certain buttons on there. For example, the male may decide that he wants beer, sex or food," she said.
Quite true that such a remote does encourage the stereotype of the submissive woman that is at her man's beck and call. And equally disgusting is that according to Borders spokeswoman Lauren Thompson there is also a "control a man" remote as well, which has sold out.

Let's take a look at these remotes. The "control a man" on the "control a woman" on the right:


As you can see both remotes are attempting to get laughs by feeding off of the stereotypes associated with being a man and being a woman. In the true sense of the word control both remotes are themed around making one's partner do or provide whatever they want at that moment. Want her naked right then? Press a button. Want him to propose to you? Press a button. Nevermind that she may not want to take her clothes off and nevermind that he may have decided he is not ready for that level of commitment (and according to this "joke" its funny that they are not up for those things).

It would seem that the answer to this question is obvious.

Edit:I have to say that while not surprising it is a bit odd and sad that a feminist would see this not just not see how its offensive to men but conclude that these remotes are not offensive to men. So much for equality for all right?
It definitely wasn't "Ah we make these two products to equally poke fun at both sexes, so it's all fair." No, men are completely off the hook here. (Oh, and OF COURSE this is totally heteronormative too.) (emphasis by me)
These remotes are offensive to both genders (and by that I mean that each remote is offensive to both) and anyone that can't see that needs to reexamine some of their conclusions about gender.

Edit 2: Now its official. When it comes to these remotes women actually have it worse.

Fucking great.

This is no way to treat children

I don't have children and don't want any but even I recognize that thisis not right.

Seven Hills West Public School, a primary school in Sydney has 52 children with special needs. When dealing with children with special needs it makes perfect sense to take measures to to accommodate for them and being next to a busy road it makes even more sense. However and I mean a really big fucking HOWEVER this (couldn't get the embed code so I just linked to the video) is not the way to "accommodate" them.

Now putting them in a fenced in area of the playground does sound like a good idea however when that fenced in area has nothing but dirt (that's right no grass), a tree, and a bench that wraps around the tree its pretty obvious how far the school is willing to go for these children. And it also doesn't help that local lingo refers to the area as "the pig pen".

I'm not trying to say that there should be no fenced in area because it sounds like there is good reason to have one but if you're going to do such a thing it wouldn't hurt to make it look like a play area then makeshift prison.

Related Link:

Doing the crime.....doing the time.....

Tip of the Fro to Robert Franklin on this one.

Similar to the way that female teacher/male student sexual relationships are making big headlines (yet those women often face lighter punishments than male teachers that do the same) these days there are stories popping up of female prison workers having sex with inmates such as this one at a prison.

Michael Murphy is an inmate of a state prison in the state if Montana who over the last several years has engaged in a sexual relationship with at least 5 female prison workers and one female therapist. Now as most people can this this is a serious problem. For someone in a position of power (parent, teacher, prison guard, adult) to have sex with someone who is not in a position of power (child, student, inmate) is a serious no no to say the least. To do so is to abuse the authority said person has been trusted with over that person. But listening to the women who committed the offenses you would think that THEY were the victims.
The women officers described Murphy as the aggressor, even as the predator.
Yeah. So even though they as guards could report his behavior and have him punished at the drop of a hat they have it in their minds that he is the predator and they are the prey. We aren't talking about a man taking advantage of a woman (by force, by "consent", or some other means) we are talking about grown women that chose to consent to the have sex with him and do illegal favors for him. Most reasonable people wouldn't tolerate such ploys if the genders were reversed however there are lot of people out that think that women just cannot make up their minds about sex (while at the same time saying they are equal to men) and should therefore never be held responsible for their choices.

How exactly are we to stop having gender based double standards when it is apparent that we still want to hold onto them so tightly to make us feel better?

Related links:
Fox News

Monday, March 15, 2010

Weekly Menu March 14 Extra Stage!!!

I actually did this yesterday before the Spicy Chicken Salad but was just too tired to post it.

At some point I decided that I wanted to try my hand at Baked Beans. Well rather than just use some precooked canned beans I decided I wanted to start with dry beans and make my own fresh baked beans....in a crock pot.

