We don’t dislike you, we just don’t like you.

Islamophobia is becoming more and more accepted and ingrained into life here in Europe. In Denmark we have the usual right wingers crying wolf every time someone with slightly darker than standard Nordic skin does something they disapprove of. In Switzerland they took it to a new level.

They actually voted and the general Swiss public has now banned the construction of minarets for mosques. The existing four won’t be affected by the ban. Religious freedom is guaranteed by the Swiss constitution, but apparently religious freedom does not include the freedom to worship in a place of your choosing that harms no one.

I won’t quote the entire article because it is longish. However, a few choice bits:

They claim the minaret is not necessary for worship, but is rather a symbol of Islamic law, and as such incompatible with Switzerland’s legal system.

Considering that a minaret, which is an unliving building made from stone and other dead materials, the minaret itself isn’t going to do anything to anyone. The symbol that they object to I’m unsure about. I will completely admit to not knowing what the minaret symbolizes in Islamic culture and faith (perhaps someone of that persuasion might enlighten me one day), but I still do not see the harm in letting people build a tower for their place of worship. What else has towers? Oh, I know. Churches! The Christian ones! What are they a symbol of then? I suppose they must be a symbol of Christian law, which includes stoning people to death and chopping off limbs for even petty crimes.

But no one appears to have a problem with churches having towers. And take note that in the existing minarets, the muslims have not been allowed to make their traditional call to prayer, like they do in many (but not all) of the Islamic countries. And this is in the same nations that churches are allowed to ring their bells at all hours of the day to… you know… call to prayer and mass. Don’t you just love the double-standard?

I live right next to a church. The bells ring every morning at 7AM and every evening at 6 PM. They call it ringing the sun up and down, respectively, but what it really means is a call to morning and evening prayer; vesper, if you will. And besides that, the bells call out the time as well. None of this bothers me, despite my being an atheist. I find it rather nice with church bells. I like the sound of bells for some reason – I can’t explain why. I don’t care that the bells ring, but I do care that Christians are allowed to call to prayer from their towers and disturb everyone (because not everyone likes bells like I do, of course), while muslims not only are not allowed to call to prayer from their towers, but aren’t even allowed to build the towers in the first place.

The Swiss ban sparked a suggestion from our Danish right wing-nuts that Denmark should ban minarets as well. Sheesh, right now the Danish muslims don’t even have a decent mosque to pray in. They have old factories, redecorated to serve as a place of worship, and they have seedy meeting rooms. Every time a muslim congregation has bought land and sought permission to build something, people in the neighbourhood has collected signatures against the building of the mosque they’re sure will be calling to prayer in their backyard. NO ONE wants to live near a mosque with all its noise and icky muslims. But no one disputes the churches’ right to ring their bells and call to prayer, and whenever somebody complains about the noisy bells, they’re usually told they can just go live somewhere else and not move into a place close to a church. True, but that kinda goes for the people, who are afraid of mosques as well. They can just go somewhere else, can’t they?

Why don’t people get that there’s no fucking difference between church towers and minarets? It’s a frigging building! What do we care what it symbolizes? There are crucifixes in public schools, there are crosses and hindu caste-marks in modern fashion accessories, there are church bells ringing on every single day of the week in many places, and ringing every Sunday and holiday from every church. And these people think a silent minaret (because the permission to call to prayer does not come automatically with the tower) will somehow affect legislation and freedom. What the fuck?

“We don’t have anything against Muslims,” said Oskar Freysinger, member of parliament for the Swiss People’s Party.

“But we don’t want minarets. The minaret is a symbol of a political and aggressive Islam, it’s a symbol of Islamic law. The minute you have minarets in Europe it means Islam will have taken over.”

Well, congratulations then. Islam has taken over, because newsflash: WE ALREADY HAVE MINARETS IN EUROPE. And to me it doesn’t seem like Islam has taken over. The proof? A public vote has just banned muslims from building a traditional religious building that harms no one (and usually looks quite beautiful), that doesn’t sound like Islam taking over. Sweden has a few mosques that have minarets. That country doesn’t seem to be all that Islamified as these Islamophobes think we’ll all be.

These people are shit-stirrers.

“Forced marriages and other things like cemeteries separating the pure and impure – we don’t have that in Switzerland, and we do not want to introduce it,” Ulrich Schlueer, co-president of the Initiative Committee to ban minarets, said.

This is a blatant lie. Fact is this: All over Europe, Christian cemeteries have the right to refuse to bury someone not of their faith. In Denmark this is actually a problem because most cemeteries are Christian, so if you die without being a member of the church, you can only be buried in the few places where they have left a few plots on un-consecrated ground. That means, if you want to make it a little easier for your loved ones, if you want to make sure that the ones you leave behind will have your grave-site within reasonable travel distance, you must be a member of the church and pay a life-long tax of point some percent of your income. Or of course you could just sign up when you get older, and hope you won’t die from injury or illness before you do so.

Christian cemeteries have always separated the pure from the impure, and they still do. And as long as a majority of cemeteries are Christian-run they’ll keep doing so. And people keep refusing to allow space for a muslim-run cemetery here in Denmark as well. So Christians are allowed something near a monopoly on grave-sites, and only non-religious folk can be allowed a spot on un-consecrated ground. Religious but non-Christian folks can choose between Christian consecrated ground or un-consecrated ground, none of which suit their wishes. Sure, freedom of religion my arse.

About 400,000 Muslims live in Switzerland, whose population is just under eight million. Most Muslim citizens are immigrants from the former Yugoslavia and Turkey.

Although Islam is the country’s second largest religion after Christianity, there are only four mosques with minarets in the whole country.

Anybody want to take a wild guess at how many churches there are in Switzerland?

Don’t you just love how everybody but the muslims get to decide what a minaret means, and that nobody but the Christians get to decide what religious freedom is and should entail? Lovely. Not.

Freedom of Religion?

There I was in the middle of writing and editing another post (will appear at some point), when news out of Germany reached my ears. And I was appalled. Horrified even.

High court deems Berlin shop hours unconstitutional

Germany’s Constitutional Court on Tuesday ruled Berlin’s liberal opening hours for shops were unconstitutional, agreeing with Christian churches that Sundays must be protected from allegedly wanton consumerism.

The court said the German capital could no longer allow stores to open on the four Sundays prior to Christmas, but permitted shopkeepers keep their doors open this Advent season one last time.

With the least restricted shopping hours in Germany, Berlin’s 2006 decision to allow stores to open on ten Sundays and holidays a year sparked a constitutional challenge by the Protestant and Catholic churches afraid the sanctity of their holy day was being unduly impinged.

After allowing the liberalisation of opening hours on every day of the week except Sunday a few years ago, the high court justices agreed there could be no further weakening of Germany’s Ladenschluss laws.

“A simple economic interest of merchants and the daily shopping interest of potential consumers are not fundamentally enough to justify exceptions for opening stores on these days,” said the court’s president, Judge Hans-Jürgen Papier.

Citing the so-called Weimar Church Article of the German Reich’s constitution from 1919, the justices said that Sunday had a special protected status to ensure Germans could rest from work and have time for spiritual rejuvenation.

Shops in Berlin will now only be allowed to open a few Sundays a year deemed in the “public interest” by the city government, as well as a handful other days for special events such as street festivals or anniversaries.

Both church and trade union officials welcomed the verdict as a victory for families and workers.

Katrin Göring-Eckardt, head of Germany’s main Protestant lay organisation, called it a “gift to society from Christians.”

