redheadedfemme: (ignorance point of view)
Let's set up a sting, shall we?

Let's put together our hidden cameras and microphones, and walk into this jackass's store.

Southwest Shooting Authority in Pinetop, Ariz. took out an advertisement last week in the local newspaper, the White Mountain Independent, that spelled out the store's new policy in explicit terms.

"If you voted for Barack Obama your business is not welcome at Southwest Shooting Authority," the ad reads. "You have proven that you are not responsible enough to own a firearm."

Let's recruit a young man and woman, the former wearing a cowboy hat and shitkicker boots, with a telltale Skoals circle in his rear jeans pocket, the latter a wide-eyed, lipsticked, none-too-bright-looking blonde. Two walking cliches, in other words. Driving a battered, rusty 70's Ford pickup truck, of course, with a rifle rack in the back window, festooned with nasty Republican bumper stickers like these:

 
 
 
 
 
Into the gunstore we go. The shitkicker cowboy buys whatever gun he wants, after name-dropping Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan, and Sarah Palin a few times, perhaps adding a couple of re-nig jokes along the way. After the purchase is completed, the two head for the door, and right as they leave the blonde turns and says, in a voice as sweet and sharp as cyanide:
 
"By the way, we voted for President Obama." 
 
I would pay good money for that to happen. 
 
Oct. 31st, 2012 10:49 pm

Spam-A-Not

redheadedfemme: (die dice)
I wonder why spammers don't realize that since I screen comments, their stupid spamlinks are never going to see the light of day. 

I mean, really. Talk about wasting your time. 
redheadedfemme: (debatable facts)
So my Secretary of State, Ken Bennett, finally gave up his ridiculous "birther" crusade after Hawaii verified the facts of President Obama's birth. 

(If I had been one of those Hawaiian officials Bennett kept pestering, I would have told him to take a flying leap at a rolling doughnut. You can't accept established facts? Sucks to be you.)

The thing that gets me is that Bennett supposedly began this stupidity because of 1,200 emails from constituents.

Honestly, it would surprise me greatly if there were only 1,200 nuts in my state. Nevertheless, does that mean we have to pay attention to them? Ken Bennett certainly ignored the petition (signed by more than 17,000 people) asking him to investigate whether or not Mitt Romney is a unicorn, and rightly so; such a supposition is ridiculous on its face (although a rather clever response).

So is the idea that the President was not born in this country.  

Answer me this, Mr. Bennett. If 1200 of your constituents asked you to hunt down a Sasquatch, or drag Nessie from the murky waters of her loch, or dig up the alien bodies buried in Roswell, or open the old rusty hangar containing interstellar spacecraft in Area 51, would you sit up and hop to just because they're your constituents? 

No? Then why would you pander to the equally loony birther crowd? 

The proper response should have been this, a form email sent to all who questioned the President's birthplace. 

Dear Arizona voter,

Thank you for your inquiry regarding the President's birth certificate. The answer to your question can be found here on the White House web site. As you'll see on the bottom of the PDF, Hawaii's state registrar on April 25, 2011 certified this is a true copy of the record on file. 

Of course, you are free to reject this evidence, and it is your right to believe whatever you wish regarding the President. However, if you insist on pushing these cockamamie ideas, you will have to do it without the State of Arizona's help. As Secretary of State, I will not allow our wonderful state to be dragged into this ridiculousness. 

I look forward to hearing from you on any other topic. Please do not bother me with this one again.

Sincerely, 

Ken Bennett

See how easy that is? 
redheadedfemme: (debatable facts)
So my Secretary of State, Ken Bennett, finally gave up his ridiculous "birther" crusade after Hawaii verified the facts of President Obama's birth. 

(If I had been one of those Hawaiian officials Bennett kept pestering, I would have told him to take a flying leap at a rolling doughnut. You can't accept established facts? Sucks to be you.)

