In which I wonder if I'm the only person in the world who doesn't think sexual violence is hilarious.

I have had an exceedingly depressing hour or so of finding what appears to be an endless stream of Facebook pages dedicated to rape jokes.

- "The awkward moment went your misses wakes up and ya dicks in her arse"

- "Im not a rapist LOL jks get in the van"

- "The awkward moment when a slut is not DTF but you fuck her anyway"

- "Raping pregnant bitches and telling my friends I had a threesome"

- "Looking in the mirror and wondering how you haven't been raped yet"

- "Is raping a hooker classified as theft"

- "You know shes playing hard to get when your chasing her down an alleyway"

Rape jokes are bullshit. I realize some people can find something entertaining and enjoyable about the real-life sexual assault of millions of their fellow human beings, and frankly I'd consider that a symptom of a worrying disconnect from reality. I am one of the unfortunate minority who
a) don't think it's funny, and
b) are not afraid to tell people that I don't think it's funny, and proceed to give them reasons why they should shut the fuck up.

It's not viewed as socially acceptable or 'polite' to call people out on their sickening attempts at humour, and apparently that's supposed to keep me from doing it, but I think that's piss-poor reasoning. I should stay silent and just accept it because...someone might feel perturbed by it if I speak up? Good. They should feel perturbed. Ideally they should feel incredibly embarrassed to be spouting this crap and passing it off as a joke. At any rate, keeping quiet is half the problem -- it's a lot easier to get away with hurting somebody if no one's willing to speak up and tell you you're wrong. And I don't really care if everyone in the group suddenly feels acutely uncomfortable and defensive. You know who's automatically going to feel uncomfortable over rape jokes? Rape survivors. The 1 in 4 women, 1 in 20 men -- and that's only the ones who report their assault. The numbers are higher than that in reality.

So you know a survivor, whether they've told you about it or not -- and if you've been running your mouth about how rape is funny, rape is a funny joke, they're probably not going to mention it to you because they can't trust you to take them seriously. And survivors don't get a choice about whether or not they've been sexually assaulted, but everyone has the choice of whether or not to make a crack about sexual assault.

You know it's in poor taste. And it's not the kind of 'poor taste' your grandmother complains about, when women wear red shoes on a date or something equally trivial and ridiculous. It's the kind of 'poor taste' that very literally and very directly communicates to everyone you're speaking to that you not only couldn't give a shit about rape survivors, you actively support rapists. You're saying that you think what they do is pretty okay, and honestly pretty funny.

I know that most of the time that isn't what you think you're saying, and I know for most people it sounds like you're making a joke ('haha, wouldn't it be funny if I really thought it was cool and normal to force people into sexual acts?' -- to which the correct answer is 'in what way would that be funny?'). There's one type of person who doesn't realize you're joking about that. That person is a rapist, and you don't know who they are. You don't know that you know them. They don't go around with flashing neon signs above their heads, but they exist in disgustingly high numbers in perfectly ordinary society, so I can tell you right now that you have met one. You probably hung out with one. Maybe multiple times. Maybe you thought he was kind of weird, maybe it never crossed your mind that he could ever be violent with anyone. Maybe you made a joke around him; it might've been about rape.

And there, right there, you've just told the rapist that you've hung out with at some point that his actions are normal. He already thinks that, this is statistical fact -- rapists believe that all men rape, it's just that some of them hide it better than others. What you've done when you make a naturalizing, lighthearted comment about rape is reassure him that it is normal, that you all do it too, and that you think it's okay. On top of that you've simultaneously told the rape survivor(s) you know that you're on the side of the person who assaulted them; that you don't believe their hurt is real or that it should be taken seriously. This could be your mother, your sister, your best friend.

Now tell me rape jokes don't hurt anybody.

Wherein I quibble about a few of the finer points of debate.

I do adore a good debate. I, like most people, openly love the sound of my own opinions; but I also appreciate the opportunity to express them in a setting that allows for them to be (intelligently and calmly) questioned, and I am quite open to hearing other people's views (so long as they are reasonably well thought out). I realize that not everyone can have the same opinions of every hot button topic, and you can argue politics until the cows come home but some people will just never see eye-to-eye, and plenty of women are exercising their right to not care whether they have rights. I have come to accept these facts, however grudgingly.

One thing I do insist on, if I'm to take someone's input with any level of seriousness, is that we are all clear on the definitions of the words and terms we're using.
For example, I find it bewilderingly difficult to find a person who understands what "privilege" is in a socio-economic context. Unless I feel like hauling out the chalkboard and teaching this poor imbecile from scratch what they should already know if they're displaying a willingness to engage in racial, gender-based or economic debate, I'm probably not going to bother paying any attention to their opinion. This isn't because I'm inherently arrogant (debatable; I won't deny it just yet); it's because their opinion is overwhelmingly likely to be uninformed and/or based on anecdotal evidence and/or based on prejudice and second-third-or-fourth-hand stories.

