Showing posts with label sexist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sexist. Show all posts
2009/07/10
What's worse? Burkas or high heels?
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Burka Ban | ||||
| ||||
Hummm... Which does more damage to women? Burkas or high heels?
2009/06/22
Brains or... balls.
Just got this in an email from a friend. No idea if it is actually true, but I did verify that helmets were not mandatory in Hockey until 1979
The first testicular guard or "Cup" was used in Hockey in 1874 and the first helmet was used in 1974.
It took 100 years for men to realize that the brain is also important.
Of course, from a genetic point of view, the big head isn't as important as the little one... anyone who watched "The World According to Garp" knows that. LOL
2009/05/29
The solution to mysogany must include MEN.
I read a really interesting post while browsing for Joss Wheadon / Firefly stuff. The overlay post is about the girl who was stoned to death by her family for falling in love with a Suni. Joss posted a plea for action, and some of the following comments where made by women who obviously have issues (not that I blame them) with men. Then this guy came along:
http://whedonesque.com/comments/13271#176025
http://whedonesque.com/comments/13271#176025
...the simple fact is, the issue of violence against women isn’t going to be settled unless male sexuality is respectfully included in the equation. Denigrating it out of hand, condemning it outright, using it as a tool of shame and disgrace, that isn’t going to work. I’ve read an awful lot from hurt women on this board, and my heart goes out to all of you. There is no doubt that you have to put up with a lot of crap, just for being women. And you don’t want to hear about the crap that men put up with, because in many cases you a) don’t think it’s valid, considering we’re the ones doing all of the oppressing and b) why should we complain because we’re at the top of the social and cultural heap. The fact that we have our own issues, values, concerns and desires is inconsequential to your equation,...I'm not saying I agree with that, but he hits a few nerves, and the logic of his final point seems inescapable to me. Men, and I mean MEN, need to be included in the solution, or killed off entirly.
...
You’ll call me a misogynist (unfairly), a sexist (because you haven’t tried to listen), an apologist (because you think me and my life are indefensible) and worse. Go ahead. I’m used to it. I’ve been called all of those things since I was 7 years old, before I even knew what a penis was for. By the time I was 12, I knew for a fact that, despite my inability to have any kind of control over my own life, I was single-handedly responsible for all of the worlds ills from slavery to the Holocaust, and that I was incapable of doing anything else unless I was willing to surrender my testicles first – and even then, I still couldn’t ever really understand. By the time I was 18, being the “sensitive guy” I was told every woman wanted my entire life hadn’t panned out because despite the rhetoric, on a personal level those same “feminists” were passing up sensitive guys like spoiled meat in favor of the very macho idiots they claimed to despise.
...
According to all the proper polls, I’m the guy with the most power in the world, no matter how personally ineffectual and inconsequential I feel. I safely own guns for a variety of reasons, I play violent video games upon occasion, I like pornography, and I love sex in all of its manifestations. Doubtlessly, by now you have written me off as an “oppressor” based on my vital statistics. My point: Any solution of violence against women is going to have to have the support of me and my white male suburban peers, however distasteful you find me and my lifestyle.
2009/04/13
Top 10 Reasons why Same-Sex Marriage is "wrong"
Please note: If you are one of my friends, and this offends you, you either aren't that close a friend, or you are suffering from sarchasm: the gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
Top 10 Reasons why Same-Sex Marriage is "wrong"
10) Same-Sex marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the Internet, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children, require both mom and dad to spend time equal time with kids rather than making the mom the primary care giver.
8 ) Same-Sex marriage is not supported by traditional religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we all, without exception, go to church on Sunday.
7) Obviously same-sex parents will raise gay or lesbian children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Same-sex couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if same-sex marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
4) Marriage shouldn't change now because it has never changed before; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
3) Legalizing same-sex marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets; this is entirely possible since dogs and cats have legal standing and can sign marriage contracts.
2) Same-sex marriage will encourage people to be homosexual, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. If you are absolutely convinced that being homosexual is a choice, standing on the street corners protesting "gay" marriage and generally ensuring it is a topic on the news every day will certainly keep your kids from thinking about it or becoming curious as to why anyone would want to be anything other than straight.