The thing that gets me is that Bennett supposedly began this stupidity because of 1,200 emails from constituents.

Honestly, it would surprise me greatly if there were only 1,200 nuts in my state. Nevertheless, does that mean we have to pay attention to them? Ken Bennett certainly ignored the petition (signed by more than 17,000 people) asking him to investigate whether or not Mitt Romney is a unicorn, and rightly so; such a supposition is ridiculous on its face (although a rather clever response).

So is the idea that the President was not born in this country.  

Answer me this, Mr. Bennett. If 1200 of your constituents asked you to hunt down a Sasquatch, or drag Nessie from the murky waters of her loch, or dig up the alien bodies buried in Roswell, or open the old rusty hangar containing interstellar spacecraft in Area 51, would you sit up and hop to just because they're your constituents? 

No? Then why would you pander to the equally loony birther crowd? 

The proper response should have been this, a form email sent to all who questioned the President's birthplace. 

Dear Arizona voter,

Thank you for your inquiry regarding the President's birth certificate. The answer to your question can be found here on the White House web site. As you'll see on the bottom of the PDF, Hawaii's state registrar on April 25, 2011 certified this is a true copy of the record on file. 

Of course, you are free to reject this evidence, and it is your right to believe whatever you wish regarding the President. However, if you insist on pushing these cockamamie ideas, you will have to do it without the State of Arizona's help. As Secretary of State, I will not allow our wonderful state to be dragged into this ridiculousness. 

I look forward to hearing from you on any other topic. Please do not bother me with this one again.

Sincerely, 

Ken Bennett

See how easy that is? 
redheadedfemme: (uninformed opinion=fart)
"It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies."  ~C.S. Lewis

Some people may think it's not worth commenting on a piddling little paragraph in the paper, but as a feminist I think it's incumbent on us to knock down this nonsense whenever we see it.

In a small section of the Arizona Republic entitled "Plugged In," I ran upon this by someone named Mickey Greenburg.

I know it's petty, but...

Hold it right there, Hoss. Time out. If you know it's petty, why are you even saying it?

...I'm not alone in wondering about Hillary Clinton's new look. Hillary has been the perfect role model for middle-age women. Bright, attractive, articulate, knowledgeable, she set high standards. She has been exemplary in her many national leadership roles as first lady, senator and secretary of State.

How frakking noble of you to acknowledge what Hillary Clinton has done. Tell me, exactly what does the length of her hair have to do with any of this? I believe she could have done it with a shag, bob, mullet, or even shaved bald.

With those credentials, it's hard to explain her decision about her new hairstyle. It was OK during the 1960s, when she was a college student. As a mature woman in her 60s, the long hair is silly, not stylish. What was she thinking? I can only guess that the stylist at her hair salon was a Republican.

I happen to think Hillary Clinton's hair looks great. But even if I didn't, I wouldn't say a word about it. Why? Because her hair is none of my business.

I also find it ironic that Ms. Greenburg is a "retired weekly newspaper editor." I put this in quotes because I find this hard to believe. If she was a newspaper editor, she should know what she just wrote is nothing but sexist tripe, and should not have been published. (I sure as hell would have refused to print it, had I been her editor.) We don't discuss President Obama's buzz-cut, for instance. Any female politician's hair, shoe and clothing choices should be strictly off-limits.

Especially since Hillary suffered through so much of this crap during the Presidential campaign--and she still does. This is ridiculous, it is sexist, and it does not deserve the label of "journalism."
redheadedfemme: (uninformed opinion=fart)
"It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies."  ~C.S. Lewis

Some people may think it's not worth commenting on a piddling little paragraph in the paper, but as a feminist I think it's incumbent on us to knock down this nonsense whenever we see it.

In a small section of the Arizona Republic entitled "Plugged In," I ran upon this by someone named Mickey Greenburg.

I know it's petty, but...

Hold it right there, Hoss. Time out. If you know it's petty, why are you even saying it?

