This is a very introspective blog entry. If I were ruler of the universe:
1. There would be no such thing as "countries" and anyone can live anywhere they want in the world.
2. There would be no political unrest, war or violence because I would be the only ruler of the universe. Therefore, I make all the rules and anyone who disagrees is sent to Mars to work on further space exploration projects.
3. All jobs would pay the same salary. This would allow everyone to have the career of their choice and to find personal fulfillment within their profession. There would be no rich or poor people. Everyone would have exactly what they needed to survive.
4. There would be no such thing as sexism, racism or classism. Everyone would be equal.
5. No one would be hungry or homeless. If someone didn't have enough food, people who have more than they need would give their excess to those in need. Neighbors would build homes for people who don't have one.
6. TV would be extinct. Everyone would spend their spare time at museums, playing outside, pursuing hobbies and interacting with other human beings.
7. More efforts would be spent on expanding zoos and promoting conservation. Zoos are wonderful teaching tools, however animals in zoos need more room for themselves and more animals for company. Each animal would have at least one mile to themselves. In my universe, animals would be just as important as humans.
8. Guns would be legends of the past, especially in America. Anyone who disagrees with me will be sent to the moon to build a resort community.
That's all I've got.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Friday, February 18, 2011
Women and WWII
I have a theory that governments and propaganda people are mainly responsible for sexism, racism and classism. After much studying on women's roles in society during WWII, I declare that I'm correct (as always.)
The mid 1940's are the only time in U.S. history when feminism was encouraged and celebrated. Women were told to go get jobs because it was their "patriotic duty." They were told to leave the kitchen and volunteer for the Red Cross. They were even encouraged to do thing such as fly planes for the military and play professional baseball. Women who worked in factories were offered affordable child care and businesses made adjustments for female workers, such as adding restrooms.
After the war, those same people encouraging women to get out of the house and get a job were telling women to go back home and forget about having a career. What was the deal with that?
After a few short years of the government telling everyone that women are sometimes better workers than men, they started telling women that jobs belong to men and they can find fulfillment at home with their children.
Why the change? If they all thought women made better factory workers, why didn't they keep the women employed and tell the men returning from the war to stay home and take care of the kids?
I have speculated on this question for many hours and have come up with a few different theories. My first theory is a little out there, yet valid. Men back in the 1940's era were lazy. Not lazy like they wanted to sit around doing nothing all day. I mean lazy like they expected someone else to do their laundry, take care of their house, raise their children and manage their finances for them. I think once they realized that women being out of the house for substantial periods of time meant they may have to chip in on some of this stuff, they went, "O F No!" I can't work all day AND cook my own dinner. Or, more likely, they didn't know how to do all this stuff and didn't want to learn or make any effort. So, a big group of men got together and created some propaganda designed to keep women in the house and out of the workforce. And it worked wonders for them.
My second theory is a bit more complex. I think most people were willing to adjust their whole lives for the war effort. That meant everything from giving up certain foods to allowing women to fill "men's roles." And I think that after the war everyone assumed things would go back to the way they were before without any hassles. They probably didn't expect that women would actually ENJOY working and making their own money. And perhaps this was a surprise to a lot of the women as well. So, after the war, they just assumed all women workers would gladly give up their jobs for the returning men workers. And most women probably thought it was their "patriotic duty" to give up their jobs to the men.
I acknowledge that is was difficult for the whole country to adjust to normalcy after WWII ended. But it must have been especially hard for women who had a taste of freedom and a better life and then to have it taken away from them.
I find the 1950's fascinating. Everything from McCarthyism to women's fashion in the 50's interests me. But I have a special fascination with how fake and backwards everything appeared. I mean, really? Women found fulfillment at home with their children? Sylvia Plath went that route in the 1950's after college and things didn't work out too well for her.
To sum up my awesome thoughts, I think governments all over the world are master propagandists and have the power to make people think anything they want them to. Including that feminism is only needed when it's convenient for them.