Rules of Any Decent Debate
1. Understand the vocabulary. If you want to argue whether or not there is a God, define 'God'.
2. If you know nothing or nearly nothing factual about the topic, don't start. Don't even say anything. Shut up and listen. You might learn something.
3. No anecdotal evidence. Ever. I don't care. If you utter a sentence during a serious discussion beginning with "My [insert relative/pet/friend/ex-boyfriend's name here]..." you are going straight to debating Hell and I will help you get there. It isn't relevant. Just because something happened to someone you know does not make it the norm. It doesn't mean anything at all, actually, so just don't bring it up. Good. Thanks.

These are all problems I tend to find in abundance on the internet. That's not to say they're not also tragically common in everyday (real) life, but the internet really manages to produce some doozies. If I had a dollar for every time I've come across a wildly creatively spelled missive denouncing one thing or another based on someone's auntie's personal experiences as a secretary, I'd be a very wealthy lady.

What's really caught my attention tonight when it comes to terrible arguments is the sheer number of people who dismiss concerns about underlying messages in anything aimed at children by saying, "But it's for children, so it's intended to entertain not indoctrinate". 
Intention is completely and utterly irrelevant. I'm sorry, but in cases of implied racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, or xenophobia, it really doesn't matter even a tiny little bit whether the creator of the thing really intended those ideas to be embedded in the fibre of it. If someone can find any of those things, and reasonably justify their point using the source material, then I'm real sorry, but it's there. You can choose not to look at it if you like. Of course there are other ways of reading it. That doesn't mean that implied racism/sexism/ableism/homophobia/xenophobia isn't there anymore. It just means you'd prefer not to acknowledge it.

Another thing - indoctrination is most often not intentional. I don't understand where exactly this idea came from that 'indoctrination' means 'deliberate and malignant brainwashing', but it's complete nonsense and shows a poor grasp of the vocabulary. According to that fount of knowledge known as Wikipedia, "indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine). It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned."

The only difference between indoctrination and socialization is that one has a negative connotation and the other has a positive connotation. It's all cultural learning, and it is never more significant and influential than it is in children's entertainment.

On Ellen Page.

So, supposedly Ellen Page has been 'outed' by an outraged blogger with unnamed sources. Question: has this always counted as a reliable way to find out about somebody's sexual orientation? I'm neither here nor there on the issue; it's bullshit to forcibly out somebody, and something about the inherent sideshow-ish nature of the claims makes me pretty uncomfortable. It's as if they've found out she's abnormal, dug up a dirty scandalous secret worth blogging about, which I'm sure is doing wonders to reassure those LGBT teens they're so worried for.

Plenty of people manage to live their lives without discussing their sexuality with people they don't know, and frankly I don't see why anyone should be made to do it if it doesn't appeal. If a prominent member of the community is gay and they want to talk about it in the press, make a statement about it and volunteer themselves as a positive representative, that's brilliant, but it's not something you can force someone into. It's intensely personal, and claiming anyone should bring their sexuality into their profession on the basis that it's a job that forces them into the public eye is ridiculous. Go find someone else to point the finger at, as if they were personally responsible for the bullying of LGBT youth. Maybe this time pick somebody who isn't a young LGBT person.

Thinking about the Slutwalk.

So, clearly, given my leaning toward equality and my complete disgust for the general perception and handling of rape in most societies, I thought that whole Slutwalk thing was brilliant. The idea behind it -- that anyone may be raped, regardless of what they were wearing, and that none of them either asked for or deserved it -- seems so mind-crushingly obvious to me that it almost causes me physical pain that it has to be said aloud, let alone that some people argue with it. 

Tonight I came across a profoundly self-loathing essay written by a depressingly unintelligent woman named Chelsea Fagan. 

I have, like pretty much every 22-year-old girl, gone out looking like a slut occasionally. And I got a significantly higher amount of leers, cat calls, and uncomfortable attention. I was not surprised; I had no one but myself to blame for the sudden nervous feeling that flared up in my stomach as I walked passed men checking out my shape in my revealing dress. I don’t dress like this anymore for that very reason. I want men to look at me and have thoughts other than, “I could have sex with her tonight if I wanted.”

This paragraph alone is stunningly near-sighted. "I had no one but myself to blame for the sudden nervous feeling that flared up in my stomach as I walked passed men checking out my shape in a revealing dress." Really? Really?

A) At 22 years old, you are not a girl. You are a woman. In Western society, identifying or being identified as a child when one is clearly not is insulting, demeaning, and has been associated with slavery and racism. It equates you with people who cannot live an independent life, which I'm sure is completely coincidental, oh hi thousands of years of gender-based subjugation. Cut that shit out.

