So I was reading a blog called I Blame the Patriarchy because I'm a psychological masochist. If you're unfamiliar with this particular blog, it's basically written and frequented by the types of people who believe that no man exists who doesn't wish to oppress women. The kind of people that rational feminists have to distance themselves from at the start of every conversation like environmentalists have to distance themselves from Sheryl Crow. It's a perfect blog if you're a fucking succubus.
And it reminded me of a movie I saw (read: was forced to watch) called Killing us Softly. I believe there are three versions, one from the seventies, one from the eighties, and one from the nineties. I watched the 1987 version.
This movie, while nowhere near as aneurysm-inducing as I Blame the Patriarchy, was still slightly on the annoying side. It's about women in advertising and how they're objectified and whatnot. Women in the media, you know. Now, the implication being that the stigma associated with being a fat woman has no parallel in the male universe.
Which is simply not true. Studies show that a woman who lists herself as overweight on sites like match.com have roughly the same chance of getting a response as a man who lists his height as shorter than average. (Freakonomics Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, chapter 2, page 82 hardbound version).
As a matter of fact, I'd say that being a short man would be harder:
1) It's far easier to fix being fat than being short. Yes, you might have some sort of condition to make you fat. That's very unfortunate, but the fact is that for many people, fat is possible to get rid of. I went vegetarian and lost 10 pounds.
Most importantly, fat women always have people to stick up for them. No movie has EVER been made about how short men have been reduced to subhuman levels, and yet there were at least three made for fat women. There has NEVER been an industry for minus-height male modeling. There has NEVER been a Dove ad for short men. NO ONE has ever made slogans like "short is beautiful"! Men sometimes say "I like a woman with meat on her bones". No such term exists for short men. I have heard ONE person throughout the entire history of my existence stick up for short men, and I've heard way more people stick up for bigger women.
I will give you two lesser-known examples of mocked short men: Dennis Kucinich and Frank Iero.
Dennis Kucinich is a very liberal Democratic candidate for President and Frank Iero is the shortest member of My Chemical Romance, the one who neither resembles Carrot Top nor wears makeup to make him look like he has AIDS.
Dennis Kucinich was mocked by both Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert (for the record, Stewart and Colbert are 5'6" and 5'11", respectively) as being short. He's a frequent target of this, actually. Jon Stewart, however, couldn't remark on Kucinich without making a comment about his own height.
One of my friends has a crush on Frank Iero (who's pretty hot without the ridiculous emo makeup, I must say), and my other friend (who, herself, is 5'1") said, and I quote, "he's like a mini version of a real man". But, of course, she's a girl so she gets to say that shit. Women complain about fat men who say "no fat chicks", and yet I hear that other shit all the damn time.
Am I saying it doesn't suck for fat women? No. It totally sucks to be a fat woman in today's society. But, seriously, stop acting like you're alone.
As for I Blame the Patriarchy, it's so goddamn stupid that one post might require its very own dissections. Let's put it this way: She believes that the public school system should be abolished and every child should be homeschooled. (She said it here). Ah, yes, homeschooling. Which is what they did in the wonderful, egalitarian, utopian 19th century. Do you realize how hard it would be to make sure that everyone got a quality education? Yeah, people aren't getting a quality education now, but homeschooling can turn into something intellectually stimulating, or it could turn into parents being too lazy to teach their child how to read.
God-damn.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Tom Tancredo thinks Miami is Third World.
I shit you not. Tom Tancredo Thinks Miami is Third World.
Newsflash, Tancredo: Just because a city has a lot of Cubans in it doesn't make it third world. I know you're all anti-immigration, but immigrants=/= third world. Uh, neither does cocaine.
But my real beef with Tancredo is that his last name is so much better than mine. Say it with me: "Tancredo". It rolls off the tongue and yet it sounds so badass. I'm jealous.
I don't even know why I'm mentioning this, seeing as how nobody's going to vote for Tancredo anyway.
Speaking of conservatives, WTF is with Dennis Miller. "If I were younger I'd vote for Obama. But I'm a crotchety old man who's going to vote for Giuliani."
ATTENTION, DENNIS MILLER: PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES ARE NOT THE SAME AS A RISQUÉ TEE-SHIRT.