BBQ Beans

1 1lbs bag of Red Kidney Beans

About 5 beef franks (I decided that I wanted to used franks instead of bacon which turned out to foretell the true nature of the end result.)

Remember the sauce I made for BBQ Chicken Crockpot Style? We're using that here for the sauce.

Like with anything in a crockpot this takes time so wouldn't start cooking at noon thinking it'll be ready by lunch (starting at noon it will barely be ready for dinner). Rinse off your beans and place then in the crockpot. Now the tricky part is that you want enough water to keep the beans from burning but at the same time we are trying for the consistency of baked beans so we can't have too much water (remember we're cooking in a crockpot so there won't be much water lost). I would say fill the crockpot with water until it gets about 1 inch above the beans at the bottom. Turn the pot up on its highest setting and let it go for about 2-3 hours or until the beans feel like they are nearly done.

During that 2-3 hour wait go ahead and mix up that sauce then chop up the franks, add them to the sauce then leave to the side until the beans are nearly done. Once they are about done take out as much of the water as you can but SAVE IT. This is a crucial step and its actually better if you accidentally take out too much than not enough. Stir in the sauce and franks. At this point you have to decide if you want to add some of the water back or not and if so how much. The beans are nearly done so they only need to cook a little bit longer so you may not need much. Too little water and you'll probably get it right. Too much water and you end up with...

Beanie Weenies. Which is just what happened to me. I didn't take enough water out so when I mixed in the sauce and franks the sauce was diluted and I ended up with a mixture that was more beanie weenie than baked bean. But those things are off the chain though.


I don't think its really that simple

So there's this study on gender and guilt by a team of Spanish psychological researchers and they seem to have come to the conclusion that men are guilt deficient and women are too easily guilted.

Okay as a man I have to question these results for one simple reason and in fact the article (and to an extent the study too) actually gives a possible explanation as to why I'm kinda doubting the turnout.

Supposedly men lack “interpersonal sensitivity”, which I gather is a sensitivity to the feelings of other people. Now as any person that has any understanding of what the script in being a man knows men are not supposed to be emotional creatures. To feel guilty about something/someone is to acknowledge feelings about that something/someone and that's a no no for us.
Well my question is this. If men supposedly are not emotional creatures then what's the likelyhood that men would speak up freely about it? So you're probably thinking "what difference does that make?". The difference would be how to go about "fixing" men (yes that article actually speaks about men as if we are appliances that work but have something in us that needs to fixed in order to function properly).

Now speaking from person experience I can say that I do have such feelings but according to the script it is not okay for me to display them for fear of being told that I'm not a real man by other men and women (especially women). Based on that and my thought that I can't be the only man out there in this situation I would say its not so much as men are void of emotion and to have emotion introduced to us like we're Data from Star Trek. (Mind you I think this may be the case for some men but not all and I'd bet not most either.) No the answer lies in making it known that such feelings are okay and there is nothing wrong with having or displaying them.

Once society comes to terms with the fact that we our emotional range actually includes more than lust, happy, and angry we will all be better off.

Sunday, March 14, 2010

Weekly Menu March 14

As I've said before I can't stand the standard method of chicken salad with the pickles and onions and crap. So I came up with my own mix. I've done it before but here we go again...this time with eggs!

Spicy Chicken Salad

Boneless Skinless Chicken Breast

Cashews in Sea Salt (I make a big deal about the sea salt because I'm starting to get to the point where I not only prefer sea salt over standard table salt but I can tell the difference when its cooked into something).

Horseradish Sauce

Kraft Miracle Whip

Celery Seed

Crushed Red Pepper

3 Boiled Eggs

Start boiling the water for your eggs. Once its boiling drop the eggs in and let them go while preparing the other stuff. Clean the chicken and cut it into chunks. Pan fry it in olive oil and season to your liking (I used sea salt, black pepper, garlic powder, and Ginger). Next I used the Slap Chop (that thing rocks) to chop up the chicken and placed it in a large mixing bowl. Next I chopped up the cashews with the Slap Chop and put them in the bowl with the chicken. By now the eggs should be boiled long enough (let them boil for at least 15 minutes). Peel the shell off and chop them up (but I used a knife instead of the slap chop cuz I think the egg would stick to the blades). Add to the mixing bowl.

