I was reading the news today and thought about Kim Davis and how she thinks she's today's Rosa Parks. She genuinely believes that history will look back on her as a historic civil rights activist.
Then it occurred to me that if she were remembered at all - she'd be likely to go down in history in much the way Typhoid Mary did.
For those who don't know, Typhoid Mary was an asymptomatic carrier of Typhoid Fever working as a cook. Typhoid Fever is transmissible via contaminated food - so her status as an asymptomatic carrier and a cook basically made her a mobile weapon of lethal disease.
Investigators found a trail of employment where she would work somewhere for a few weeks, an outbreak would happen, and she would immediately leave with no forwarding address. Several people she'd worked for died or their family members died as a result of the disease.
Doctors finally narrowed it down to her and discovered that the disease was harboured by her gall bladder and that removing it could cure her and make her safe. She refused to allow them to remove it, denying that she even had the disease. She was quarantined for three years, released only on the condition that she give up her profession as a cook and that she exercise basic hygiene to avoid transmission. She agreed, signing an affidavit to the effect.
Mary Mallon (aka Typhoid Mary) was also the holder of the
World's Most Effective Resting Bitch Face Award forty years running!
However, the job she procured as a laundress didn't pay as much as cooking, and she changed her name and returned to her former profession. Immediately more people became ill.
In essence, Typhoid Mary was informed that she was making people sick and killing them and adopted a, "You can't tell me what to do." attitude and continued on her merry way as a harbinger of disease.
If you inspire a PSA which could be retitlted How To Not
Be A Fucking Idiot, you have probably done something stupid.
It's cited as one of the cases which helped to decide what responsibility a public body has to protect its people. Certainly they couldn't force her to have her gall bladder removed - it was her body. Instead, the New York government did what it had to do, condemning Mary to isolation for the rest of her life on an island or until she'd consent to having the diseased organ removed. They knew they couldn't trust her. They knew that she would make people sick again.
This is how history will see Kim Davis - not as someone who brought about great change due to her heroic acts but as someone who brought about greater awareness through viciously wilful ignorance and denial.
(Check out the DF poll this week! It's been brought to my attention that my name is offensive (which I honestly hadn't really considered) and I'm proposing a slight name change. Don't start your shit about political correctness - I believe in treating all people with respect. Except assholes. Fuck those people.)
Another day in America and another mass shooting has occurred. This time 10 people* were killed at Umpqua Community College, just a day trip or so south of where I grew up. 13 firearms were found to be possessed by the suspect. I'll sure bet he absolutely needed every last one of those 13 weapons for self-defense.
It will always be "too soon" to talk about mass shootings and gun control because the shootings will never stop, nor will they slow down until we address the problem the United States has with firearm violence. That's exactly the way the NRA wants it.
Immediately after the Sandy Hook shooting, we were poised on the brink of change on firearm legislation. The NRA was under pressure the likes of which they'd never seen. The country and many of its leaders were screaming at the organization to DO something. Not one more child must be lost to senseless and entirely preventable firearm violence.
The NRA was intentionally keeping quiet. The lower the profile, the faster this was going to go away for them.
Then, without telling anyone, without asking the board, without bringing it up with his organization - NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre slapped his dick and giant, impenetrable titanium cojones on the table (er, podium?) and said with a completely straight face that it wasn't the presence of guns that killed our children that day - it was the absence of even more guns.
This is a ridiculously simplistic fallacious argument with literally no basis in reality. It's not like LaPierre financed a study which found that, in violent situations, innocent civilians are more likely to survive the encounter if they are in possession of a firearm. No such research has ever taken place. LaPierre isn't interested in literal facts, he's interested in dollar signs. Though, on the subject of research, afterthe Charlie Hebdo shooting a pro-gun group recreated the event with guns in the hands of the employees - attempting to prove that a good guy with a gun WILL stop a bad guy with a gun. They all pretend-died. The shooter lived every single time. Even in pretend scenarios when trying to prove that the good guy will win, the bad guy with the gun killed every civilian, every time. Anyone surprised? Anyone? An aggressive gunman is always going to have a huge advantage over someone who doesn't suspect that a violent situation is about to occur.
You'd think in a country where the vast majority of Americans support common-sense firearm legislation, we'd have no issue passing laws which help to keep our citizens safe from psychotic extremists obtaining firearms. You'd think that. If you thought your vote mattered. I've got news for you though...
...it doesn't.
