Wednesday, December 31, 2008

Neva neva gonna get it, my lovin'

Via Jessica @ Feministing (and click the links in her story for more goodness).

I ignored the first article by Dennis Prager cause he's a douche and I know it. I try to ignore everything he says, but this is too much.
"Why would a loving, wise woman allow mood to determine whether or not she will give her husband one of the most important expressions of love [sex] she can show him? What else in life, of such significance, do we allow to be governed by mood?"
Sex=/=relationship. Men keep trying to force this idea into the minds of women they want to fuck. But suddenly, when it's within their agenda to reverse this idea, suddenly all there is to a relationship is sex.

Further, what else in life do we allow to be governed by mood? Well, eating. "What are you in the mood for?" Sleeping. "I'm tired but I don't feel like going to sleep yet." or "I'm in the mood for a nap." Gee, eating, sleeping, and fucking... all governed by mood. You might, by this, come to the conclusion that everything that humans do is, to at least some extent, governed by their emotions because humans are emotional creatures. Ya jackass.

My question to Mr. Prager is, why would a loving, wise man want to force his wife to have sex with him when she doesn't want to? For what else in life, that is so important to a relationship, is it enjoyable to force someone to do something they don't want to do? Sex is supposed to be fun for both partners, not just the man. Contrary to what you might think, Denny, it's a lot easier to get a woman to have sex with you if you respect her and don't force her to have sex when she doesn't want to.

I can't but comment on this gem, too:
"What if your husband woke up one day and announced that he was not in the mood to go to work?"
It's your job bitch. There's so many things in this one sentence that I have a problem with. First of all, Prager is one of these douchebags who gets all huffy about prostitution, and will try to exorcise anyone who even casually compares prostution to marriage. However, if it is my job to have sex, that makes me a sex worker, not a wife (although, for clarity's sake, I am neither). Secondly, if my hypotheitical husband announced that he wasn't in the mood to go to work, I would say "good, you can help me with the housework", or "good, you can finish painting the guest room", or even "fine, just stay out of my way I've got shit to do".

Finally, you're behind on your payment plan. We live in a capitalist society (and make no mistake, Prager's one of these neoliberal Reaganomics are from God kinds of assholes), so if it's my "job" to provide unlimited sexual satisfaction to my male partner, whether I want to or not (ahem), I'm fucking getting paid for it. There has to be some incentive, and don't tell me that providing me with a place to live and protection from actual rape (cause I couldn't do either of those things on my own -- and you know this guy calls stranger-rape "actual rape", I hate people like that with the heat of a thousand white-hot-pointy suns), is payment enough for being raped by my intimate partner. It's not. If it's my "job", I'm gonna get paid for it.

Also, just a little addendum here, there's consent involved in work too. If my boss asks me to do something that I don't want to do, (like, I dunno, have sex with him), I can say no and not get fired, and then sue for sexual harassment. If my boss asks me to do something that is unsafe or in an unsafe manner, I can refuse or negotiate a safer way of doing it without getting fired. If my boss asks me to do something that I can't do at the present time because I'm busy with something else, I can say "how about tomorrow". If my boss asks me to keep working when I'm off the clock, I can tell him I have plans or just say "I'll do it first thing tomorrow". As far as I'm concerned, for a stay-at-home-mom, in bed is off the clock... oh yeah, and your husband isn't your boss.

Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Monday, December 29, 2008

It wasn't your imagination: 2008 sucked

Along with the many other things in which I have an interest (some might say perverted interest), I'm a student of both the Tarot and of Numerology (Astrology is interesting, but not so much my bag, for Astrology, visit Molly). According to some theories of these types of divination, each year has a card and a number assigned to it, based on a simple calculation. For instance, my birthday (March 14th) determined that my card for this year was The Hermit, my number 9.
The "global card/number" the number for the parts of the world which observe that this year was 2008 (as opposed to other calendars like the Jewish one, for which the year 2008 was mostly 5768, but partly 5769 -- I'll get to that one in a minute, but there are a number of calendars which observe different years for the same period of time), is gleaned by adding the numbers together and breaking it down to 1-22 for tarot significance, and further to 1-9 for numerological significance.

In tarot, the 10th card of the Major Arcana is The Wheel of Fortune (image at right by Angie Chow). The Wheel of Fortune is pretty easy to understand. That is, events proceed as they will, regardless of intervention because that's just the way the world turns. The Wheel is a kind of "go with the flow" sort of symbol, but you can imagine that about 50% of the time, The Wheel does not turn in your favor. Like the game show, this year the Wheel of Fortune was pretty much all BANKRUPTCY tabs, so every time you spun the wheel, something shitty happened.

This, combined with the global energy of the number 1 (at once pure egotism and leadership -- consider the presidential transition we are currently in in the United States, going from ego-maniacal "decider"/"commander guy" to a leader with a healthy ego who isn't afraid of criticism or bad news), made for a pretty bad year around the globe.

Of course, you could argue that what I'm saying about the vagueries of the global card and numerological energy for 2008 could be said of any year. One could also argue that I'm picking examples that prove my point, but we are talking about divination here -- there are very few people who, when discussing divination from either side, DON'T pick-and-choose examples that prove their point, which makes the topic itself kind of difficult to discuss intellectually. That said, there are a number of things in the the year 2008 and the interpretations of the Wheel of Fortune and Numerological 1 that correlate. In short: 2008 sucked. (Your milage my vary, though, since each person, as stated above, has their own personal card and number energy, which is influenced by the global card/number in the degree that the individual is influenced by the outside world.)