B) passed? Look, I can see you have a bit of trouble on the intellectual level, but correct spelling and grammar is a joy we can all share in.

C) If you feel like you are at increased risk of assault because you're wearing tight clothing, that is not your fault. That is the fault of the men who assault women, the society that promotes sexual violence as titillation, and everyone who perpetuates the myth that the only women who get raped are dressed "slutty".

Aside from all that, there is no such thing as "slutty". The idea of a "slut" is a completely subjective thing. It changes from person to person. What looks slutty to your grandmother is probably completely different to what looks slutty to any given 15-year-old schoolgirl. "Slut" isn't even connected exclusively to clothing -- oh, no.

This photo turned up in a Google image search for "slut".

If she doesn't look slutty, that's alright, she can still act slutty, or have a slutty history, or say something slutty, or hell, maybe you just don't like her. It's a nebulous concept, and that is exactly why it's so convenient: it can be slapped on any woman, anywhere, at any time. It's completely meaningless. And it is certainly not justification for assault.

Women are pressured, followed, and hounded by men who, when sober and in the light of day, often would never do such a thing. And for a man, a sexually and visually driven man not in full command of his wits, having a woman tell him “no” while wearing the most provocative, arousing, blatantly sexual outfit possible is, to say the least, confusing. And while that does not give him the right to violate her, it also cannot be claimed that women are entirely innocent in this situation.

Er...yes, it can. If a man is so completely out of control of his instincts around attractive women when he's drunk that he cannot help raping them, I'm pretty sure he belongs in prison. I'm also bewildered by the idea that when a woman dresses "provocatively" (which is a relative concept, again) that means she is looking for sex from anyone at all, regardless of what she says. "Slutty" clothes are apparently implicit permission to all men who lay eyes on her to have sex with her, and if she isn't quick and loud and strong enough to withdraw her implicit consent, well, that's her fault. It's another nonsensical facet of the delicious subject of slut-shaming that it is supposedly so awful for a woman to want sex, and dress in a way she considers sexy, that any woman who does is therefore deserving of rape.

Over 80% of sexual assaults are committed by friends, acquaintances or family members of the victim. It has absolutely nothing to do with how they're dressed, or how much makeup they're wearing, or whether the news is on. Rape is always completely and utterly the fault of the rapist. This is a fact, not an opinion, but it's one an alarmingly small number of people seem to acknowledge.

Dear world:

I was going to lie and say that I don't give a fuck if you think anyone else's body is sub-standard, but then I decided that it's okay to give a fuck. (I also decided that it's incredibly sad and pathetic that caring about things is still seen as a weakness; although it's hardly surprising given that particular attribute's association with femininity, which is the scourge of humanity even though sexism is supposedly dead. But that's a different rant for a different day.)

Instead, I'm going to attempt to stick as closely to the truth as possible. So: obviously, I do care quite a lot that you think anyone else's body is sub-standard. I mean 'you' in the general sense, of course, this isn't a missive aimed at one particular person -- mainly because I've noticed so many people spouting that distinctive body-policing rhetoric lately that I wouldn't know who exactly to address it to.

I don't intend to go to the gym. I don't care if you do. That's your choice. I don't intend to punish myself into a smaller dress size under some pretence that I'm only doing it to get healthy. I don't care if you do. That's your choice. I don't intend to stare judgementally and make bitchy comments every time someone bigger than me walks by. I don't care if you do, but it makes you look so shallow and insecure that I get second hand embarrassment just listening to it. Again, that's entirely up to you. I don't intend to start judging my physical appearance based on how closely I resemble emaciated women with eating disorders. I'm not about to convince myself that exercising excessively isn't frequently a product of the exact same mental illness that anorexia and bulimia spring from. I've given up caring if you do, because I don't have the patience or the training necessary to handle mental disorders. If you want to come to me and ask for help, please do, and I'll do what I can, but I'm not going to jump down your throat unasked and tell you that I think you're unwell.

I'm also going to avoid having that conversation wherein I reveal that fat people are usually either just as healthy as you are, if not actually healthier. For every skinny person who is woefully unfit, weak and sickly, there is an athletic fat person in peak physical condition. I'm not going to mention to you that statistically it is virtually impossible to lose a significant amount of weight and keep it off for more than five years, because your body has other ideas about what your ideal weight is, and you're quite pointlessly exhausting yourself fighting against it. I realize you aren't open to these facts, because they don't gel with that nice little cover story about how you "just want to get fit", but complain when your thighs get bigger and you actually weigh more because you've gained all that muscle. It's a bit inconvenient to have to forgo that intelligent and balanced image you like to project and just admit that you're placing an unhealthy amount of value on looking skinny.