...I'm not alone in wondering about Hillary Clinton's new look. Hillary has been the perfect role model for middle-age women. Bright, attractive, articulate, knowledgeable, she set high standards. She has been exemplary in her many national leadership roles as first lady, senator and secretary of State.

How frakking noble of you to acknowledge what Hillary Clinton has done. Tell me, exactly what does the length of her hair have to do with any of this? I believe she could have done it with a shag, bob, mullet, or even shaved bald.

With those credentials, it's hard to explain her decision about her new hairstyle. It was OK during the 1960s, when she was a college student. As a mature woman in her 60s, the long hair is silly, not stylish. What was she thinking? I can only guess that the stylist at her hair salon was a Republican.

I happen to think Hillary Clinton's hair looks great. But even if I didn't, I wouldn't say a word about it. Why? Because her hair is none of my business.

I also find it ironic that Ms. Greenburg is a "retired weekly newspaper editor." I put this in quotes because I find this hard to believe. If she was a newspaper editor, she should know what she just wrote is nothing but sexist tripe, and should not have been published. (I sure as hell would have refused to print it, had I been her editor.) We don't discuss President Obama's buzz-cut, for instance. Any female politician's hair, shoe and clothing choices should be strictly off-limits.

Especially since Hillary suffered through so much of this crap during the Presidential campaign--and she still does. This is ridiculous, it is sexist, and it does not deserve the label of "journalism."
redheadedfemme: (die dice)
What is this crapola about stores requiring a telephone number on checks? I've run into this at Wal-Mart, and each time I tell the cashier, "My number is unlisted and I don't give it out." (Actually it isn't--my initials and number are in the phone book--but you know what? I don't think it's any of their beeswax.)

Today I went to Albertson's to pick up a few items, and lo and behold, I ran into the Phone Number Privacy Invasion yet again. True, it's been a long time since I bought anything there (they're usually too pricey) so my checking account and driver's license undoubtedly weren't on file. So I went through my usual spiel.

"My phone number is unlisted; I don't give it out."

Lather, Rinse, Repeat for cashiers who apparently can't comprehend.

This time the supervisor was called over (or at least I assume she was the supervisor; she didn't look old enough to be a senior in high school) and I repeated myself, adding, "My phone number is none of your business."

To which she rattled off some nonsense about the check cashing company needing it. "No one will ever use it; we'll just punch it into the computer, or you can do it yourself"--indicating the little keypad where you swipe a debit card.

"Fine," I said, "I'll make one up then."

Which is what I did. The number I punched in bears no resemblance to my actual phone number. The only reason I can think of for any company wanting my phone number is if the check bounces, they'll want to get in touch with me--but hey, my bank can do that, thank you.

Nevertheless, my position remains the same. Maybe it's due to my working in a medical field and having to adhere to HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), but I always figure no store needs to know this information, and they won't if I have anything to say about it.

There's precious little privacy in today's society, and I think it behooves each of us to guard what we have left.

(I also think this marks my Officially Becoming a Curmudgeon. Oh. My. God.)
redheadedfemme: (die dice)
What is this crapola about stores requiring a telephone number on checks? I've run into this at Wal-Mart, and each time I tell the cashier, "My number is unlisted and I don't give it out." (Actually it isn't--my initials and number are in the phone book--but you know what? I don't think it's any of their beeswax.)

Today I went to Albertson's to pick up a few items, and lo and behold, I ran into the Phone Number Privacy Invasion yet again. True, it's been a long time since I bought anything there (they're usually too pricey) so my checking account and driver's license undoubtedly weren't on file. So I went through my usual spiel.

"My phone number is unlisted; I don't give it out."

Lather, Rinse, Repeat for cashiers who apparently can't comprehend.

This time the supervisor was called over (or at least I assume she was the supervisor; she didn't look old enough to be a senior in high school) and I repeated myself, adding, "My phone number is none of your business."