Put in your crushed red pepper and celery seed. You want to add in the miracle whip and horseradish sauce at a 50/50 mix until you get it to your desired consistency. Now as a big fan of sweet and spicy miracle whip's sweet and horseradish sauce's spicy are a good mix.

This will taste good at work this week.

Friday, March 12, 2010

Just A Little Bit Longer...

Last year I went to see the theatrical version of Nine based on the musical. Personally I don't like musicals that much but I have to say that I liked this one. In particular there is one part that really hit me. At one point during the movie there is a song by the main character Guido's (Daniel-Day Lewis) mother (Sophia Loren), who was deceased, by the name off "Guarda La Luna". What really got to me was the fact that during the song he was dancing with his mom and between verses Daniel Day Lewis was switching with the young boy playing his younger self. I have to admit that it was the closest I had come to crying in a very long time (haven't cried in nearly 10 years). The idea of seeing one's mom again, even if just for a mere three minute song...

As I said recently I'm becoming a big fan of Caprica and along with the science fiction of it there is another reason. This show displays exactly what a parent is willing to do be with their child again. Distraught after losing his daughter in a terrorist bombing, Daniel Greystone (Eric Holtz) has found a virtual avatar of his daughter in the virtual world and has moved it into a robotic body he was creating for military purposes. This merging of his daughter Zoey (Alessandra Torresani) with the technology of a mechanical killing machine becomes what many know as Cylon. Knowing what is going to happen as a result of this merging (see the 2004 Battlestar Galactica series) I have to admit that I'm not sure I can flatly say that I would not do the same.

Think about it. Imagine a loved one you have lost. What would you be willing to do in order to be with them again, even for a short while, even if in virtual form? As I'm chilling with the Captain (by that I mean drinking Captain Morgan's Rum) I sit watching a mini marathon of Caprica tonight on the sixth anniversary of my mom's death I have to admit that even knowing that the result would lead to humanity being driven to the edge of extinction I don't know if I would chose not to bring my mom back in some way, shape, or form.

Take it easy. I'm calling it a night.

Sophia Loren - Guarda La Luna

Thursday, March 11, 2010

Weekly Menu March 7 Extra Stage!!!

If you recall last week I whipped up a simple on the spot BBQ sauce on the fly for two burgers I had cooked. Well this passed Sunday I actually made another but this it was with more purpose than a mere two burgers.

BBQ Chicken Crockpot Style!!!

I apologize in advance because I honestly didn't use any measurements for this sauce (in fact I never use exact measurements I just add stuff until I have enough quantity and it tastes right.)

First go ahead and turn on your crockpot to its lowest setting and add the following until you have the desired taste (I was going for sweet and spicy).

Ground Ginger
Garlic Powder
Five Spice
Chili Powder
Brown Sugar
Vinegar (I really don't use a lot in fact I mainly only use this to clean out the last of a mustard or ketchup bottle. But if it doesn't come to that you don't need more than a few tablespoons.)
Crushed Red Pepper
Chili Sauce (This was something my dad bought in the Asian Food aisle at WalMart. It came in a clear plastic bottle with a green twist top for squeezing.)

Once you have all that mixed in clean (and skin if you want) your chicken. I used 8 short thighs in this particular go around. Simply layer the chicken into the crockpot making sure to spoon sauce on top of it. Put the lid on and let it be for about 5 hours.

Funny thing is while I was making this I tasted it and thought I had the desired mix of sweet and spicy but after it finished the sweet kinda took over but don't let that fool you because somehow the spicy of this sauce has a delayed reaction.

Eat up!

Theater Thursday: Higher Learning

Time to reach into the dvd collection again. This time, Higher Learning. Higher Learning was a 1995 film starring Omar Epps, Kristy Swanson, and Micheal Rappaport (and Lawrence Fishburn playing one of the earliest examples of the Magical Negro trope I've seen) and directed by John Singleton that took place at the fictional Columbus University. A melting pot of race, gender, culture, and various walks of life and that melting is the subject matter of this movie.