And he didn't even sound like he was saying, "If I had my younger self's political ideals..." No. Just that Obama is some sort of "hip" candidate (to be fair, Obama did put his own downloadable ringtones on his website. WUDAFUXUP with that?)
According to Wikipedia, the end-all be-all source of factual information, John Edwards also says that he's "not ready" to support gay marriage.
ATTENTION, EDWARDS: YOU ARE OVER FIFTY YEARS OLD. THERE IS ONE THING IN THE WORLD YOU ARE NOT READY FOR, AND THAT'S MEDICARE. IF YOU'RE NOT READY TO SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE NOW, YOU NEVER WILL BE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, JUST ADMIT TO EVERYONE THAT YOU DO NOT SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE.
Seriously. What on Earth could you possibly be waiting for? Is this like some sort of policy-abstinence thing? "I promised myself that I'd only lose my stance-virginity after my Sweet 55." What, oh, what, will get you ready? I assure you, unless you find some sort of Kissinger for the 21st century, you will not get any more exposure to homosexuality and supporting viewpoints thereof in the white house. WHAT WILL GET YOU READY?
The answer, of course, is nothing. Here's my theory: John Edwards doesn't support gay marriage and probably never will. It's just that the majority of the people who would vote for him do support gay marriage, so he's just going to act like he's on their side without technically having to legalize gay marriage. We have a word for that where I come from: LYING.
And while we're on the subject of liberal presidential candidates, let's leave Al Gore alone. If he doesn't want to run, then by God he won't have to. If I were him, I wouldn't want to go through the election hell again after what happened in 2000. And, as was said on the wonderful Daily Show, people are going on and on about how Al Gore must be running for President because he's losing weight.
EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO'S EVER TRIED TO LOSE WEIGHT LATER RAN FOR OFFICE LOLZ. You know that show The Biggest Loser? Yeah, they all ran for president afterwards. It was in the contract.
As a matter of fact, I recently lost some weight, and this is because I plan to run for president in the Whig party. I'm going to bring back such important issues as the gold standard (LOL RON PAUL), reducing emissions from horses and oxen, the ethics of slavery, giving women the right to leave a burning building without her husband's permission, prohibition, and closing America's border to Italy.
Damn. Random mini-rants over.
Newsflash, Tancredo: Just because a city has a lot of Cubans in it doesn't make it third world. I know you're all anti-immigration, but immigrants=/= third world. Uh, neither does cocaine.
But my real beef with Tancredo is that his last name is so much better than mine. Say it with me: "Tancredo". It rolls off the tongue and yet it sounds so badass. I'm jealous.
I don't even know why I'm mentioning this, seeing as how nobody's going to vote for Tancredo anyway.
Speaking of conservatives, WTF is with Dennis Miller. "If I were younger I'd vote for Obama. But I'm a crotchety old man who's going to vote for Giuliani."
ATTENTION, DENNIS MILLER: PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES ARE NOT THE SAME AS A RISQUÉ TEE-SHIRT.
And he didn't even sound like he was saying, "If I had my younger self's political ideals..." No. Just that Obama is some sort of "hip" candidate (to be fair, Obama did put his own downloadable ringtones on his website. WUDAFUXUP with that?)
According to Wikipedia, the end-all be-all source of factual information, John Edwards also says that he's "not ready" to support gay marriage.
ATTENTION, EDWARDS: YOU ARE OVER FIFTY YEARS OLD. THERE IS ONE THING IN THE WORLD YOU ARE NOT READY FOR, AND THAT'S MEDICARE. IF YOU'RE NOT READY TO SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE NOW, YOU NEVER WILL BE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, JUST ADMIT TO EVERYONE THAT YOU DO NOT SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE.
Seriously. What on Earth could you possibly be waiting for? Is this like some sort of policy-abstinence thing? "I promised myself that I'd only lose my stance-virginity after my Sweet 55." What, oh, what, will get you ready? I assure you, unless you find some sort of Kissinger for the 21st century, you will not get any more exposure to homosexuality and supporting viewpoints thereof in the white house. WHAT WILL GET YOU READY?