To which she rattled off some nonsense about the check cashing company needing it. "No one will ever use it; we'll just punch it into the computer, or you can do it yourself"--indicating the little keypad where you swipe a debit card.

"Fine," I said, "I'll make one up then."

Which is what I did. The number I punched in bears no resemblance to my actual phone number. The only reason I can think of for any company wanting my phone number is if the check bounces, they'll want to get in touch with me--but hey, my bank can do that, thank you.

Nevertheless, my position remains the same. Maybe it's due to my working in a medical field and having to adhere to HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), but I always figure no store needs to know this information, and they won't if I have anything to say about it.

There's precious little privacy in today's society, and I think it behooves each of us to guard what we have left.

(I also think this marks my Officially Becoming a Curmudgeon. Oh. My. God.)
redheadedfemme: (effing sunshine)
You know, if I was a motorcycle rider out for the day with some friends on a tour of the countryside, just cruising at 10 or 15 mph under the speed limit, and I happened to notice all the cars stacking up behind me on a two-lane road where you're not allowed to pass....

I would frakking PULL OVER AND LET PEOPLE BY, and not encourage tailgating and accidents by POKEASSING ALONG.

It's just common courtesy, you know?

Idiots.
redheadedfemme: (effing sunshine)
You know, if I was a motorcycle rider out for the day with some friends on a tour of the countryside, just cruising at 10 or 15 mph under the speed limit, and I happened to notice all the cars stacking up behind me on a two-lane road where you're not allowed to pass....

I would frakking PULL OVER AND LET PEOPLE BY, and not encourage tailgating and accidents by POKEASSING ALONG.

It's just common courtesy, you know?

Idiots.
redheadedfemme: (bite me)
According to Gender Guesser, I write 77% male in an informal setting, and 50% male in a formal one, with a "weak European emphasis."

Genre: Informal
  Female = 394
  Male   = 1325
  Difference = 931; 77.07%
  Verdict: MALE

Genre: Formal
  Female = 559
  Male   = 564
  Difference = 5; 50.22%
  Verdict: Weak MALE

Weak emphasis could indicate European.


This is a load of hooey. "Gender-specific word frequencies" (from the website)? What the devil does that mean? That men use a lot of one-syllable words, and women say "pink" and "children" every other sentence? I would think that would depend on the topic and one's intended audience, don't you? I mean, if the same person--either male or female--wrote both an erotic romance and a hard science-fiction epic, of course the tone and word choices would be different, suitable to the demands of the genre and the story.

Obviously, this plays into gender and societal stereotypes. I don't write like anything but a WRITER, and neither do you. Also, if a live person had actually read the post I submitted, it would immediately become clear that I was writing from the perspective of a woman.

Sheesh.

redheadedfemme: (bite me)
According to Gender Guesser, I write 77% male in an informal setting, and 50% male in a formal one, with a "weak European emphasis."

Genre: Informal
  Female = 394
  Male   = 1325
  Difference = 931; 77.07%
  Verdict: MALE

Genre: Formal
  Female = 559
  Male   = 564
  Difference = 5; 50.22%
  Verdict: Weak MALE

Weak emphasis could indicate European.


This is a load of hooey. "Gender-specific word frequencies" (from the website)? What the devil does that mean? That men use a lot of one-syllable words, and women say "pink" and "children" every other sentence? I would think that would depend on the topic and one's intended audience, don't you? I mean, if the same person--either male or female--wrote both an erotic romance and a hard science-fiction epic, of course the tone and word choices would be different, suitable to the demands of the genre and the story.

Obviously, this plays into gender and societal stereotypes. I don't write like anything but a WRITER, and neither do you. Also, if a live person had actually read the post I submitted, it would immediately become clear that I was writing from the perspective of a woman.

Sheesh.

redheadedfemme: (owl--Puuuu-lease)

I read today's Dear Abby and had to get up and look out the window, to make sure I hadn't been catapulted back to the 1950's.