It seems to me that the point of this movie was to show what happens when various walks of life clash in terms of race, gender, and culture mostly seen through the eyes of the three main characters.

Malik Williams (Omar Epps)- A young black man attending Columbus University on an athletic scholarship in track. Malik represents the black person who feels the entire world is stacked against him. Throughout the movie Malik is confronted by situations that require him to let go of his hatred at the world and begin to come to terms with the fact that world does not owe him as much as he thinks it does.

Kristen Connor (Kristy Swanson) - A white woman whose shyness shows in her apparent lack of a voice. She is portrayed as a woman that doesn't appear to have a voice of her own. After she is raped after a party Kristen starts to develop her own voice, explores her sexuality, and becomes a campus activist for rape awareness.

Remy (Michael Rapaport) - A white man desperate to discover his identity in a new environment. After failing to fit in with various walks of like he falls in with a group of racist skin heads. Seemingly unable to get along with anyone else Remy is easily seduced by the white supremacist rhetoric of the white power movement.

All in all while somewhat accurate for the times I would say that just like The Breakfast Club its material is extremely dated judging by the many walks of life that inhabit today's college campuses.

There is no mention of the GLBTIQ communities. The expectations and limitations imposed on each gender were only slightly touched on. No mention of those with disabilities. As far as race concerned it was pretty much limited to interactions of black and white people and we all know that the world is not simply black and white. And of course there is not a hint of the various activist segments that are active on today's college campuses (MRAs, feminists, anti-racists, etc....). As I said being closer to the real world than high school I would expect these types of people to have a more prominent presence. In fact given that college is so much closer to the real world and is so much more of a melting pot than high school I would imagine that there would be even more walks of life and much more clashing. So my question to you is pretty much what I asked about in my Breakfast Club post.

If Higher Learning were filmed today what walks of life would you throw into the Melting Pot of Columbus University.

Just like before this is not a matter of who but a matter of what and just like before the characters in said update (this is 15 years after the original) one will have to employ intersectionality in order to touch on as many things as possible.

What would you bring to campus at the beginning of the semester?

Sunday, March 7, 2010


I'm talking about the SyFy Channel TV series Caprica (currently airing Friday nights at 10pm EST) in this post and there will be spoilers. Tread carefully.

I'm becoming a huge fan of the new show Caprica. Long story short this series takes place 58 years before the Battlestar Galactica series done in 2004. The point is to give background on where the Cylons came from and show what happened between them and their human creators that started the war. I do not want to give too much of the story away so I'll let you look it up. What I do want to talk about are two things I've seen in this series that I have to admit shocked me.

Homosexuality. In one of the episodes a young Bill Adama (yes the same Bill Adama that is played by Edward James Almos in the 2004 series) is walking down the street with his uncle Sam (played Sasha Roiz and let me tell he's not that bad on the eyes) listening to him talk. Sam is talking and out of nowhere he casually talks about how in his younger days he would be flirting with a guy while his brother Joseph (Bill's dad played by Esai Morales) would be getting a date with the guy's sister. Yeah just that casual. Not any of that attention seeking barsexuality just someone's sexuality brought up in conversation.

Polygamy. At one point the character Clarice Willow (played by Polly Walker) is shown to be involved in a group marriage situation with at least four different men and 3 other women. The language of their marriage seems to be similar to those of the one woman/one man marriage as we know it with each of them referring to each other as "my husband"/"my wife". A particular scene shows her waking up in bed one morning with two of her husbands and one her wives in which they each change positions in bed in order to exchange morning kisses and greetings. This is a very big contrast to the headmistress position she holds at the Athena Academy, the local school.

Now as a person who is neither homosexual nor in a polygamous relationship I don't think its my place to try to put a definitive answer on whether or not these characters are signs of progress but to me at least this seems to serve the effect of showing that such things need not be presented in a certain way in order to "justify" them.