I wish I knew what to say to make you realize that it's not actually that important to be thin. It's like high school: you think it's the be-all and end-all while you're there, and then you leave and look back on it and realize it really wasn't. It was just a tiny facet of everything your life is going to add up to. I can guarantee that if you were to live your life as a size 14, 16, 20, you would still be loved, you would still have friends and family who adored you, you would still learn things and still experience things and you might even realize that there's nothing wrong with it. And if you never did, I guess it follows that you'd also refuse to accept that being skinny won't make you beautiful, it won't make you attractive, it won't make you clever, it won't make you wiser, it won't make you more likeable, and it won't make you any less superficial. It might make you simultaneously more arrogant and more terrified, but that's just a guess.

On poor explanations.

Today in my wanderings of the wonderful world wide web, I have come across more than a few mentions and debates concerning the custom of men opening the door for women. Just to clarify -- I am not referring to instances where the lady is carrying three bags of groceries and would physically find it difficult to get the door open herself. Nor am I referring to instances where the man happens to be walking ahead of the lady and holds the door open for her because she happens to be following closely. I wouldn't consider either of those scenarios to come under "man opening the door for the woman", because in either of them the woman could just as easily be substituted for a man, and the man's position could also be filled by a woman.

There seems to be a prevalence of deliberately obtuse men crying foul because "I am so nice and polite, and women are all bitches because they don't appreciate my uncalled for acts of kindness!" At this point I'm always reminded of this article. Oh, that everyone could be exposed to the idea that not being a horrible person doesn't mean you are entitled to sex. There should be a class at high school dedicated to teaching young people that feigning niceness in order to get a girl to have sex with you is deceitful, predatory, and actually not nice at all.

Of course, the men doing the obnoxious whining are not explicitly stating "I opened a door for a woman and she didn't immediately fall to her knees and begin the Fellatio of Gratefulness", but it's fairly implicit when they say things like, "You ignored the nice guy. You used him for emotional intimacy without reciprocating, in kind, with physical intimacy", and, "What happened to all the nice guys? You did." 

I did? What happened? Did I frighten them off with my failure to fall desperately in love with the first male I met who came up with a flirty line? Did my belief in their friendship act put them in the inconceivable position of having to be clear about their intentions? For shame! To think I took all that fake niceness and didn't even pay for it "with physical intimacy". Aside from my obvious downfalls in my role as Breathing Sex Doll, I know plenty of nice guys. Genuinely nice ones. Guys who are kind and respectful and -- equally importantly -- funny and smart and conducting lives of their own that don't involve following me around like a desperate little puppy dog.

Anyway. Back to the door thing. I'm sure plenty of men insist on adhering to tradition out of a genuine desire to do the polite thing, and I'm not at all criticizing them for it. Once, a very elderly man opened a door for me, and I smiled and thanked him because
a) he was clearly from a generation where this was an extremely polite and respectful thing to do, and
b) old people aren't the best at learning new tricks, so to speak. He was probably also racist, but I wasn't about to argue with him about it, because the chances of me suddenly enlightening him at his age are pretty slim.
What I am criticizing is this alarming tendency for men, especially young men, to dismiss the views and feelings of the subject of this politeness as 'bitchy' or 'rude' if she doesn't appreciate it: "Because they lack the grace and goodwill to accept that someone is trying to show respect for their feelings."

Let me get this straight: you open the door for a woman, she expresses that she feels uncomfortable with it, and you call it a lack of grace and goodwill, because you were only trying to show respect for her feelings? Her feelings, which you had no idea of before you opened the door in the first place, are clearly not a big priority for you.

I guess my point is that if you were really so concerned with doing someone a kindness, wouldn't it bother you that the person you did it for was at least mildly upset by it? I mean, surely that wasn't your intention. And instead of blaming her for not seeing how great and selfless your gesture was, maybe you should be thinking that not all women like it when you do that. Evidently you cannot assume that that little act of chivalry is going to make her smile -- in fact there seems to be a pretty good chance that it will actually cause dismay. Perhaps it's not the best idea to do it for perfect strangers, whose views and attitudes you have no idea of.

Some women absolutely adore it when a man opens a door for them. It makes them feel special and respected, and that's fine. Some women find it patronizing, and that's fine too. They don't owe you an explanation, much like they don't owe you an explanation for why they dislike seafood or why exactly their favourite shoes are their favourite shoes. However, I feel like a general explanation is required here, because it seems as if the majority of door-opening men who have received a less-than-thankful response for their actions are genuinely bewildered as to why any woman would take offense.