The mid 1940's are the only time in U.S. history when feminism was encouraged and celebrated. Women were told to go get jobs because it was their "patriotic duty." They were told to leave the kitchen and volunteer for the Red Cross. They were even encouraged to do thing such as fly planes for the military and play professional baseball. Women who worked in factories were offered affordable child care and businesses made adjustments for female workers, such as adding restrooms.
After the war, those same people encouraging women to get out of the house and get a job were telling women to go back home and forget about having a career. What was the deal with that?
After a few short years of the government telling everyone that women are sometimes better workers than men, they started telling women that jobs belong to men and they can find fulfillment at home with their children.
Why the change? If they all thought women made better factory workers, why didn't they keep the women employed and tell the men returning from the war to stay home and take care of the kids?
I have speculated on this question for many hours and have come up with a few different theories. My first theory is a little out there, yet valid. Men back in the 1940's era were lazy. Not lazy like they wanted to sit around doing nothing all day. I mean lazy like they expected someone else to do their laundry, take care of their house, raise their children and manage their finances for them. I think once they realized that women being out of the house for substantial periods of time meant they may have to chip in on some of this stuff, they went, "O F No!" I can't work all day AND cook my own dinner. Or, more likely, they didn't know how to do all this stuff and didn't want to learn or make any effort. So, a big group of men got together and created some propaganda designed to keep women in the house and out of the workforce. And it worked wonders for them.
My second theory is a bit more complex. I think most people were willing to adjust their whole lives for the war effort. That meant everything from giving up certain foods to allowing women to fill "men's roles." And I think that after the war everyone assumed things would go back to the way they were before without any hassles. They probably didn't expect that women would actually ENJOY working and making their own money. And perhaps this was a surprise to a lot of the women as well. So, after the war, they just assumed all women workers would gladly give up their jobs for the returning men workers. And most women probably thought it was their "patriotic duty" to give up their jobs to the men.
I acknowledge that is was difficult for the whole country to adjust to normalcy after WWII ended. But it must have been especially hard for women who had a taste of freedom and a better life and then to have it taken away from them.
I find the 1950's fascinating. Everything from McCarthyism to women's fashion in the 50's interests me. But I have a special fascination with how fake and backwards everything appeared. I mean, really? Women found fulfillment at home with their children? Sylvia Plath went that route in the 1950's after college and things didn't work out too well for her.
To sum up my awesome thoughts, I think governments all over the world are master propagandists and have the power to make people think anything they want them to. Including that feminism is only needed when it's convenient for them.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Science and Religion
The other night, Eric had me watching some TV show with that Borat guy. But he wasn't Borat. He was some obnoxious prick. Anyways, on the TV show there was a debate about creationism and evolution. The creationism guy said that evolution is "like a religion." Well, no it's not.
Science is not a religion. Science is fact that can be proven to your face. Religion is faith based. Evolution has been proven to our faces many times. Religion can't really be proven since it is faith based.
That intelligent design guy on that TV show has faith that Jesus made the dinosaurs 1,000 years ago and the scientist guy has scientific evidence that dinosaurs existed and died 65 million years ago.
Who or what put dinosaurs on earth? Well, there can only be one scientific answer to this question and millions of religious answers to this question.
Therefore, science is not a religion.
Science is not a religion. Science is fact that can be proven to your face. Religion is faith based. Evolution has been proven to our faces many times. Religion can't really be proven since it is faith based.
That intelligent design guy on that TV show has faith that Jesus made the dinosaurs 1,000 years ago and the scientist guy has scientific evidence that dinosaurs existed and died 65 million years ago.
Who or what put dinosaurs on earth? Well, there can only be one scientific answer to this question and millions of religious answers to this question.
Therefore, science is not a religion.
Monday, February 7, 2011
Retail Therapy
I have worked in retail for years. Many years. All through college and for a few years before I got my first "real" after college job. I worked for one major department store, one teenage girl clothing and accessory store, one rich bitch "I have too much money and time on my hands" clothing and accessory store and one short lived bath and beauty store gig. I worked in the business too long. But I did learn a lot.