You see, when it gets right down to it, it's not you who makes the laws. It's the US Representatives and Senators - many whose pockets are lined with gilded treats from interest groups. When it comes time to vote and a Senator has to choose between their morals and that $90,000 cheque in their pocket instructing them to "vote for guns", who do you think wins? And who is bought? The easier answer, as always, is who -isn't- bought, but let's look at some of the people currently fighting to keep guns in the hands of psychopaths...
It should be a surprise to no one that Teddy Cruz - Tea Party nutjob and all around creepy-looking sadsack who either keeps trying to leap forcefully onto the back of everyone else's bandwagon or perhaps is just in desperate need of some friends. The NRA gives him an A+ for being such a good little lapdog. Who's a good boy? You are Ted! Who wants a tummy rub?!!?
Marco Rubio is rated B+ by the NRA, Mitch McConnell, beloved turtle and all around demented grandpa looking type has an A rating. On the Representative side, Paul Ryan gets an A - and recently retired John Boehner was awarded an A+. Their ratings were given to them by the NRA for their support in pro-firearm legislation...and of course they were. They were well paid to do so.
Money talks - and it screams louder than you ever will.
The NRA and other pro-gun lobbying groups throw massive amounts of money fashioning gun-coloured glasses for our leaders to wear and lacing their voices with so many dollar signs, your own will never be heard above the din.
When they're not making Americans afraid of what the bad guys will do to them if they don't have as many guns as possible - they're making Americans afraid of their own government, filling them with fear that their guns are going to be taken from them. They're taking the second amendment and twisting it to make it appear as though the founding fathers always intended for us to be armed to the teeth. (I have this mental image of zombie George Washington just spinning in his grave over all of our bullshit). George Washington wanted a free people to have enough weapons to defend themselves. I've got news for y'all, we achieved that over a hundred years ago. Now we've just turned into the batshit crazy cat-lady hoarder of weapons. We have rooms so full of weapons we can't walk across them, but we just can't stop buying them no matter how our friends plead with us to seek help for our obvious problem. Still we need more guns. MORE. MOOOORE.
Pro-gun activists amass, heavily armed, threatening what they will do if their guns are taken away. The problem is that no one has taken any of their guns away, but their guns have taken away many of our children.
Right - because coming upon this will totally make me feel like I'm safe and in no way about to be murdered and/or otherwise assaulted by that large group of white men holding assault weapons. Oh yeah, I'd feel totally protected.
I'd begin my argument anew - the one I've used before - that Australia experienced just this in the 90s. I'd argue that they stopped it with the gun buyback. I'd argue that things changed for the better -but I know better.
I've made the argument before and always had it responded to in the same way. It couldn't work here. This is a different place. America is different. America is special. America is exceptional.
I have news for you, America. Y'ain't different. Y'ain't special. Y'ain't exceptional.
You sure are, America! You're #1 in: incarceration rates, obesity, firearm violence, teen pregnancy, drug abuse, mental illness, personal debt (student/mortgage/credit card), income inequality and a whole host of embarrassing things...
That's a line that's been fed to you whenever people are calling for great change. They point to a solution that another country tried and say, "Maybe it could work!" and the voices of stagnancy turn around and say, "But it would never work here - we are special.". They say that to shut you down, to keep you from fighting. They say that to shut down your hope that change is possible.
I actually do have hope for change, though. Americans are slowly coming to the realization that the US is no longer a democracy and that their voices are being silenced by money. They're getting angry and demanding change. Small groups like Wolf PAC are passing legislation to get money out of politics. Things may one day change. We may one day see guns out of the hands of people least suited to possess them.
Until then, we go round and round. Another shooting, another day when it's considered inappropriate to bring it up.
Until then we'll continue nomming on that delicious Ouroboros tail of violence.
* Death tolls varied at the time of this writing
Recently Justin Bieber made a rant on Snapchat where he talked about selfie etiquette. In the video he is in the back of a moving vehicle and he is lamenting (sounding quite weary) about the behaviour of his friends asking for personal pictures with him.
"the way you ask or approach me when you want a photo with me is going determine if I take a photo or not."
"If I’m walking somewhere or arriving somewhere and you guys are asking me to take a photo, if I don’t respond, if I continue to keep walking, the likelihood is that I probably don’t want to take a photo at that moment," Bieber tells his fans in the clips. "If you start screaming louder that’s not going to make me want to take a photo more.”
"He continued by saying, "Usually the chances are I’ll take a photo but if perhaps I don’t...please just respect me and just treat me the way you want to be treated."