The fact is that the gesture of opening doors for women is a paternalistic one. Do you open doors for men? No. Why not? Because you won't get a date out of it? Because obviously men open doors for themselves, and it'd be weird for you to interfere? Why should you be uncomfortable opening doors for men if your only motivating factor is to do something nice for someone? I'm sorry, but the only way you're going to be able to convince yourself that there is no male-dominant sexism at work here is by burying your head in the sand as deep as it will go.

Of course it's always nice when people do thoughtful things for each other. What makes this particular situation awkward is that it requires an assumption on the part of the man that any given woman must consider his admittedly old-fashioned chivalry thoughtful -- and that a woman who doesn't must be broken. Women like doors to be opened for them, and that's all there is to it. Right?

Well, no, like most sweeping generalizations, that's wrong. It's been wrong for a while now. I'm not saying that opening the door for a lady should be a punishable offence, but I do think it's a bit rich for guys to get pissed off when women feel patronized and insulted by it. Face facts: some women will, and they are completely justified in feeling that way. Bitter remarks about how "chivalry isn't dead, but women's appreciation of it is" only make you look like a nearsighted, over-privileged and uneducated dickhead.

On children.

Dear everyone with a very strong opinion of underage humans,

I never liked kids much. Perhaps because I was a kid myself, from the ages of, say, 5 to 18, the very idea of holding a baby or watching the little 'uns for a couple of hours filled me with abject terror. It's not that I woke up one day and decided that all children are exactly the same person with exactly the same horrible traits (although it seems many people actually have come to this conclusion, but more on that later). It had more to do with the fact that I'm not 'good with them'. I don't have that selfless motherly instinct. Maybe I would if I were given the opportunity to develop one, but I seem to have missed that opportunity in my upbringing, and thus, teacup humans terrify me.

However. I've noticed lately that I have developed a propensity for defending children - in theory - and I think it's because I'm just that sick of hearing people talk rant about how much they utterly despise kids.

Don't get me wrong: I don't care if you don't want to have children. Good. Good on you. I'm happy for you that you've made that decision. I'm not about to question it. If you change your mind later, also good for you. I really couldn't care less, because it is almost meaningless to me at this point whether or not you wish to procreate. That's entirely up to you and I respect your decision.

People who have decided that they don't want to have children often seem to find themselves faced with people who are rude enough to second guess them about it; "You'll change your mind"; "That's what they all say"; "You're too young to have decided a thing like that", etc. I find it stunningly presumptuous and condescending, and it infuriates me just to hear about it. One of the many downsides of the prevalence of this attitude is that deliberately childless people will often feel the need to overcompensate by attacking people who do have, or plan to have, children - or indeed, children themselves.

I'm tired of hearing both sides of the argument, because it is a fundamentally stupid argument. Neither side is wrong. It is a personal choice. It is impossible to be more right in your choice to reproduce (or not) than anyone else is. And honestly, I find it more grating to hear people go on about how they shouldn't have to see children when they go grocery shopping than it is seeing 20-year-old mothers post endless creepy photos of the fruit of their loins on Facebook. You're all nutters. Please find something else to talk about.

All Is Violent, All Is Bright

Sometimes you just have one of those days where everything seems solemn and sort of heavy, even if it's completely irrational. In my case, predictably, this is almost always triggered by some minor love-life-related incident. On the upside, in my 20 years on this planet I have managed to gain the perspective necessary to see minor love-life-related incidents as exactly that - minor - and I find it best to pass the moods with sympathetic music.

In a side note - and this is going to sound spoilt and bitchy but fuck it - it is annoying as hell to be followed around and stared at and complimented and all manner of other usually good things when it's in the context of someone being obviously interested in fucking or dating you, or both, and you would rather grow old and die completely alone than devote one more second of your time to even considering such an unappealing idea.

I don't even care, you bitches know I'm right. It is awkward and uncomfortable and you don't want to be mean about it but if they don't take the hint and quit humping your leg you're going to have to pull out the bitchface and that's a generally unpleasant prospect. If you're disagreeing, that's because you've never had it happen to you, and on that note, you should count your blessings.

Conversely, if you have had the displeasure of experiencing intense unwanted affection, it makes you hyper-aware of any time when you are interested in someone and you're not sure if said interest is returned. At least, that's how it works for me. I am suddenly very aware that there is a pretty good chance that any overt gestures are going to result in quiet but unmitigated irritation.

Or this.

I have yet to come up with a suitably subtle solution to this problem - because sometimes, just busting out with 'So, let's have sex!' doesn't seem to be the best option, and most people I know are too nice to snap out an unequivocal 'Look, I'm not interested.' I'm working on it, but until I find the answer, I think I'm going to have to stick to dear friends with Mogwai DVDs.