I learned a lot about marketing. I learned how to market to teenage girls (yikes) and how to market to low income shoppers. I learned that merchandise on tables sells better than merchandise on hangers. I learned you can sell anything to a man coming into a store with his teenage daughter. I learned that rich women prefer to have less merchandise on the floor and low income women prefer to have more merchandise on the floor. But, above all, I learned that people are more likely to buy a bottle of lotion if it is one centimeter away from the edge of the table instead of one inch.
I also learned a lot of neat things about shoplifters. You know that annoying person that greets you at the front of the store and bombards you with information on sales and credit cards? Be courteous to them and don't ignore them or you'll be watched the entire time you're in the store by loss prevention. Avoiding sales people is the first sign that you are a shoplifter. In addition, don't come into a store with a group of friends and then split up, especially if you don't like attention from sales clerks. One neat thing I found out from working retail is that shoplifters come in all ages, races and socioeconomic backgrounds. But, from my experience, they do tend to be women. I never saw a guy get busted.
The most important lesson I took away from my years of working retail is that it's a sorry way to earn a living. And your employer doesn't give a crap about you. Everyone is replaceable. First off, I worked much harder at my retail jobs that I do on any given day at my desk job. I made minimum wage at my retail jobs compared to the millions I currently make (joke). Except at the rich lady store. There I started off at $10 an hour, but they were going to bring me down to $9 because I failed to sell any store credit cards. ( Stores and their god forsaken credit cards can be a whole other blog entry.) Raises are non-existent and there is no such thing as career advancement at such places.
Also, you are expected to wear their clothes. I had major issues with this at the rich lady store. Even with my 15% discount, I could not afford at $60 t-shirt and $200 skirt. If we have to wear their clothes, they should be given to us for free, since technically we are required to wear uniforms.
Another thing is the shifts. I drove all the way to the goddamn mall to work 4 hours! For $7.50 an hour. Totally worth the gas it took to get me there....NOT!
And forget about calling in sick. That, for real, is grounds for termination. At every retail job I've ever had, if you can't come in to work you HAVE to find someone to cover your shift. At the department store, you were fired if you didn't. At the teenage girl store, you lost hours if you didn't. At the rich lady store, you were placed in a position where it was impossible to earn any commission, like doing stock or cleaning the bathroom.
Working retail is absolutely ridiculous. I was made to feel like a criminal at every job I had. Since the retail industry firmly believes employees steal more than customers, security is tighter than a maximum security prison. After your shift, you have to be walked out of the store by a manager. At the entrance, in front of the entire mall, your manager checks your coat pockets and opens and rummages through your purse before you are allowed to leave. Boys have their pockets checked. There are more security cameras in the backroom then there are on the sales floor. Each cashier has their own code to enter into the computer and everything you do is monitored.
Most importantly, no retail employee gets paid enough to deal with the customers. I have had store boxes thrown in my face (hilarious story for another time), found dirty diapers in the fitting rooms, caught people fornicating in the fitting rooms and was a personal shopper for rich white women who are too lazy to shop for themselves. I also saw a 13-year-old's breasts when she decided to walk out of her fitting room with nothing but skanky panties on.
Obviously, the worst time to work retail is during the holiday season. My theory is that the crabby poor people save up their money all year and only come to the mall during December. Shoppers without money are the ones who think they are entitled to anything they want. I have never had a rich person try to haggle prices with me like we were at a damn flea market. Low income people watch those prices on the register and argue all of it. And yes, 100% of the time they are wrong. Never again will I work with low income shoppers.
I dread the day I get laid off from my comfortable office job. Retail is what I go back to every time I'm unemployed. Most likely I will be returning to a career at the mall at some point. Can't wait.
