a much needed update

Posted on 4:57 AM, under , ,

0
Shortly after finishing my last post, my body did something only my body would be able and willing to do: turn my Partner's cold into a full-fledged tonsillitus and pinkeye for me.

So I pretty much had to finish two essays and a research project proposal with my shiny ovary in one hand, and my bottle of 500mg-a-pill paracetamol. Fuck you, immune system.

Since the last post, I faced not drinking or travelling on St. Paddy's, physical and mental illness, leaking green goo out of my eyes and mouth, and distressing news. Oh and that thing called coursework. Yeah, real life kept me away from the computer for a while.

I'm not one to discuss private matters on the net (because who the fuck cares anyway?), but right now life looks good. Traded in my ovary and pills for a cup of my Fancy Tea (thaaaank youuu, sweetie!) and bits of a dark-chocolate Easter egg.

And since my main worry for the next two weeks is not letting bellybutton lint accumulate, I will now think and prepare the next post. This blog also needs, rather sorely, some new links and tweaks.

edit post

privilege: not only for males. (or: father's rights, part 1.)

Posted on 1:50 PM, under ,

0
I have a big, big, big issue with what pseudofeminists call male privilege. See, it goes like this: if you're male, Caucasian, middle-class or higher, you're privileged; if not, you can go join the pity parties at the echo rooms.

We often hear phrases like deadbeat dad and single mom - the first, obviously a target of scorn and the second, a pinnacle of female martyrdom.

We often hear about how women are oppressed and her duties limited to housework and child-rearing, and the wife that complains about how little her husband contributes to the household. A man cannot be a house-husband, or the sole breadwinner, and do enough. A woman cannot be a house-wife, or the sole breadwinner, without doing too much.

And it goes on and on like this, folks. But what about - amongst many other things - family law? It often takes a woman claiming abuse to make things like this happen.

I have heard many cases, from many good and hard-working men, who happen to fit the description for "privilege", that were up to their necks in child support and alimony payments. Who had not seen their children in several months or even worse, years. Fathers involved as much as they could, even if that was limited to the monthly checks and the rare phone call - if the ex so allowed.

Some of these men, in their time, were wrongly accused of sexually abusing their children. The ex-partners would convince their children to tell disgusting, false stories just to get the divorce, get the custody, and have the man out of their lives.

A man can cheat, but it doesn't make him a bad father. Unless there is an actual potential he could harm said child, there is no sensible reason why he should be cut off from his child's life.

A phrase that sums up what I'm trying to say can be found here:

Parental alienation is child abuse. The sole custody model is first stage parental alienation. Ipso facto, the sole custody model is child abuse.

The idea outrages me, demanding an ex-partner pay for the children he or she is not allowed to see.

If today's feminism was truly for an egalitarian society, this things would not be happening. How can you blame the patriarchy, if most of the times a man isn't even given the chance to be a father?

**

Attention, 2 Readers!: I have two essays due, 5000 words total, for this Wednesday. As it falls on St. Patrick's Day, aka Day I Use My Racial and Cultural Heritage to Get Faced, I will not post before then. To be safe, let me say: see you the 21st of March!

edit post

random thoughts, part 2

Posted on 12:33 PM, under , , , , , ,

0
  • On March 22, 2010: season 2 of United States of Tara starts. And, Holy Hell I cannot wait.

  • On the Oscars: I have no idea, I didn't watch them.

  • On what I'm currently reading: The God Delusion. No, sweetie, I have not finished it.

  • On the next posts: I'm planning on writing about men's rights and why men aren't as privileged as some would love you to think.

  • On infrequency of posts, starting tomorrow: not that anyone cares, other than my two readers (... is it sad that I wish I could say "hi, mum!"?). But seeing as my research-dissertation-wagamamathingie has me on a chokehold, I'll keep posting to a minimum for the next couple of weeks.

edit post

on language: AH FOR CRYING OUT LOUD. FREAKING JESUS CHRIST ON A FREAKING POGO STICK.