DEAR ABBY: I haven't had a boyfriend for a while now, and I'm not sure why. Everyone says I'm cool, funny and outgoing. I play video games, sports, and do things that boys think girls would never do (like paintballing in the woods or bungee jumping over and over again).

All my guy friends think I'm awesome, and I do get compliments on my looks as well. I'm not a tomboy, I wear nice clothes and some makeup, but for some reason, whenever I get a crush on a guy, he says it would be "weird" because I'm a "really good friend."

What am I doing wrong? I love who I am and so do boys. So why don't they think I could be "girlfriend material"? -- BOYFRIENDLESS IN CONNECTICUT

DEAR BOYFRIENDLESS: It may be that "guys" see you as one of them. And because of it, they don't consider you in a romantic way. Therefore, it's time to emphasize your feminine side and present yourself in a different light. This may mean temporarily downplaying your involvement in boys' sports and paintball games, and amping up your "girlishness." Give it a try and see what happens.

What the devil kind of answer is that? Not one I'd want my daughter to hear, that's for sure. I really like the implication in the next-to-last sentence: "girlishness" is all but a shout-out for "weakness," to protect the boys' widdle bitty egos. Since the writer already stated she wears nice clothes and makeup, obviously the only thing left for her to do is act "feminine" (i.e., deferential and stupid).

This is NOT a message anyone needs to hear, least of all a teenage girl. I hope Jeanne Phillips gets slammed for this, because she certainly deserves to be. The proper response should have been as follows.

Dear Boyfriendless: Human beings have a universal need to be loved. However, it is never a good idea to sacrifice one's accomplishments and individuality to attract a mate. If the boys you are interested in have difficulties getting past your athleticism to see you as a potential girlfriend, that is their problem, not yours. Don't force yourself to become someone you are not to land a boyfriend. In time, someone will come along who will love everything you are and can do, and then you will both be happy.

redheadedfemme: (owl--Puuuu-lease)

I read today's Dear Abby and had to get up and look out the window, to make sure I hadn't been catapulted back to the 1950's.

DEAR ABBY: I haven't had a boyfriend for a while now, and I'm not sure why. Everyone says I'm cool, funny and outgoing. I play video games, sports, and do things that boys think girls would never do (like paintballing in the woods or bungee jumping over and over again).

All my guy friends think I'm awesome, and I do get compliments on my looks as well. I'm not a tomboy, I wear nice clothes and some makeup, but for some reason, whenever I get a crush on a guy, he says it would be "weird" because I'm a "really good friend."

What am I doing wrong? I love who I am and so do boys. So why don't they think I could be "girlfriend material"? -- BOYFRIENDLESS IN CONNECTICUT

DEAR BOYFRIENDLESS: It may be that "guys" see you as one of them. And because of it, they don't consider you in a romantic way. Therefore, it's time to emphasize your feminine side and present yourself in a different light. This may mean temporarily downplaying your involvement in boys' sports and paintball games, and amping up your "girlishness." Give it a try and see what happens.

What the devil kind of answer is that? Not one I'd want my daughter to hear, that's for sure. I really like the implication in the next-to-last sentence: "girlishness" is all but a shout-out for "weakness," to protect the boys' widdle bitty egos. Since the writer already stated she wears nice clothes and makeup, obviously the only thing left for her to do is act "feminine" (i.e., deferential and stupid).

This is NOT a message anyone needs to hear, least of all a teenage girl. I hope Jeanne Phillips gets slammed for this, because she certainly deserves to be. The proper response should have been as follows.