There is no need for a homosexual man to be portrayed as flamboyant (he might be but its not required) or present in clothing, mannerisms, and other things that are typically associated with women as if being a woman or woman-like is a prerequisite to being attracted to men. In fact he is covered in tattoos, cares very strongly about his family (and is willing to do a lot for family), and is a gangster. Things one usually associates with being a man.

Usually when relationships such as the one Willow is in are brought up its usually done in a way that portrays them as heathens that seek to create upheaval in society. Willow and her spouses are shown as a group of adults that are married to each other, have public displays of affection, have children, and have family meals together. Now what worries me is that the people in this relationship while not heathers that are out to spread debauchery everywhere and planning social upheaval they ARE an underground terrorist organization that believes in one god (they are called Soldiers of The One) versus the polytheistic religion that is practiced by most of society. Hopefully the polygamy will just be a portrayal of their sexuality and relationship method and not become a vehicle to make them look like enemies.

When I first saw these scenes I actually hit the rewind to make sure I was seeing and hearing correctly. I watched them again and took the time to think about it. I realized that my shock was a knee-jerk reaction rather than how these two things were brought up. From all my years of watching television I had it in my mind about what Sam Adama and Clarice Willow would come off as and I'm glad that at least so far its not going in that direction.

However I don't want you to listen to my description of these two things and rush to start watching it thinking the universe of Caprica is a utopia of equality in which there is no discrimination or injustice. It's not. Sam Adama comes from a harsh (Joseph comments that the planet doesn't have any flowers) world called Tauron and people from that world are stereotyped as being dishonest and deceitful. In fact referring to a Tauron as a dirt eater is very serious racial slur (I wonder if they are trying to make it their "nigger" like word). And other than the Taurons very few people of color have come up so far. And I'll bet there are other things that I probably do see and have not thought of.

All in all it is not a depiction of the perfect society (in fact if you are familiar with Battlestar Galactica you know its actually gonna get very fucked up in about 58 years) but as TV show and of the science fiction genre I have to say I like it and hope it has a long run.

Thursday, March 4, 2010

Was it really that serious?

A few weeks ago the final round of the first annual The Sprite Step Off, sponsored by Coca-Cola, was held (fyi on stepping in Atlanta. Well if you read the description I linked to I'm sure you noticed that stepping is generally associated with people of color specifically those of African decent. Yeah well it turns out a white sorority (Zeta Tau Alpha) won the women's competition of the contest.

My question is is there a something wrong with that?

It's easy to say that this is a terrible thing. How dare a white sorority come in and win a contest meant to celebrate an activity that was started by black sororities and fraternities. Some would say that it amounts to cultural invasion and appropriation for whites to do such a thing.

On the other hand is it possible that the very fact that a white sorority was allowed to compete is a sign of people from different backgrounds coming together and thus progress? It would have been very easy to just turn that sorority away because of their race and frankly I highly doubt they would have been able to do anything about it if that had happened (an act of racism mind you but not much they could do about it).

But race relations aside it would seem that because of a review of the scoring from Saturday's national contest revealed a "scoring discrepancy" that it declined to explain another decision decision has been reached.
Coca-Cola said Thursday the Alpha Kappa Alpha team from Indiana University, whose members are black, would share first place and would also receive the same $100,000 in scholarships that the Zeta Tau Alphas won.

"Because the scoring discrepancy cannot be resolved and due to the extremely narrow margin between the first and second place winning sororities," the company decided to declare co-winners, the company statement says.
I'm not sure how I feel about that.

If it was indeed a discrepancy such as an honest miscount in the votes then no problem. If there was cheating among the judges (namely favoritism for certain acts) then no problem. However if this was simply a bone then I have to say I don't like it.

I know that it is tempting to say that a white sorority winning a step competition is a sign that hell is freezing over and whites are making a push into the few things that blacks have made for themselves. And to those that say that I say get over yourselves. Those women in Zeta Tau Alpha trained for their step routines just as hard as any other sorority and for it to be instantly called racist because they won is unfair to them.

How can we expect to break racial barriers when every time there is some mingling like this we go into outrage mode?

Other sources on this:
What Tami Said

I only have one question

I'm not sure if the goal of this post was to somehow prove that there is no male disposability at work in times of disaster but I have a question. We'll get to that in a bit.