“This is very good news for the more than 100,000 sales people in Berlin,” said Erika Ritter, from the Berlin-Brandenburg chapter of services trade union Verdi.

But Berlin Mayor Klaus Wowereit called the ruling a “real step backwards” that did not take into consideration modern lifestyles.

“We didn’t force anyone to open and we didn’t force anyone to go shopping,” he said. “Shall we recognise the changing reality of life or will we ignore it?”

Proponents of liberal shop hours also acknowledged the legal setback, but said it did not entirely rule out opening on Sundays.

“Occasionally being able to open on Sundays is crucial – especially in regions like Berlin with low consumer demand and lots of tourists,” said director of the HDE retail association Stefan Genth.

“Retailers don’t want to try and change the constitutional protection of Sundays, which is why stores only open after church mass.”

Isn’t it just amazing? Sundays must “be protected from wanton consumerism”. You know, guys, I think the Sundays will be fine. I’m pretty sure the sun will still rise and set as usual. What’s really the issue here is that the general public must apparently be protected from “wanton consumerism” in the mind of this court. The whole deal with the separation of church and state and being an adult free to make your own decisions was seemingly all a lie. Christians will still rule that you must keep the sabbath holy. And therefore there shall be no shopping on the sabbath – except on special occasions. Where the hell is the reason in that?

They want to protect the holy sabbath and give the populace a day of rest – well, except for fire fighters, police officers, nurses, doctors, cleaning crews, maintenance workers, road workers, customs officers, airport employees, restaurateurs, waitresses/waiters, hotel employees, musicians, cooks, etc. – oh yeah – and ministers and preachers, but all the rest get a day of rest, whether they want it or not. I’m sure a lot of Germans are very grateful.

It was stated: “A simple economic interest of merchants and the daily shopping interest of potential consumers are not fundamentally enough to justify exceptions for opening stores on these days.” That essentially means that even though the German society is based around part capitalist business and part socialist welfare (like several other European countries) the interest of the voters (business owners and consumers) in the democracy is entirely irrelevant compared to the infringement upon the Christian holy day: Sunday.  What the Fuck? How can a progressive society make such a law in 2009? It’s ridiculous. You must honour the Christian holy day and do nothing – well except for all those people who serve to uphold our wealthy Western Moneyed Privilege, they must still work. Heck, you must honour the Christian holy day even if you’re Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist or of any other conviction. Since when did Christians get the monopoly in defining the days of the week?

For pity’s sake, the seven days of the week are named after Norse Gods and the sun and moon. Originally (as far as I’m informed) the sabbath was actually Saturday, and Sunday is the first day of the week, meaning you start the day with a sermon (if you’re Christian an attend church, that is).

The actual interest of the public does not matter here. Only the interest of the church does. That’s quite the issue, because what the hell kind of democracy is that? Last I heard democracy and theocracy were two different animals. Apparently not so anymore.

The hypocrisy is astounding, too. We must protect the holy day – except when there are special occasions and really big events like festivals an such. Yeah, because the revenues from letting the stores stay open on Sundays and holidays for ’special occasions’ are massive and the state probably doesn’t want to miss out. Sheesh.

I understand the concerns about allowing stores to be open at all times. Here in Denmark they aren’t allowed to be either. Only stores with profits below a certain bar are allowed to be open on each and every Sunday. That usually means smaller grocery shops and gas station kiosks. Bigger stores are allowed Sunday openings a designated number of Sundays/holidays a year – and they usually save four for the Advent sundays, which is cool. Our current government has liberalised the laws somewhat and would like to go further – but there is some concern about that, because extended opening hours would increase the need for staff, which would again raise cost and therefore raise the cost of the groceries. Denmark is already one of the most expensive European countries to live in, when the real wage is compared to cost of living – so much so that it’s becoming a problem even – so that’s a great concern and may well mean that our ‘closing laws’ will not be further liberalized. Suits me just fine. All stores are available during the week – and enough are available on Sundays and after normal closing hours on other days.

To not have the laws so liberal has plenty of good arguments. In a secular democracy the need to keep a day holy and protect it from “wanton consumerism” is simple bullshit. They claim it would restrict the freedom of religion to not keep the Sunday holy. I fail to see how anyone would be prevented from practicing their religion if stores were open on Sundays. I do however see an attempt to force a religious observance on everybody regardless of religion, and that hardly constitutes freedom. This is ridiculous – I hope someone takes it to the Human Rights Court, on the Freedom of Religion issue. I really do.

In-game Romances

In more and more role-playing games (pc and console) it has become possible to enact a romance with an NPC (non-player character). Of course this must lie in the script from the makers, or it must be created by loyal fans, who are willing(and able) to write what they feel are missing in the game. In-game romances have become somewhat of a cutesy feature, which serves to give the creators leave to talk about depth and ‘true role-playing’ even when the game is as linear as my cat’s journey towards his favourite pillow (mine).

The first in-game romance I experienced was in Baldur’s Gate 2. And it has unfortunately set the standard for everything that has come since. In BG2 there are four romance options, 1 for females and 3 for males. That means that if you’re playing a female you can choose to romance one character or not romance at all. This character, Anomen, is a dual classed fighter/cleric iirc, he’s as good as can be (or he tries anyway – he’s a tortured soul), and he’s noble and broody, and an annoying chatterbox. Yes, he does manage broody and chatterbox all at once. He is basically a broody knight in shining armour, ’cause that’s what women want, ya know, and since no woman could ever want anything else, we won’t give them a choice. He’s neutral-aligned, with a leaning towards good, so a woman playing an evil character will hate him, but Anomen will still be romantically interested all the while complaining about her evil deeds. Anomen makes no sense – he’s a cleric for fuck’s sake – his romantic interests should not conflict with his alignment. But no. He’s also human, which isn’t really a problem until you meet the other romance options.

The other three romance options are for male characters. There’s Jaheira (who’s an awesome character overall) who’s a neutral fighter/druid multi-classed character. She starts the game with mourning her deceased partner, Khalid (NPC from the first game), and will eventually romance a male player. She’s an elf – with all the exotic pointy ears and slender looks that entails. There’s Aerie who’s good-aligned but very sulky about her past. She’s a cleric/mage multiclass and will romance a male character. Oh yeah, and she’s an elf, and she used to have wings (yes, winged elves – avariel – exist in that setting). Very exotic. And then there’s Viconia. She’s evil, she’s a cleric. She’ll romance any non-elf male player, and oh yeah, did I mention? She’s an elf. A drow elf, which explains her hate for all other elves and not romancing any of those. But there you have it: all the romance options for males involve the exotic pointy-eared elves. The only option for female players is a rather annoying and boring human.

Back then I was annoyed that I didn’t get to choose between anything – and then I just played with a male character. I distinctly remember experiencing the Jaheira romance as lesbian, because while I played a character that the game identified as male, I was totally identifying as female all the time. Now as I look back, I realise that not only were female players not given any choice of partners, they were also given the standard type of what women supposedly want. Men, on the other hand, were given as many as three choices, and all of them were exotic – two of the three even very much so. This was a geekboy elf-fetishist’s fantasy.