Wow. How -dare- he ask for a bit of space and respect for his privacy? The cunt. Doesn't he know we own him and his time? J/K. I can't even joke about that without hating myself a little.
Then the internet promptly lost its shit, decrying Bieber as full of himself if he thinks people want to be around him so much (uh, but they literally do. That's like...a thing.)
In a news show that I watch daily, The Young Turks, Hannah Cranston criticised Bieber for being "ungrateful" and not having more appreciation for the adoration of his fans when they chase him down the street berating and screaming at him for a photo.
And therein lies the problem. What Justin Bieber is experiencing is street harassment. But let's look at street harassment in a slightly different way and I'll see if I can drive the point home... Have a look at this comic by You're Doing It Wrong by Stevie Wilson where she runs through her internal thought process on street harassment.
The full comic can be viewed here and I highly recommend her work - but this image is the point I want you to focus on. Robot Hugs - another comic I love intensely - put it really well here as well.
This is a problem of entitlement. It's about Bieber's fans not only finding him on the street and then feeling entitled to his presence and his attention because they came to see him - his fans actively hunt him down. After hunting him down and finding him, they appear at his side demanding a photo and a cuddle. If he's not willing to give it, they scream - he gets abused. How dare he not give them the attention they're entitled to? How dare he believe that he has a right to privacy? He's a celebrity? We OWN him (*cough*WomenInMen'sSpacesMuch?*cough*)!! If he didn't want our attention he shouldn't be walking out in public without a disguise! He shouldn't have decided to be famous! He's asking for it.
And when you look at the Snapchat - when you read his words, literally all he is asking for is respect for his personal space. All he's saying is, "You're not entitled to my time." and he's absolutely 100% correct.
When you buy his album and listen to it - you are entitled to that.
When you turn up at a concert of his - you are entitled to a performance or a refund of your ticket price if something goes wrong.
But when he (or anyone else) is walking down the street in their private time and you run up to them and begin harassing them - you aren't entitled to shit.
When you hunt down your doctor and follow him around after business hours demanding he give you an exam during his time off because you paid for his services once - we call that stalking.
You are no more entitled to that selfie from Justin Bieber than you are to a date or a smile from the woman you shouted at. And when we apply two completely different standards to a man and a woman (Justin Bieber needs to shut up and take a compliment but women being harassed on the street is a problem) - that, my darlings, that's sexism and it's disgusting no matter which gender you perpetuate it against.
I see a lot of people on the internet commenting on the letter that little Sophia Cruz wrote and gave to the pope, fearful that her parents were going to be deported.
The vast majority of the comments go something along the lines of, "Her parents obviously wrote that for her."
And that is -so gross-. It implies several things, two of them more glaring. That Sophia Cruz is incapable of such a well formed idea and that her parents are deliberately deceptive. The first idea feeds the second and is -incredibly-, -blatantly-. -wrong-.
While it's entirely possible that Sophie Cruz herself is incapable of such a well formed idea - to think that 5 year olds in general are - is just ignorant.
I know this for -absolute fact-, because I am a mother of a 5 year old -just like that-. I am the mother of a 5 year old with big, well formed ideas about what is right and wrong, a 5 year old who worries about the big things in the world - wars, famine, poverty, cruelty. I have a 5 year old who sees news reports of police killing unarmed civilians and comes to me with concerns about whether or not his family are safe from the police. I have a 5 year old who told me that he thinks we should eat less meat because it's unhealthy too eat too much meat AND because it's unethical to kill so many animals just for one family.
Do you know what happens when we look at a child and invalidate their big ideas? -We discourage them from having them-. Instead of saying, "Damn that little girl is one smart cookie - continue with your amazing parenting!!" we shut down Sophie Cruz and say she is incapable of her own work.
If you want a real idea of Sophie Cruz's mind, look at her artwork. It's -extremely advanced- for a 5 year old. She obviously has excellent fine motor control for her age and the detail in her drawings puts that art skill at -at least- 9 years old if not more advanced (my son's drawing skill is that of an 8 year old and he's nowhere near this level of detail).
Sophie Cruz's drawing. It reads: "My friends and I love each other no matter our skin color."
(Arelis Hernandez/ The Washington Post)
I don't doubt for a moment that Sophie Cruz absolutely came up with that idea on her own. I don't doubt for a moment that she was genuinely terrified and encouraged by her parents to express her idea and share it with the Pope (because I know that I would do -exactly the same thing-.).