Dear Boyfriendless: Human beings have a universal need to be loved. However, it is never a good idea to sacrifice one's accomplishments and individuality to attract a mate. If the boys you are interested in have difficulties getting past your athleticism to see you as a potential girlfriend, that is their problem, not yours. Don't force yourself to become someone you are not to land a boyfriend. In time, someone will come along who will love everything you are and can do, and then you will both be happy.

redheadedfemme: (caveman southpark)
Here we have yet another stupid, smart-ass commentary on men's potential extinction. Although, referencing the original article, it seems all the pseudo-panic is premature, to say the least--to quote a doctor discussing these synthetic sperm cells:

"Before we get too excited about this being a new form of infertility treatment, these cells cannot as yet be made into functioning sperm, so we have no idea if they can pass ‘the acid test,’ the ability to fertilize female eggs as is achieved with donor sperm in IVF treatment."

The fact that this research is at its beginning stages doesn't stop people from making wild speculations, however. Usually these speculations are mixed with a great deal of condescension, patronization and outright sexism. To quote the writer of the first article, Brian Alexander:

"I just want to know why you women are in such a rush to get rid of us. Sci-fi and fantasy literature are full of all-female societies like Wonder Woman’s home island. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd penned a friendly little book in 2005 called “Are Men Necessary?” Are you trying to give us a complex or something?"

Well, let's see, does the concept of patriarchy ring a bell? Perhaps if all males had been living for centuries under a system that treated them like:

a) property;
b) pawns on a chess board;
c) children; and
d) slaves;

--just possibly males in that position might think it a good thing to get rid of their overlords too.

He goes on to say:

"Well, strictly in terms of keeping the human species alive, you women need some of us. You just don’t need all that many of us (though we would prefer to keep that under our hats, if we wore hats). We make a glut of sperm, millions of them, so one man can spread a lot of seed. Sperm banking has long been an important part of in vitro fertilization, just as bull semen is integral to dairy production. Frankly, you only need a small tribe of us guys equipped with porn magazines and plastic cups. You could feed us, groom us and give us a little exercise — pretty much like you do now."

Nah, we don't even have to go that far. Just have a few hundred males in each generation jack off--for genetic variety, you see--freeze the semen, and ship said males off-planet to explore space. They should have a great time out there, since they won't ever need to ask for directions.

Then create a few hundred males from the frozen semen for the next generation--it is possible to select for sex, even now--and start the process all over again. That way the more sensible gender would actually be running the planet.

Mr. Alexander ends his article with what he thinks is a joke:

"So ladies, laugh it up while you can because once those artificial eggs and the artificial womb hit the market, you’ll be buying your own dinners at Chez Francoise."

And this would be bad...why?

Thankfully, most readers of the story are no more enamored of it than I am: it's rated 2.5 out of 5 by over 1200 people.

Look, if you're going to discuss this subject, take it seriously. If any of this research pans out, it will revolutionize society, much like the birth-control pill did. An article made up of smarmy asides just makes the writer look like a jackass.
redheadedfemme: (caveman southpark)
Here we have yet another stupid, smart-ass commentary on men's potential extinction. Although, referencing the original article, it seems all the pseudo-panic is premature, to say the least--to quote a doctor discussing these synthetic sperm cells:

"Before we get too excited about this being a new form of infertility treatment, these cells cannot as yet be made into functioning sperm, so we have no idea if they can pass ‘the acid test,’ the ability to fertilize female eggs as is achieved with donor sperm in IVF treatment."

The fact that this research is at its beginning stages doesn't stop people from making wild speculations, however. Usually these speculations are mixed with a great deal of condescension, patronization and outright sexism. To quote the writer of the first article, Brian Alexander:

"I just want to know why you women are in such a rush to get rid of us. Sci-fi and fantasy literature are full of all-female societies like Wonder Woman’s home island. New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd penned a friendly little book in 2005 called “Are Men Necessary?” Are you trying to give us a complex or something?"

Well, let's see, does the concept of patriarchy ring a bell? Perhaps if all males had been living for centuries under a system that treated them like:

a) property;
b) pawns on a chess board;
c) children; and
d) slaves;

--just possibly males in that position might think it a good thing to get rid of their overlords too.