I learned a lot about marketing. I learned how to market to teenage girls (yikes) and how to market to low income shoppers. I learned that merchandise on tables sells better than merchandise on hangers. I learned you can sell anything to a man coming into a store with his teenage daughter. I learned that rich women prefer to have less merchandise on the floor and low income women prefer to have more merchandise on the floor. But, above all, I learned that people are more likely to buy a bottle of lotion if it is one centimeter away from the edge of the table instead of one inch.
I also learned a lot of neat things about shoplifters. You know that annoying person that greets you at the front of the store and bombards you with information on sales and credit cards? Be courteous to them and don't ignore them or you'll be watched the entire time you're in the store by loss prevention. Avoiding sales people is the first sign that you are a shoplifter. In addition, don't come into a store with a group of friends and then split up, especially if you don't like attention from sales clerks. One neat thing I found out from working retail is that shoplifters come in all ages, races and socioeconomic backgrounds. But, from my experience, they do tend to be women. I never saw a guy get busted.
The most important lesson I took away from my years of working retail is that it's a sorry way to earn a living. And your employer doesn't give a crap about you. Everyone is replaceable. First off, I worked much harder at my retail jobs that I do on any given day at my desk job. I made minimum wage at my retail jobs compared to the millions I currently make (joke). Except at the rich lady store. There I started off at $10 an hour, but they were going to bring me down to $9 because I failed to sell any store credit cards. ( Stores and their god forsaken credit cards can be a whole other blog entry.) Raises are non-existent and there is no such thing as career advancement at such places.
Also, you are expected to wear their clothes. I had major issues with this at the rich lady store. Even with my 15% discount, I could not afford at $60 t-shirt and $200 skirt. If we have to wear their clothes, they should be given to us for free, since technically we are required to wear uniforms.
Another thing is the shifts. I drove all the way to the goddamn mall to work 4 hours! For $7.50 an hour. Totally worth the gas it took to get me there....NOT!
And forget about calling in sick. That, for real, is grounds for termination. At every retail job I've ever had, if you can't come in to work you HAVE to find someone to cover your shift. At the department store, you were fired if you didn't. At the teenage girl store, you lost hours if you didn't. At the rich lady store, you were placed in a position where it was impossible to earn any commission, like doing stock or cleaning the bathroom.
Working retail is absolutely ridiculous. I was made to feel like a criminal at every job I had. Since the retail industry firmly believes employees steal more than customers, security is tighter than a maximum security prison. After your shift, you have to be walked out of the store by a manager. At the entrance, in front of the entire mall, your manager checks your coat pockets and opens and rummages through your purse before you are allowed to leave. Boys have their pockets checked. There are more security cameras in the backroom then there are on the sales floor. Each cashier has their own code to enter into the computer and everything you do is monitored.
Most importantly, no retail employee gets paid enough to deal with the customers. I have had store boxes thrown in my face (hilarious story for another time), found dirty diapers in the fitting rooms, caught people fornicating in the fitting rooms and was a personal shopper for rich white women who are too lazy to shop for themselves. I also saw a 13-year-old's breasts when she decided to walk out of her fitting room with nothing but skanky panties on.
Obviously, the worst time to work retail is during the holiday season. My theory is that the crabby poor people save up their money all year and only come to the mall during December. Shoppers without money are the ones who think they are entitled to anything they want. I have never had a rich person try to haggle prices with me like we were at a damn flea market. Low income people watch those prices on the register and argue all of it. And yes, 100% of the time they are wrong. Never again will I work with low income shoppers.
I dread the day I get laid off from my comfortable office job. Retail is what I go back to every time I'm unemployed. Most likely I will be returning to a career at the mall at some point. Can't wait.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Prenatal Tests Lead to More Abortions????
Karen Kaplan of the Los Angeles Times wrote a non-opinion piece about prenatal genetic tests. She stated, "It will almost certainly lead to more abortions" because "That will give a whole lot of expectant parents a whole lot more to think about."
What the F@#&? May I remind you this is not an opinion piece. This was published in the Health section of the Chicago Tribune.