Posted on 6:00 PM, under , ,

1
Into my many forays in the Internet, I stumbled into this little gem.

person 1: Maybe hate isn’t the right word for this particular billboard. How about “Billboard of Crazy”?

person 2: I beg your pardon, those of us with actual mental illness don’t appreciate being used as everyone’s metaphor for violent irrationality.

I am surprised that stupid people's use of the Internet has not given me a stupidity-induced aneurysm yet. But let's dissect this, shall we?

My friend Merriam-Webster has this to say about the meaning of crazy:

1 a : full of cracks or flaws 2 a : mad, insane
b (1) : impractical (2) : erratic
 c : being out of the ordinary : unusual 3 a : distracted with desire or excitement
b : absurdly fond : infatuated
c : passionately preoccupied : obsessed


Saying something is crazy doesn't, as you can see, automatically mean it's a synonym for mentally ill. It might not even be meant as something offensive. Likewise for ableist words like lame, idiot, insane, and ... seriously, it's going to come to a point where even walking and brain are going to become ableist words. Freaking pearl-clutchers.


Why be so knickers-in-a-bunch about language? Words are as offensive as the person that says them means them to be. Calling a kid retarded could very well mean acknowledging said kid's profound mental retardation, without the intention to insult. And calling that board crazy could very well mean calling it impractical, as opposite to comparing it to bipolar disorder or schizophrenia. It could be very, very far away from meaning to insult people with mental illnesses.


You'd be surprised by the amount of mentally ill people that do not give a crap when something's called crazy or insane. Just like many LGBTA aren't offended by fag, queer, homo, dyke, and the like. With chants like "we're queer, we're here", and movements like "mad pride", it's surprising to stumble into posts like the one above, or comments like this:


LAME? Cringe. Oh, my. I couldn't possibly let that one slide.


I've called cigarettes fags for as long as I can remember. And not once, not one single fucking time, have I been scolded by my gay friends. Because they're the sort that would rather campaign to have equal rights regarding marriage and adoption, that bitch about how much calling a cigarette a fag hurts them.


Social-justiceists, pick your fight: you can fight how people speak, or you can try and open people's minds and maybe change the way they think and thus make an actual difference. What's it going to be?


edit post

Roman Polanski is a sex offender. makes kickass movies, also.

Posted on 4:27 PM, under ,

0
This last weekend, Partner and I went to see a film. I will spare you the talk about just how boring watching the film was, or how I believe a relationship is officially in a Rut when your dates are mostly made up of televised images and meals.

I digress. Let's get to the point.

After watching the trailer for upcoming The Ghost Writer, I whispered to him "Roman Polanski? I am not going to watch that film. He's a sex offender." And really, I was feeling pretty smug and proud of myself for saying that.

Then I seriously gave it some thought. I remembered how I've always held up that there are many facets to everyone's personalities. How closely they're intertwined, or if they influence one another, depends greatly on the person.

Then, I had the most horrifying thought of my week: am I becoming a pearl-clutching Shaker!? And I slapped myself. Really hard.

Roman Polanski is a sex offender - but Bitter Moon and The Pianist are seriously kick-ass films. He also survived the Holocaust and the murder of his wife. He's also many things not everyone knows, because not everyone knows the guy. Are all these things affecting one another? Maybe, perhaps not.

If we start shunning off everyone by one part of who they are we're going to run out of people we like - Hell, people we stand - pretty fast. Vague examples would be ... say: you know this person and he's a kickass painter, but he also has a drug habit or is an alcoholic. Does it automatically nil his talent? Does it automatically nil the fact that you might like the art?

I am not saying what Polanski did can be excused or forgiven; nor should he not pay for what he did. He has to pay, and he has to redeem himself.

To be frank, as much as I dislike the guy for what he did to Samantha Geimer, it has nothing to do with the fact that he makes great films I enjoy. And the fact that I enjoy his films has nothing to do with my wanting him to pay for what he did to Samantha Geimer.

edit post

this just in: sex with someone coerced into prostitution illegal ... in the future.