He goes on to say:

"Well, strictly in terms of keeping the human species alive, you women need some of us. You just don’t need all that many of us (though we would prefer to keep that under our hats, if we wore hats). We make a glut of sperm, millions of them, so one man can spread a lot of seed. Sperm banking has long been an important part of in vitro fertilization, just as bull semen is integral to dairy production. Frankly, you only need a small tribe of us guys equipped with porn magazines and plastic cups. You could feed us, groom us and give us a little exercise — pretty much like you do now."

Nah, we don't even have to go that far. Just have a few hundred males in each generation jack off--for genetic variety, you see--freeze the semen, and ship said males off-planet to explore space. They should have a great time out there, since they won't ever need to ask for directions.

Then create a few hundred males from the frozen semen for the next generation--it is possible to select for sex, even now--and start the process all over again. That way the more sensible gender would actually be running the planet.

Mr. Alexander ends his article with what he thinks is a joke:

"So ladies, laugh it up while you can because once those artificial eggs and the artificial womb hit the market, you’ll be buying your own dinners at Chez Francoise."

And this would be bad...why?

Thankfully, most readers of the story are no more enamored of it than I am: it's rated 2.5 out of 5 by over 1200 people.

Look, if you're going to discuss this subject, take it seriously. If any of this research pans out, it will revolutionize society, much like the birth-control pill did. An article made up of smarmy asides just makes the writer look like a jackass.
redheadedfemme: (drama queen loser)

I hate articles like this.

Are men, like sharks, starting to be useless?

I've noticed you get these kinds of op-eds whenever a quirk of nature comes along (in this case, a female hammerhead shark who apparently gave birth without mating) that seems to cast a bad light upon the male of the species. Never mind that this parthenogenetic behavior is extremely rare, and has never been observed in mammals. Some--inevitably male--smart-ass writer just has to speculate about what this might mean for humans.

In this case, the writer is throwing out a list of whiny, supposed-to-be-funny "reasons" why men shouldn't be cast aside just yet. To wit:

We can lift really heavy things.
We look so cool smoking a pipe.
We can cage fight. (Immediately retracted.)
We are super good at starting wars.
We are way awesome at loud noises.
We can eat like crazy.

If these are all the reasons he can come up with, one wonders why he, as a male, is still around to write about them.

Articles like these are invariably smug, condescending as all hell, and generally sexist to boot. For instance, under the "starting wars" section, he expands his thought as follows:

These heathens can't be reasoned with and must not be appeased. Women, or lesser males, may be tempted to talk with the savages, or think there's a middle ground of co-existence. Yeah, right..and Melinda was the best singer on American Idol (not that I watch it). [Oh really? Then how'd you know her name, or the fact that it was generally conceded that technically, she was Idol's best singer?]


Lock and load, we say! If not, prepare to polka all night, ladies.


Ugh. Despite his protests, obviously this is someone suffering from "Alpha Male" syndrome. He's trying to laugh and joke his way out of it, but he's sure not succeeding. Look how women and "lesser males" (those who actually have consideration for others' feelings) are linked in his mind. Notice how those old words "heathen" and "savages" are so lightly tossed about. Intentionally or not, he reminded me of the era when those words were used to such devastating effect against Native Americans.

Finally, he seems to have fallen prey to Male Entitlement Syndrome--a hidden (or sometimes not-so-hidden) frustration that the attention is not always on the menz:

If the most terrifying creatures alive--think Shark Week--are nothing more than useless relics, we may as well order up a no-whip, hazelnut, non-fat chai and turn on Desperate Housewives. The end can't be far away.

O horrors! A fate worse than death.

Perhaps this was intended to be a parody. It didn't turn out that way, at least for me. It would have come across far better had the writer acknowledged the fact of the "macho landscape," tried to explain it, and attempted to argue why men need to dismantle society's expectations of "Alpha Males."