She goes on to say that expectant parents can,"find out whether they are boys or girls and whether their eyes are blue or brown. In the not-too-distant future, the genetic tests may even be able to provide clues about a fetus’ athletic or academic potential."
Hmmm...something tells me no one is going to abort their baby because they have brown instead of blue eyes or because they can't play basketball. But what do I know? I'm just an opinion writer, not a factual Health beat journalist.
She also mentions that some would-be parents would choose to have an abortion if their fetus suffers from any disability. This is a legitimate concern, and the decision to give birth to a baby that will suffer from debilitating disabilities and die in a few weeks is not a decision to be made lightly. Ms. Kaplan should have thought of this before writing this article.
To her credit, she tries to validate her opinion with some facts. She stated that abortions are common in countries like China and India when they find out the sex of their fetus is female. Well, sorry Ms. Kaplan, but you are still a dumb ass. In China and India, women are devalued and parents want boys to pass on the family name. In China, they abort their female fetus' because the government limits the number of children they are allowed to have. They believe it's "better" to have a son who can pass on the family name. We don't really have that problem here in America. Again, I have serious doubts that anyone in America is going to abort their fetus because of it's sex.
Maybe Ms. Kaplan should do herself and her Health articles a favor and do some research on why women get abortions. She should also get some facts on how many women would have abortions after having a prenatal genetic test before she writes some horrid article spewing out a bunch of garbage based on her uneducated judgments.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/la-heb-fetal-gene-screening-greely-20110120,0,1758053.story
What the F@#&? May I remind you this is not an opinion piece. This was published in the Health section of the Chicago Tribune.
She goes on to say that expectant parents can,"find out whether they are boys or girls and whether their eyes are blue or brown. In the not-too-distant future, the genetic tests may even be able to provide clues about a fetus’ athletic or academic potential."
Hmmm...something tells me no one is going to abort their baby because they have brown instead of blue eyes or because they can't play basketball. But what do I know? I'm just an opinion writer, not a factual Health beat journalist.
She also mentions that some would-be parents would choose to have an abortion if their fetus suffers from any disability. This is a legitimate concern, and the decision to give birth to a baby that will suffer from debilitating disabilities and die in a few weeks is not a decision to be made lightly. Ms. Kaplan should have thought of this before writing this article.
To her credit, she tries to validate her opinion with some facts. She stated that abortions are common in countries like China and India when they find out the sex of their fetus is female. Well, sorry Ms. Kaplan, but you are still a dumb ass. In China and India, women are devalued and parents want boys to pass on the family name. In China, they abort their female fetus' because the government limits the number of children they are allowed to have. They believe it's "better" to have a son who can pass on the family name. We don't really have that problem here in America. Again, I have serious doubts that anyone in America is going to abort their fetus because of it's sex.
Maybe Ms. Kaplan should do herself and her Health articles a favor and do some research on why women get abortions. She should also get some facts on how many women would have abortions after having a prenatal genetic test before she writes some horrid article spewing out a bunch of garbage based on her uneducated judgments.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/health/la-heb-fetal-gene-screening-greely-20110120,0,1758053.story
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Twilight Movie Review
(Sorry I have been too busy to write lately. But here is another feature on how much I dislike Twilight. Enjoy.)
One day I was having a conversation with a coworker and he told me that he understands teenagers today more clearly after watching Twilight. Even though I'm only 26, I have very little in common with teenagers today. I didn't get a cell phone until I was in college, and chatrooms were the cool thing, not text messages. I'm interested in understanding this younger generation more, so I politely asked my man to put Twilight on his Netflix account.
I watched it last night. As a result, I discovered that, one, I have nothing in common with today's teenage girls; two, the producers and creaters of Twilight think abusive and emotionally draining relationships are romantic and endearing; and three,teenagers don't talk to each other. They just stare dramatically at one another from across parking lots and wooded areas.
Oh, Jesus. I'm at a loss.
Here is my attempt at the plot and meaning of this whole load of crap. There is a girl who wants to move from Arizona to Washington State to live with her Dad. She starts school there and meets a 100-year-old man who still attends his junior year of high school. (Where's Chris Hansen when you need him, eh?) Turns out,this guy is a vampire and lusts after this underage girls' "blood". Instead of killing her, he decides to stalk her. He hangs out in her bedroom while she's sleeping, comes into her house without her permission, follows her around in his car, and somehow ALWAYS knows where she's at. Then some bad vampires come and he decides to kidnap this young girl from her father and tells her she has to leave town and go somewhere else with him. Then she gets attacked by a bad vampire and some odd stuff happened and then she's going to prom with him with a broken leg. Then the movie ends a bit abruptly and some horrid band that Eric likes plays in the background. The End.
Now that I have read both the book and seen the movie, I do worry that young women today are going to have some serious relationship issues. Stalking, possesion and alienation from friends and family is emotional abuse. Twilight is portraying this abuse as an idealistic relationship.
I still don't understand the staring at each other without speaking crap. I guess it's hard to think of something to say to someone who is 96 years older than you who is trying to get in your pants.
Anyways, I suppose I learned a few things about teenagers today. Such as, it's too bad they didnt' grow up in the 90's.
One day I was having a conversation with a coworker and he told me that he understands teenagers today more clearly after watching Twilight. Even though I'm only 26, I have very little in common with teenagers today. I didn't get a cell phone until I was in college, and chatrooms were the cool thing, not text messages. I'm interested in understanding this younger generation more, so I politely asked my man to put Twilight on his Netflix account.
I watched it last night. As a result, I discovered that, one, I have nothing in common with today's teenage girls; two, the producers and creaters of Twilight think abusive and emotionally draining relationships are romantic and endearing; and three,teenagers don't talk to each other. They just stare dramatically at one another from across parking lots and wooded areas.
Oh, Jesus. I'm at a loss.
Here is my attempt at the plot and meaning of this whole load of crap. There is a girl who wants to move from Arizona to Washington State to live with her Dad. She starts school there and meets a 100-year-old man who still attends his junior year of high school. (Where's Chris Hansen when you need him, eh?) Turns out,this guy is a vampire and lusts after this underage girls' "blood". Instead of killing her, he decides to stalk her. He hangs out in her bedroom while she's sleeping, comes into her house without her permission, follows her around in his car, and somehow ALWAYS knows where she's at. Then some bad vampires come and he decides to kidnap this young girl from her father and tells her she has to leave town and go somewhere else with him. Then she gets attacked by a bad vampire and some odd stuff happened and then she's going to prom with him with a broken leg. Then the movie ends a bit abruptly and some horrid band that Eric likes plays in the background. The End.
Now that I have read both the book and seen the movie, I do worry that young women today are going to have some serious relationship issues. Stalking, possesion and alienation from friends and family is emotional abuse. Twilight is portraying this abuse as an idealistic relationship.
I still don't understand the staring at each other without speaking crap. I guess it's hard to think of something to say to someone who is 96 years older than you who is trying to get in your pants.
Anyways, I suppose I learned a few things about teenagers today. Such as, it's too bad they didnt' grow up in the 90's.
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Pit and Leg Hair
http://www.chicagotribune.com/features/tribu/askamy/ct-live-1104-amy-20101104,0,6896125.column
Please read this article first. Below is a comment written in response to above article. Emphasis has been added by me.
"Part of being on a team is being a team player and doing what is best for the team. Coaches have rules in place and certain aspects are designed to promote a feeling of solidarity and unity, because the closer the teammates feel to each other, the better they will play as a team.
Uniforms and dress/grooming codes are one way to display that unity. By refusing to shave her pits and legs, she is indicating she doesn't want to conform to the team policies. Moreover, has she considered how incredibly distracting this is? Everyone on her team will be thinking about how she has hairy pits and legs. Everyone on the other team will be talking about the girl with hairy pits and legs. Her teammates will hear this, and lose focus.
The girl is simply being selfish. If she really wants to be an individual and stand up for her right to shout out "I am woman hear me roar" then she should quit the volleyball team."
This situation has got me asking a lot of questions. Why are women's bodies disgusting? Why would the whole team be distracted by someone's armpit hair? Are male athletes distracted by each other's leg and armpit hair? What makes this girl "selfish"? Why would everyone on the team be talking about her hairy armpits and legs? How does not shaving her armpits and legs make her a nonconformist?
I think it all comes down to the fact that women's bodies are viewed as nothing but sex objects. Whether women are running for political office or trying to stay on the volleyball team, women are expected to satisfy the male gaze at all times. Women can't do anything without enduring comments about out hair, clothes, weight and, of course, grooming rituals.
And men in our country have been conditioned to think that female body hair is unnatural, non-hygeniec, disgusting and wrong. Men have armpit and leg hair and no one views it as unclean. Why is it different for women?
If this girl is expected to give up her ideals for the sake of being a "team player" then I expect to see all the boys in that school with freshly shaved pits and legs before every game. After all, EVERYONE will be discussing armpit hair thoughout the entire game and be distracted.
(I truly love when sexism is shoved in my face like this. It gives me the perfect opportunity to go "see, I told you women have not earned equality in this country." Thank you, sexist, mindless, Tribune commenting asshole :>)
Please read this article first. Below is a comment written in response to above article. Emphasis has been added by me.
"Part of being on a team is being a team player and doing what is best for the team. Coaches have rules in place and certain aspects are designed to promote a feeling of solidarity and unity, because the closer the teammates feel to each other, the better they will play as a team.
Uniforms and dress/grooming codes are one way to display that unity. By refusing to shave her pits and legs, she is indicating she doesn't want to conform to the team policies. Moreover, has she considered how incredibly distracting this is? Everyone on her team will be thinking about how she has hairy pits and legs. Everyone on the other team will be talking about the girl with hairy pits and legs. Her teammates will hear this, and lose focus.
The girl is simply being selfish. If she really wants to be an individual and stand up for her right to shout out "I am woman hear me roar" then she should quit the volleyball team."
This situation has got me asking a lot of questions. Why are women's bodies disgusting? Why would the whole team be distracted by someone's armpit hair? Are male athletes distracted by each other's leg and armpit hair? What makes this girl "selfish"? Why would everyone on the team be talking about her hairy armpits and legs? How does not shaving her armpits and legs make her a nonconformist?
I think it all comes down to the fact that women's bodies are viewed as nothing but sex objects. Whether women are running for political office or trying to stay on the volleyball team, women are expected to satisfy the male gaze at all times. Women can't do anything without enduring comments about out hair, clothes, weight and, of course, grooming rituals.
And men in our country have been conditioned to think that female body hair is unnatural, non-hygeniec, disgusting and wrong. Men have armpit and leg hair and no one views it as unclean. Why is it different for women?
If this girl is expected to give up her ideals for the sake of being a "team player" then I expect to see all the boys in that school with freshly shaved pits and legs before every game. After all, EVERYONE will be discussing armpit hair thoughout the entire game and be distracted.
(I truly love when sexism is shoved in my face like this. It gives me the perfect opportunity to go "see, I told you women have not earned equality in this country." Thank you, sexist, mindless, Tribune commenting asshole :>)
Sunday, October 17, 2010
New York Mosque
After reading many articles on the mosque that may or not be built in New York, I have come to the conclusion that Americans as a whole are disgusting people. There was a poll somewhere that I saw that said 70% of Americans don't want it built. (I don't feel like re-looking for it and attaching it here so if you don't' believe me and need a source, feel free to Google it.)