Posted on 7:05 AM, under ,

0
While bit-torrenting, I noticed an interesting add (and no, I'm not talking about the 1 Rule to a Flat Stomach add). It led me to this site.

On 1 April 2010, it will become an offence to pay for sex with someone who has been forced, threatened, exploited or otherwise coerced or deceived into providing the sexual services by someone else, who has engaged in such conduct for gain. If convicted of the offence you could face a fine of up to £1,000, a court summons and a criminal record, and risk having your name mentioned in newspapers. It will be no defence for a person to say that they did not know the prostitute was being forced or threatened.
Shaming, seriously? Scarlet Letter much?

The key objectives of the strategy are to:

  • challenge the view that street prostitution is inevitable and here to stay
  • achieve an overall reduction in street prostitution
  • improve the safety and quality of life of those communities affected by prostitution
  • reduce all forms of commercial sexual exploitation

    (Source)
I would say prostitution, in any form, is inevitable and here to stay. Whatever the form.

But many street-walkers are exploited, and the relation of coerced prostitution and drug abuse and traffic is there. So by tackling the demand, I'd say yes, we can tackle one side of the problem.

What this fails to address is the safety and quality of life of the women it seeks to protect. A truly comprehensive programme would also include job alternatives for them, training, counseling. Access to shelters and day care, maybe. Or, simply, access to the alternatives other women have. Think about it.

You've cracked down on every pimp and drug dealer and thus "freed" these women. These women, that at the very least, had a roof over their heads while they were being pimped. I am fully aware that being forced into prostitution is nothing short of being a slave. But what would happen to a woman after her only way of earning a living is taken from them? If she knows nothing else, she will continue doing what she did. And there you go: you still have street-walkers.

In short: targeting the well-being of exploited women will be what reduces exploitation, combined with more stringent laws regarding coerced prostitution, abuse, and drug trafficking.

As many doubts as I might have about it, I don't want to miss the core: this is a step towards helping reduce coerced prostitution. Big or little, we won't know until the law comes into effect and results are presented. That's going to take a while, of course.

But what baffles me the most, however: why is this law coming into effect just now?

edit post

random thoughts, part 1

Posted on 7:33 AM, under , , , , , ,

0
  • On Twitter: seriously, if you use it to log every thing that happens in your life (and by every thing, I mean every-single-freaking thing)? Um, I'll assume you haven't left your room for like, a week. And that's kinda not good and certainly not positive in my Book.

  • On Desperate Housewives: for a long time, I thought, "hey, this needs a bit more lesbians". What surprised me, in the most pleasant way: Katherine's storyline.
    I've always believed sexuality is something more fluid than we dare to believe. So to see a woman in her middle-late fourties/early fifties having such a radical change in her sexuality and facing coming out ... a bit different than your usual storyline, don't you think?

  • On safe spaces, and discussion in said spaces: they cancel each other out, period. If you want a smart, well-rounded discussion, you have to look at both sides of the coin. And chances are, feathers will be ruffled and emotions triggered. So any "discussion" that takes place in a "safe space": pity-party or echo-room. Your call. But a discussion, it ain't.

  • On blogging: currently planning a post about the Roman Polanski sexual abuse case. Possibly discussing disablism/disabled activism in the near future.

  • On Conniving and Sinister: and also, this is valid for most sitcoms - if you have to include a laugh track, it's not as funny as you think.

edit post

prostitutes: we have our own voice. kindly shut the fuck up, thank you.

Posted on 10:24 PM, under

0

Confession 1: for almost five years, I worked as a call girl. True story. (And it was legen ... DARY.)*
Confession 2, and a Nice Little Story:

I didn't have the slightest idea of who Belle de Jour was until one of my Nights of Endless Channel-Surfing and I came across re-runs of Secret Diary of a Call Girl. After initially dismissing it as a very fictionalised version of what being a call girl is really about, I gave the blog a chance.

Fast-forward to today and after having read all of Belle's blog posts, I am enamoured with this witty, intelligent, sassy, educated woman that went into a very stigmatised job and came out if it (as far as I know) relatively unscathed.

