Posts tagged ‘sexism’

December 8, 2008

I Need a Drink

The feminist blogosphere is all abuzz over a stupid NY Magazine article clearly published in order to set the feminist blogosphere all abuzz. Apparently, Alex Morris believes feminism has driven women to drink.

Now, don’t that beat all? The very first thing those damn liberated women of olden times did upon receiving the permission to vote was usher in prohibition/destroy the country. Now, 90 years later, they can’t stop hitting the sauce!

Freaking women. Either they’re drunks or prudes or whores or virgins or mothers or businesswomen or feminists or lesbians. But one thing’s for sure: they’re always up to something! If only they’d all pick one, good, amenable identity and conform to it en masse, it sure would make it easier to dismiss them all as individuals. But they just can’t seem to get on the same page.

Feministing:

The thing that pisses me off most about this article. . . is that drinking is a serious problem for young women and men. But instead of serious, nuanced media coverage on what to do about the drinking culture among American youth, we get article after article hawing about the consequences of equality. . . . Seriously – it’s tired. Not to mention incredibly sexist : the underlying message is that gender equality is bad for women.

So if folks are actually concerned about young women and drinking, how about we talk about the consumer culture that markets liquor (something Morris touches on before quickly returning back to feminism) or how drinking is being used to blame women who are raped? 

No joke. How many articles have their been lately about the increasing problem of binge-drinking and date rape on college campuses, and how many of these articles have arrived at the conclusion that the problem is…women being there? Yeah, maybe the problem is women being out and about, and drinking and carrying on like they’re real, live, young people. Or maybe – just maybe – the problem is men who rape women!

And as long as I’m taking the bait, check out this other asshole I ran across:

Forget what feminists, hippies, and liberals have told you in the last half century. They are all lies based on political ideology and conviction, not on science. Contrary to what they may have told you, it is very unlikely that money, promotions, the corner office, social status, and political power will make women happy. Similarly, it is very unlikely that quitting their jobs, dropping out of the rat race, and becoming stay-at-home dads to spend all their times with their children will make men happy.Money, promotions, the corner office, social status, and political power are what make men happy (as long as they win, of course, but then dropping out is by definition a defeat). Spending time with their children is what makes women happy.

You know, Satoshi Kanazawa, I think I know why you’re clearly so unhappy. You may think that you’re meant to be an evolutionary psychologist and author, but you’re lying to yourself and denying your true nature. You are actually evolutionarily designed to run fast, wrangle heavy stuff, and catch and strangle small creatures, and the sooner you admit that to yourself, the sooner you can become a truly satisfied man. I encourage you to quit all this thinking and writing that’s making you so miserable and unfulfilled, and realize your true potential as a welder/firefighter/rabbit-wringer.

June 2, 2008

Give Me Transit, Or Give Me Death

Seems everybody wants to keep the racism and lose the term for it. Here, M. LeBlanc at Bitch Ph.D. responds to Geraldine Ferraro’s recent op-ed:

Bringing up sexism or racism has become, in the minds of those outraged by accusations that they might be sexist or racist, “playing the gender card” or “playing the race card.” . . .

I’ve been astonished at the degree to which “playing the race/gender” card has flourished as a phrase and concept in the conversation about this primary race. I’ve heard it from so many bloggers, pundits, straight-up newscasters, and even some of my personal friends. I want to be as absolutely clear as I can: it’s a bogus concept, and using it makes you part of the problem.

Race and gender are not “cards” that you play, like laying out trump in bridge and winning the hand. Because when you have to bring up racism or sexism to explain what is happening around you, that means you’re already losing.

News that’s not news: shopping and eating cookies can help you forget about death:

The authors believe people with low self-esteem use consuming as a way of subconsciously escaping self-awareness, which is heightened by thoughts of dying. “When you indulge in shopping or eating, it helps you forget yourself,” says Smeesters.

(via Serious Eats)

Related, people in Japan should eat more cookies. So should the U.S. Army. And the Russian army.

Jeffrey Goldberg interviews John McCain on Israel, Iran and Obama, among other things:

JG: Let’s go back to Iran. Some critics say that America conflates its problem with Iran with Israel’s problem with Iran. Iran is not threatening the extinction of America, it’s threatening the extinction of Israel. Why should America have a military option for dealing with Iran when the threat is mainly directed against Israel?

JM: The United States of America has committed itself to never allowing another Holocaust. That’s a commitment that the United States has made ever since we discovered the horrendous aspects of the Holocaust.

In addition to that, I would respond by saying that I think these terrorist organizations that they sponsor, Hamas and the others, are also bent, at least long-term, on the destruction of the United States of America. That’s why I agree with General Petraeus that Iraq is a central battleground. Because these Shiite militias are sending in these special groups, as they call them, sending weapons in, to remove United States influence and to drive us out of Iraq and thereby achieve their ultimate goals. We’ve heard the rhetoric — the Great Satan, etc. It’s a nuance, their being committed to the destruction of the State of Israel, and their long-term intentions toward us.