Then, perhaps, he could have accomplished something.
redheadedfemme: (drama queen loser)

I hate articles like this.

Are men, like sharks, starting to be useless?

I've noticed you get these kinds of op-eds whenever a quirk of nature comes along (in this case, a female hammerhead shark who apparently gave birth without mating) that seems to cast a bad light upon the male of the species. Never mind that this parthenogenetic behavior is extremely rare, and has never been observed in mammals. Some--inevitably male--smart-ass writer just has to speculate about what this might mean for humans.

In this case, the writer is throwing out a list of whiny, supposed-to-be-funny "reasons" why men shouldn't be cast aside just yet. To wit:

We can lift really heavy things.
We look so cool smoking a pipe.
We can cage fight. (Immediately retracted.)
We are super good at starting wars.
We are way awesome at loud noises.
We can eat like crazy.

If these are all the reasons he can come up with, one wonders why he, as a male, is still around to write about them.

Articles like these are invariably smug, condescending as all hell, and generally sexist to boot. For instance, under the "starting wars" section, he expands his thought as follows:

These heathens can't be reasoned with and must not be appeased. Women, or lesser males, may be tempted to talk with the savages, or think there's a middle ground of co-existence. Yeah, right..and Melinda was the best singer on American Idol (not that I watch it). [Oh really? Then how'd you know her name, or the fact that it was generally conceded that technically, she was Idol's best singer?]


Lock and load, we say! If not, prepare to polka all night, ladies.


Ugh. Despite his protests, obviously this is someone suffering from "Alpha Male" syndrome. He's trying to laugh and joke his way out of it, but he's sure not succeeding. Look how women and "lesser males" (those who actually have consideration for others' feelings) are linked in his mind. Notice how those old words "heathen" and "savages" are so lightly tossed about. Intentionally or not, he reminded me of the era when those words were used to such devastating effect against Native Americans.

Finally, he seems to have fallen prey to Male Entitlement Syndrome--a hidden (or sometimes not-so-hidden) frustration that the attention is not always on the menz:

If the most terrifying creatures alive--think Shark Week--are nothing more than useless relics, we may as well order up a no-whip, hazelnut, non-fat chai and turn on Desperate Housewives. The end can't be far away.

O horrors! A fate worse than death.

Perhaps this was intended to be a parody. It didn't turn out that way, at least for me. It would have come across far better had the writer acknowledged the fact of the "macho landscape," tried to explain it, and attempted to argue why men need to dismantle society's expectations of "Alpha Males."

Then, perhaps, he could have accomplished something.
redheadedfemme: (blog material--from <lj user="alt_icons")
NOW REVEALED: Time Magazine's selection for Person of the Year.

YOU.

Jeez Louise. That's the stupidest, most narcissistic thing I've ever seen.

And they called the 80's the "Me Decade"?
redheadedfemme: (blog material--from <lj user="alt_icons")
NOW REVEALED: Time Magazine's selection for Person of the Year.

YOU.

Jeez Louise. That's the stupidest, most narcissistic thing I've ever seen.

And they called the 80's the "Me Decade"?

October 2017

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011 121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Words To Live By

There is no frigate like a book to take us lands away. ~Emily Dickinson

Being a writer is a very peculiar sort of a job: it’s always you versus a blank sheet of paper (or a blank screen) and quite often the blank piece of paper wins. ~Neil Gaiman

Of course I am not worried about intimidating men. The type of man who will be intimidated by me is exactly the type of man I have no interest in. ~Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie

The road to hell is paved with adverbs. ~Stephen King

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read. ~Mark Twain

I feel free and strong. If I were not a reader of books I could not feel this way. ~Walter Tevis

A reader lives a thousand lives before he dies. The man who never reads lives only one. ~George R.R. Martin

Most Popular Tags

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Style Credit

Page generated Oct. 20th, 2017 12:27 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios