Monday, June 30, 2008

Jesus Christ

Whatever you do, do not look at the comments on this article.

The article is a defense of Imus by a black writer. Fine, whatever. Imus may as well be the crypt keeper, but I have a hell of a lot more important things to worry about than that decrepit geezer. But one paragraph in the article really pisses me off:

I found his comments about the Rutgers team insensitive but only slightly off-sides. Imus commented that the girls team was a little mannish and rough-looking (real talk). These observations were not altogether shocking or fresh; black commentators have said similar things about other female basketball players for years. And even though his jibe was consistent with his other shtick designed to rile sensitive ears, Imus should not have called those young women names—they didn't have a knock coming.

What a fucking asshole.

Imus merely called those women names. "Nappy headed ho" is a schoolyard taunt on a par with "poopyhead" or "boogerface." Bullshit. The words Imus used are racially charged, and I suspect that, if Imus had called the author of this piece, Jimi Izrael, a racial epithet more commonly reserved for black men, Mr. Izrael would be considerably more pissed off.

But bitches ain't shit, or at least black women aren't, and Mr. Izrael doesn't see anything wrong with calling black women either nappy headed or hos.

Don't mind the fact that Imus started off saying those women looked mannish and rough looking (as if that's an insult female athletes haven't heard before). According to Mr. Izrael, calling a woman a "ho" is merely an extension of insulting her appearance, an appearance noted for being unfeminine. Just don't mind the fact that whores aren't terribly renowned for looking mannish. Let's just pretend that "ho" isn't a common term hurled at black women, by black men and white men alike. And let's pretend that Mr. Izrael isn't conveniently ignoring the misogyny and racism implied in that epithet. Since a number of black men have no problem throwing that word in black women's faces, it's only fair that a white man should be able to say it without consequences. Kind of like how, since some black men call each other a certain taboo word, it's perfectly acceptable for white people to call them that.

I have to conclude with that tasty morsel: They didn't have a knock coming. In that case, it is perfectly acceptable to denigrate black women with racially charged and sexist epithets... so long as they deserve it.

Friday, June 27, 2008

Goddamn Thieves

Several weeks ago, I requested my free credit report online., run by Experian (the fucking crooks), demanded my credit card number before I could even look at my credit report. Smelling a rat, I carefully reviewed everything I was looking at to make sure I wasn't going to be roped in to some sort of fee or membership. As far as I could tell, nothing. The credit card number was just in case I felt like paying them for some reason.


Over a week ago, I received an email telling me of a change in my credit rating. I emailed to ask them if I was being charged for this service. Of course I fucking was. $14.95 a month for NOTHING!

So, I emailed them back demanding that they immediately cancel my "membership." They complied just a little too fast, like they know they're doing something fucking illegal fast.

I'll be damned if I'm letting this go. The FTC and possibly the Consumerist are going to hear about this shit. I wonder how much money Experian is stealing from unwitting customers and doing it through the federally mandated free credit report no less.

Fuck. Them.


Consumerist's already got the scoop, of course. Apparently, Experian is deliberately swindling people, yay! They have a domain: They don't tell people that you have to pay for their bullshit service, until you start seeing those charges on your credit card statement, yay! And state agencies, not the FTC (that useless piece of shit), are the only ones starting to call out Experian on its bullshit. Fantastic.

And, by the way, here is the only way to get your real free credit report. Learn from my being a victim of highway robbery.

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Good Question

Why are men more likely to send hate mail?

I can't say for certain, but it could be related to how, when I was a child, whenever I expressed any kind of anger or said that I hated something, I was immediately admonished. It was unseemly to be angry, and I should never say I hate something, I should say I "dislike" it. Meanwhile, boys could get away with murder and might get an annoyed admonition to "cut it out," which was only uttered after the umpteenth example of aggressive behavior and which was never followed up with actual action.

Men are allowed to be angry and violent; women are not.

Wednesday, June 25, 2008


Of course this is published in a New Zealand newspaper.

Although I gotta love this quote:

"Somebody murdered my daughter and you picked the wrong person to fuck with."

Hell yeah.  Get them.  Get those worthless pieces of shit.  And make them pay for sending that scumbag rapist/murderer back home for him to start killing women stateside.