I recently read this post by Tracy Corrigan. My siding with Belle is, surprisingly, not related to my being a fan. It’s more about Tracy Corrigan being ... well, I’ll let you judge for yourselves:

It is possible that Belle has emerged from her experiences without incurring psychological or physical damage. But it’s no excuse for projecting prostitution as a rather fun, pragmatic passtime for smart girls.

(...) I recently heard a former prostitute explain on the radio that many prostitutes are drug addicts not only because they work to finance their habits, but also because they need to medicate themselves in order to be able to ply their trade.

My problem with Belle is not so much that she chose to turn to prostitution, just because she didn’t want to do a job that was boring and poorly paid, but that she then chose to promote it as a cool career option.

Here’s some shocking news for most of you: there are many women, intelligent and educated, working in the Sex Industry. Willingly. And come out “without incurring psychological or physical damage”.

What’s up with how we look at sex work, overall? Somehow, for some reason I don’t understand at all, the sex worker is normally a plastic-looking vixen or Casanova that’s actually a broken and post-abuse child from a broken home inside. And in most cases, they’re nursing a drug habit “because they need to medicate themselves in order to be able to ply their trade.”.

Here’s the kicker: if we switch our point of view, if we stop for a minute to think a very normal person could willingly go into sex work and keep its personal integrity mostly intact? It’s glamorising prostitution, and that my dears won’t fly with most.

As Belle has done in the past, I would never say that prostitution is “a cool career option”. More often than not, you come home exhausted, angry, and sad. Don’t even get me started on the fictional demons it can bring into your dating life, the stigma being a sex worker carries, and the potential dangers and hardships of having your work personna discovered by friends and family.

I will also say that, hard as it might have been at times, it has provided me with many stories – some hilarious, some cringe-worthy, some ladden with advice. From the other side of sex-work, I can say I went into it and came out of it relatively unscathed. Maybe slightly bruised, never broken, and loads wiser. Still, I wouldn’t reccomend sex work ... like I wouldn’t reccomend going into med school, or Political Science, or a career as a stokebroker.

I have a bit of advice for Tracy Corrigan: please stick to writing about business and finance, which is clearly your area of expertise. And let us, the sex workers, write about prostitution.

*Inside joke between Partner and I, who was present at the time of writing and publishing this post. Also, proof that I cannot take anything seriously.


edit post

yes, "Let's Move" is meant to discriminate all of you, fatties.

Posted on 11:42 PM, under , ,

3
Disclaimer: this post has nothing to do with my being totes gay for Michelle Obama. Really, I'm being objective here.
Disclaimer's disclaimer: I am, for all intents and purposes, very much heterosexual and in love with my Partner. Sorry, 'Chelle - it's not you, it's me.

Health care costs and obesity are on the rise almost everywhere. Not surprisingly, they're related: excessive body weight causes a plethora of conditions that are chronic, difficult, and expensive to deal with.

So Michelle Obama, with the purpose of fighting childhood obesity in the United States, launches Let's Move. The statement on the webpage is clear and straightforward:

Childhood obesity or excess weight threatens the healthy future of one third of American children. We spend $150 billion every year to treat obesity-related conditions, and that number is growing.

Obesity rates tripled in the past 30 years, a trend that means, for the first time in our history, American children may face a shorter expected lifespan than their parents.


In short: they want a healthier youth, and reduction of costs in health care. It's a win-win situation for everyone involved, no?
Not if you're a fat disabled activist, no it's not.

To them it's fat hatred and discrimination; and, if you look at Shakesville's posts about it?: it sounds like it's really a freaking Auschwitz designed for overweight and obese individuals.

Sweet bloody Jesus Christ on a mother-fucking pogo stick.

I am aware you can be 'chubby', 'chunky', have 'curves', be a 'BBW' and 'more to love', and still be healthy and fit. I know there are medical reasons, like thyroid conditions and side-effects of some drugs, that cause significant and at times, unavoidable weight gain.