There is hope, however. As the year ends, the energy changes. 2009's card is Justice. Justice, in the progression of the Major Arcana effectively sets right what was up-ended by the Wheel of Fortune. That is, this indicator suggests that the legislation promised by Congress and policies promised by President-Elect Obama will come to fruition: people will be able to get their homes back and/or renegotiate their mortgages; fairness will return to the American body-politic; and the Bush Crime Family may end up recieving their just desserts (from the caffeteria at Gitmo).

This indicator, combined with the global energy of the numerological 2 (and super number of 11), suggests that justice will be gained through cooperation -- wise cooperation because of the presented 11.

To summarize, 2008 came in presenting us with the opportunity for being #1. It turns out that we (we being the country) took this opportunity to become #1 in economic downturn. However, the Wheel turned and since the election we've shifted from the negative aspects of the number 1 (ego-mania, self-centeredness, greed, etc) to some of the positive aspects, eg. leadership (actual leadership not a guy in a flight suit declaring MISSION ACCOMPLISHED -- oy). Leadership that presently enjoys a 70+% approval rating. And as the Wheel makes its final spin (cross your fingers we don't land on that Bankrurtcy space!), we turn toward the opportunity for Justice to be had. For justice and cooperation. Of course, there is the opportunity as well to confuse justice with vengeance, but we'll see about that. But those are our opportunities, we may not take them.

Sunday, December 28, 2008

Somebody didn't think this through...

Well, Twisty already beat me to this story, (and so did AmericaBlog), but I'm pretty sure everything that anyone's ever blogged about has previously been blogged about by someone else.

Anyway, it seems that the CIA thinks it's a good idea to trade the boner-ification pill Viagra to warlords in Afghanistan for information about... you know, whatever.

Anyway, Twisty makes a good point (I'm sorry, but it's true):
"The old bastards buzz along home, maul the harem, and come back singing
like canaries.

Wink wink, nudge nudge, puke puke.

The heart bleeds for the multiple wives of these old farts; after a lifetime of conjugal duty, these women were undoubtedly basking in sweet relief when the old warlord finally couldn’t get it up anymore. Naturally it couldn’t possibly occur to either the
CIA operatives or prurient Americans reading this amusing article clapping the
CIA on the back for its good old American ingenuity that some woman somewhere
was gonna have to pay the price in this “crucial battle.”"
Of course, this isn't nearly half of the story. Everywhere in the world there is a black market for drugs including Viagra, especially in war-torn countries including Afghanistan. Everywhere in the world rape is a serious issue, especially in war-torn countries including Afghanistan, where women are doused with acid for even thinking about going to school, and where sexual assault is used as a weapon. Now these warlords are being given Viagra, and since their power has never been abated by democracy since we never actually finished the job there -- these warlords can have their pick of any of the unwilling women inside or outside of the harem.

Moreover, cold hard cash is still more valuable than fucking Viagra. Even if these guys want to go start fucking the harem (or anyone else they choose), there's a good chance that they're going to sell these little blue pills onto the black market thus increasing their power by way of CASSSSSH. And still, no one bothers to think about the women involved here, and you can't ignore the fact that there are women involved here, and introducing a drug that allows a man who doesn't think of a woman as a person to fuck whomever whenever kind of leads to an increase in rapes.

Thanks CIA!

But, that's okay, it's totally justified, says the article.
"Among the world's intelligence agencies, there's a long tradition of using sex
as a motivator. Robert Baer, a retired CIA officer and author of several books
on intelligence, noted that the Soviet spy service was notorious for using attractive women as bait when seeking to turn foreign diplomats into informants.
"The KGB has always used 'honey traps,' and it works," Baer said."

Nevermind what the women think, they're doing something good for the USA by being raped for information. I don't know which is more insulting, that the United States is using a used by the KGB, or that it's justifying said tactic because the KGB did it and it worked.

Well, whatever works.

Saturday, December 27, 2008

"Lappy is back!" or "Telling me you don't want to go out with me isn't going to shut me up"

Wow. What a couple of days. First, I hope you had a good Christmas if you're of the mind to celebrate it -- ours was postponed on account of snow, then Schmoogie burned his hand off fiddling with the plumbing (he's so handy -- no pun intended, actually he just singed a finger, but he's mostly fine). But tomorrow the 'rents are coming out to celebrate and give me presents, so all is well.

Oh, and my lappy isn't dead! But that's not why I'm posting.

When I came home with the assuredly fixed lappy (that assurance cost me $110 and some change), I checked my email and found a couple of comments needing to be moderated. Anonymous, a courageous young man left a comment on this post.
I'd much rather date the girl who wrote the other article than you, for
what it's worth.You sound like an entitled college student who just took a
philosophy class and wanted to show the world how unique you are because you
question things. And FYI, stop cursing so much. It makes you sound like a
jackass. (And yes, the irony of that last sentence is not lost to me).

Yeah. Real gem isn't it? Nevermind that I'm a)not single, b)don't care if someone who wants to police my language would or wouldn't want to date me, and c)a college graduate who took one philosophy class which had nothing to do with feminist. Oh yeah, and I'm not "entitled" as Anonymous seems to think, considering the hefty student loans.

There's not much to be said about this comment, I just wanted to point and laugh at an ignorant jackass who likes to police the language of women and thinks that he's so great that a pre-emptive rejection would devastate and shut up a feminist. Keep trying pookums, you'll hurt a woman someday. That day is not today.

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Freidmanite by name and practice wonders what's wrong with the country

I know I said I was probably out for a couple of days while Narcissus was at the computer-doctor, but I do still have internets available, and there are still people who need telling off. Thomas Freidman, Mr. The World is Flat wonders:
"All I could think to myself was: If we’re so smart, why are other people living
so much better than us? What has become of our infrastructure, which is so
crucial to productivity? Back home, I was greeted by the news that General
Motors was being bailed out — that’s the G.M. that Fortune magazine just noted
“lost more than $72 billion in the past four years, and yet you can count on one
hand the number of executives who have been reassigned or lost their job.”"

Are you really that fucking naive? Haven't you been paying attention to what's been happening in this country for the last 35 years?! Our infrastructure is toast because in the 80s, when that very infrastructure was due for repair and rennovation the Gipper decided that that work was not to be done by the government because "government is not the solution to our problems; government is the problem." Free Market Capitalism, something you have championed, Mr. Freidman, has caused our infrastructure to deteriorate; has cause the economic problems we're facing by calling regulation "socialist" and saying that regulation is bad. The rest of the world, sir, is "so much better than us" because we've had George W. Bush for president for the last 8 years and he's done his damndest to make sure that we give all of our tax dollars to Haliburton, KBR, CH2M Hill, CACI, and the rest of the disaster capitalist companies instead of doing the work ourselves because "government is the problem".

Over at the Agonist, this article was touted as being about Thomas Freidman wanting the US to be like the rest of the world. Well, I've been reading Naomi Klein's The Shock Doctrine, and I can tell you the US is like the rest of the world -- except for the evil socialist parts. In the last 8 years, the Bush Crime Family has succeeded in doing something that Milton Freidman (the original Freidman) had been dreaming of for 30 years -- something even Richard Nixon refused to condone (in this country). Bush and his crony disaster capitalist pals turned what should have been government-run projects into cash-cows for their coroporate buddies.

You don't need to look beyond the current headlines to know that this is true. The Troubled Asset Recovery Program funds were dolled out to banks who have refused to account for how that money is being spent (on corporate spa trips and bonuses). We've gone from a 236 billion dollar surplus to nearly a trillion dollar defecit in the short time period of 8 years because Bush has kept close to the "free market" principles of deregulation, lower (corporate) taxes, and union busting. People are losing their jobs because of this. Our country is falling apart because of this. The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina is the best example of this locally, and you know that, like in Iraq, the reconstruction hasn't been finished because the same contractors were hired for that job too!

America, we have a disease. And while it's not as bad as some of the other economic models out there, we have to regulate it in order to keep ourselves from being miserable SOBs with sores all over our bodies; we also have to regulate it in order to prevent ourselves from doing further harm to the rest of the economies around the world. We DON'T have AIDS. We DON'T have Syphillus either. We have the capitalist strain of herpes. It's not fatal, but we've ignored it for far too long and it's caused us a lot of suffering. If we don't keep our capitalist herpes in check, we could end up with other illnesses that get in through the free market sores. Illnesses like totalitarianism, genocide, civil war, and the people responsible getting off scott-free because they made enough money to be above the law.

Look. You, as well as Mr. Freidman, need to read The Shock Doctrine. It'll make you FRANGRY, but you need to read it.

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Mix of good and bad... (personal editon)

I may have killed my laptop. I took her to the computer doctor today, and should hear back in 1-3 business days. My hard drive is fine though, so if Narcissus is dead and cannot be revived, I'll be able to get a new laptop (I'm considering a Dell, after many years of despising their machines -- they're certainly better than they used to be). Right now, I'm on the Schmoogie's Alienware machine. Nothing on my computer can't be recovered or replaced, so it's really not that big of a deal, just a slight inconvenience that is going to cost some money that I don't have.

But I got my stitches out today. The wound's not too bad, and it didn't hurt much to have the stitches pulled out.

I really need to not be on the computer so much right now, though. I need to read and study. Which I'm gonna do now.

Happy Hanukkah, Merry Christmas, Happy (belated) Solstice, Happy Kwanza, and a very Happy New Year if I don't get back to you by then. By the way, what are you doing over these many holidays?

Monday, December 22, 2008

Snowed in.

Last night Dan Savage posted the image at left, providing final, difinitive proof that Seattle is completely unable to function when it snows. This image was taken outside of the Lusty Lady (the famous Seattle strip joint run by feminists, where the girls are protected from being molested, and paid a living wage). "No girls today. Sorry." They're all snowed in just like the rest of you poor motherfuckers. (Except, aparently, Dan Savage.)

This morning I made a valliant attempt to make to to work. I got up early. I put on three pairs of tights, giant socks (which I stole from Schmoogie), my snow boots, two hooded sweaters, a scarf, gloves, a hat, and my wool coat all to go stand at the bus stop for a fucking hour waiting. (And let us not forget that the ten inches of snow made it possible for me to nearly fall and break my face more than once on the way there.) According to the "snow schedule" (weekend schedule) on, the 511 (the bus I take to and from work every day) is supposed to have two busses per hour. There were no busses during the hour I waited at the bus stop in 28 degree weather, wearing 16 lbs of clothing and dancing around to keep myself relatively warm -- and for the record, the Spanx "high waisted panty" thing or whatever it's called, the one that sucks in all of your belly fat, really keeps the heat in; so fat shaming or no fat shaming, those things are fucking useful. No bus means no work.

I wanted to go to work today. I needed to go to work today. Now don't get me wrong, I like a day off here and there -- hell, days off, send me somewhere fancy! -- but after having spent much of the last 5 days couped up in the house, I'm going a little stir crazy. I love spending time with my dog and boyfriend, but 5 days locked in the house with Needy and Whiney is a little too much -- I'm sure if they had blogs I would get a cute nickname like Bitchy or something. I also enjoy going without a bra for a couple of days, being free from the almost relentless bonds of that patriarchal device which holds my boobies in place so they only jiggle in a visually pleasing manner when I run -- but this is fucking ridiculous!

Western Washington needs to learn to function when it snows. In the past it hasn't really snowed that much here, but since this is the... 6th snowfall of the year (including the freak one in April), we had better get used to the cold weather and snowfall and maybe think about reducing the incline of the hills in Seattle.

At least do it for the strippers!

Oh. My. Fucking. God.

(Via Feministing.)

Okay, the virginity craze has officially gone too far. For just $14.90 you can buy an artificial hymen.

Let me say that again: artificial hymen.
"No more worry about losing your virginity. With this product, you can have your
first night back anytime. Insert this artificial hymen into your vagina
carefully. It will expand a little and make you feel tight. When your lover
penetrate, it will ooze out a liquid that look like blood not too much but just
the right amount. Add in a few moans and groans, you will pass through
undetectable. Its easy to use, clinically proven non-toxic to human and has no
side effects, no pain to use and no allergic reaction."

Never mind the grammatical errors, this product allows a woman to fake being a virgin... with tightness and a tiny bit of blood. I don't think I can use words accurately enough to describe how disgusted I am at this. It's just too much.

Now sure, vagina-plasty to "repair" the hymen so a woman is effectively a virgin again is a horrible thing imposed by a culture that is obsessed for some god-awful reason with the almight hymen -- but the cost is just slightly prohibitive. So, why shouldn't there be a product that, for under $15 freaking dollars establishes the exact same principle? Then everyone can have their hymens back! No. Omg, ew. No. This is too much.


Friday, December 19, 2008

A tale of two art updates

(And that's called a diptych.)

Obama wants B-ball court in Whitehouse -- Bowling lobby up in pins

Via the double-yew-ess-jay.

What the fuck ever.

Congrats Shepard

I love this picture. I can't wait to buy the copy of TIME with this image, but I may just be sold out by the time I get to the newsstands.

In related news, read the accompanying blog post.

I don't know what to say about the whole Rick Warren thing, which is why I haven't said anything. I don't think it's appropriate to have someone who is against gay rights and reproductive rights giving the invocation at the innauguration of a president who will act against that agenda... however, Barack Obama is a very good politician, and while this is pissing off not just the progressives on the left, but also a lot Evangelicals on the right, it's going to represent not that Obama disapproves of gay people, not that he disapproves of abortion and birth control, but that he wants to be friends with people who disagree with him. I think that's what this is about.

One thing that we have learned about Barack during the last two years is that he likes to talk to people who hold different views and understand why they hold those views. Once he has understood why they hold those views, he wants to come to some kind of agreement; maybe they can't agree that abortion is a moral choice, but they can agree that reducing unwanted pregnancy should be a priority; maybe they can't agree that gay people are entitled to civil rights just as anyone (and I truly believe that Obama said that he didn't agree with gay marriage because he had to) but they can come to an agreement that civil rights are important for everyone -- eventually with this line of progressive agreement, you can peacefully get people who had held diametrically oppositional views to come around and realize that while they may have some moral objection to something, their moral code is not what makes the law. I think that's what Obama is trying to begin by having Warren do the invocation.

I would still rather he have a Rabbi do it, and not a crazy one, but that's my preference. I haven't lost any faith in Barack for this choice. He's starting something big and we're not all going to agree with the steps he takes to achieve the ends, but that doesn't mean that he or the steps are wrong.

Reason People Think They Don't "Get" Art #629,622: Mark Rothko

"I don't get it."

It's okay, no one does.

Mark Rothko is famous for bright strips of oil paint on large canvases, and he was huge during the early years of Po-Mo. That is, post-modernism, essentially the "free market economics" of the art world -- a lot of people love it, and in this student-of-art-history's opinion, a lot of people are fucking stupid. Don't get me wrong, there were some good things that came out of Po-Mo, like there were some good things that have come out of free market economics (just don't ask me to name any), and artists didn't do nearly as much damage to the art world in the name of post-modernism as economists have done to the global economy in the name of free market economics -- but I digress, I wanted to talk about Rothko.

Rothko began as a modernist, vacillating between cubism and surrealism but eventually going off in his own direction. His most famous works, the "multiforms" became a sort of signature of the early years of Post-Moderism, and helped artists detached themselves from the rest of the world (although, one could argue that Modernism began this when art started to drift away from realism and the representation of what the artist literally saw, and started making art that was art simply by virtue of its existence). Abstract expressionism began with Rothko, who pushed this idea that his large paintings with giant blocks of solid color were somehow intensely spiritual, and while there's nothing wrong with it, the average person will look at a Rothko, read something he wrote about God and oneness and all things being equal and say "really?"

Now, a lot of artists are able to make weird art, talk about some kind of intimate relation to the work and/or god without alienating their viewers, but the mere fact that Po-Mo and especially abstract expressionism was entirely about alienating the viewer, those of us who consider ourselves contemporary artists begin to understand why most people stare at a piece and say "I don't get it". The problem with a lot of post-moderists works is that there is nothing to get, yet the artist bandies about making claims of experiencing some kind of deity through this piece and so it means so damn much to them and all they want to do is share their experience with -- wait, share? No. If they really wanted to "share their experience" of god with their viewers, they wouldn't have hogged the Peace Pipe.

Some abstract expressionists (Pollack, for instance) made the point, while talking about their work, that there was nothing to get. It's paint on a canvass, I like the way it looks. Pollack's work may have meant more to him than he claimed (although, it may have only been to the extent that it got him lots of free booze and cheap women), but allowing people to see in it what they wanted is something that I really like about Pollack's work. Other AE artists, while their art is not all bad (I do like Kandinsky), took their work far too seriously and those who didn't conform to the auspices of abstract expressionism were ostricised -- something that happens a lot in the art world, believe it or not; those who pluck things from their own brains and are then asked to discuss its meaning with people who have no clue what's going on have a tendancy to get big-headed and exclusionary about this whole business.

Back to Rothko, though. While maintaining that he was not, in fact, an abstract artist (an artist who creates work void of references to the outside world), he essentially described his work the same way an abstractionist would: he sought only to express pure human emotion, but made sure to pompous it up a bit by saying:
"The people who weep before my pictures are having the same religious experience I had when I painted them. And if you, as you say, are moved only by their color relationship, then you miss the point."
In other words, in order to "get" Rothko's work, it has to make you weep. You're not allowed to have your own experience with the work, you have to have his experience with the work in order to understand it. Except, it's impossible for one person to have the same exact experience as another person, so most people just shrug and say "I don't get it", and move on to the wing with all the Thomas Kinkade paintings. (Actually, museums don't have Thomas Kinkade paintings, he has a chain of galleries that are owned wholly by the artist, and while people think they "get" his work, there actually is nothing to get because Kinkade's work is more robotic and soulless than Pollack's because he's been painting the same things in the same way for 20 goddamn years -- at least Pollack died before his work could get old).

When you have the kind of experience with art that a lot of your "normal" non-artistic people have with Modernist and Post-Modern works, it's no wonder a lot of these "normal" non-artistic people shurg off the art world and say "I don't get art". It's unfortunate, because a lot of the artists who supported this exclusionary idea ("if you don't have the experience I want, then you don't get it") made great work and the appreciation of that work is limited because people are told you have to experience something in a particular way with no room for interpretation. Except the thing is, people know what they like. Art does move people. But not everyone is affected in the same way, and expecting them to be is insane and does a great deal of damage to the art world.

Artists simply cannot take themselves that seriously.

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Scluptor remembers first aid training; forgets safety training

So, I did something stupid at work today. I was opening a package (chocolates from See's Candy sent by one of our contractors) and, while holding the box and an exposed box-knife in one hand I used the index finger of the other hand to get to the invoice on the top of the package. Long story short (I'll get to the bit about our broken health care system in a couple of days when I can type again), I now have three stitches in my left index finger and a migraine from the trauma and stress.

My officemates were very helpful, especially the moms in the office who helped me with my first aid, the office manager who found a doctor for me to go to and sat with me in the doctor's office while I waited for my stitches and made the executive decision that the office would pay for the co-pay ($20 for an office visit, rather than $200 I would have paid had I had to go to the ER).

Anyway, my head hurts and it feels like it took me 20 minutes to type this... but it's only been 12.

What a Boone-head

Via AmiericaBlog

Pat Boone says:
I drew a comparison between the violence that killed almost 200 innocent people in Mumbai, perpetrated by jihadists trained to hate and kill indiscriminately, and the turbulent, abusive mob events in our streets and in front of our churches. If you read the column, you'll see that I carefully stated. "Oh, I know the homosexual 'rights' demonstrations haven't reached the same level of violence, but I'm referring to the anger, the vehemence, the total disregard for law and order and the supposed rights of their fellow citizens. I'm referring to the intolerance, the hate seething in the words, faces, and actions of those who didn't get their way in a democratic election, those who proclaim loudly that they will get their way, no matter what the electorate wants!"

My whole point, stated clearly, was that "hate is hate, no matter where it erupts. And by its very nature, if it's not held in check, it will escalate into acts vile, violent and destructive." If I'm wrong about that, show me.
(Emphasis mine.)

Overheard on the Thom Hartmann program

"He's not a white supremacist, he's a white nationalist; he's representing the interests of whites who are still a majority in this country."

-Peter something-or-other, guest on Thom's fight-with-a-right-wing-loon segment
Okay... uh... do white people really need their very own advocacy group? Don't we have a majority-white congress? Hasn't every single president been white (up until this coming January that is)? Don't white people in this country have a history of being in power because in order to make this country whites subverted the power of non-white people? You're really going to try to tell me that continuing to advocate for the straight-white-patriarchal social structure in this country isn't racist? Come on. Wake the fuck up and smell the stench that is all around you. The interests of white people are protected -- our laws have always been written that way. People of color just want to make sure that they are treated equally, and that doesn't hurt white people or denigrate or subvert their interests. Don't fucking cover this shit up by calling it a "rights" group.

Friday, December 12, 2008


Oh yeah, and...

It's a new day.

A breif and accurate analogy

I heard this on the Thom Hartmann program once:

Capitalism is like football. You have rules, refs, and goal posts -- regulations and regulators. The rules make it possible to play the game, and while some rules are stupid most of them provide the structure that enables the team to move toward the goal and win. Sometimes the regulators make a stupid call and a team suffers unjustly (Seahawks...), but most of the time the refs keep the game running smoothly.

Same with capitalism. Essentially, if you take away all the rules, refs, and goal posts, you have a bunch of guys scrambling around on a field beating the crap out of each other and stealing.

For Fuck's Sake Friday: Cartoons aren't people

"But Justice Adams agreed with the magistrate, finding that while The Simpsons characters had hands with four fingers and their faces were "markedly and deliberately different to those of any possible human being", the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people."

The reason child pornography is illegal and people are punished for making/watching/having it is because child pornography actively hurts and victimizes children. Children who are real people. CARTOON CHARACTERS CAN'T BE VICTIMIZED BECAUSE THEY AREN'T PEOPLE.

See Daisy and Ren for more.

Target Women: Jewelry

At my house, there's a standing order for the Schmoogie not to buy me jewelry for any holiday. Sarah Haskins explains why...

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Su Job is dying

This is Su Job.

I had an art history class with Su at Cornish. It was the best art history class ever. I've known for a few days that she is dying (of an unnamed yet entirely pervasive cancer), but it didn't really hit me until this article in the Stranger.
"It's nice to be able to have unrestricted time, and I know that sounds ironic
because I am getting ready to die, but I don't have any commitments. I can blow
off any deadline," she says. "I had a girlfriend who said, 'There's nothing good
about this, it's all a terrible thing.' And I said, 'No, it's not all a terrible
thing. There's got to be something good about it, and you can't take that thing
away from me.' It just doesn't seem right that there would be an experience as
significant as death that would be all bad. That just doesn't make sense to me."

This is what made me weep. She will be celebrated long after any of us is forgotten. She will be celebrated this weekend in Pioneer Square.

I hope her final moments are less painful for her than the ones that follow will be for the Seattle Art Community.

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Oprah done with fat shaming

She's hit 200 lbs!

We all know about Oprah's weight saga. Tabloids have profited off of her shaming her own body into trying to be super-skinny and unhealthy. Today the big story is, however, "she's fallen off the wagon". She's "embarrassed".

Except, she's beautiful. She really is. Not "beautiful for a big woman". Oprah is beautiful. At every weight she's been at, she's been beautiful -- now, she wears pride and confidence much better than the self-shaming giant sweaters of the early 80s, and since she's also the richest single woman on the planet she can afford custom clothing that fits her body stylishly, that doesn't negate the fact that Oprah is beautiful. Oprah is fat. Oprah is beautiful.

She's also done with the fat-shaming.
"Winfrey also writes that her goal is no longer to be thin; instead, she wants to be strong, healthy and fit."
Mine too! OMG! There are a lot of fat women out there, myself included, who can take a cue here. You don't have to be thin to be healthy. You can't change your body type. Try as one might, you're not gonna get any thinner any more than you're gonna get any taller. That's what I've told myself. I've also told myself that as long as I get plenty of cardio and do my yoga (and don't stuff my face constantly with sweets and things that really should only be eaten in moderation), I can be a healthy me.

Oprah has finally learned that too. Good for her. Maybe now American will get over its own thin-obsessed fat shaming.

Go Get Me A Beer (But Don't You Dare Get One For Yourself)

Really Alex Morris? Is your masculinity challenged because a girl can drink more than you?

If we change the pro-nouns and name in the first two paragraphs of this piece of sexist tripe, it's no big thing. Kevin can drink more than anyone; sometimes 24 drinks in 24 hours; he drinks on Sunday cause it's still the weekend and drinks on Monday cause it's not.
"Going out with them meant drinking, usually heavy drinking, which suited Kate’s mind-set at the time. “I felt like I deserved it,” she says. “I realized I can work crazy hours, I can work just like anyone else, so I can party just like anyone else.”"
(Emphasis mine.) She just wanted to fit in. I guess she works with a bunch of alcoholics.
"Not all of my female friends drink like Kate, but most of them do drink—and not just in a glass-of-wine-with-dinner way. Drinking is our go-to activity. Meeting a friend implies going to a bar. Having a meal implies a round of cocktails beforehand. A party implies a serious hangover. Drinking feels like our prerogative—if we want to get blasted at the company Christmas party or nurse a bottle of scotch through the holidays, no one should, or can, stop us."
So, this is a social issue, right? Our culture has come to associate social-ness with drunkenness. You can't be social without a drink in your hand because 21st century America is all about the latest addiction, right? That's what this is about, right? WRONG.
"So while Kate might be an extreme case, she is emblematic of something researchers are noticing: That more women are drinking, yes—more than 48 percent acknowledge having had at least one drink in the past month (up from 42 percent in 1992). But beyond that, the women who drink are drinking more. The number of women who identify as moderate-to-heavy drinkers has risen in the last ten years, while the number of women who say they are light drinkers has declined. At the same time, men are reining in their drinking, meaning that the gender gap of alcohol consumption is narrowing all the time."
Gender gap narrowing? Women engaging in a typically male activity while men engage in it less? A-ha! This is all feminism's fault! No wonder it's only 11:30 and I've got a beer in my hand! Feminism and alcoholism go together like... like... like two things that sound like they'd go really well together!
"For years, research—and conventional wisdom—has told us that in the decades since World War II, everyone was drinking more. The observation that women were contributing disproportionately to this trend was made by Dr. Richard Grucza, an epidemiologist who spends his time in the near-oxymoronic pursuit of thinking about drinking."
Okay stop. Alcoholism has previously been more prevalent in male populations, but it turns out that addiction is not gender discriminating, so women-alcoholics are picking up the pace, if you will, and people are surprised by this? This is called "skewing the numbers", where you twist a piece of information around so that it says what you want it to say: women don't drink more than men, they drink more than they did in the bad old days. Before, women were just addicted to pills, legal heroin that made housework fun!, and cocaine. Well what the hell do you expect people to turn to when you make their drug of choice illegal? Jail? Come on now. These women have families to take care of and jobs to kill themselves doing (not unlike their male counterparts)! They also have a predilection toward substance abuse, not unlike their male counterparts, and are going to feed that somewhere. Why is this a gender equality issue all of a sudden?
"For the bulk of history, women have skewed toward the teetotaler end of the spectrum; not until the middle of the last century did a burgeoning relationship with alcohol coincide with Second Wave feminism and a general impulse to close the gender gap across the board."
Classic logical fallacy: confusing coincidence with causality. Women started doing two things that men didn't like around the same time, ergo one caused the other, that is, women started asserting their independence (again), and as a part of that they started drinking. You see? (It's even worse if the drinking happened and caused the feminism.) They tie in together perfectly... well, except for that part where women don't start really drinking more until 2001, and the fact that it's really mostly the women closest to the dominant paradigm (that is, white, middle class, educated women in white collar jobs that are mostly dominated by men who think that being social and drinking are the same fucking thing). But this is a feminism problem -- not a men-don't-know-how-to-socialize-without-a-beer-in-their-hand problem, not a society-fails-to-differentiate-masculinity-from-alcohol problem. It's because of those goddamn feminists!

Gag me with a Bud Light.

I'll admit it, I go out to bars with my girlfriends. I probably get drunk once or twice a month, and drunk enough to puke once a year (much to the chagrin of my Schmoogie who doesn't think anyone should drink that much). But this isn't because we're feminists (in fact, I'm one of two of my girlfriends who identifies as feminist) and isn't because we want to work like the men do -- it's because our culture has beaten into us that socializing involves drunkenness. When a society is as uptight about people drinking (before a certain age) as ours is, while glamorizing people who (are old enough to) get drunk and pass out in the middle of the street with their dresses over their heads (Paris Hilton), you get a huge fucking problem.

In fact, the uptick in women drinking doesn't have anything to do with feminism at all. It has more to do with social-puritainism that says "if you drink (before a certain age) you're going to destroy your life", while simultaneously running ads of people having lots and lots of skinny sexy fun while never letting go of their drink. Alcohol is as sexualized as women are and yet you have the gal to blame feminism for it's increased consumption by women?! It's sexy to drink this beer and wear this dress -- and then the same people selling this message turn around and call you a slut for drinking that beer and wearing that dress.

Hypocricy much?

This article is too fucking long for me to take it apart piece by piece, but here's the gist of it: feminism and education are responsible for women drinking. This couldn't be more wrong, but it's okay to just sweep the real cause of alcoholism under the rug (that is, alcoholism provides escape to people who want it and escapism is a more socially-acceptable means of dealing with one's problems than facing shit like an adult), and blame it on two things that conservatives don't like in the first place. Perfect. It's not caused by their social-puritainism, or the denial of men (by men) to face their emotions, or (further) the denial of women by a masculating culture of their emotions (something that is also blamed on feminism -- another wtf); it's all because women wanted to "be more like men" so they started getting jobs, going to college, and drinking.

Except, everybody has problems. Even women. Vice does not discriminate on the basis of gender, and just because some faction of Americans want women to be pure angels who never drink, or swear, or masturbate, doesn't mean that women are like that or even should be. I drink, okay? I smoke sometimes. I swear like a motherfucking sailor (my grandad would be proud). I also have tattoos and a vibrator. If I was a man, I would be completely normal and none of these things would be signs of the coming social apocalypse. But, I'm a woman who is supposed to be free of vice and body art (except earrings), so my drinking is somehow a social problem.

No. Not buying it. I'd sooner buy stock in WaMu. Don't pretend to be concerned when you find out that women are drinking more than they used to -- you don't care about women, all you care about is that your societal norms (that alcoholism is for boys) are kept in place. If you really wanted to address the issue of alcoholism and substance abuse, this piece wouldn't be couched in anti-feminist language talking about how big a tradgedy it is that women are drinking more.

Alcoholism is a problem. It destroys families. But, guess what, there are still more men who are alcoholics than there are women. If alcoholism is a gendered problem (and I don't believe it is), it's still a men's problem. Women are more likely to abuse prescription drugs; and of course, if there was a sudden rise in prescription drug abuse in men that would be feminism's fault too. Just ask Rush Limbaugh.

(Title from here.)

Monday, December 8, 2008

RIP Boston Legal

I just finished watching the final, FINAL, last ever series finale of my favorite show Boston Legal.

No spoilers for those who haven't watched it yet, and are going to... but I am very sad that this show is over. I will miss it very much, but I wish the fictional couples all the happiness in the fictional world.

I'm so sad. This is how I felt when I finished reading the Harry Potter series.