I figured things might have changed. But no. I played Neverwinter Nights 2. The original campaign is boring, far too linear and well… blah. There are 4 romance options – and this time they’ve been split evenly among the sexes. This time women do get to choose – we can choose between a goody-two-shoes paladin, Casavir, who’s probably a steady and dependable partner in a relationship and an evil, evil ranger, Bishop, who’s sadistic, sarcastic, non-committal and generally rude and a lot of fun to banter with in-game. For once there is a tortured soul with a horrible past, who actually grew up to be a really mean and nasty incarnation of bitterness. He makes sense. Both of them have been designed to look good, and Fangirls For Shirtless [char-name] groups have arisen across the internet, so there’s been some success with that. It’s not all good, though. Now women can choose between two alignments, but both potential partners are human – again, it wouldn’t matter if it wasn’t for the male options.

Also, unlike in Baldur’s Gate 2 where certain romance options may cause some NPCs to permanently leave the player’s party, nothing in NWN2 has any consequences. Here the NPCs will scold you, complain, and accuse, but they will remain with you to complete the quest. I romanced the evil ranger (and had loads of fun with that), and when we were nearing the final battle, the paladin actually told me that it had been an ordeal traveling with me, and he would be glad when it was over. Once again, the good character makes no sense. And no matter how much fun you’ve had with the ranger, he will still betray you (he’s still evil, make no mistake, and totally goth with black eyeliner). He might not actively fight against you, but even the romances are linear along with the game’s plot.

And then there are the two romance options for male players. One is Elanee, she’s neutral good and she’s a druid, and another is Neeshka, who’s neutral and a rogue. Both are cool characters – I like Neeshka the most, but she’s not very useful strategy-wise. And then there’s the kicker. Elanee’s an elf, and Neeshka’s a tiefling – she has fiend-blood in her veins. Very exotic both of them, especially compared to how female players only get a shot with the humans. Playing a female dwarf does not net a romance with Khelgar (dwarf) or Grobnar(gnome), which would have been more obvious choices, as a male you can’t romance the two human females, even though Shandra, a fighter, is a character who might have been a good one to build a romance on, and Qara, a very selfish but funny (and slightly pyromaniac-like) sorceress with a strong penchant for destructive firespells might have been a logical option for an evil male character. Nor do girls get a chance with the elven wizard, Sand, which is also a pity. Once again the men got the exotic women, and women got the humans. The ranger is a redeeming fact, though, because he really is funny to romance

What can I say? Women’s sexuality is apparently only directed at human males (and don’t get me started on gender and orientation on this one, because in that regard games are conservative), while men’s sexuality is only directed at non-human females. Is it strange that women sometimes find it hard to be attractive in this world? These games merely illustrate what’s going on outside them – men don’t want human partners, they want waif-like elves, or a tiefling with horns and a tail. At least that’s what they’re being told they can want. And okay, Neeshka is kind of hot – I’d probably romance her with a female character if the option was there. But it’s not. Everything is hetero and cis, too, by the looks of it, though I have heard some express doubts about Sand’s maleness due to his effeminate elven physique.

My friend, M, told me about Mass Effect, which he played on X-Box 360. In it there are 3 romance options. A male, a female and an alien. The former two are squad members, and will result in an intimate hetero cut scene towards the end. The third is an alien, non-gendered if I understood correctly, but female shaped and blue-skinned, and she is an option no matter the player’s sex. If the player chooses to romance ‘her’, there will also be an intimate cut-scene, which will either be het or lesbian. Now, I wonder why that would be? … well, no, I really don’t. M told me that he’d mentioned this to another friend and had been rather appalled that the other friend had reacted with: “Wow, I’m totally gonna play as a girl and get me some girl-on-girl action.” He would play through an entire game as a character he does not identify with, for the sole purpose of watching a blue-skinned humanoid female getting it on with a human woman. And it’s a long and time-consuming game, too. Why? I’d rather not entertain too many guesses, but it has to do with the male gaze and men never having realised that lesbians don’t have sex for the sake of men, but rather for their own sakes.

And then there’s The Witcher, where one can only play a male character, Geralt. Since he’s sterile and immune to disease there are no worries if one should choose to embark on the mini-game within the game: Say the right things to the female NPCs and succeed in bedding them – if you do, you win a ‘card’ with vaguely naughty illustrations. Female players can get to ‘enjoy’ this while being reminded that women are prizes to be won, and no woman is ever unavailable, it’s only a matter of saying the right thing. Oh yeah, and once the sex has been had, he doesn’t come back, he just keeps a picture as a souvenir. Reminds me an awful lot like serial rapists and murderers, who often collect mementos from their victims eg. panties, fingers, or even more gruesome bits. But call it a romance again? Nah. It’s about titillating the male gamers, and ignoring the female gamers, who only get catered to once in a while with standard run-of-the-mill men-a-good-girl-would-want.

I have admittedly not played all the newest RPGs; to acquire them would require money that I don’t have, but I have yet to see or even hear of a game that does not cater solely to male fantasies and treat female sexuality as an after-thought. And that’s a real pity, because there are evidently a lot of female gamers out there who appreciate a little sexiness from time to time. That is, a sexiness they can relate to rather than one by which they are objectified and treated as if all female sexuality is one and the same.

An Exquisite Beauty Appreciation Post

Since I posted pictures of sexy men the other day, today it’s time for some female goodness. So without further ado and in no particular order:

 

Beyonce

Because along with having a terrific voice and making awesome music, Beyonce is so drop dead gorgeous she takes my breath away.

Whitney

The first ‘plus-size’ model to win ANTM. Whitney is only plus-size in terms of high fashion, and not in terms of reality, though. She still is hot, though.

Zoë Wanamaker

I absolutely adore Zoë Wanamaker. Most will probably only recognize her as Madam Hooch, the flying instructor from Harry Potter. She doesn’t look like anyone else I can think of. And the way she can flirt humourously with the camera just makes me melt.

Erykah Badu

Because Erykah Badu has rocked her own unique style in the hottest of ways. There’s nothing mainstream about her, she radiates such an amazing personality, and she’s one of those people I’d love to meet, even if I’d probably just spend what little time it’d be staring and gaping and trying to vocalise my admiration.

Roselyn Sanchez as Elena Delgado from Without a Trace

I’ll admit to having a thing for Without a Trace. I especially like how three female leads represent each their own colour. This is Elena Delgado as played by Roselyn Sanchez, and I don’t know what it is about her – perhaps it’s the ‘intelligent and gutsy FBI agent’ vibe. It’s cool and hot at the same time. Gotta love that.

Marianne Jean-Baptiste as Vivian Johnson from Without a Trace

Because I can’t wax lyrical about the ladies of Without a Trace and only include one. Ms. Jean-Baptiste here is on the list, because aside from being gorgeous she has the kind of eyes I can stare into for hours. The warmth in them fairly sizzles. And her character Vivian is quite the strong leader as well – that’s definitely a plus, too

And no, I will not be including Sam Spade, who, though pretty, is no different than multitudes of other thin blonde women.

Maggie Smith as Minerva McGonagall

 

Because I think Dame Maggie Smith has aged beautifully and has such a presence she cannot be ignored – even if one tried. And she speaks beautifully – it’s a combination of her sight accent and her diction. She reminds me a little of my grandmother – who also has beautiful diction. I’m rather jealous, I’m a sloppy speaker

Oprah Winfrey

Supposedly one of the most influential women on this planet, Oprah Winfrey is also beautiful and with her charisma she earns her spot in this little appreciation post.

Naima Mora

Yes, it’s another ANTM winner: Naima Mora. ANTM is one of my guilty pleasures, and Naima was always one of my favourites.

Halle Berry as Catwoman

Catwoman may not be the most loyal Marvel-comic-turned-movie ever, but I still loved it – mostly because of Halle Berry, who is among the sexiest of the sexy. Of course she was my highlight of the X-men movies with the way she made Storm her own and made her way more down-to-earth hot than the weather goddess from the comics.

Mystique from X-Men as played by Rebecca Romijn-Stamos

Because the mention of X-Men reminded me of her, and how I’m probably slightly weird in thinking her awesomely hot, not Stamos as herself (well, that too), but specifically blue and scaly. I’m possibly very weird, but I think Stamos’ Mystique was terrific, as opposed to the comic version, which was more bland.

Right, I suppose that’s enough for now. Enjoy the view

A Sexy Beast Appreciation Post

So I felt like posting something positive, and what can be more positive and life-affirming than drooling over some of the truly great-looking people out there?

So here goes:

Wesley Snipes as Blade the Daywalker

I don’t know why I have this thing for Wesley Snipes, but he is one hell of a sexy beast, especially in his role as Blade the Daywalker. It’s a cheasy flick, but I loves me some mindless action to kick back to and relax once in a while. And Mr. Snipes here does it for me.

Will Smith

And Will Smith is so high on my current list because I watched I, Robot last night, and though the movie isn’t great art, I liked it, and I liked him in it, the robot animations were neat, too. Smith manages to have a drool-worthy body while maintaining some of that boyish charm. It makes him nigh irresistible.

James Marsters as Spike on Buffy the Vampire Slayer

And I’ll admit to having a thing for vampires. If those vampires are hot that is. I still have not grasped what is supposed to be so awesome about Robert Pattinson as Edward Cullen. Give me Spike aka William the Bloody any day and I’ll be a happy cat. Those cheek-bones, those eyes… *swoon*

Vin Diesel

If Vin Diesel looked at me like that, I’d probably melt with desire. The picture’s doing a fairly good job of it on its own. What can I say – the man is made of Vin – uhhhh win.

Ice-T

I know. Ice-T is a weird choice, but whatever objectionable shit may have come out of his mouth, I fell in love with him in New Jack City – yes, you may laugh at me now – and I can’t even explain why. I think he’s hot.

Johnny Depp

I’m guessing no one’s surprised I included this guy. Hawt, hawt, hawt. Johnny Depp is absolutely crush-worthy.

Russell Wong

I discovered Russell Wong in Vanishing Son, a mini series in which he played Jian Wa Chang, if I recall correctly – it’s been ages since I last saw it. He’s since showed up as supporting cast in many other films, Romeo Must Die and New Jack City among them. I think it’s a real shame we don’t see more of him, ’cause I like him. Sexy beast for the win!

Marcus S. Chong

I saw Marcus Chong the first time in Vanishing Son as well. He, too, has them magic cheek bones. And I generally just adore his face. And then he showed up in The Matrix as Tank, and I was totally stoked about it, and therefore completely irate and incosolable that he was not in Matrix 2 and 3. That sucked, ’cause this guy is eye-candy. Mmmm.

Sean Connery

There. Because I cannot have a post of this kind without mentioning the sexiest two-hundred-year-old on this planet. Seriously, Sean Connery may have said some really horrible things about women, but as long as I don’t have to be in his company I’ll just enjoy the view. And then there’s that Scottish accent – it melts knickers at a mile’s distance – it’s unfair.

Jason Isaacs

Those piercing eyes. Mmmm. Jason Isaacs looks so fine. Of course I may be slightly biased by him having played Lucius Malfoy, and sometimes I like my crushes evil – and hot. But ohhhh, and he does look any worse with long platinum blonde hair, I tell you.

 

Alan Rickman

Because Alan Rickman is so charismatic and attractive – plus his voice can melt granite. How he does it, I don’t know. If I could have all my books as audio books recorded by him, I don’t think I’d miss reading the words myself. Of course I’d probably be too busy staring dreamily into thin air to actually listen to the words.

Temuera Morrison

Temuera Morrison is Maori and he played Jango Fett in Attack of the Clones. Here’s with the charisma again, don’t y’all just love when the hotties have charisma as well? Yumyum, I’d jump this one any day.

Hugo Weaving

I loves me some elf lord. Hugo Weaving is without a doubt among the most attractive men I can think of. Receding hairline and everything, I’ve loved him since Priscilla, and I doubt anything can change that. Added bonus: He talks in a really nice way.

Samuel L. Jackson

Perhaps it is my Star Wars geekdom that makes me love Jackson. He did do an awesome Mace Windu. I’ve seen him as hero as well as villain, and whatever he does he’s damn good at it – and he always looks goo while doing it. No fair. But oh so easy on the eyes.

Sidenote: Speaking of Star Wars and voices with panty-melting abilities. Am I the only who’s in love with James Earl Jones’ diction? It cuddles my ears and makes them feel all fuzzy and pleasant

I suppose I generally do have a bias towards people who speak in attractive ways, with attractive accents, or with attractive diction. I blame it on my musical upbringing. I have been taught to listen closely and well, and so I do. It means I notice details in sound that most people don’t register, but it also means I find quite a lot of pleasure simply in listening to people talk. I can be fascinated to distraction simply by people talking – and that’s without actually listening to what they say, but more to how they say it. Ian McKellen is an attractive speaker as well. I could listen to him all day, much like Alan Rickman, James Earl Jones, Sean Connery and Sidney Poitier.

Right, enough chatter. I just wanted to post some awesomeness – and truly these men belong in the category made of awesome. And now there’s only one thing left to say:

*drool*

 

Edit:

ARGH! Edited for format fuckery.

They suddenly remembered the trans people

A couple of days ago the Danish National Organisation for Lesbians and Gays (that’s their old name directly translated) announced that they will be changing their name to LGBT Denmark, to properly reflect that they are also a community for transgendered and bisexual people, and will also fight for their rights.

Considering that being trans is pretty much still major taboo in this otherwise free country, and that being trans is something that most people wrinkle their noses at, I wanna see it before I believe it. I have yet to hear anything amounting to real action taken to benefit trans people from that organisation – before AND after the name change.

It’s cool they’ll change their name to reflect reality. But if that reality ha snot yet come to pass it is little more than empty words. I hope they back it up with action, rather than the astounding silence we have seen on the subject of trans people and their lives so far.

Also, I find it very telling that this announcement comes at a time, when many of the American LGBT communities and organisations are under heavy fire for really being GL …B …………….(t), and not ever mentioning Q(ueer) and A(sexual). Perhaps if the Danish organisation had been as progressive and activist-ish as they claim, they’d have spotted this issue and not chosen to use the American abbreviation when its use has been dubious so far.

And it is the American abbrev they’ve chosen. The letters don’t match in Danish, well three of them do, but gay is with a B in Danish so it should really be LBBT if anything. But apparently it’s more important to use a known (though disputed) American abbrev than to actually be precise in the native language and thus be respectful to those, who are not respected by the abbrev’s common use in America ie. transgendered people.

Anyway, I’m more than a little disturbed that they make a huge announcement out of also being a community for trans people without having anything to show for it. What have they actually done? *crickets* My political party and the biggest labour union in the country has done more for trans people than this community has. Hmmm… way to go, LGBT Denmark. Not.

Anti-choice ‘feminist’ knows what you ought to think and feel

At least she says so.