Life in the fast lane comfort zone

So, as it turns out, there are quite a few things I am not opposed to doing/comfortable with doing that a great many people are not.
Among these things are:

• baring my face in public.
• eating 20 chicken nuggets in one sitting.
• dyeing my hair purple.
• sharing my thoughts on a series of seemingly unrelated subjects via the internet.
• participating in a threesome.
• arguing my point.
• falling in love with people of my own gender.
• eating processed foods.
• wandering through crowded places, e.g. concerts.
• shotting horse semen at a bizarre food festival.

I happen to be okay with all of the above, and that doesn't make me superior or inferior to anyone else. They're just facts. There's also a very long list of things I am/would be extremely uncomfortable doing, including stupid things like "ordering my own food at a restaurant" and "walking around naked". That does not mean I automatically feel the need to censor anyone who is fine with ordering their food or wandering their own house in the nude, because that would be pretty goddamn stupid. Of course it would, you say, but I'm not so sure it's such an obvious fact to everyone.

I'm writing this because I don't think it should be anybody's right to make anyone else feel like their list of comfortable and uncomfortable things makes them bad, strange, or unreasonable, unless one of the things listed in the Comfort Zone is "having sex with underage girls/boys", or "hitting people I disagree with", or something similarly damaging and antisocial. The idea of "normalcy" is a fabrication, and that alone makes it a piss-poor standard to judge anyone by. I tend to judge myself and other people based purely on whether or not they are hurting someone with their actions.

So I will shot my horse semen and have sex with multiple people in one go and hold my head high because I am not hurting anyone by doing it. If it makes you uncomfortable enough that you feel the need to throw names at me and tell me I'm doing something wrong, that's completely illogical and the fault lies with you, not me. Thank you for your attempt at policing my choices, but I don't intend to follow your 'rules' until you can back them up with something other than "Well I wouldn't do that, and neither would anyone I know." I appreciate that it makes you feel better if you live your life by irrationally sealing yourself off from anything you don't immediately understand or which is unfamiliar, and that's fine with me; I sincerely hope it isn't as sad and boring as it sounds. I would appreciate it if you restricted it to yourself - you know, the only person you have any right to control?

This is the reason why people don't like Republicans.

Now, I'm the sort of person who likes to be at least a little bit politically aware. I like to have an idea of what's going on in the world around me. Call me crazy, but I even take an interest in things that don't affect me directly.
Like this. I notice it only takes 37 words before 'God' pops up - golly gosh, you'd almost think there was some kind of link between 'God' and 'fuck all women, you don't deserve rights'.

So. Let's start from the top with this embarrassingly misogynistic piece of pro-rape propaganda. First off, it is completely misleading in the sense that it is supposedly just there to prevent 'taxpayer money' funding abortions. That's not all it would do. It would also prevent private health insurance covering the cost of abortion, and if that doesn't seem fucked up enough to you, read on.
Secondly, and most offensively, when the bill was first introduced it included a proposal to change the legal definition of 'rape' in cases of abortion, and by 'change' I mean 'narrow down', and by 'narrow down' I mean 'a 12-year-old girl who is impregnated by a 40-year-old man is not entitled to health coverage for an abortion'.

Of course, there were very few people possessed of basic reading comprehension who were not at least a little perturbed by the sweeping generalization implied there - basically, that all rape victims who are not able to prove that they have been assaulted enough don't count as rape victims. By this definition, in order to be taken seriously enough to qualify for healthcare insurance, you will have to provoke your rapist to beat you into submission. Because that's exactly what you want to do when you're being assaulted by someone - piss them off! Not to mention the fact that you are probably a woman, and your attacker is probably a man, and physically that will normally give him all the edge he needs to step it up and actually murder you. Thankfully there are a great many people who are aware of the fact that the majority of rape is not accompanied by a beatdown, and they promptly created A Big Fuss. So that particular part of the bill has been dropped.

Honestly, I find it very difficult to believe that anyone - even someone cruel enough to want to deny women, children and trans people who happen to have wombs the right to choose what happens to their own bodies - is stupid enough to think that 'raped in your sleep? lol no you weren't!' was actually going to slip by unnoticed.  You know how when you're bartering, you're supposed to name a ridiculously high price that no one would actually accept and work your way down from there to the price you'd actually be perfectly happy to settle for in the first place?
Or when you'd say to your parents, "I want to get a tattoo!" and they were all, "FUCK NO" and you were like, "Okay...well, can I go to a party tonight?" and they were all, "Yeah sure, do what you want, just no tattoos!"
Yeah. Something tells me this is kind of like that. A red herring, I guess you could call it. At any rate, just because that was the worst part of the bill doesn't mean the rest of the bill isn't complete bullshit too. I can only cross my fingers and hope people don't 'settle' for an added economic struggle for rape survivors in a time of worldwide recession.