Tuesday, June 24, 2008

My Avatar

No, I don't hate Rosie O'Donnell.  Let me make that clear at least.

My Blogspot avatar was chosen as a response to another blog commenter.  Incidentally, the one who introduced me to that "victim" nonsense.  Since I refuse to take his shit, I of course look like a scary, angry lesbian with a hairy chest.  So, I figured, why not use that image for my blog.

Although I will say that it tickles me pink how Rosie O'Donnell has been changed from a cute, cuddly, harmless lesbian to a rabid she-beast.  I think I prefer her this way.  Only a she-beast would tell Douchebag Trump what to go do with himself.

Monday, June 23, 2008

Helpful Tip of the Day

Anti-feminist guys, when you're trying to make an argument that feminism isn't necessary or that feminism doesn't need to address a certain issue, don't make it crystal clear in your arguments that feminism is still necessary. Fucking morons.

An example from this Feministing thread:

Sex-ed is to teach children about reproduction, safe sex, contraception, and the like.  It's not to teach them how to give each other orgasms. You might be comfortable with the idea of a bunch of 11 year olds running around learning orgasm-giving techniques, but I'm not. From a purely biological, reproductive standpoint, the female orgasm is without purpose. Sex for pleasure is a perfectly fine use for sex, but human sexuality is primarily a reproductive system.  Thus the name, "reproductive system". That's why most biologists and classes don't focus on the female orgasm.  Because when learning about reproduction, a woman "getting off" really has no bearing on it. That's why.

Though, it's odd to me:

When all a man thinks about is getting off, and sexual pleasure, feminists and women call him an "objectifier of women", and "someone who believes women are for his pleasure", and a "man child"... But when women do the same it's "empowering"? I'm sorry we apparently disagree on feminist views.  I think there's a lot more to it, and MUCH more important feminist work to be done than making certain you get lots of orgasms.

Great orgasms...or woman president?  Great orgasms...or equal representation in congress? It's just tacky to me to try to act like orgasms are important to feminism.

Posted by:  Black Thirteen June 16, 2008 6:41 PM

(Emphasis mine)

You can see where this is going, can't you?  A deaf and blind monkey could see where this is going.

Another comment from the same idiot:

Why is it important for young boys to know how a clitoris works?  In order to give women those orgasms feminists feel we "owe" them?

(Emphasis mine, again)

I love it.  At the same moment this guy is trying to say that female sexuality is irrelevant to feminism, he makes it clear that it's of paramount importance to feminism.  For fuck's sake, in the 21st century, with Dan Savage on the loose, there are straight men who are still threatened by women's sexuality and by the very concept of reciprocity in life and love.  Pathetic.  Unbearably fucking pathetic.

Sunday, June 22, 2008

Nowhere Else To Go

I occasionally wade into the nether regions of Hillary blogtopia.  What can I say?  I'm something of a masochist at heart.  A common argument over there is that Obama has to earn Hillary's supporters, namely women.  Incidentally, there doesn't seem to be much acknowledgement that not all Hillary supporters are women.

...the women who are angry about the way that Clinton was treated during the campaign, and about Obama's silence...are not under any illusions that John McCain is better on women's issues than Obama would be.

I've been paying attention to the people who are fed up with that line, and I can say one thing:  that's just not going to work anymore.  They've heard this for decades now, and nothing gets any better, because the party knows they have nowhere else to go.  It's not about McCain being some champion for women's rights;  they know he's not.  What it *is* about is Obama, and the Democratic Party, and the fact that Obama is running to be President on the ticket of the Democratic Party, which is ostensibly supposed to champion women's rights.  But this year, that was revealed to be an expedient lie.  And the people who are fed up with the lies want to give the Party a wakeup call, and to let the party -- and Obama -- know that they expect action, not just promises and lies.

Roe has had only one use for the Democratic Party in the past 25 or so years -- as a club to beat women with every four years.  Because they have nowhere else to go, right?

Fair pay?  Health care?  Domestic violence?  Where has the Party been on those issues?

(Emphasis mine)

Christ on a cracker.  Nothing in that screed indicates any kind of sensible rejection of a candidate or the Democratic Party.