Faithfully Agnostic has recently posted two posts on how she makes her anti-choice stance match up with her proclaimed feminism. Of course, she calls it pro-life. I engaged for a while – mostly out of boredom – until I noticed something I had apparently not truly digested in my first reading of her post: She values animals higher than severely mentally ill human beings. It made me sick to my stomach that I had actually engaged in polite debate with someone, who would condemn others to death for the sake of a zygote. Of course she makes the mandatory exception statement concerning rape, incest and threat to the mother’s life. But other than that, she truly has no grasp of reality.

Parts of those posts can be severely triggering. Just so you know. This post of mine will be full of snark and sniggering. It is therapy for me.

But anyhow, I engaged, and wasted my time. It was fun for a while. Until she became poisonous. I suppose I should have expected that and in a way, I did. But she got personal.

I’ll quote choice parts of her posts and her comments in response to me and others. Not because I want to continue the discussion here, but because I want to show that not everyone who claims to be feminist actually is one.

I understand why feminists are more likely to be pro-choice. There is a correlation, you can say it is for cultural or organizational reasons, between feminism and pro-choice-ness. But this is merely a correlation, a temporal or incidental connection. It is not a logical connection by any means, although it often treated as such.

It is not logical, because SHE has the power of logic and no one who is a feminist can possibly be pro-choice due to a logical argument/conviction. She seemed logical in much of her other reasoning, though, so I had kind of hoped this had been a slip of hers. However, logic does not impress this one.

In order to show that there is a logical connection between feminism and the pro-choice position, one has to show that some premise of feminism entails the pro-choice position. There has been one attempt to do this, that goes like so:

Actually, this is not all off. Feminism is about being for women’s rights. Being pro-choice is about women’s rights. Therefore there’s a pretty good chance that if you’re one you’ll also be the other. It really needs no more than that. Unfortunately, Ms. I-know-feminists-better-than-they-know-themselves expounds upon her interpretation of how feminists think. Because we all think alike, and we’ve made only one argument for the pro-choice position. ONLY ONE! ALL OF US! Well, except for her, because she’s a special feminist.

Ahem.

1. Feminism rests on the presumption that women have sovereignty over their bodies.

Wrong. Feminism rests on the ideal that women OUGHT TO HAVE sovereignty over their bodies (as well as finances, property etc etc – it’s called rights, ya know). We’re not there yet, unfortunately.

2. Sovereignty over one’s body means one can do anything one pleases to one’s own body.

Yup. Except that the emphasis she places here is meant to emphasize OWN. Feminists are generally of the opinion that they have sovereignty over everything IN their bodies as well. Such as pace-makers, donor-kidneys/hearts/livers and yes, embryos too. This ‘feminist’ here believe that if it’s not your body, it’s not for you to decide. I expect her to never ever want a donor kidney, in case the donor might one day demand she start eating meat again, after all, the kidney isn’t part of her so if she’s ordered to feed it certain things, she is obligated to do so.

3. Denying women the right to have abortions denies them the right to do something to their body.

Yep, this she correctly understood. Denying women a right is the same as denying women a right. Fancy that. *snigger*

4. So, denying women the right to have abortions violates their sovereignty.

Indeed, which is frequently done. Hence the reason that feminism is not based in women having sovereignty, but rather that women don’t have it but really should have always had it.

5. Therefore, denying women the right to have abortions is anti-feminist.

See? She seems to have actually grasped the concept. But this logic is not logic to her apparently. And since she has decided that she has superior logic to the majority of feminists, clearly feminists are WRONG!

This argument is clearly unsound. First of all, one can question the idea of sovereignty, as it is philosophically problematic. But this objection is esoteric and mostly politically meaningless anyway, so I won’t go into it.

See what she did there? She basically said: “I have to believe this can be debated, but I have no clue where to begin, so I’ll just say that anyone disagreeing with me is making unsound arguments, YAY I win!” Unfortunately, she never actually made an argument, thus making it rather hard to refute this ehhh non-argument of hers. So I’ll just leave it here. This wasn’t the last time she did it either.

Accepting the idea of ’sovereignty’ for practical reasons, I will say for now that I agree with the first premise.

Except that she doesn’t really. Which she will tell you later. What is that word we usually use for people who say one thing and mean another? Liar? Fraud? Oh no, wait, I’ve got it: Hypocrite!

The second premise is a basically correct elaboration of the idea of sovereignty. The expression ‘one’s own body’ does not mean everything inside one’s skin. If it did, then the temporary removal of one of our body parts would make us lose ‘ownership’ over it, which is obviously ridiculous.

See how she can only refute the argument by using its meaning differently than intended? One’s own body does, in fact, mean everything inside one’s skin. Even if your hand is cut off (ow ow ow), it is still covered in YOUR skin, it is thus still your hand. But she speaks of temporary removal. What about permanent removal, say, of organs? For donation? I’m not quite sure about that.

If our skin loses its integrity, for example through an incision during surgery, we lose ownership over everything not covered by skin (the exposed area under the incision).

Because everyone knows

Sex as negotiable action

When I went to pick up the boo, today, I was listening to the radio as usual. I was zapping around between 4-5 stations because my tolerance for music I don’t like is terribly low, and whenever a song I don’t like is on, I switch to a different station. As luck would have it, I ended up on a station just as they were asking today’s SMS survey question. It’s something they do every day, then they receive multitudes of text messages from listeners, and they pick the most interesting ones to talk about on air. Often the questions are quite interesting, often they are also about hilarious or even embarrassing subjects.

Today’s question was: “Since there’s been some talk about quid-pro-quo sex, that is sex granted by one partner to the other in return for another favour, we would like to know: Is it good or bad for a relationship that sex is used as currency in return for other things? Is it good or bad for a relationship that sex is traded like this?”

And before I go on with my musings: please note that it is specifically about trading sex and using it as currency WITHIN a relationship of the romantic kind, so this will not be a post about the more traditional kind of sex work.

It also reminded me of how the douchebag, whose post I quoted extensively the other day, considered sex a negotiable asset. And so I figured I may as well make my thoughts public here.

Now, the easy answer to the question posed on the radio is of course: That depends on the relationship and on the people in it.

Well, duh. But if that’s all I had to say there’d be no need for this post. (Another duh)

Even though I said this post would not be about sex work, I’m still going to mention it, because it is, after all, part of the framework. I don’t think I could do sex work myself, I’ve never felt the curiosity to try, nor have I ever had the need (thankfully). Not because I think it’s icky – it’s sex and it’s no different than any other sexual relation in that regard – but because I dislike the idea of engaging in sex for someone else’s sake rather than my own. That’s purely my own feelings, though, and I respect and understand that people are different and that others won’t mind this like I do.

But this does bring me to the essence of the posed question: For whose sake are we doing it? At the basics people engage in sex because they like it, because it feels good. In other words: people have sex for purely selfish reasons. I would certainly hope so, at least. People partner up based on physical attraction, and sometimes they conclude that it’d be mighty nice if some sheet gymnastics would ensue. Like I said: Purely selfish reasons, and with the underlying respect to only to do things both(or all) are cool with. But those selfish reasons are all sexual. People have sex with each other because their want for sex is mutual. It is sex they want, thus sex they have. Works for me, and as far a I can tell that’s how it works for most people.

Additionally, sometimes people partner up on emotional attraction, and due to an emotional bond being forged, a physical attraction also develops. This does not happen always, though.