The answer, of course, is nothing. Here's my theory: John Edwards doesn't support gay marriage and probably never will. It's just that the majority of the people who would vote for him do support gay marriage, so he's just going to act like he's on their side without technically having to legalize gay marriage. We have a word for that where I come from: LYING.
And while we're on the subject of liberal presidential candidates, let's leave Al Gore alone. If he doesn't want to run, then by God he won't have to. If I were him, I wouldn't want to go through the election hell again after what happened in 2000. And, as was said on the wonderful Daily Show, people are going on and on about how Al Gore must be running for President because he's losing weight.
EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO'S EVER TRIED TO LOSE WEIGHT LATER RAN FOR OFFICE LOLZ. You know that show The Biggest Loser? Yeah, they all ran for president afterwards. It was in the contract.
As a matter of fact, I recently lost some weight, and this is because I plan to run for president in the Whig party. I'm going to bring back such important issues as the gold standard (LOL RON PAUL), reducing emissions from horses and oxen, the ethics of slavery, giving women the right to leave a burning building without her husband's permission, prohibition, and closing America's border to Italy.
Damn. Random mini-rants over.
Friday, June 15, 2007
I am a hypocrite
This is a personal entry, rather than a political one. If that kind of thing bores you, skip it.
Anyway, I reread the entry I wrote about bombs and id, and I realized that I'm a hypocrite.
You see, this is how I make friends:
I meet someone who takes a shine to me. We get close, and they eventually start to like me, usually because they think I'm smart or funny. For a while, it goes great.
Then, after a few months, they see my true colors. And my true colors aren't pretty colors like "burnt orange" or "sea mist blue". No, my true colors would be along the lines of puke green and LA air gray. Let me explain.
After a few months of repeated contact with a new friend, I will usually end up abusing them somehow. If it is at all possible, I will beat them up. If I don't meet up with them that frequently, I will abuse them emotionally. You see, I can figure out the workings of people's minds pretty quickly, and, after a few months of knowing someone, I will know what their weaknesses are. And after a few months, I will attack those weaknesses to the point where my friend is on the defensive and scared shitless of me.
But in no later than a week, I will inevitably be forgiven. Because they're scared of me. And it will keep happening every few weeks or so after that. Just like that.
I hate hurting things. I hate hurting anything of any kind. But when my rage takes over, I become this fucking sociopath. And I hate the fact that the only reason anyone who really knows me tolerates me is because they're scared. I don't want to sentence these people to a fear of me. I know what it's like when you fear someone too much to let them out of your life, and I know it's not pretty. I don't want to give anyone that, but I can't stop. It just spirals out of control. And I try to stop myself, but it's like I have an evil personality that takes over and I willingly hurt so many people and I want it to stop. I don't want to harm them anymore.
Anyway, I reread the entry I wrote about bombs and id, and I realized that I'm a hypocrite.
You see, this is how I make friends:
I meet someone who takes a shine to me. We get close, and they eventually start to like me, usually because they think I'm smart or funny. For a while, it goes great.
Then, after a few months, they see my true colors. And my true colors aren't pretty colors like "burnt orange" or "sea mist blue". No, my true colors would be along the lines of puke green and LA air gray. Let me explain.
After a few months of repeated contact with a new friend, I will usually end up abusing them somehow. If it is at all possible, I will beat them up. If I don't meet up with them that frequently, I will abuse them emotionally. You see, I can figure out the workings of people's minds pretty quickly, and, after a few months of knowing someone, I will know what their weaknesses are. And after a few months, I will attack those weaknesses to the point where my friend is on the defensive and scared shitless of me.
But in no later than a week, I will inevitably be forgiven. Because they're scared of me. And it will keep happening every few weeks or so after that. Just like that.
I hate hurting things. I hate hurting anything of any kind. But when my rage takes over, I become this fucking sociopath. And I hate the fact that the only reason anyone who really knows me tolerates me is because they're scared. I don't want to sentence these people to a fear of me. I know what it's like when you fear someone too much to let them out of your life, and I know it's not pretty. I don't want to give anyone that, but I can't stop. It just spirals out of control. And I try to stop myself, but it's like I have an evil personality that takes over and I willingly hurt so many people and I want it to stop. I don't want to harm them anymore.
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Bombs and Id
So today I was sitting outside a grocery store, reading a so far fascinating book about dying languages, when a man and a woman in their late-fifties come out of the store. The man and woman were having a conversation with each other, and it seemed like they hadn't known each other before today. Now, I don't know what their conversation was about, but I heard the man say, "You know what it is? Technology has changed, but we, as humans, haven't."
And that was very true, and it got me thinking. I was remembering a similar sentiment expressed in An Inconvenient Truth.
I thought for a while about primitive man and animals. I have a general idea of what humans were like then: they killed when threatened, rivaled, or when they needed to survive (a more modern example would be the Donner Party). But, of course, while they did have tools, the tools required some energy be exerted into them (which would prevent people from killing willy-nilly), and it would be very hard to kill even ten people at the same time with these tools. I imagined a caveman being attacked by another caveman, so the first caveman killed the second.
This is sort of like a pre-emptive strike on a much smaller scale. And then I got to thinking that war is sort of like cavemen. Like the Montagues and Capulets, Jets and Sharks, Maury Povich and Jerry Springer, only with bombs. Smart bombs to get one precise person from a distance, nuclear bombs for absolute destruction, chlorine bombs for blinding people, all kinds of bombs.
If we're going to develop the technology to wipe out entire cities, we need to change our attitudes. We can't kill people just because we feel threatened anymore. Cavemen killing one another, they acted on impulse. When something is flying fast at, say, your eye, it's a reflex to guard your eye. But entire nations with machine guns and bombs can't act on impulse.
Freud separated the thoughts into id, ego, and superego. Id is base instinct, one shared by pretty much all animals, from humans to ants to elephants. Superego is thoughts, intellect, etc. Ego is sort of the middle ground between the two. And you can't make decisions, decisions that can destroy the lives of millions of people, based on id. People are made leaders because it is assumed that they will make decisions based on something higher than animal instinct. We've got intelligence, let's use it.
And that was very true, and it got me thinking. I was remembering a similar sentiment expressed in An Inconvenient Truth.
I thought for a while about primitive man and animals. I have a general idea of what humans were like then: they killed when threatened, rivaled, or when they needed to survive (a more modern example would be the Donner Party). But, of course, while they did have tools, the tools required some energy be exerted into them (which would prevent people from killing willy-nilly), and it would be very hard to kill even ten people at the same time with these tools. I imagined a caveman being attacked by another caveman, so the first caveman killed the second.
This is sort of like a pre-emptive strike on a much smaller scale. And then I got to thinking that war is sort of like cavemen. Like the Montagues and Capulets, Jets and Sharks, Maury Povich and Jerry Springer, only with bombs. Smart bombs to get one precise person from a distance, nuclear bombs for absolute destruction, chlorine bombs for blinding people, all kinds of bombs.
If we're going to develop the technology to wipe out entire cities, we need to change our attitudes. We can't kill people just because we feel threatened anymore. Cavemen killing one another, they acted on impulse. When something is flying fast at, say, your eye, it's a reflex to guard your eye. But entire nations with machine guns and bombs can't act on impulse.
Freud separated the thoughts into id, ego, and superego. Id is base instinct, one shared by pretty much all animals, from humans to ants to elephants. Superego is thoughts, intellect, etc. Ego is sort of the middle ground between the two. And you can't make decisions, decisions that can destroy the lives of millions of people, based on id. People are made leaders because it is assumed that they will make decisions based on something higher than animal instinct. We've got intelligence, let's use it.
Friday, June 8, 2007
On Plastic Surgery
WARNING: INCOHERENT RAGE AHEAD
You know what I've heard a lot lately? People saying things like, "Plastic surgery is for shallow people" and "you should be happy with the way you are".
Now, maybe it's just because this issue affects me directly, but if you think that, I would like to invite you to jump in front of a train and do the gene pool a favor. For, you see, if you hold these beliefs, you are:
Stupidly idealistic and naive
Self-righteous
Selfish
Judgmental
Stupid
Callous
An asshole.
NO EXCEPTIONS. There has never been, and will never be, an exception to this rule. I don't care who you are. Try to tell me you're different and you're lying, because everyone who believes this is exactly the same. This is not a generalization, this is not a rule of thumb, this is the absolute truth.
See, here's what I don't think certain people understand: Not everyone is normal.
I know, that's shocking, isn't it? Not everyone gets to be judged as an equal by society. Not everyone in the entire universe gets the privilege of looking in the mirror and being able to be at least moderately satisfied. Some people out there are considered freaks, you know.
There are a lot of these people out there. And now you're trying to say that they shouldn't be allowed to function normally and be not ostracized because you think that they should be happy with themselves? You're saying that they shouldn't be able to save themselves from depression because you think it's "shallow"? Fuck you.
And then there are people who support reconstructive surgery but not cosmetic surgery are even worse, because they think they're so damn smart. "I wouldn't support it if it were just some girl who thinks her titties would look great bigger, but if someone was a burn victim, sure". That's an easy position to take. I have a question: what about the virtually-fuckin'-infinite gray area between those two? Life isn't all easy questions and happy dilemmas that show you the clear path for the right thing to do.
So the burn victim and the girl with the itty-bitty titties are both after the same thing: they want to look better, and, thus, not feel like shit. Why not? Why can't this girl find a way to not feel like shit?
Hey, what were those things that this country was founded on the right to have? Those things in the Declaration of Independence...what were those? Oh, yeah, I remember, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Plastic surgery would definitely fall under the heading of "pursuit of happiness", because it's happiness with the way one looks. Or did I miss something? Did it actually say "pursuit of happiness only if it doesn't have anything to do with anything society finds unappealing?" Or is "pursuit of happiness" Farsi for "right to go around imposing rose-tinted idealism on others"?
Please forgive my bias on the subject, it's just that people like the above mentioned leave a badness on my brainmeats. It's a personal issue.
You know what I've heard a lot lately? People saying things like, "Plastic surgery is for shallow people" and "you should be happy with the way you are".
Now, maybe it's just because this issue affects me directly, but if you think that, I would like to invite you to jump in front of a train and do the gene pool a favor. For, you see, if you hold these beliefs, you are:
Stupidly idealistic and naive
Self-righteous
Selfish
Judgmental
Stupid
Callous
An asshole.
NO EXCEPTIONS. There has never been, and will never be, an exception to this rule. I don't care who you are. Try to tell me you're different and you're lying, because everyone who believes this is exactly the same. This is not a generalization, this is not a rule of thumb, this is the absolute truth.
See, here's what I don't think certain people understand: Not everyone is normal.
I know, that's shocking, isn't it? Not everyone gets to be judged as an equal by society. Not everyone in the entire universe gets the privilege of looking in the mirror and being able to be at least moderately satisfied. Some people out there are considered freaks, you know.
There are a lot of these people out there. And now you're trying to say that they shouldn't be allowed to function normally and be not ostracized because you think that they should be happy with themselves? You're saying that they shouldn't be able to save themselves from depression because you think it's "shallow"? Fuck you.
And then there are people who support reconstructive surgery but not cosmetic surgery are even worse, because they think they're so damn smart. "I wouldn't support it if it were just some girl who thinks her titties would look great bigger, but if someone was a burn victim, sure". That's an easy position to take. I have a question: what about the virtually-fuckin'-infinite gray area between those two? Life isn't all easy questions and happy dilemmas that show you the clear path for the right thing to do.
So the burn victim and the girl with the itty-bitty titties are both after the same thing: they want to look better, and, thus, not feel like shit. Why not? Why can't this girl find a way to not feel like shit?
Hey, what were those things that this country was founded on the right to have? Those things in the Declaration of Independence...what were those? Oh, yeah, I remember, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Plastic surgery would definitely fall under the heading of "pursuit of happiness", because it's happiness with the way one looks. Or did I miss something? Did it actually say "pursuit of happiness only if it doesn't have anything to do with anything society finds unappealing?" Or is "pursuit of happiness" Farsi for "right to go around imposing rose-tinted idealism on others"?
Please forgive my bias on the subject, it's just that people like the above mentioned leave a badness on my brainmeats. It's a personal issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)