(via FP Passport)

In the same interview, McCain takes issue with Obama’s willingness to talk to Iran. Here’s what Thomas Friedman thinks about all that:

Mr. Bush was also right: talking with Iran today would be tantamount to appeasement – but that’s because the Bush team has so squandered U.S. power and credibility in the Middle East, and has failed to put in place any effective energy policy, that negotiating with Iran could only end up with us on the short end. We don’t have the leverage – the allies, the alternative energy, the unity at home, the credible threat of force – to advance our interests diplomatically today.

Here’s Matthew Yglesias responding:

We’re a giant rich country and they’re a medium sized middle income country. We have military forces in two of Iran’s neighbors, we maintain sanctions on Iran that hurt their economy. Our closest ally in the country is a rich nation with a power military establishment and nuclear weapons, their closest allies in the region are non-state militia groups. We have plenty to offer Iran that would be valuable to them insofar as they’re willing to change their behavior in ways that are valuable to us. That’s all the leverage you need to start a process of negotiation.

And Yglesias on McCain:

I was walking earlier today thinking to myself, “you know, say what you will about John McCain, but he’ll almost certainly be a better President than George W. Bush so we have something to look forward to no matter what happens in America.” Then I thought to myself that to write that up, you’d need to include the all-important to-be-sure sentence. Specifically, something like “if, that is, he manages to avoid any catastrophic new wars that lead to massive bloodshed.”

Also worth a mention (although to me this doesn’t sound like as big a deal as the whole Phil Gramm thing):

Before Rick Davis began serving as John McCain’s campaign manager, his lobbying firm had a pretty cosmopolitan set of clients. For example, Ukranian billionaire Rinat Akhmetov, who has several business links to Iran.

A history of the L

…and a gallery of the coolest subways. Included is the best subway I’ve ever experienced:

The Hong Kong MTR has the distinction of being one of the few subway systems in the world that actually turns a profit. It’s privately owned and uses real estate development along its tracks to increase revenue … and ridership. It also introduced “Octopus cards” that allow people to not only pay their fares electronically, but buy stuff at convenience stores, supermarkets, restaurants and even parking meters. It’s estimated that 95 percent of all adults in Hong Kong own an Octopus card and they generate more than 10 million transactions each day.

Not to mention, it’s clean as a whistle and a piece of cake to navigate.

Timely to study what works, since lately, Americans are cuckoo for public transit!!!

The Balkans are totally safe now (well, unless you’re a woman).

May 20, 2008

Just Because People Say It…A Lot

In two separate studies, neither of which should come as a surprise to anybody with a brain, the Washington Post today dispels some things we’ve heard a lot of squawking about for the past couple of years:

First of all, no, there is no education crisis in which girls’ increasing achievement is coming at the expense of boys’ success:

“A lot of people think it is the boys that need the help,” co-author Christianne Corbett said. “The point of the report is to highlight the fact that that is not exclusively true. There is no crisis with boys. If there is a crisis, it is with African American and Hispanic students and low-income students, girls and boys.”

This ought not to come as a surprise, because whenever you hear about a boys’ crisis in education, you never hear about boys doing worse than boys did in the past (clearly, because they’re not) – you only hear about girls doing better than girls did in the past. But there’s no discrepancy here for people who feel any advancement made by women is by its very nature at the expense of men. (Incidentally, remember back when Laura Bush decided to make saving American boys her mission?)

And secondly, no, teenage girls aren’t using a technicality to blow the football team and still call themselves virgins:

Contrary to widespread belief, teenagers do not appear to commonly engage in oral sex as a way to preserve their virginity, according to the first study to examine the question nationally.

This ought to come as no surprise, because there’s always ongoing speculation by adults who can’t get their minds out of teenagers’ pants about what porn-o-riffic exploits the young might be indulging in these days. I’m no fan of Caitlin Flanagan (in part, because she frequently mourns for poor, neglected, American boys), but this Atlantic article is a good explanation of where this sort of speculation comes from, and why it’s degrading and insulting to teenagers:

The moms in my set are convinced-they’re certain; they know for a fact-that all over the city, in the very best schools, in the nicest families, in the leafiest neighborhoods, twelve- and thirteen-year-old girls are performing oral sex on as many boys as they can.

Related, the creepiness of purity balls! There’s a line at which traditional safeguarding of the “virtue” of young girls becomes more perverse than its opposite, and I think it’s around the time people forget that a vagina is something a girl has, not something that she is.

More on appeasement:

Bolton in the WSJ…:

‘When the U.S. negotiates with “terrorists and radicals,” it gives them legitimacy, a precious and tangible political asset. Thus, even Mr. Obama criticized former President Jimmy Carter for his recent meetings with Hamas leaders. Meeting with leaders of state sponsors of terrorism such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or Kim Jong Il is also a mistake.