In sex work (and I’m guessing here, ’cause I’ve obviously never done it myself) sex is split off from attraction. The sex worker need not be attracted to her(and sometimes his) client. The attraction is one-way, because the client pays for a service, and one would assume he would choose a sex worker he finds attractive. Sometimes the attraction and satisfaction might even go both ways, I’ve heard. And some sex workers have the privilege and opportunity to turn down clients they don’t find appealing. That’s not all of them, though, so speaking in general terms, sex workers must be able to have sex without attraction figuring in the picture at all. They don’t have sex because they want sex, they have sex because they want the pay. (And this clearly only takes into account the voluntary sex workers. Those who are forced into that line of work do not figure here at all, because they don’t themselves negotiate the business. But rest assured I have not forgotten about them.) Sex workers of the voluntary kind can have romantic and sexual relationships as well, because these relationships are based on their own attraction and not just that of their counterparts, be it emotional, physical, intellectual or any combination of the three.

I realise, I make it sound fairly easy when putting it like this. I’m aware that it’s not always so. It is my belief and clear impression that people are very different in this regard. Some people are able to split their attraction from the sex they have and some are not. I belong in the latter group. I do not need an emotional connection in order to have sex with people, but I do need to feel a spar of attraction, otherwise I can’t make myself go there. I need to want it. The sex that is.

Many people have argued that traditional marriage is just another form of sex work; a woman gets financial security in return for sex. Nowadays there is more to marriage than that most of the time, because we’ve made it so, and marriage is not necessary for a romantic partnership anymore. But because of the baggage that comes with the term marriage I’ll just stick with romantic partnerships, whether they’re with papers or without.

Now, unless you’re asexual and thus without needs in that department, being in a romantic partnership usually involves the having of sex. And this sex is usually based on mutual attraction of one kind or the other (or several). And now there’s the question of essentially mixing up sex work with your personal relationship. Can a relationship shoulder that? Good question.

I suppose it would depend on the person. If the person delivering the sex for favours can easily split up the negotiated sex from the rest of the relationship, then it is theoretically possible, but I have my doubts about how long it could go on. Because let’s face it: in a relationship anything that needs negotiation – not just sex – is most likely bad for that ’ship’.

All relationships take compromises of some sort. That’s a given. But while discussing such things as who does the dishes and takes out the trash and such doesn’t have an effect on the intimacy between partners, using sex as a bargaining chip turns the relationship from a mutually beneficial sexual relationship into a transaction between a sex worker and a client. And frankly, just like there’s a reason doctors shouldn’t have relationships with patients, teachers should stay away from students, and bosses should stay away from employees, turning your romantic relationship and its sexual content into a business relationship is hardly healthy for that ’ship’. Not because it’s impossible nor wrong to trade sex for favours/money/goods, but because it’s bad to mix business with invested emotions.

Using sex as a bargaining chip, a negotiable asset if you will, is most likely to mean that telling apart the times when sex IS a bargaining chip from the times when it’s not. Imagine that your sweetheart has sex with you and says that in return you should cook dinner. Next time zie has sex with you, you’ll be expecting hir to want something in return. You’ll suspect that zie’s not having sex with you because zie wants you, but because zie wants you to do something or buy something. Or the other way ’round. Imagine that you had sex with your sweetheart in order to get hir to do something. What happens when zie does that something again and comes to you expecting sex for it again? Do you owe hir?

There is a serious risk of twisting sex from being something to be had between consenting partners, to become a payment method that you owe whether you want to or not. And where does consent end in this mess? Well, hopefully most would correct their faltering ’ship’ or break it off before it goes too far, but there’s an all too real risk that consent flies right out the window. This seems logical to me, and it shouldn’t really need this many words to explain, but it apparently is, because this question was asked on the radio, and the hosts were clearly expecting many different answers.

I don’t doubt that there are couples out there for whom sex is a favour exchanged for other favours and that it works for some them. But I think the majority of people will have a very hard time having both a client/provider relationship as well as a sexually and emotionally equal relationship with the same person. They seem mutually exclusive to me. Splitting them up in different spheres of your life is, of course, possible. Sex workers are able to do this apparently. But having them overlap? They’ll unbalance each other.

If I go to my boyfriend and say, hey, wanna fuck? I fully expect him to say no if he doesn’t want to. Same goes the other way around. What kind of person would I be if I tried to lure/coax him into having sex with me by promising favours around the house or in our lives in general? It’d still be sex that he did not truly want. What would that make me? Ew. We’re talking about completely undermining consent between two people here. We’re talking about going back to the idea that a man cannot rape his wife, because she consented when she married him. That’s where it would lead. People would suddenly be having sex out of duty rather than because they want it, and that’s a seriously scary thought. It may not destroy the relationship, but that ’ship’ will hardly qualify for the term healthy either. If it comes to the point, where you expect sex from a romantic partner, because you did x and y for them, you seriously need to reassess your relationship – and possibly yourself as well.

When people say stupid shit

Someone, whom I once regarded a friend, but haven’t had much contact with in recent years, wrote this to me:

Staying in an unhappy relationship because of money is dumb and you’re not dumb, so don’t do it. And don’t come back to me with all the financial excuses of why it’s not possible. If you’re not happy then leave.

It’s only a small part of the whole, but it pissed me off something fierce. I had just told her how the finances for me and the boo looked miserable, and that it was putting a strain on our relationship. I did not say that he was the one making me unhappy. What I did say was that even if I were to decide that the relationship was no longer for me, I do not have the money to move out. And I don’t. I have done the math a thousand times now, and fact is: with the needs and income that I currently have I cannot afford to live alone. End. Of. Story. The bank will not lend me more money. Understandable, of course. They need a guarantee that they’ll get them back at some point.

To this woman financial excuses are just excuses and not real reasons. She just exhibited such a shitload of class privilege that it took my breath away. She’s divorced and has married a new man. She’s been through the whole miserable break-up part and trouble-some divorce hassle. She knows it’s not easy. But since I’m not married to my boyfriend it must just be totally easy for me to leave, right? Wrong.

I. Cannot. Afford. A. Place. Alone.

My maths are simple. I have an income, which I get from the state until they figure out what sort of job I can handle with my disability. That income is all I have. Anything I might earn by teaching two hours a week (which I do) is subtracted from that income. That means that I cannot raise my income in any way. Unless, of course, I do so illegally, which would be pretty stupid considering the risk of discovery. My income is what it is and cannot be adjusted upwards. At all. Not until I get some help for my disability.

So, taking that income I subtract the cost of necessities. Phone and internet – no way I can do without them, considering my diagnosis. Food – el cheapo stuff, too. Cat food and vet bills – I cannot live without my cat, it has helped me immensely to have him. I could not do without. Power, heat and water – basics that I know the cost of pretty precisely since I’ve lived alone before, when my income was higher, before my life collapsed on me. Union membership – no good to skip that one. And finally assorted household stuff like cleaning agents, toothpaste, soap, bags for the dustbin and lightbulbs. Adding all this up I end with a finite amount, obviously.

My problem arises because the amount I end with cannot pay the rent for a two-room flat in the town in which I live. And I need two rooms. If I have only one room I will never meet other people, because I cannot bear to invite anyone (in whom I have no sexual interest) into what is essentially my bedroom. It feels wrong and awkward and far more intimate than I can stand. Besides, I couldn’t make myself confine a cat to just one room, even if I think my fat cat would be perfectly happy pretty much anywhere I am.

Of course, I could look for a flat outside of the city, but whatever I might save on the rent would just be used on transportation, so there’s really no point. And I’d seldom go anywhere, then, ’cause me and crowded buses? Eek.

Moving to a cheaper city/town? Theoretically it’s an option, but then I’d have to start all over with my treatment and stuff, both in the health-care system and the unemployment system. I’d need to switch to a new doctor, a new therapist, a new job consultant, a new case counselor and a new economic counselor. That’s a lot of new people for someone with people-phobia due to a diagnosis. That’d take more spoons than I have. In fact, just imagining that situation kills a few of my daily spoons.

But of course that’s just excuses. I guess that makes me dumb, yeah?

This woman, who told me this, calls herself a feminist, and yet she says that staying in a bad relationship for financial reasons is dumb. Does she even have a clue how many abused women are locked in place because they don’t have the social support network that they need? The amount of abused women who are killed because they didn’t have enough money/other resources to get far enough away from an abusive man who turned murderous? I’m not abused – not in any way, let me make that perfectly clear – all I said was that due to financial issues our relationship is strained, the same financial issues that make it impossible for me to afford a place of my own. So giving up on the relationship is not an option. Besides, to me, everything looks bleak right now due to depression, and I’d really hate to crawl out the other side of that depression and realize that the relationship was “the shit” and I should’ve stayed.

My focus is and should be on getting better at managing my disability. And I don’t need so-called friends telling me that I’m dumb for facing reality and making do with what I have. That’s so majorly offensive to me that I can’t even begin to express it.

Attention: Women are all the same

Once again due to my use of the Readomattic, I have come across genuine stupidity on the net. (Yes, really)

Sometimes I really must wonder where it all comes from. This time it is from a man, A. Guy Maligned, who according to his presentation of himself has been with his significant other for 54 years. That means he’s lived for about three times as long as I have. And yet some things have apparently not occured to him. He states plainly that all the ‘wisdom’ on his blog is based on all his years of observations in different fields of work, but also (I’m guessing primarily) on his partnership with Grace. After all these years, he has seemingly concluded that all women are the same. His latest post uses a term from psychiatry about a very real and very debilitating disorder and uses it flippantly to talk down – not to but – about women.

So with this introduction, I give you his post: “Her Affection Deficit Disorder”.

Let me just reiterate: ADD – that is Attention Deficit Disorder – is a serious strain on a person’s life, and if undiagnosed and therefore untreated it can cause severe problems with intellectual and social development among other things. I know a couple of people who suffer from this, and it really should not be joked about, as it can be severely debilitating. Nor should it be used as flippantly as Mr. Maligned does here. In fact, his use of this title shows pretty much exactly how empathic he is, but we’d probably have figured that out from reading the post anyway. Instead, consider the title a warning.

The female nature craves attention and affection at certain times, for specific reasons, and especially for confirming a woman’s self-love.

While I will not deny that female crave attention and affection at certain times, I would argue that so do the male nature. Otherwise we would not place male sports events on national (or even world wide) television, males would not boast and brag about this or that feat. And males would not show off to females as well as each other by doing deeds of a more or less sensible nature, if it wasn’t to be confirmed in their own belief about their appropriate and sufficient masculinity. Humans are pack animals, we all crave the nearness of other humans at certain times. And yes, we do crave attention to strengthen our self-love, but Mr. Maligned seem to completely disregard the need to be loved and the need to feel that one’s company is desired by others. For some reason this applies to both genders, but Mr. Maligned has completely overlooked this. Now, the genders may express these things differently, but that has more to do with how we’ve been raised and taught to express ourselves than with our ‘nature’.

His attentions add and his affection confirms worth to her, or so she feels.

Yes. This is exactly what the patriarchy wants us to believe. That male attention and affection defines our worth. On the other hand, patriarchy also teaches that if we want such attention too much we’re sluts and worth absolutely nothing. But notice how he adds that little “or so she feels”. This shows how much Mr. Maligned has really missed. It is not women who feel that male attention defines our worth. It is something we have been told for ages, and that we’ve been fighting against for mere decades (a century – give or take). Unfortunately, not all women have been able to resist the indoctrination – such stuff is notoriously hard to resist, that’ why it’s so effective, so some women will undoubtedly feel like he says they do. But this has absolutely nothing to do with female nature, and everything to do with patriarchy.

·  Compared to four or five decades ago, female self-esteem is lower.

Considering that the fashion ideal becomes harder and harder to live up to and that women are experiencing more and more harsh backlash for daring to work and be successful, that’s hardly surprising.

Self-image is twisted from having bought into feminist issues that contradict the female nature.

Oh yeah, so feminist assertions that women are individuals with individual personalities contradict female nature. Mr. Man here knows. Self-image is twisted, indeed, but mostly because the expectations and demands of women are becoming more and more twisted. And women are not the ones creating these ideals. Men are.

Consequently, females are hesitant, afraid, or ashamed to let their feminine nature shine through.

Or perhaps women are just becoming less and less likely to project a kind of femininity that was never theirs, but was rather something men had defined for us and decided was est for us. And without asking, too. But sure, it’s all the fault of feminism.

It costs women, because the male’s Affection Delivery Disorder gets worse in the absence of femininity.

This man not only hates women, he hates men, too. He honestly thinks that men can only show affection when faced with femininity. He seems to completely disregard the male potential for bonding with equals. Oh… wait, that’s right. Only other men are equals. Nevermind then. It is rather telling, though, that if men truly did suffer from this ridiculous notion of Affection Delivery Disorder, then male homosexuality would be impossible, and yet, there we are. In fact, if Mr. Man here was right, then only a tiny percentage of women, namely those who have physiologies as well as demeanours that live up to the exacting standards would ever receive any sort of affection from men. And yet, the race is not only surviving, it is proliferating, so a lot more women than just the appropriately feminine ones must receive this affection in sufficient amounts. I wonder how that could be. Taking his interpretation of human nature to it’s appropriate extreme only relationships between women would be possible in the long run, and they would most definitely be the majority of relationships. Now why doesn’t reality look like that, I wonder. Perhaps because this guy is way out of left field?

·  Females adopt the idea that they can do anything and everything that men can do.

Yep. We all do this, because we’re all the same. Trufax.

It’s okay and in many cases true.

Indeed.

However, it contradicts their inherent female nature just enough that dodging femininity makes them phony to themselves.

Huh? So… doing what we’re naturally able to do is against our nature? What is this inherent female nature anyway? I’ve certanly never seen it, ’cause the women I know are all so different there’s a hardly anything we all have in common. Well, there is one thing. All the females I know have opinions, and that’s one of those things men have always thought is unfeminine in women. So what is this elusive femininity that we’re all apparently dodging? Oh yeah, and didn’t that just burn? He called us phony. Ohhhh, I must go and sob and eat chocolate now. Not. If phony means that I’m my own person and not attempting in vain to live up to impossible patriarchal standards, then I’m cool with being phony. But I doubt that’s what Mr. Man here meant.

Thus weakened, their self-image does not prevent them from doing things contrary to their best and especially female-specific interests.

So… our self-image ought to be preventing us from doing bad stuff. And who do we have to thank for that? Patriarchy, thank you very much. Our self-image is crap, because the image we’re supposed to live up to is, in fact, unnatural as all hell. But this apparently makes us do things contrary to our best interests. Like what? Work and make our own money? Live happy single lives? Live with partners we’re not married to? Have babies before we’re wed? Not have babies at all? Yeah, I can see how our self-image has really failed us there. And what are these female-specific interests? Like I said above: only thing I’ve noticed women to have in common is opinions. And that’s hardly a female-specific interest. But I’m guessing Mr. Man here is talking about having babies, cooking and cleaning. Possibly sewing as well. ‘Cause that’s what all women really want, donchaknow.