The writer uses the factor of time and references a study from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences to show that when disaster strikes the less time there is to make the sacrificial choice the less likely self sacrifice will lose out to self preservation. The sinking of two ships are compared.

The Titanic:
The Titanic took three hours to sink. As crises go, that's quite a long time -- long enough to make for a more than three-hour-long Hollywood epic. For the most part, it didn't force the passengers to make split-second decisions about their own survival. I mean, the band played on, for chrissake.
and The Lusitania:
Three years later, though, when the Lusitania sank off Ireland, a very different scenario played out: It took just 18 minutes for the ship to go down, and it was every man for himself. The 639 survivors were largely healthy young men and women who were best able to fend for themselves.
Now at face value there appears to be a point that when time is short people are less likely to make the ultimate sacrifice. Here's my question.

Why is it that men are still expected to make that ultimate sacrifice for women and children?

I don't know about the Lusitania but on the Titanic the practice of women and children first was heavily enforced. And by enforced I mean that some crew members that were in charge of filling and deploying the lifeboats actively pushed men to the side to get women and children on first and there were some crew (according a documentary I saw in the History channel about 2 weeks ago) that actually practiced women and children ONLY. Yes on the Titanic there were crew that actively turned away men (with the help of a gun in some cases) in order to get more women and children on board. Chivialry at the barrel of a gun.

Now some will try to divert away from the gender divide by saying it was about class and not gender. Look at the breakdown of survival rates. While it is true that the survival rates dropped as you go from third to first class I still think the more chilling part is that.:
Overall, only 20 percent of the men survived, compared to nearly 75 percent of the women.
That means when looking at class:
Out of every 100 First Class people about 60 survived.
Out of every 100 Second Class people about 41 survived.
Out of every 100 Third Class people about 24 survived.

By gender:
Out of every 100 Women about 75 survived.
Out of every 100 Men about 20 survived.

So even though the Titanic took a lot longer to go down there is still the expectation that men should give up their chance at survival to women and children. Meaning that men are and men alone are expected to ignore their own self preservation instincts. And not only that but failure to do so could lead to ridicule.

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

Weekly Menu March 1 Extra Stage!!!

What does one do when you have the ingredients for a homemade BBQ sauce but does not want to go through the trouble of having to actually make BBQ sauce for only two hamburgers?

The Laziest BBQ Sauce Ever
Crushed Red Pepper

Okay I have to say that the inspiration for this came to me yesterday at lunch when I was cooking some burgers at work and mistakenly poured some Cinnamon/Sugar on one of them instead of Crushed Red Pepper (their containers look a lot a like and I was not actually looking when I reached for it). I was able to drown it out with sauce so it wasn't too bad. Well later that night I was cooking burgers for dinner (yes I like hamburgers that much) and had no sauce to put on them. Well thinking about the Cinnamon/Sugar mistake from earlier I thought why not just individually stack the ingredients for it directly on the burgers. That's just what I did and it melded together well enough that even though it didn't look like BBQ sauce it sure as hell tasted like one.


Tuesday, March 2, 2010

A conspiracy?

As some of you may have noticed I've been up to a bit of cooking for the last year or so (and I have a short that I need to put up soon) and I while looking at some other cooking blogs I came across an interesting thought.
I can't imagine how much trouble it must be if you're also trying to diet. Which makes me wonder just how much commercial diets, with their pre-packaged food portions and calorie controlled snacks, are leading us AWAY from healthy eating.

The value in the food industry comes from added processing. Team that up with a diet industry that wants to get you to buy as many branded products as possible and you have a recipe for (albiet calorie controlled) over-processed food. Which, although I don't have the data to back me up on this, my gut tells me HAS to be worse for you than from-scratch food.
Okay as we all know the food industry will do anything it needs to do to get us to keep shoving their processed foods down our throats and they need to supply those processed foods as cheaply as possible and as quickly as possible. Well with the way people are concerned about weight these days just about any and every food producer you can think of has some sort of "healthy" food.

"Low Calorie"
"No Trans Fat"
"No Saturated Fat"

All sorts of lines to entice us to think that their products are the key to weightloss salvation.

Considering all the processed chemicals, preservatives, coloring agents, pesticides, and lord knows what else that goes into those products I think this woman's gut may be on to something. And I have to check out her cooking posts. They look interesting (although I don't think she would be interested in mine since unlike her I am not Jewish so I'll bet my cooking is all kinds of not kosher).

Why do some feminists think they have exclusive rights on equality?

Last week there was a thread at Feministe on the subject of women who pressure men into sex. Well the thread kinda blew up and the comments are closed, which is why I don't mind bringing it up now to vent a little.

I had said a few things already in the commentary but there was one particular comment that I just had to respond to:

Sexual crimes against women are used to threaten, castigate and control all women. They are used to define women’s experiences of sex, of college, of marriage, of everything. Sexual crimes against men do not.
Really? The idea that men cannot be raped because we want sex all the time isn’t used to define men’s experience of sex? The idea that if a man turns down sex with a woman his sexuality and manhood come under question isn’t used to define and control men ? The idea that if a man is raped it is a sign that he isn’t “a real man because he LET it happen to him” isn’t way of trying to control men?

I’ll be the first to agree that the definitions cast upon men on those subjects are different and damaging in different ways than they are to women but to say they don’t happen is wrong.

Well now we can't have something like pointing out that someone's presumptions are wrong now can we? Check out this out:

Danny, given that your blog links to articles denying the existence of male privilege and have posts commenting that “you suppose” you are grudgingly pro-choice, and that you are not a feminist–I feel a little less insane now for the sense that this thread has some elements of the MRA crowd. You define MRA’s on your blog as “those who are trying to make life better for men” and propogate ugly feminist stereotypes. (such as “Now this [treatment of MRA's] is not some excuse to just right off the entire movement as a bunch of man-hating power trippers because they aren’t (well all of them aren’t anyway).”

Sorry, the little parenthesis doesn’t make it all better.

Men (be they trans or cis) are not the oppressed class when it comes to sex. Full stop. Yes, stereotypes about masculinity hurt men, especially when it come to reporting their own rapes and being taken seriously. No one is denying that here. But stop trying to talk your way into men being just as much of the sex class as women are. It ain’t so. AND IT DOESN’T MEAN MEN CANNOT ALSO BE RAPED.

I’m sorry if it seems off topic but I really have had the sense that parts of this thread are on an MRA board, and I think this illuminates why.
(bolding by me)

Okay neverminding the person attacking and attempt at trying to dismiss me for the wrong reasons (and that fact that this person thinks they properly sized me up by only browsing my blog roll for less than 30 minutes) what I want to talk about is the bold part.
and that you are not a feminist
Since when was not being a feminist grounds for someone being wrong, a bigot, a hater, or anything else? Now I can understand that being for equality is important but I have yet to encounter a single movement that is so undeniably correct that it should actually be a standard that one must meet in order to be considered right about a subject. But apparently that is not the case here for not being a feminist seems to be enough to invalidate the things I say.

So much for feminism being about not making assumptions right?

Okay I'm done venting now.

I'd really like to know what a paedophile is supposed to look like

Well it would seem that only has to be male in order to possibly be one.

Kevin Geraghty-Shewan was out shopping at Bridges Shopping Centere with his four year old son Ben and his wife when Ben saw a kid's train ride and, being a fan of trains, wanted to take a ride on it. Thinking there was no harm in it. Apparently there was some harm in it. While Ben was on the ride Kevin's wife suggested he take a picture of him on it. That's when trouble came.
"I took the picture on my phone and suddenly this security guard came up and told me it wasn't allowed because I could be a paedophile.

"I told him Ben was my own son. But he said I couldn't prove it. He said there is a real problem with paedophiles and that if I didn't like it, he'd call the manager.
A few minutes later a police officer arrived saying he had received a compliant that someone matching his description had been taking pictures of children and wanted his name and address. Not sure how its done in the UK but I find it odd that a cop would just walk up on a guy asking for his address along with his name. And along with asking for his name and address he also told Kevin that he had the right to delete the pictures he had taken. When Kevin raised his voice the cop threatened to arrest him.