I find myself reminded of a time when female writers had to pretend to be men even to have their ideas taken seriously. Why? Because they were just feeble-minded women who couldn't come up with anything worth listening to. It discouraged generations of women from making their voices heard. Why should they bother? No one was listening.
We engage in the same invalidating behaviour with children. When they come up with a big idea that is profound to us - we come back insulting them that they must have taken the idea from someone else.
Why? Because we feel intimidated by the intellectual prowess of a little girl? Because we ourselves are nothing like as brave as a tiny child? Because she is being -listened to- while our adult voices are currently silenced by location or circumstance? Are we really tearing children down over what gets down to little more than jealousy?
I understand -a lot- about human behaviour, and why people do the things that they do has -always- fascinated me. One thing I have consistently failed to understand, however - is the human need to constantly put children in their place and to bind them intellectually.
"Shut up you with your big ideas. Go back and play in the dirt where kids belong. No one asked you. Children should only speak when spoken to."
It's their world. We're only taking care of it until they're ready. Children are born without sexism, without racism, without hatred and rage in their tiny hearts. We should listen to them -more-, not -less-.
Someone on my Facebook feed posted this monstrosity, so I fixed. it. Women judging women is gross. Staaahp.
(UPDATE: I didn't have more to say at the time - until it turned into an argument.)
I might be a little bit of an asshole. I've never been willing to shut my mouth and let things just happen - even when they're little things like this. You see, things like sexism and racism? They're -sneaky bastards-. They'll worm their way into a meme or a joke you think is cute or funny and before you know it - you'll be throwing a whole race or gender under a bus with a smile on your face. All the while saying to yourself, "I'm not a racist!!!"
(Except that you are. What was that point I made yesterday? Denial of a racist situation - IS racism.)
I have a problem with "cute memes" which dump on entire groups of people. I feel as though I can say with some confidence that there is no such image which isn't -disgustingly- offensive.
"BUT SANDRA, THAT'S CALLED POLITICAL CORRECTNESS."
No. Avoiding saying things which make a group feel marginalized, less than, or mocked is called TREATING PEOPLE WITH RESPECT. A point -lost- on a great many people.
I don't know if the original creator of the meme was -intending- sexism or racism, a point brought up by my husband:
Husband: As far as the sexism goes - it's not "anyone who can't do those is a bad woman", it's "this is stuff that's unusual now". But underlying that is a. Ha-ha, I'm better than you! and b. The implicit suggestion that this is what women should be like. Particularly the "be loyal" thing. That's very "what the fuck". Husband: The hair thing ..firstly - they -never- thought that hair you can't put up in a ponytail may have a significant racial component to it. It obviously didn't occur to them that most black women can't put their hair up into what's typically considered a "full ponytail". It's not that they're explicitly going, "Ha-ha, you're black, therefore I'm better than you." It's an inability to think beyond their small circle of caucasian friends with fairly straight hair. It's really offensive to say something like that -outside- that small circle of race. It implies value judgement about something which is -not- something which can determine someone's value. It's a physical impossibility. Husband: They didn't -think-. They didn't think "You can't do this, you're bad." They thought, "I can do this, my friends can do this. Can you??! Are you as good as us?" Me: Know what accidental racism because you weren't thinking is? Husband: Racist. Me: It's -racist-.
Unfortunately, people don't like having their racism attacked - even their accidental racism. Instead of owning that something they said might be perceived as racism and using the experience as a means to grow, people tend to get pissed.
I'm not -surprised- by that, I'm just disappointed by it. Being told that you exhibited racist or sexist behaviour can, and does feel like an attack. This is especially true with people who don't identify themselves as racists or sexists. We tend to see our sins pointed out to us as an attack on our character rather than as a means to grow and to move on - and that's a -mistake-. When you shut down suggestions on how you can improve on your offensive behaviours, you're condemning yourself to repeating them.
The person who posted the meme on Facebook -certainly- wasn't the creator of the meme, she was only the person within my sights who posted it. By posting it, however, she was guilty of -perpetuating- the ideals held in the image.