Friday, December 5, 2008

Work? What? The office is heading out at 2 to go drink

But in the mean time, check out this article about how cute animals can fucking kill you.

And then someone tell me what smells of cooked brussel sprouts. (And no, haha anti-feminists, it's not my vagina. That smells like a well-done steak -- but, aw you can't have any.)

Wednesday, December 3, 2008

Eternal Moonshine of the Witless Mind (or Female Movie Characters Don't Matter)

Who was overlooked in the '100 Greatest Movie Characters' list?


Yahoo is reporting that their movie experts are disagreeing with the top 25 movie characters of all time, from a list of the 100 greatest movie characters of all time. And while they're upset that characters such as Willie Wonka and Mr. Miyagi weren't included in the top 25, I'm personally curious as to why there's only ONE woman on this ill-fated top 25 list. (There are four on Yahoo's edited list -- wait, three and one honorable mention.)

Why is this? Is it because there aren't really that many notable female characters in movies? Maybe. But what about Bethany from Kevin Smith's Dogma? She was not only a multi-dimensional LEAD character, but she was funny, not impossibly skinny or beautiful (although the actress who plays her is beautiful), nor was she all of 20 years old.

We face this question a lot, and it turns out that there really aren't that many female characters in movies. Those that are present tend to follow along a formula that is dependent on the male lead -- either the love interest, the enemy, the mom, whatever -- and tend to be kind of shallow, one-dimensional figures -- think Neo's girlfriend in the Matrix trilogy; you don't even know her name, do you? (I sure as shit don't.)

So, what the fuck, Hollywood? Women watch movies too -- and not all of us are excited for the next Sex and the City movie. Some of us actually vomited on our friends or spouses when we saw there was a second Bridget Jones movie. Not only do women deserve to be acknowledged by the Movie Industrial Complex, but we deserve to have characters we can relate to. Maybe the gals from Sex and the City are really super great, but the characters in that show/movie represent the only type of female character in movies. Period. The slut. The purity slut. The bitchy one. And Carrie.

Women come in more flavors than upper-middle-class, fashion-and-sex-obsessed, skinny white women! DUH! It should be portrayed that way in movies as well. For god's sake, some of us aren't even skinny!

Then again, Hollywood has always been behind the times in terms of diversity. Blackface? Mexicans and Asians playing "Indians"? Indians playing Iraqis (sorry, I know, I love Naveen Andrews too)? Mainstream films essentially ignoring that there are other ethnicities than "white"; other sexualities than straight; other relationship statuses than married? Woody Allen movies?

This has got to stop. We need more diversity in so-called liberal Hollywood. Actors may be women, gay, non-white, intelligent people who read, but they certainly aren't allowed to act like it. And it's pretty frakking annoying.

(Title from Natalia's list.)

Monday, December 1, 2008

From the makers of Nypraxxor

Enlargen is a twice-hourly drug used for bonerification. You should consult your doctor before taking Enlargen as certain conditions such as heart beat and certain thyroid diseases may cause severe reactions to Enlargen.

If you experience nausea, vomiting, vertigo, eye pain, blood in your stool, fainting, or an election lasting longer than 24 hours, please consult your doctor or governmental representatives.

If you begin a twice-hourly regimen of Enlargen, do not stop it suddenly as severe headaches, muscle spasms, and an inability to process visual stimuli may occur.

Women who are pregnant or nursing should not take or handle Enlargen because they do not have penises and there is a slight chance of serious birth defects or illness.

Despicable tabloid of the day

The Sun. (Via the F-word, UK.)

Now, I admit I don't know a lot about prostitution aside from what I read on the internets (but I mostly read sex worker rights advocate blogs), but I'm pretty sure that these women don't deserve to be harassed and shamed by the police who arrested them, and then have their identities plastered all over the internet by a tabloid from another country. (The "street-walkers" were arrested in Tennessee, the tabloid is based in the UK.)

Shame on the Sun. This is low even for a rag like that.

Dear Secretary Clinton,

I'm so proud and glad that you have accepted President-Elect Obama's nomination to be the next Secretary of State. I know that your status on the world stage as well as your experience in government are the chief reasons you were nominated, but I'm also glad that President-Elect Obama nominated a woman, specifically you, for this position. There are few people who are more qualified.

Since you will now be heading up the foreign policy arm of the new Obama administration, however, I have a few requests. Well, one really: make women's rights around the world a top priority. I know that I don't have to tell you about the injustices experienced by women in all parts of the world -- women in Iran are not allowed the opportunity or means to get out of abusive marriages; women in Saudi Arabia are not allowed out of their homes unescorted by a man; women in various parts of Africa are still subject to forced female genital mutilation; rape rates around the world are appauling, as well as forced abortions in China, Southeast Asia and elsewhere. Sex trafficking is appauling the world over, especially in East and Southeast Asia and many former Soviet States.

A woman of your skill and prowess has the ability, nay the duty, to demand these atrocities (at the very least) be addressed. Because we all know, but for our privileged birth, we could have been thrust into those same conditions through no fault or will of our own. I know you care deeply about these things, as I do, as many feminists (and non-feminists) do, so this must be something that you champion as Secretary of State. I know that President-Elect Obama will support this, as he realizes that but for his own privileged birth his daughters could be forced into the same circumstances.

I certainly hope you have the opportunity to, for example, discuss women's rights with the heads of Iran when you go to talk to them about their aggression toward the United States. And I look forward to cheering you on as you do so.