I am aware that discrimination can be a huge deal regarding obesity, if it's a health professional that's discriminating.

But I will never apologise for saying this: the fat acceptance movement is delusional and dangerous.

A BMI higher than 28 will try and kill you via diabetes, high blood pressure and oh you know the rest. And if it doesn't kill you, it will lessen the quality of your life and overall health. Obesity is an epidemic, it does take a toll on the rising costs of health care for everyone, and yes there are cases in which weight loss HAS to be achieved. And yes, about the last statement - weight loss can be achieved by going on a diet and exercising more.

This is not about looks. This is not about aesthetics, or how we perceive fat people. It's about obesity's overall objective effect on health and a nation's economy. So, if you do not have hypothyroidism and are not confined to a wheelchair? Shut your damn trap before taking another bite out of that Twinkie.

edit post

what, who, why

Posted on 7:12 PM, under

0
After my rather-crass first post, I realised I had not made a proper statement. As rude as it was, it was also vague. So, let's break it down.

What is this blog about?
Being politically incorrect, against feminism, fat acceptance, some facets of disability rights, and many forms of today's social-justice.
Commentary on foreign affairs and international politics.

What do you believe in?
Equality for all - plain and simple. A world where women and men get the same amount on their pay check for doing the same task, and equal parenting rights.
Calling someone 'black' isn't racist.
Using words like lame, insane, idiot, etc. is not mentalist or ableist.
Prostitution should be legal and destigmatised - both for workers and their clients.
Being politically correct is useless.
The supremacy of (seedless) raspberry jam and Marmite over any other spread, on toast.
The daily encountering of, and dealing with, thick-headed individuals and subsequent feelings of anger and frustration.
Related: taking life with humour. There's no use in getting your knickers in a bunch over everything.
And if everything else fails: taking it with a grin on your lips and a Black Russian down your throat.

Who are you?
Your worst nightmare. But seriously, now.
Me in a nutshell: university student, early twenties. Sci-fi enthusiast and huge-time nerd. Oh, also: female. That's all you need to know for all intents and purposes.

Why are you doing this?
Because I am sick and tired of the extremes social justice has been taken to.
And, because I fucking felt like it.

edit post

on feminism, today's feminists, and why I'm not one of them.

Posted on 3:24 AM, under , ,

2

Once upon a time, there were awesome women. These awesome women had power and control over themselves at a time where arranged marriage was the norm and a life of housekeeping and child-bearing was the most they could aspire to.

They realised, however, that it was time to extend her awesomeness to every woman. And so, the suffragettes fought to give women the right to vote, a right previously exercised only by men. Slowly but surely, in most countries, women began to have political rights.

During the World Wars, while men were away fighting, daughters of these awesome women began to replace them in various workplaces. They were empowered. But it wasn't enough - men came back, and they were shunted aside again, discriminated, viewed as not really necessary unless dinner needed to be prepared and the laundry folded away.

So the grand-daughters of these awesome women, the suffragettes, realised that the roots of the problem needed to be addressed. If a real change was to be made regarding laboural and political inequalities, the cultural inequalities needed to be solved.

If you fancy yourself a social-justiceist/feminist? You know how the story unfolds: miniskirt, Women's Liberation, Gloria Steinem, NWPC, Cheryl Frank and Jaqueline Flenner - to name very few organisations and women and events that helped shape the second wave of feminism.

However, the descendants of the suffragettes ... well, most of them can be described in this (amazing) quote:

You damn right I'm no feminist, cos all feminists give a monkey's for these days is how to claim breast pumps as tax exempt and where to find the best au pairs.

Belle de Jour (taken from Feminisnt)

I have spent some time browsing feminist blogs - most notably, Shakesville. My feelings of 'Amen, sister!' were always muddled with deep-down feelings of - why is she going on about feminism, when she lives in an industrialised country, and has the privileges and access to all those things the Foremothers of Feminism didn't?

The straw that broke the camel's back? This post.

I am Shakespeare's Sister.