1.  There's the careful parsing of McCain not being "better" on women's issues.  There's no admission that Obama is head and shoulders above McCain on women's issues.  No, McCain isn't "better", which is to imply that he's not worse.  McCain is also not a champion of women's issues, which is to imply that he won't do everything in his power to reverse every political, economic, and social gain that women have won in the past several decades.

2.  It's fucking bullshit to say that nothing gets any better and to put the sole blame on the Democrats.

Conservatives have been fighting for decades to take over the government.  They've been fighting for decades to turn the American public over to their side with great success; the majority of Americans barely support reproductive rights, and most of them are very squeamish over abortion.  Any chipping away at Roe has been at the behest of the American public.  Look to them for the blame.

What's amazing is how little comparative damage the Republicans have managed to wreak over the past few decades.  It's a testament to our founders' foresight when they created this country, and evidence for why it's so difficult for Democrats, even when they have large majorities in Congress, to make sweeping reforms.  You'd think someone with a law degree would understand that, but then you'd have to assume this is actually about the Democrats and not sour grapes over the female candidate's loss.

3.  The Dems' concern for women's issues has hardly been revealed to be an "expedient lie." Having a bunch of men rush in to defend a woman's honor is a thornier issue than it first appears.  What would have happened had Obama defended Hillary from sexist attacks?  If anything, it would have seemed as though he were operating under the assumption that Hillary couldn't defend herself.  Meanwhile, she did handle it herself, with grace and aplomb, although unfortunately only addressed it directly at the very end of her campaign.

4.  I hate to break it to the tiny minority of Hillary supporters determined to sit this one out or vote McCain, but Obama is going to win in a landslide, barring something really terrible happening.  If women actually do sit this one out (not that I'm saying they are, because they AREN'T), and Obama wins anyway, the ultimate message will be that the Democrats don't need women to win, and I don't really think that'll help anyone.

5.  That "promises and lies" line:  My impression from that is that there's nothing Obama can do at this point.  This writer is determined not to believe anything that comes out of his mouth.

6.  Damn straight women don't have anywhere else to go.  The past eight years should have been more than enough to demonstrate the consequences of a protest vote.  Perhaps this writer thinks that things can't get worse, so women have the luxury of voting against Obama.  Things can get worse.  Great Depression worse.  Things can get worse for women, for men, for children, for people around the world.  And McCain is just the pasty-faced walking corpse to make that happen.

Anyone with any sense has nowhere else to go.

7.  Fair pay, health care, domestic violence, really?  The party as a whole supports the fair pay act, supports some solution for our health care crisis, and has been working on DV issues for decades.  For frak's sake.  And while not every Democrat agrees with the party's stance on those issues, I do know where the Democratic candidate for president stands, and I'm voting for him largely because of those positions.

Lastly, why does Obama have to specifically reach out to women voters?  On every issue, every issue, that is or could be important to women he's far and away better than McCain.  Putting specific women's issues aside for a moment, women are affected by the economy, crappy health care, Social Security and Medicare, war, environmental destruction, and civil liberty violations just as much as men.  In some cases, they're more affected by those things.

What this writer wants is not for Obama to take a specific stand on "women's" issues; he's already done that.  What she wants is hand holding, for him to pay special attention to her and other disgruntled Hillary supporters and coddle them.  Not surprisingly, this specific critic of Obama constantly criticizes him for being insincere and being an empty suit, and for the kind of "I feel your pain" politicking that she now wants from him!  I'm not imagining a reaching out being accepted in good faith.

The Calm Before the Storm

My apartment manager is being eerily quiet this evening.  Her apartment is directly above mine, and she's proven herself to be a noise nuisance such as I've never seen.  Seriously, even in New York I never had to deal with this bad of an asshole neighbor.

But tonight, all is quiet.  Did she inadvertently overhear my muttered death threats or is there some other reason?

"Libertarians" and Feminism

I occasionally, even frequently, agree with libertarians.  I agree with them on issues of civil liberties, on the drug war, on some other social issues.  But then, they gotta go and lay their insecurities on the line.

Francisco Torres June 20, 2008, 6:50pm

In a long and thoughtful response, Rod Dreher ponders this question and writes:

Well, should people who choose not to go into the armed services be forced to subsidize those who do?