With a shortage of self-respect and self-confidence, they rely more on emotional than rational thought, and men have an advantage and usually take it.

What can I do but laugh? Women are actually growing more and more confident – especially on the job market. An while we’re far from equal pay still, we’re slowly moving in the right direction. Women don’t rely on emotional thought. It’s mostly that we’re human and therefore we have emotions. And in order to live happy lives, we have to take into account those emotions, since, you know, happy is an emotion. You can’t attain an emotional state without working with your emotions. Something men seem to have overlooked for ages. But he’s right that men have an advantage and that they take it. The advantage isn’t rational thought, though. The advantage is called male privilege. Making conscious use of the advantage makes you smart, of course. It also makes you an asshole.

·  The popularity of unmarried sex causes males to lose unconditional respect for the female gender.

Interestingly enough, most men seem to be enjoying the unmarried sex far too much to actually care. The men who have unconditional respect for others are generally naïve (same goes for women), but the men who lose respect for women based on their sex lives are generally not worth much in the humane department anyway. No great loss.

Among teens it’s atrocious.

Yes, because teenage sexuality is dangerous and unnatural! Wait… no, it’s perfectly natural, that’s kinda why it goes on. We do need to teach teenage boys to be less caveman-like, though, and stop pressuring girls to have sex with them. Perhaps we can prevent those teenage boys-will-be-boys from growing up to become rapists. That’d be awfully nice. But, see, it’s all feminists’ fault, ’cause they totally destroyed the nice patriarchal notion of the proper woman, and now women have become all uppity and non-conforming, and there’s really naught the men can do to behave themselves. They’re helpless against the allure that is the unfeminine woman. Wait… didn’t he just say men were the rational ones?

Males, as competing hunter-conquerors, see females as dumb for not guarding their negotiable assets.

And since males view women as stupid (mentally disadvantaged) for wanting to have sex with men, and they still use the opportunity to have sex with these women. What does that tell us about these men? I know. Assholes, apparently. Also, don’t you just love how Mr. Man here makes no secret of viewing women as possessing sex that men want to buy from us. Negotiable assets. Sheesh. Just because a woman has sex with a man, she doesn’t somehow lose the sex. She still has it. But for someone who thinks sex is something women give away that must be hard to fathom. Also, did you just notice how a woman’s sexual interaction is negotiable? Here’s news for you, douchebag, sex is not an asset. It’s an action; an optional action at that. And if she says yes, it means yes, and if she says no, it means no. It is not negotiable. This guy is turning out to be more and more creeptastic the further it goes.

But women need frequent and sometimes continual reaffirmation of their value to someone else to confirm their self-love.

For some reason this guy confuses personal worth with narcissism. Everybody – not just women – need reaffirmation of their vale to someone else. It’s called the need for human interaction, to be assured that you’re someone worth spending time with, to be assured that you’re a good person and is doing something right. But oh no, men don’t need that. In this guy’s world, men don’t need to be assured that they’re doing things right. My guess is: because in his world men can do no wrong, and therefore they need not be told that they’re right. Show me the man who – after a period of non-interaction – didn’t miss the pats on the back when he scored a goal, or did something difficult. I dare ya. Human interaction – it’s necessary for being human. If you do not need human interaction in some degree you seriously need your head checked. Even I, who have a diagnosis making me shun human interaction 90% of the time with 99% of the people around me, still need human interaction in the remaining time from the special few people I can stand to be around. It’s part of the human condition, the needing others bit. If you believe that men don’t need to be valued by others, then you’re fooling yourself.

This drives females toward this paradox: For reaffirmation they provide sex. Having given it, men lose unconditional respect for the female gender. With less respect for the gender, the love of men weakens for individual females. With less pronounced femininity, a man’s A.D.D. gets worse.

There is so much wrong here, but it explains patriarchy so well. Note how he thinks women seek affirmation through sex. Newsflash: mostly it’s release and sex we seek, when we decide to have sex. Note how he admits that after having had sex with one woman, a man will now think poorly of the entire gender, and he still claims men are the rational ones. Note how he admits that just because one woman had sex with a man, this man is now completely unable to respect and even LOVE all other women. And then to top it off: Apparently, when men, due to lack of respect for women, can no longer love them women lose their femininity. This totally disproves his entire point. It is not feminists who ruined femininity; it is the fact that men can’t respect women that steals women’s femininity away. He just said so himself. It is men making us all unfeminine with their lack of respect and love. Basically it’s just another way of saying that by making impossible standards for femininity, the majority of women have purposefully been defined as unfeminine. And they blame it on the feminists, ’cause we’re so convenient scapegoats. Bah!

·  When men show less respect, it reflects that women are somehow lacking something.

That’s what you’d think, yes. And at first most women will be very hurt and saddened by the lack of respect we get from men. And most of us have been through the poor self-esteem treadmill. But the truth is: The only thing women are lacking that causes men like this guy to not respect us is… *drumroll* … dicks. It is quite clear that this guy (and unfortunately many like him) cannot respect any woman, who does anything that he disapproves of ie. anything that she decides for herself. So let me amend the statement he made: When men show less respect, it reflects that they are somehow misogynist and unable to deal with the fact that women are individuals and have the capablity to make their own choices that may or may not include them(the men).

This does two things: It further lowers female self-image, which weakens their sense of control of their lives.

Of course it does. Because to tell women that are failures if they are unfeminine, and thereafter to set standards of femininity that are unattainable will do that. If it were a one-time event it wouldn’t be so bad, and we might be able to laugh it off. But the truth is that most women hear these messages all the fucking time from when they’re born till they go to their graves. It’d be a miracle if we weren’t affected by it. And it’s not just that it weakens our sense of control. It also weakens our actual control. In many places a job will go to the applicant who performs femininity better than the others. In most places more respect and leeway will be offered to the woman, who performs femininity better. This not only affects our emotions (which, to the manly men are, of course, unimportant) it also affect our very real lived lives. And this guy just doesn’t get that. To him it’s an abstract problem that women brought upon themselves, because they refused to leave their individuality at the door (ie. birth), and it will likely never be anything more than that, because he sees to be completely unable to empathise that WE ARE REAL PEOPLE. He sets the bar for respect so high that he will seldom, if ever, have to respect any woman – and that’s very convenient indeed. The real kicker is: it’s not even true respect. It’s an arbitrary scale of grading women, and that is terribly degrading. It was never about respect, because men who think like this, are not actually capable of respecting women.

Lack of a sense of control then pushes women easily into desperation and toward depression.

Actually a lack of real control does it even more efficiently. But all the while that he argues that women should have less control, he derides us for setting ourselves up to have a SENSE of lack of control. Isn’t that just sweet. By doing what he advocates, we would relinquish what little control we do have, but we would totally gain a sense of control and we’d feel better. Isn’t that so sweet and caring of him? Sounds like concern-trolling to me.

In the end, the more intense her affection deficit, the more intense becomes his disorder for showing attention and delivering affection.

Rephrase: In the end, the more intense his unwillingness to provide respect and human interaction, the more resolved she’ll be to dump him and find someone who can respect and love her, without all the conditions of ideologized hyper-femininity.

The rest of this guy’s blog is the same kind of misogynist drivel, and everything is based around the premise that women are not really people. We’re all the same, with the same wants and desires, and therefore a basic behaviour scheme will charm any woman. To that I can only say:

BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!

What’s not so funny is his total disrespect for the ADD diagnosis and his flippant attitude to both that and depression. Not cool. Not okay.