And the number one reasons why same-sex Marriage is "wrong":
1) Being homosexual is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, medicine, and air conditioning.
~ Modified from the original, which is copyright Mana Bear on facebook
Top 10 Reasons why Same-Sex Marriage is "wrong"
10) Same-Sex marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the Internet, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children, require both mom and dad to spend time equal time with kids rather than making the mom the primary care giver.
8 ) Same-Sex marriage is not supported by traditional religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we all, without exception, go to church on Sunday.
7) Obviously same-sex parents will raise gay or lesbian children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Same-sex couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if same-sex marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
4) Marriage shouldn't change now because it has never changed before; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
3) Legalizing same-sex marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets; this is entirely possible since dogs and cats have legal standing and can sign marriage contracts.
2) Same-sex marriage will encourage people to be homosexual, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall. If you are absolutely convinced that being homosexual is a choice, standing on the street corners protesting "gay" marriage and generally ensuring it is a topic on the news every day will certainly keep your kids from thinking about it or becoming curious as to why anyone would want to be anything other than straight.
And the number one reasons why same-sex Marriage is "wrong":
1) Being homosexual is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, medicine, and air conditioning.
~ Modified from the original, which is copyright Mana Bear on facebook
2009/01/06
Women shave legs and appear to be little girls.
When children grow, at a certain age, they start to grow more hair all over. We always have hair all over, but at some age, we grow thicker, stronger, more noticeable hair. This age is the age of puberty, when our bodies change. In the USA, the normal age for puberty is between 8 and 13^. At that age, girls and boys start to grow more noticeable hair on their legs. It is almost always before the age of 18.
So, when a women of 20 or 30 or so on, in order to appear more attractive, as our society defines attractiveness^, shaves her legs, what age is she attempting to appear to be? She is NOT attempting to appear to be 18. She is not thinking about what age she is attempting to appear to be at all, but she is attempting to appear to be 13 or so.
Why does our society, here in the USA, want women to appear to be 13?
My first thought was that it must be a marketing campaign designed to sell razors. And there does seem to be some proof of that. The first mention I can find of women removing hair for any reason started in May, 1915 with a fashion spread in Harpers Baazar showing a women in a sleeveless gown with bare armpits. Under it is an ad for a hair removal powder.
See also:
So, when a women of 20 or 30 or so on, in order to appear more attractive, as our society defines attractiveness^, shaves her legs, what age is she attempting to appear to be? She is NOT attempting to appear to be 18. She is not thinking about what age she is attempting to appear to be at all, but she is attempting to appear to be 13 or so.
Why does our society, here in the USA, want women to appear to be 13?
My first thought was that it must be a marketing campaign designed to sell razors. And there does seem to be some proof of that. The first mention I can find of women removing hair for any reason started in May, 1915 with a fashion spread in Harpers Baazar showing a women in a sleeveless gown with bare armpits. Under it is an ad for a hair removal powder. Razors for women didn't appear anywhere until 1917 and in the Sears and Roebuck catalog until 1922.^
Leg shaving seems to have started soon after that, but really became popular around WWII with rising hemlines and pinup girls "to inspire our boys."
Leg shaving seems to have started soon after that, but really became popular around WWII with rising hemlines and pinup girls "to inspire our boys."
At the start of the war, nylon stockings were popular, but the nylon was needed for the war effort, so believe it or not, some women would shave their legs, then draw a line up the back of the leg to imitate the seam that was always present in stockings of that time. This does not, however, seem to be the start of leg shaving; hair under stocking is uncomfortable and shows so the shaving of legs started first, nylons came after.
It has been said that leg shaving was promoted by a razor company reeling from the lack of men buying razors since so many where "over there" fighting WWI^
Women in europe didn't start shaving until years later. After WWII one woman I spoke to came to the USA from Holland. She first noticed that American women had "weak" legs. They looked thin and frail to her. It was pointed out to her that her legs looked "stronger" because they were hairy and the women here were shaving. Her friend said she shaved because if she didn't, she would "look like an ape." My friend from Holland wasn't going to be a slave to fasion, but while at the denstist office, in the chair, she noticed that he kept lookin at her legs, and she thought: "He thinks I look like an Ape!" That's all it took; she started shaving her legs that night.
Leg shaving happens in Brazil, North America, Australia, Middle East, and Europe. Women in Europe, while they do shave their legs (even in France!) are not as religious about it as they are in the USA. It does not happen in Asia
Could it be simply related to the age old desire for women to look different from men? Since women generally have less hair than men, making a women have less hair, makes her less like a man and, supposedly, more womanly. There are certainly many examples of this, and not just since breast implants and high heels took hold; ancient peoples did everything from lopping off little girls toes (women have smaller feet) to stretching out necks (women have thinner necks). This tendancy for each sex to try to look less like the other is called artifical sexual dimorphism. Sexual dimorphism is very common, and there isn't anything wrong with helping it along. The problem is that in leg shaving, we have picked something that is not only makes women look less like men, it makes them look more like little girls.
As shaved legs became the standard of beauty in the USA, men became trained to find them attractive. As a result, men are no longer sexually attracted to the naturally hairly legs of mature women, but instead are attracted to a version of legs that are naturally found on underage girls. This doesn't excuse the actions of molesters, but it is one more small step in the wrong direction.
See also:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1280795/origin_of_pantyhose_why_women_shave_their_legs/ the video shows some of the pictures of the original ads and photos.
2008/11/18
My buddy is afraid he might accidentally marry a guy.
There are apparently a large number of people in California, who are so unsure of themselves that they believe they need to government to keep them from accidentally marrying people they don’t want to marry. I have a neighbor, a man, (not the brightest bulb, but a nice guy) who is a Christian and feels that it would be wrong to marry another guy. So he voted YES on this prop 8 amendment to the state constitution that would prevent him from accidentally marrying another man. It’s amazing to me how people want the government to protect them from themselves…
He is a really nice guy and never tried to convert me to his religion, so I know that he isn't worried about OTHER people who might feel it is OK for a man to marry a man or a women to marry a women; he wouldn't be so pushy as to try to force his morals on another when it does him NO damage at all if a gay marriage happens.
His kids are all grown and out of school, so what they teach in school can’t be bothering him… and even if it was, the California Educational Code section 51240 specifically states that a student will be excused from teachings in conflict with the religious or moral code the parents. Any public school that failed to follow that directive is breaking the law.
And although he isn't all that smart, he does understand the separation of church and state guaranteed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution and agrees that having the government enforce religious ideals could be a real problem. After all we are one nation under whose God? I mean the Christians wouldn't want the government telling people they have to confess their sins on a regular basis. And the Catholics wouldn't want the government selecting only married men to lead their services. No, I’m sure he didn't vote for it as a way to make the government get into the business of religion.
My best guess is that he is worried about transgendered or hermaphroditic people. He might meet someone who he thinks is a women and then have it turn out that this is actually a man or someone who has both male and female organs. Like Thomas Beatie, the pregnant man. If my friend had a sister, and she happened to fall in love with Thomas, wouldn't it be horrible if the state didn't stop them from getting married, since he happens to have a womb and has given birth… twice… I mean, how would she know? He looks like a man, hairy chest and all. Of course, a background check would reveal that he used to be a she and was surgically altered to become man looking… so does that mean my male friend COULD marry him? Err… her… Or will the church/state decide that no one can marry Thomas since s/he brought all this on his/her self?
But then what about Lynn Edward Harris who was born with both sets of sexual organs. No surgery, no drugs, but today appears to be a man, after appearing to be a really cute girl (beauty pageant contestant at 18) through high school. If my friend had married her would the church/state annul the marriage when she turned into a he?
Anyway, the state law is now being tied in knots. Legal experts are expecting millions of dollars and years of lawsuits. The attorney general of the state of California has said that this proposition has pushed the state into a constitutional crisis with one part of the state constitution saying you can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation, and another part saying that only those of heterosexual orientation are allowed to marry.