The answer to both is:  NO.  Nobody should be forced to do anything -- the question answers itself if you believe coercion is evil.

If women decide NOT to reproduce, they will simply be replaced by younger generations of women who grew up in large families, bred by cultures that reward fertility.  Feminists will simply be bred out of existence by beautiful Latinas.

Guy Montag June 20, 2008, 10:18pm

Feminists will simply be bred out of existence by beautiful Latinas.

WOW, that is the most beautiful thing I have read in weeks.

Little known fact, lots of Latinas know how to weld too!  At least in my fantasies anyway.

(Bold mine)

And libertarians wonder why they can't recruit more women.

There are so many things wrong with this.

1.  There's the assumption that Latinas are never feminists.  That would certainly come as a surprise to the valedictorian of my high school class.  But then, to these assholes, she'd be invisible since she's not beautiful.

2.  There's the assumption that all feminists are ugly and, for that matter, that feminists are these she-beasts that sprang out of nowhere.  As if female descendants of third world immigrants wouldn't eventually become feminists themselves.  Nope, only white women are feminists.  Only ugly women are feminists.  And feminism is absolutely not a natural progression for most women as they become better educated, wealthier, and more independent.

3.  There's the general hostility on the part of all (male) libertarians towards feminists and feminism.  They really believe that they can recruit women with this shit going on?  It kind of makes me sad*, because, like I said, there are many libertarian issues I agree with.  Libertarians could try to co-opt the feminist movement.  They could make the argument that they believe in a level playing field for everyone and that women have the potential to equal, maybe even surpass, men in a libertarian society.  There is one problem with that, however, it would be a lie.  Libertarian men do not want to compete equally with women.

4.  And that brings me to my last point: the basis of libertarian hostility toward feminism as evidenced in those quoted comments.  When it comes down to it, in the battle of the sexes, libertarian men are the biggest pussies of all.  The very idea of having to compete equally with women in business, let alone in the bedroom, scares the bejesus out of them.  (Imagine how sad Guy Montag will be when he finds out that second generation Latinas aren't any less likely to be feminist as those white hags who fill his nightmares.)  If women are equal, those guys might have to treat women as actual people with distinct personalities, with their own needs and desires, their own interests.  Look at what douchebag #2 said:  "...lots of Latinas know how to weld too!  At least in my fantasies anyway."  In his fantasies, indeed.  To him, women are here for his pleasure, and his pleasure only.  Ugly women need not apply.  Women who want reciprocity in bed should just fuck off.  Women who advocate for their own interests should shut the fuck up; men's interests are women's interests.  Ultimately, when libertarian men complain about women not joining their movement, it's all about their inability to get laid at their libertarian conferences and not about wanting to see female colleagues at their side fighting for a libertarian utopia.

Oh, and, Guy, I've found your ideal girlfriend.  You can thank me later.

*Although it doesn't surprise me.  I've never seen a Libertarian candidate for president who wasn't anti-choice.  It's a problem for the government to take people's money, but not to control a woman's uterus.

Saturday, June 21, 2008

On Being a Victim

I've been hearing the word "victim" a lot lately.  I first heard, or rather saw, it over a year ago when I was called one.  I earned such a title by confronting a blog commenter for his constant woman bashing.  (He very conveniently never bashes men.)  Since then, I see the title given out constantly.  Everyone from women to gays to African Americans are "victims."  In other words, if you complain about unfair treatment ever, you are a victim.

I don't credit the original blog commenter with starting the trend.  He's neither nearly clever nor original enough for that.  But the existence of the trend is interesting, and I wonder about its origins.

I guess whoever started the trend and those who perpetuate it have to start with the assumption that there's something wrong with being a victim.  I can't say that I agree.  There's something wrong with being an aggressor, someone who likes to fuck other people over, and nothing wrong with being the victim of such a waste of flesh.  What would be unforgivable is for a victim to just lie back and take it.  Victims everywhere ought to and must fight back against such scumbags.

This, of course, is exactly what people who throw around the word "victim" do not want under any circumstances.  They want to victimize others and get away with it.  Any attempt to push back is a threat.  There's just one inconvenient little secret:  when those motherfuckers throw that word around, they're showing everyone just how fucking useless they are.