When contacted for a statement Bridges said:
"We take the safety at all our shopping centres very seriously. "We do ask our security guards across the estate to be diligent in implementing our security measures, which includes monitoring photography in our centres. Unfortunately on this occasion what should have been a simple polite conversation led to a misunderstanding and we apologise for any offence caused. It is always our aim to implement our security procedures with the minimum of fuss and disruption to our shoppers."

This is not the first time we've seen in which being male is enough to get someone accused/suspected of being a child molester. Yes a lot of child abuse is committed by men (yet more is committed by women that many are willing to admit) but that does not mean its okay to just willy nilly finger pointing at any and every man in sight that is around a child.

This is a stigma and presumption that falls squarely on the shoulders of males. According to society we are supposed to not want to be around children unless we are trying to hurt them or their moms. Well unless someone can prove there are more males that are child molesters than males than are not buying into such an assumption is nothing but misandry. But this image will continue to live on for as long as people are more comfortable (and in some cases profit) from the belief that a male can do nothing for a child other than do damage and cause harm. And this image will keep women in a privileged position over men when it comes to parenting.

I'll bet she would have enjoyed it

Next Monday March 8th will be Sandra Cantu's ninth birthday. Unfortunately she will not be around to join in the festivities. Last year on March 27 a few weeks after her eight birthday Sandra disappeared. A little over a week later her corpse was found stuffed inside a suitcase and left near an irrigation ditch.

Melissa Huckaby, a neighbor of the Cantu family and local Sunday School teacher, is the main suspect in her death.
Huckaby allegedly kidnapped Sandra on Mar. 27, raped her, and then murdered her. Authorities believe she then stuffed Sandra’s lifeless body inside a suitcase and placed it near a drained irrigation ditch, which was discovered on Apr. 6.
She is scheduled for a readiness hearing on March 29 and her trial is set to start October 18. The five counts against Melissa Huckaby. If convicted of the murder charge Huckaby may face the death penalty.

Her family will be holding a birthday memorial at Robert Kenner Park, near Jacobson Elementary where Sandra went to school.

Monday, March 1, 2010

No Fat is not the same as Nigger

But apparently the folks at Huffington Post have decided that Fat is indeed the new Nigger.

I have to say that as a person that bears the weight of both of those words on his shoulders let me assure that they are not the same.

As a man of color, specifically a man of African decent, I know what its like to have someone use my heritage as a basis for attack. Now I think it is worth mentioning that while this word can be used to refer to a person of any race (Dictionary.com) this word is most prominently used as a way to insult, attack, and harm those of African decent. To attack a person's race is one of the deepest wounds that can be inflicted. The fact that even though it is not as used anywhere near as openly and commonly as it once was it still extremely damaging and painful (or perhaps it is still extremely damaging and painful because it is not used as openly and commonly). Such hatred doesn't do anyone any good.

As a fat man I what it is like to have the shape and size of my body used as a basis for attack. To be teased, attacked, humiliated, and berated simply because one does not meet a set of arbitrary limitations on body size and shape is painful. Such commentary doesn't seem to reach that far back into the past but let me tell that it is alive and kicking today and there are a lot of people out there that ready, willing, and able to use it.

Both are painful. Both do damage. Both can cause a person to internalize a sense of self hatred over their race or body size/shape. However they are not the same thing. And its not because one is worse than the other. Yes you can go on about how one has a longer and more offensive history than the other but allow me to inform you that when either of those two words are used (against me at least) I'm not thinking about which one hurts more all I'm thinking about is that they simply hurt.

Ultimately I think this is the result of someone trying to sound hip and politically correct. I mentioned awhile back that trying to do so can easily not go as well as you intended. They recognize that the word fat and the hatred that comes along with it being used in such a way is hurtful to a lot of people. But I think they got so caught up in the desire to call attention to this that they didn't realize what they were really saying. I'm not trying to excuse their behavior, just trying to figure out where is came from (because unless we flesh out what causes this behavior how are we supposed to confront and eventually eliminate it).