…versus Scoblic in the LAT:

Containment, negotiation, nuclear stability — each of these things helped protect the United States and end the Cold War. And yet, at the time, conservatives thought each was synonymous with appeasement.

(via NYT)

I’m sick to death of talking about the primaries, but I’m even sicker lately of hearing people say things like this:

[W]ere it not for Hillary’s vote for the war, [Obama] would not have run because there was no opening. She gave him the opening by voting for the war. So spare me the stories about her being defeated by sexism or whatever. Democrats are dying to vote for a qualified liberal woman for President (just as some of us are dying to vote for a qualified liberal African American. And this year we will).

What this writer really means is: “MY FRIENDS AND I are dying to vote for a qualified liberal woman for President….” Just because you are a liberal who dislikes Clinton based on her (lack of) merit does not mean that sexism hasn’t played a huge part in her reception as a candidate. If you truly, genuinely believe that race and sex play little part in how the majority of Americans (yes, even liberal Americans) see these candidates, well, then you have a far, far more hopeful view of people than I do, and I hope you’re right.

But you’re not.

Also, while I’m talking about this, I’d like an end to the oft-repeated exclamation that no one mentions black women when the topic at hand is the general reception of these two specific candidates. Does everyone really have to spell out “women, including black women” and “black people, including black women,” in order for people to stop tossing in the observation that “no one’s talking about black women” to bolster their claims that either (a) white women are trying to say they’re worse off than black men; or (b) people are generally more reactive to racism than sexism?

On a lighter note (before I explode), I have an odd obsession with competitive eaters – my favorite is Sonya “The Black Widow” Thomas, who manages a McDonald’s and weighs less than 100 pounds – but even if I didn’t, this interview with Crazy Legs Conti is particularly hilarious:

I ate three sticks of butter as fast as I could. I wouldn’t recommend that for a pro-eater or a casual diner. . . .I also ate my way out of an eight foot box of popcorn, the Popcorn Sarcophagus, which earned me the moniker, “The Houdini of Cuisini”. I found it wasn’t the pop or the corn that did me in, but the butter. Butter is seems, is my kryptonite.

October 23, 2007

James Watson Defends Himself Further

Look, I’ve gotten into a lot of hot water for my recent remarks, and I just want to say, I don’t get it. It really is political correctness gone mad. I mean, what was so bad about what I said? We’re all supposed to be honest, right? And clearly, everyone isn’t born with the same talents. All I said was that there’s probably a scientific explanation for the fact that white men have, throughout all of human existence, consistently been the smartest, most talented, and most successful members of the human race. I mean, is that really so awful?

Is it really so wrong to say that black people are innately stupider than white people? I mean, is that really so racist? Why is everyone so mad about that? I didn’t say all black people should be shot. I just said that there’s likely a scientific reason that they’re all so freaking poor. I didn’t even say their genetic inferiority is their fault – quite the contrary, they’re just born that way!

I mean, I guess we’re all just supposed to pretend that it’s an accident. Like, would it be wrong to say that women are genetically programmed to be submissive? I mean, you’ve seen a woman, right? They’re really small! If you punch one, she’ll fold right over. I’m not saying that men should beat up women; just that they clearly can. Have we gotten so politically correct that we can’t admit this to be the case?

Look, there has to be some reason that white men own everything, right? Some scientific reason. I’m sorry if it makes people mad that I say so, but if we can’t talk honestly about these things, then what are we doing here? Throughout human existence, white men have been the rulers, leaders, the best writers, musicians, innovators, scientists…oh man, everything! I could go on and on! There must be some reason that nobody else is any good at anything, right?

I mean, I suppose there are some members of other races that have been lauded in these areas, but everyone knows they’re not really good (I certainly don’t find their work interesting or valid); it’s just that politically correct, liberal government institutions feel the compulsion to honor everyone. Is it really wrong to point that out? I’m sorry. I’m just saying, what have black people ever contributed? Jazz? I hate jazz! What woman has ever really done anything groundbreaking? Jane Austen?! Can you say chick lit?

Look, I’m just saying that everyone who is not a white man is more than likely born intellectually inferior to white men. I don’t know when that suddenly became a controversial opinion. Honestly, I’m surprised that everyone has gotten so angry over my comments. It’s just like when that Harvard fellow caused a public outcry just by saying that there’s probably a genetic reason women can’t do math (or, excuse me, don’t choose to do math). I mean, everyone knows women suck at math! They’re also terrible at comedy and driving, but I’m not saying that’s their fault. Women and men are just different. What, I should pretend otherwise just so they won’t get all pissy?

I guess I should be shamed and silenced by all this outrage, but I am not going to be censored. If we lose the ability to speak the truth, then we lose everything. I will continue to say what I believe to be true, even if it upsets people. And I believe that white men are inherently more intelligent, more talented, and just generally better at life than everybody else, and that science will one day back me up on this. And if that makes me a racist, well, then I guess that’s what I am!

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 41 other followers