I am the heir of Shakespeare's Sisters before me, who carved out rooms of their own, tiny pieces of space and time, in which they formed the habit of freedom and mustered the courage to write exactly what they thought. I heard their whispers, their haunting encouragement, telling me to put on their bodies laid down and become born. And on October 5, 2004, I was born Shakespeare's Sister.

Melissa McEwan

Let's skip the fact that this just reeks of self-importance. Seriously, just cover your nose for a bit while I end this. It'll be quick - like the death from the stench of delusions of grandeur coming from this feminist.

If you are familiar with A Room of One's Own you'll know that Shakespeare's Sister was a woman that had the same talents and gifts Shakespeare had but none of the recognition, because of the social, cultural, and political conditions of women during the time.

Check your calendars - you're in for a surprise - the 1600s? Over and done for more than 400 years, bro. In most industrialised countries, a woman generally holds the same rights men do. They can go to university, have a career and not give it up if they decide to become mothers, get paid the same as men in the same jobs, be in control of their sexuality and reproduction.

But when you take a movement that has given us women so much, and turn it into a stance from where you can argue the use of certain words because they are 'patriarchal' or 'sexist', or how some types of advertising hurts women's feelings/self-esteem and promotes eating disorders/sexism/rape, it's just ... ridiculous. Not only that: it's not feminist.

The kick-ass women that gave me the rights and privileges I have today, I am sure, would sigh and face-palm at the so-called "third wave" of feminism.

In my mind, if Mary Wollstonecraft could see what feminism has become, she would be sorely disappointed. And so would every feminist of old. That is why I don't hold myself as a feminist any longer.

Because I, woman, have privilege thanks to them. I, woman, thank the feminists from the earlier centuries, to the end of the second wave. Without them, and the change they accomplished, I wouldn't be here. Suffragettes and bra-burners: I tip my hat to you.

So-called feminists of today: fuck you, for tarnishing the name of this movement. Fuck you, because while you're bitching about how we should all say 'humankind' instead of 'mankind' because it sounds less sexist to you, women in Saudi Arabia still are not able to vote. Women in Latin America still have no right over their bodies, while you moan about how the portrayal of women in film and media is misogynistic. Fuck you. You are no feminists, and you are not doing feminism any good.

edit post

intro.

Posted on 11:37 PM, under

0
I am a sexist, ableist, and all-around politically incorrect pig.

I enjoy listening to and cracking jokes about hippies and their hairy armpits. I snort whenever I hear words like 'handicapable', 'cisgender', 'African American', and the like. As soon as I hear someone go on tirades against the Patriarchy, or Illuminati, or Zionists, or Republicans, or global warming? Yeah, they're pretty much not only tuned off - most of the times, they're permalabeled as idiots.

To cite an specific example of eye roll-inducing comments? "I am still very offended by the portrayal of Chinese Americans in The Hangover."

Being politically correct will be the death of rational, thorough, logical thinking.

Believe me, I tried the whole politically-correct thing. I fancied myself an eco-conscious, diversity-loving feminist social-justiceist. Then I realised: the more you try to include the more you exclude. The less you try to insult the less you'll make everyone happy. It was so disturbing, so depressing ...

... until I listened to an Inner Voice that said: "flip them the bird. You're not making them happy now, you won't make them happy ever. Ignore. And go with what feels right."

I am a lot of bad things. I am rude, obnoxious, ill-tempered. The worst of all is, I am brutally honest. And I will not give a crap about your feelings once I am meddled with.

I will make you seethe in anger. If you fancy yourself all the things I thought I was, chances are you'll contact me. You'll let me know you don't agree, and how you think I make society worse nowadays, or what have you.

Rest assured that in 9 cases out of 10, your e-mail will make no difference (just ask your Senator). The best you can do is make me giggle as I read your rant, or make me reflect in the odd chance. The worst you can do is ... nothing. I will delete your message and my life will go on, as happy as it was before.

In short?

I am a rude, sexist, ableist pig - and I wouldn't change it for the world.

edit post