I don’t think the government is going to do a very good job of protecting my buddy from accidentally falling in love and marrying a guy…
He is a really nice guy and never tried to convert me to his religion, so I know that he isn't worried about OTHER people who might feel it is OK for a man to marry a man or a women to marry a women; he wouldn't be so pushy as to try to force his morals on another when it does him NO damage at all if a gay marriage happens.
His kids are all grown and out of school, so what they teach in school can’t be bothering him… and even if it was, the California Educational Code section 51240 specifically states that a student will be excused from teachings in conflict with the religious or moral code the parents. Any public school that failed to follow that directive is breaking the law.
And although he isn't all that smart, he does understand the separation of church and state guaranteed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution and agrees that having the government enforce religious ideals could be a real problem. After all we are one nation under whose God? I mean the Christians wouldn't want the government telling people they have to confess their sins on a regular basis. And the Catholics wouldn't want the government selecting only married men to lead their services. No, I’m sure he didn't vote for it as a way to make the government get into the business of religion.
My best guess is that he is worried about transgendered or hermaphroditic people. He might meet someone who he thinks is a women and then have it turn out that this is actually a man or someone who has both male and female organs. Like Thomas Beatie, the pregnant man. If my friend had a sister, and she happened to fall in love with Thomas, wouldn't it be horrible if the state didn't stop them from getting married, since he happens to have a womb and has given birth… twice… I mean, how would she know? He looks like a man, hairy chest and all. Of course, a background check would reveal that he used to be a she and was surgically altered to become man looking… so does that mean my male friend COULD marry him? Err… her… Or will the church/state decide that no one can marry Thomas since s/he brought all this on his/her self?
But then what about Lynn Edward Harris who was born with both sets of sexual organs. No surgery, no drugs, but today appears to be a man, after appearing to be a really cute girl (beauty pageant contestant at 18) through high school. If my friend had married her would the church/state annul the marriage when she turned into a he?
Anyway, the state law is now being tied in knots. Legal experts are expecting millions of dollars and years of lawsuits. The attorney general of the state of California has said that this proposition has pushed the state into a constitutional crisis with one part of the state constitution saying you can’t discriminate based on sexual orientation, and another part saying that only those of heterosexual orientation are allowed to marry.
I don’t think the government is going to do a very good job of protecting my buddy from accidentally falling in love and marrying a guy…
2008/11/03
Google being evil and hateful ...and poor business people! I SAY NO ON 8/HATE
My web sites use adsense ads from Google to generate a few extra dollars, but yesterday and today I noticed a serious drop in income. After checking it out, I found that they were running political ads (which pay next to nothing and no one clicks because they are sick of the mud slinging) all over the place.
Thats one issue... But the other is that I am very strongly in favor of the government NOT restricting the rights of it's people, especially according to sexual preference. And prop 8 would take away the right to marry from gays and lesbians. Which makes it wrong, period, no matter how one feels about them (us).
And Google was running "Yes on 8" ads on MY sites!
I about had a fit. I've pulled all the ads down and lodged a complaint. It's evil, and it's hateful, and it's not even good business.
I'm keeping the ads running on this blog because VERY few people read this, and it's a way for me to see how long they keep those ads comming... as I write this, there is a "Yes on hate" ad above my blog. People who know me understand that this is not my position.
Thats one issue... But the other is that I am very strongly in favor of the government NOT restricting the rights of it's people, especially according to sexual preference. And prop 8 would take away the right to marry from gays and lesbians. Which makes it wrong, period, no matter how one feels about them (us).
And Google was running "Yes on 8" ads on MY sites!
I about had a fit. I've pulled all the ads down and lodged a complaint. It's evil, and it's hateful, and it's not even good business.
I'm keeping the ads running on this blog because VERY few people read this, and it's a way for me to see how long they keep those ads comming... as I write this, there is a "Yes on hate" ad above my blog. People who know me understand that this is not my position.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