I attempted to point it out to her - first using my bitchery and sarcasm and then explaining in a calm and concise manner -why- it's wrong. THAT I don't have a screenshot of. Because she ragequit our conversation and unfriended me. But it went SOMETHING like this:
Me: That whole meme takes a few unimportant possibilities of a woman's character and implies that you are better than any woman who -doesn't- fit that criteria. It elevates one woman on the back of another woman. Her: Like every other image on Facebook. Me: ...so...what? Because it's common it's permissible? Something that is deeply offensive but that everyone else is doing is alright? I'm seeing Syrian refugees being dumped all over and treated like shit by the internet. Does that mean doing it myself is okay? Me: Sorry - but I decided all on my own that it was wrong. I don't determine my morals based on what's trending on Facebook. Me: That argument amounts to "but all the cool kids are doing it!". Come on..
And I was blocked.
She took the opportunity to go, "Wow that -is- fucked up, I will consider my actions in the future. Thank you for pointing that out to me. I never realized how sexist and racist that was!" and turned it into "Fuck you, don't tell me it's wrong. GTFO."
And like I said...I'm not surprised, just disappointed.
I can just -hear- a lot of you saying, "But Sandra...there are surely sources of sexism and racism that are more important to address."
The problem with that is that it's the Everyday Sexism and Everyday Racism that provide the skeletal structure of the more obvious Violent Sexism and Violent Racism.
- It's memes like this which make us giggle without making us consider the deeper sociopolitical themes hidden (not so well) within them.
- It's Kylie Jenner altering her face to make it more appealing while millions worship her for doing it.
- It's young black men being arrested more for marijuana possession and that translating to "black people use drugs more" rather than the reality of "black people are stopped and checked for drugs more".
- It's women feeling the need to put paint on their faces before they can take a photo.
- It's driving while black.
- It's body shaming a woman for not appealing to popular standards.
- It's someone assuming you can't speak English when they meet you because you're Hispanic.
- It's the perception that an unattended (read: unowned) woman is an invitation for harassment.
- It's black women kicked off a wine train for laughing too loud and offending the tender sensibilities of the white people.
- It's mothers who say they don't believe that a victim of rape is at fault but teaches their daughter that they should moderate their behaviour to avoid sexual assault (which is like saying, "It's not your fault except when it is.")
- It's the sexism and racism in our everyday lives that we look at and say, "But that's just the way the world is."
That something is deeply ingrained in our society has never been a good reason to do nothing about it. I'm sure that, before the Civil War, when someone wrinkled their nose at and denounced slavery - someone shrugged and said to them, "But that's just the way the world is."
I'm sure that before women were allowed to vote or own personal property - indeed, before we were really allowed to publicly have our voices heard - someone said, "Women are capable of SO much more!" and someone shrugged and said to them, "But that's just the way the world is."
No. That's the way the world is -right now-. We can change it. We SHOULD change it. We ARE changing it. We -WILL- change it.
Laying down and dying has never been the right option. Instead of sweeping everyday racism and sexism under the rug and denouncing it as "not important enough", it's important that we become better at IDENTIFYING it so that we can STOP IT IN ITS TRACKS.
Only then can we start to actually change things.
Meanwhile I will go on with me...oh...1200 OTHER Facebook friends who can take criticism without shutting down.
My blog post reminded me of another thing a lot of kids just don't get because they weren't taught to look for it. I was reminded of the trend last year of young, well-meaning women holding up "I don't need feminism because I clearly don't get it" signs.
I certainly can't speak for all of those young women - but I can be sure that a lot of them didn't think they needed feminism because they didn't grow up with the constant reminder of "what sexism is". I know that I didn't. When I was a teenager I thought I didn't need feminism because I saw feminism as "man hating". Like many people, I mistook "feminism" for "misandry" and my mom was the kind of woman who threw other women under the bus with "she was dressed like a whore and asking for it" comments. I won't make the same mistake with my own child. My 5 year old already knows that the world is slanted to favour him and he's angry about it. That's the kind of kid I want to raise.
There are a lot of parents who hide the world's events from their children. They coat the world in glittering sugar to make it easier for their children to swallow. We even tell ourselves that we're doing it for a good reason. We're protecting them from the horrors of the world, we say. It's better this way.
But is it? Does presenting a beautiful, serene utopia of a world serve to protect our children - or does it set them up for failure and disappointment? Are we doing our children a disservice by not giving them time and space to process the genuine horrors of the world before they have to deal with them on their own? The utopia we're selling them? It doesn't exist.
I've never been able to bring myself to lie to my son about big things going on in the world. At first it was just explaining what was happening. I didn't offer. I didn't call him over to teach him a valuable lesson, but if he happened to see me upset about an article or caught a glimpse of a news video - I'd explain. I'd explain in a concise, blunt, and very honest manner what was happening.