On the importance of history

Those who have been blessed with the opportunity to view the comedic brilliance that is Mean Girls may have thought the main character's name - Cady - was a strange choice for the lead role in a mainstream American film.

In fact it is in keeping with the film's theme of female empowerment; it shares its unusual spelling with the birth surname of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, an 18th-century pioneer in the American women's rights movement.

Elizabeth Cady Stanton

Before she began her activism in the name of gender equality, Elizabeth Cady Stanton was also an abolitionist. She attended the International Anti-Slavery Convention in 1840, where she and every other female present were required to sit in a roped-off section where the men in attendance would not have to look at them. This incident was partly responsible for pushing her politically active spirit towards the issue of women's rights.

The Anti-Slavery Convention of 1840

Also present at the convention, and one of the only women to be included in the painting of the event, was one Baroness Byron. The name should sound familiar; she was the long-suffering wife of the poet Lord Byron, and mother of Ada, Countess Lovelace -- a brilliant and highly educated mathematician who is now regarded as the world's first computer programmer.

Annabella Byron, 1812

And that is how Mean Girls and Lord Byron conspired to make me consider the invention of the world's first analytical engine.

On the f-word and why it's tragically funny that so many women are afraid of it.

So, almost all of us have at least a vague idea of what 'feminism' is, and the majority of the uninvolved public is pretty much wrong. But the best bit is women who don't seem to realize or want to acknowledge that That Dirty F-Word is the one and only reason why they aren't chained to a kitchen, running the risk of childbirth every single time they have sex, and so economically limited that they will never, ever be able to do anything they actually want to do. Unless everything they want to do takes place in the confines of the house their husband buys for them (and takes reparation for in the form of sex you legally cannot refuse even if you want to).

Sadly, most women will react to the mention of feminism with disgusted comments about armpit hair, because as women, they know that one of the foulest crimes they can commit is to utterly disregard gender roles and do something different with their bodies. They probably don't know that the only reason any of them have had it bashed into their heads that this thing is incredibly important is that in the 1920s, short-sleeved clothing for women was introduced, and Gillette saw an opportunity to sell more razors. So they ran a smear campaign against female body hair, denouncing it as revolting and ultimately undesirable. And it worked! Our consumerist great grandparents fell for it and decided that the marketing scheme was preaching holy truth, and ever since girls and women everywhere have been obligingly shearing themselves. Is this an inherently evil thing? Not necessarily, but it's pretty hilariously sad.

Having said that, fuck body policing up the ass with a splintered plank of wood. Shave, wax, grow, trim whatever the hell you want to. It's none of my damn business. Put on 20 kgs and wear the tightest clothes you can find, because people who find themselves offended by the sight need to grow the fuck up and realize it's not actually a problem. There are plenty of real problems in the world already without oversensitive judgmental shitheads taking it upon themselves to add hysterical, pretend problems. "Oh, I can't control the way that woman looks! My world is falling down around me! War is a totally acceptable fact of life that I have no problem with because there's no point arguing with it, but other people's body fat is something I'm going to take the time and effort to bitch about and loudly disapprove of!" Please. Go clutch your pearls over stupid shit somewhere else.

On Maynardism and why you can tell people you don't like how they look, but they'll think you're an asshole.

I have a friend who is simultaneously quiet and brash. He has a pronounced tendency not to bother with such things as social niceties, and I accepted this long ago as a personality quirk rather than genuine vitriol. Tonight I was introduced to the idea that not everyone is willing to overlook it as such, in the form of another friend of mine becoming heartily offended over an unflattering comment he made on her appearance.
It was the kind of comment that was terribly worded, and knowing him as long as I have I could see immediately that he did not mean it in the way it came out, but by then it was too late. It had been said, the proverbial damage dealt.
And that, children, is why it's best to consider who we are talking to before we say anything that could possibly (definitely) be seen as rude or hostile.

I also spent some time in the company of the kind of people who drink until they vomit and then continue drinking/are pretty sure there's absolutely nothing undesirable about living in a constant cloud of pot smoke/declare poorly edited cartoons with little or no coherency to be 'exactly like a bad acid trip', which makes no fucking sense because modern acid rarely if ever causes visual hallucinations. Inevitably, Bill Hicks was mentioned and adoration heaped upon His Holy Name from all sides. I left before someone could bust out the Tool albums and begin pointing out the Bill Hicks references in the Tool songs. My only response to anything along these lines will forever be best summed up in this video:

Afterwards, I came to the conclusion that these pseudo-intellectual/edgy/whateverthefuck morons have made one very basic mistake.
Say a layman strikes up a conversation about quantum physics with a physicist. There's a good chance the layman will not understand a single thing the physicist is talking about, because the physicist is extremely intelligent and knows a lot more about the subject than the layman does.
Say a useless stoner pseud strikes up a conversation about who-the-fuck-can-tell-what with an average non-idiot person. There's a good chance the non-idiot will not understand a single thing the pretentious Messiah-complex-bearer is talking about, and sadly, they seem to think that this is because - like the physicist - they are just too clever for the poor layman to follow.