Then one day it hit me like a slap to the face. Most kids in the world don't get the luxury of that sugary coating because they're -living- that horror. Once that piece slid into place, the puzzle became -strikingly- clear.
This little boy doesn't get the luxury of assuming that the world is an essentially good and fluffy place.
Recently, I'd watched MTV's documentary on racism White People. Let me summarize it for you. Non-white people talk to white people about racism and white people are horrified, uncomfortable, and sometimes straight-up think they're being lied to about the effects that racism had on their non-white counterparts.
I wondered what the parents of those white kids had taught them about racism. I wondered if it was the blanket an oversimplified idea that "we're all the same" and "we're all colourblind". We're raising kids who don't realize that racism exists. They haven't been trained to see it, so they ignore it.
And I've got news for you - that's racism. Denying that racism exists. Is racism.
So, from a young age, I started pulling Xander -to- me when I was watching the news and the horrors of the world. I didn't want to raise a child who would look at his friend and say, "No, no, no. We're clearly the same. You haven't experienced racism because I don't believe in it."
I wanted a kid who -knew- what happened in the world and -knew- how to spot it. You can only fight back against something if you know how to identify it.
We've talked about police shootings of unarmed black teens. We've talked about religious wars. About Syria. About terrorism. Starvation, poverty, sexual assault, sexism, homophobia. We've talked about hatred.
There are going to be a lot of people horrified about that - but I really don't care. I know that I'm doing the right thing. I know that who I'm raising is a kid who is informed enough to be pissed off about the way the world is - and that is how you raise someone who will fight for change. I'm raising my kid with the plea on my lips, "Please help make the world a better place." by -admitting- to him that it isn't one now.
Because when we lie to our children - when we tell them that the world is a good place, what we're really saying is that we're okay with the way the world is right now - and we -really- shouldn't be.
Got into a conversation with Facebook today about Obamacare and the general attitude toward universal healthcare in the United States.
Living in a country with a fairly reasonable healthcare plan, it's really interesting to watch a lot of Americans go completely against what the rest of the world basically agrees with - that preventative medicine is key in reducing costs of healthcare overall.
The comment about generosity (let's be fair, I'm an asshole) was based on her asking if she should just hand over her paycheck to those wishing a hand-out, and my response:
Yup! That's me! You can't see it but my icon says that if you think
I'm not awesome, you're probably just wrong. TRUTH.
Was it low? Sure. Was it true? I don't know. I was just going off of the things she was saying.
I'm struck by this self-serving aire in the United States. Why should we help other people? They should just get better jobs! We worked hard to get here!
But the point is, people...if we work together, we all work LESS hard to get ANYWHERE. Yeah, you worked hard but wouldn't it be GREAT if the next generation didn't have to STRUGGLE so much to get to where they want in life?
I'm not saying things should be given to them free but a hand up goes a long way. Take Australia's HELP scheme. If you want to go to university, Australia's government foots the bill. Yup. Foots the bill.
Do you have to pay it back? YES. BUT you pay it back when you've got a good job at which point it is garnished from your wages a very small amount at a time. It is MANAGEABLE. People don't DROWN in debt here. ....and you don't hear Australians bitching about having to help other people.
BECAUSE THEY CARE ABOUT EACH OTHER.
Dear Fucktards,
And by Fucktards, I mean the continent and country of Australia - where I live but am not a citizen.
You see, Dear Fucktards readers...I am an American by birth. I was born in raised in the US and moved to Australia when I was 20 to be with the man that I had fallen in love with.
....but I digress. I'm here now and I address the Australians.
IN PARTICULAR THE FUCKTARD AUSTRALIANS WHO ELECTED TONY ABBOTT IN TO PARLIAMENT.
I would just like to ask you folks...what the FUCK you were thinking when you elected a terrible fucking human being to lead your country.
But you know what? By this point...I'm a little drunk...so I'ma just show you what you fucking did wrong.
I always knew there was something off about Goodwill. This needs no further explanation.
I don't just go around trolling on the internet looking for things to be pissed off about. I know, shocked, right? It seems like I in all of my rage would love just trolling the net and making enemies - but I'm not actually that angry a person.
Actually this kind of is my motto some days..
I am, however, a passionate person.
When I started reading this article I kept an open mind. I don't even get all pissed when I read in an article, "Boy the gays sure do make me feel uncomfortable." because that's honest and true and ...just a bro expressing himself. It's not hateful and vicious or blatantly incorrect.
...and then I got here...
Dr Denton said that it wasn't natural for two men or two men to be together. "Sodomy is not a natural sexual act," he said.
What? Claim what you want about sodomy. That it's evil. That it's dirty. That it's wrong. That it isn't fun (LIARS). That it hurts. That it's gross. That it is shameful. Fine. I mean ....I think you're wrong but...that's just me. Those are opinions.
I know, I'm a terrible person.
....but sodomy is very fucking much a natural sexual act.
It's not like no one thought about sticking it in the poop chute until humans came along and we decided to reserve it only for our very evilest goings on.
Seriously. I like to be a rational grown-ass woman but what kind of fucking moron -are you-, bro?
There are whole species of animal who engage in homosexual sex as part of their normal relationships.
Australian Black Swans for example, while monogamous, engage in relationships with more than one swan at the same time - resulting in some cygnets (baby swans) having three parents. This happens about 1/3 of the time. About 1/4 of the time...pairings of black swans are flat-out homosexual. Two man-swans get together and mate for life. They raise cygnets together. They grow old. They die together. This has been going on for millions of years before humans crawled out of their caves. Homosexuality has been around longer than Jesus, peeps.
(Somewhere, someone is asking "wait, how do two male swans produce offpsing"? Well it happens a few different ways. Sometimes a couple of swans will simply take over another nest. Sometimes they will pair with a female in order to produce offspring and will then eject her from the relationship and raise the young. Cygnets raised by two male swans as opposed to one male swan and one female swan have higher survival rates likely due to the increased protection of two males rather than one.)
SOMEHOW. Swans have managed not to crumble under the pressure of their extremely gay swanny lifestyle. In fact, it actually seems to help. Well gosh.
Shut up, baby swans. Stop being so cute.
And anyway. I'm getting sick of this notion that buttsex is strictly for homosexuals. Depending on which study you reference, somewhere between about 25% and 35% of heterosexual women engage in anal sex with their male partners on a regular basis.
I think that a lot of people just forget that straight people have anal sex too. There seems to be this perception somewhere that gay men engage in anal sex because it's the only kind of sexual gratification that they can find - what with their equipment and all.
But I hate to burst your conservative little bubbles...there are a great many ways in which two consenting mens can enjoy each other (preferably after I've made some popcorn).
So if heterosexual women can get their sexual gratification from other means - why do they engage in anal sex? ...I suspect a lot of people are going to think, "To make the man happy."...which is depressing and kind of a sad statement on your view of relationships bro, you should have that looked at.
It might be a surprise, I know...but they do it because they like it.
Back around 2005 as a young legal clerk I had the misfortune of sitting down with a couple of my coworkers who I would normally have classified as "pippytwats". The kind of girls who came to work in stilettos and judged another woman on her shoes and handbag and not her mind and skills.
We were having lunch and one of them, a grown-ass woman, started talking about how gross and weird it was that women have anal sex. ...except that being the super-mature beings they were, they called it "buttsex". It was the only word in every sentence that was whispered.
"Men like it because they have a clit in their butt. That's what I heard."
"I heard it never goes back to the same size again and you poop yourself a lot."
I have this nasty habit of speaking up when people say stupid things. Also I apparently have a nasty habit of starting what I hope to be helpful, informative sentences by saying, "Actually..." in a somewhat condescending voice. I actually feel really terrible about that as I usually just want to inform someone, not make them feel like shit....
I informed the young women of the prostate and what it does. I also informed them that anal sex is pleasurable for women too - not just men.
One of those two women never spoke to me again such was her horror at my having been so candid on the topic of anal sex.
But people...it's time to start talking about things. Not because I think it's entirely inappropriate or because I think now is the very best time or because I want to offend anyone - but because being quiet about shit and not talking about it never helped anything.
So, in conclusion, Dr Denton is either deluded, an asshole or possibly both. But he gets a great big "GO FUCK YOURSELF" from this blogger. Keep strong, fucktards.
(From her own, private blog with her permission. I have left it fully intact but the first part won't make sense to many of you. Images added by me.)
Also a small badger.
Yesterday evening, as some of you caught, I got into a bit of a debate with a friend on the definition of "cheating". For the most part, I totally agreed with her points, until she came to "Is it cheating if his wife knows about us and says it's okay? Yes. You are cheating." Whoa! Huh?
Cheat
1: to deprive of something valuable by the use of deceit or fraud 2: to influence or lead by deceit, trick, or artifice 3: to elude or thwart by or as if by outwitting
I'm not going to rehash the whole debate, but one would assume that two married peoples are capable of having an open and frank conversation about something so potentially sensitive. One would HOPE that the feelings of your spouse would matter to you and that a joint decision could be reached between the two. So the "knows about us and says it's okay" part is presumably truth. I don't get how this is considered cheating at all.
BUT, that's not what we're going to talk about. Inevitably, in these sorts of conversations, I always piss off a few ppl by pointing out biology, anthropology, psychology, zoology... (some other ologies) and the fact that humans are just another animal. (YEEPS!)
Human
"Humans (variously Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens sapiens) are primates of the family Hominidae, and the only extant species of the genus Homo. Humans are distinguished from other primates by their bipedal locomotion, and especially by their relatively larger brain with its particularly well developed neocortex, prefrontal cortex and temporal lobes, which enable high levels of abstract reasoning, language, problem solving, and culture through social learning."(thank you, Wiki)
Looks like a party to me!
We... are a species of primate of the class of mammalia.
I fail to see how this prompts the peoples to grab their torches and pitchforks, but it almost always does. My point in bringing this up is that we (collectively) seem to hold ourselves above the rest of the animal kingdom. WHY? Why does humanity have to think they're so fucking special? Cuz we love? Tell a dog lover that his dog doesn't really love him. Go ahead, do it. Cuz we're socially dependent? Not so unique. Look at any pack or troop. Cuz we build shit? Ants, bees, and termites build shit.... Fuck, they have organized social structures. Do they love? Hell. Maybe. I dunno. I've never been an ant. The point to all this is that while monogamy is quite common in birds, it's not so common for mammals. In fact, only about 9% of mammals are monogamous. Only about a quarter of the primates (that's us) live monogamously. Human incidence of social monogamy "According to the Ethnographic Atlas, of 1,231 societies from around the world noted, 186 were monogamous; 453 had occasional polygyny; 588 had more frequent polygyny; and 4 had polyandry."
WHAT THE ACTUAL FUCK? MONOGAMY ISN'T EVEN THE SOCIAL NORM FOR HUMANS!!
There are two working theories on why humans evolved monogamy. 1) Infanticide, and 2) geographic distance between females. That's right. People paired up to protect their offspring from other men who would kill babies to ensure the longevity of their own seed... and because the mens didn't want other mens impregnating their womens while they were off impregnating other womens.
Noble, right?
So, since we've established that monogamy is not necessarily the "norm"... I get confused when people talk about "traditional marriage". Whose tradition are you glorifying?
I know, you can't read this - but click on the image, it's worth it.
Monogamy didn't really take off in the Western world until the plow age. People worked hard for their land, needed to breed a work force to maintain it, and wanted to keep it in the family. Marriage at that point was only for the upper classes. Women were traded for money and livestock and property. Love was not involved in marriage. Love was for commoners (who were not allowed to marry). Love was for mistresses. Love in marriage has only been socially appropriate since the 17th-18th centuries.
Marriage as a "holy union" only came about somewhere around the 5th century, but it didn't become one of the Seven Sacraments until 1215. Still, it wasn't until the 16th century that weddings had to be preformed publicly by a priest. So... if you said you spoke vows with your hunny down by the creek, the world viewed you as married. (Does "Oh God! Oh God! Yes! Yes! ..... I love you", count as vows? Hehehe I guess I've been married a few times!) (source) (And, tho this is a totally DIFFERENT argument, up until about the 12th century, the Catholic Church preformed male-bonding ceremonies... that's right, gay marriages. Google that shit!) So considering that our idea of "traditional marriage" is only about 250 years old, and that this idea started drastically evolving in about the 1950's, this "tradition" only lasted about 190 years. Even if you're one of those ones who thinks that the earth is only a few thousand years old (NUTS!), the tradition that you cling to is relatively brief and new and dying.
I am just trying to state some facts here. I'm not trying to tell you what is right or wrong, what you should or shouldn't be, or what is better or worse. In fact, I'm not even a poly person.
OMG!! I'm a straight, mono-type person.
Cuz that's who I am. It doesn't make it right or wrong. It doesn't have anything whatsoever to do with what you are or who you should be or who and how you should love. Hell, it might not even have anything to do with who I am tomorrow. ~shrug~ I just get agitated by people who cling to falsehoods and hold them up to measure the "wrongs" of others.
If you don't like it, mind your own fucking business.
.jpg)