It's not because they're talking utter bullshit that has no intellectual or philosophical merit whatsoever. It's just that you don't get it, man.

On female comedians and their hilarity in relation to their genitalia.

It confuses and infuriates me that there are still people in the world today who don't realize what an embarrassing thing it is to seriously claim that 'women aren't funny'.

What are you backing that up with, babe?

Because if I was that dickheaded and logic-deficient, I might conclude that men aren't funny.

"Aw man," I would say, "men aren't funny. All of their comedy is just them cracking gay/racist jokes and rambling about their ex-girlfriends and/or wives."

Which makes a similar amount of sense as "Women aren't funny, all female comedians ever talk about is their period and their kids."

This clever and obviously hilarious individual bases almost all of his acts around race or imitating the speech impediments of the mentally disabled. He's also so funny he has to steal jokes. A+

Oh good, another routine about your shit relationships. Don't men have anything better to talk about?

This one's such a pitiful attempt at comedy that even the guy filming can't force realistic-sounding laughter.

And then there's Carrot Top...the guy copying the watermelon guy and somehow managing to be even less funny.

I suppose the point I'm trying to make is, your anecdotal evidence that women aren't funny sucks. There is plenty of anecdotal evidence that men aren't funny, and that is an equally stupid statement. What mystifies me is where you people decided that humor is innately connected to your sexual organs. Oh right, it was right around the point where sexism and the entertainment business intersect.

Whenever a man does a thoroughly stupid thing, it is always from the noblest motives.

It sometimes happens that, in the philosophical no-man's-land that is my everyday conversation, someone will make a comment that really grinds my gears. It starts off small: my immediate reaction is usually a quiet acknowledgement and, depending on how receptive to reason the offending party is, perhaps I'll offer a response hinting at how terribly wrong they are. The conversation continues, the gear-grinder forgotten for the moment. The thing that brings it looming back into my consciousness hours, days, weeks, months or years later is the haunting notion that I have left a grave wrong uncorrected. Thus, these vastly irritating comments could be considered a kind of delayed Berserk Button for me.

Case in point: one of my dearest friends made an offhand comment some months ago to the effect that "atheism is in itself a religion". At the time, I settled for a retort along the lines of "no, it's not, that doesn't make a lick of sense", but it has come back to annoy me ever since nonetheless. It troubles me more than is strictly reasonable that such an intelligent, intuitive and sensible young woman could accept for an instant the ridiculous notion that a term that denotes nothing more and nothing less than 'absence of belief in a deity' refers to a religion.

I suppose the strength of my objection stems from a deep-seated contempt for religion as a concept: I am deeply fascinated by mythology from around the world, and religion has never managed to strike me as anything other than mythology taken far too seriously. There are few demonstrations of utter stupidity grander than the argument that atheism is merely a different brand of religion, due largely to the fact that atheism is in essence the absence of religion. Can you imagine a cancer patient trying to argue that perfect health is just a different type of illness? 

Of course there is also the fact that entirely aside from the obvious fallacy, the other half of the argument - "atheists are a united group of people who all have the same belief system" - is simply untrue. I'm absolutely bewildered as to where people come up with this idea, because I've certainly never seen any evidence of it. Atheists present no united front; even atheists who choose to band together in small, localized groups of similar-mindedness are no more a religious organisation than middle-aged women in a book club are founders of a "Love Books Religion". Atheists, being grouped together on no other basis than one particular, very specific thing they do not believe, cannot collectively agree on anything other than that one single thing. Morality, politics, whether or not Jesus existed, we can't even decide what to call ourselves. If atheism is a religion where are its leaders? There are certainly people of note in the atheist community, and some who are much louder voices of reason than others, but we can't collectively agree on who our intellectual heroes are. Some of us are spectacularly uninformed - atheism does not in any case guarantee logic or intelligence.

We are ordinary people of every race, gender, shape, and social status, and we have only one thing in common: a lack of faith. More often than not this means that we are capable and more than willing to think for ourselves, and make our decisions based on fact and reason. This method of thought is fundamentally incompatible with faith. Faith is the mechanism which allows theists and/or stubborn, petulant people to refuse point-blank to allow the possibility that they could be wrong. It is also the basis of every religion ever invented. And it is this fundamental discrepancy that irritates me to this day. I still wonder what kind of incredible mental acrobatics you must have to perform in order to convince yourself that faithless = belonging to organisation of faith.