The reasons for not wanting it vary. For entertainment purposes, I like to read people's comments on these news articles. The two main reasons why most people do not want a mosque built near Ground Zero are all follows, according to the news reading American public:
1) It is disrespectful to families of 9/11 victims. Muslims should not be allowed near Ground Zero because "Muslims killed us on 9/11," Bill O'Reilly said.
2) Muslims are not Americans and do not have a right to worship in America.
I strongly disagree with both of these statements. The first reason I listed is wrong on many different levels. First off, people who think it would be disrespectful to victims of 9/11 have been very misguided and misinformed. What everyone seems to be misunderstanding is that Muslims did not cause 9/11. People who are insane and just happen to be of the Muslim religion did.
For comparison, let's say a group of men got together and killed their wives and kids and said it was because Jesus told them to. ( I saw a Lifetime movie like that once, so I know things like that actually happen.) We wouldn't say that all Christians enjoy murdering their families and that churches shouldn't' be allowed around schools and maternity wards. We would say that these men were in a cult and are psychopaths. So, just because the 9/11 terrorists said they did it in the name of Allah, doesn't mean that ALL Muslims are going to go off and do this. The main difference here is that Muslims aren't thought of as white people, so therefore they must be feared and not trusted, right Mr. O'Reilly? (Sorry, that was an off-topic bigot rant. Back to my point.)
In my opinion, building a mosque near Ground Zero is an excellent way to help America heal from 9/11. It would be a perfect opportunity to educate and inform Americans on the Muslim religion and to help bring tolerance and respect to many Muslim Americans who have been wrongfully disrespected and discriminated against.
The second reason I listed can be found many times in the comments section of any news article covering this issue. Many comments just flat out said that only Christians are REAL Americans and that this country is founded on Christian beliefs. Well, this country was also founded on freedom of and freedom from religion, including Christianity. Muslim Americans have not experienced either one of these freedoms since 9/11.
The fierce opposition to building a mosque in New York City clearly shows that Muslim Americans do not have freedom of religion. They are not being allowed to practice their religion in a building, to themselves, not harming other people. They are not imposing the Muslim religion on anyone. They just wanted a place in the area to chill and do their religion stuff. Muslim Americans also do not have freedom from religion, like so many other Americans. Christianity is thrust down all our throats, but Muslim Americans seem to be getting the worst and most hostile of it. Many Americans are wrongfully viewing Muslim Americans as a threat and are using Christianity as an excuse for their hateful behavior. You know, Jesus did say to love your neighbor and everyone different from you. (This is actually in the Bible.) So, according to the Bible, these people aren't really Christians. Ah, but sorry. I'm going off on my fake Christian people rant again. I apologize. Back to the topic at hand....
People who say that Muslims are not true Americans and claim this is not a racist or Eurocentric comment are truly unfortunate. I have no other description for them. They live their lives in fear of everyone who is different from them and can't be bothered to educate themselves on other religions and cultures. I think a little education and open-mindedness from these people would do them some good. Unfortunately, these people are loud and politically influential and I have to hear from them everyday of my life. But, they always give me plenty to write about!
The reasons for not wanting it vary. For entertainment purposes, I like to read people's comments on these news articles. The two main reasons why most people do not want a mosque built near Ground Zero are all follows, according to the news reading American public:
1) It is disrespectful to families of 9/11 victims. Muslims should not be allowed near Ground Zero because "Muslims killed us on 9/11," Bill O'Reilly said.
2) Muslims are not Americans and do not have a right to worship in America.
I strongly disagree with both of these statements. The first reason I listed is wrong on many different levels. First off, people who think it would be disrespectful to victims of 9/11 have been very misguided and misinformed. What everyone seems to be misunderstanding is that Muslims did not cause 9/11. People who are insane and just happen to be of the Muslim religion did.
For comparison, let's say a group of men got together and killed their wives and kids and said it was because Jesus told them to. ( I saw a Lifetime movie like that once, so I know things like that actually happen.) We wouldn't say that all Christians enjoy murdering their families and that churches shouldn't' be allowed around schools and maternity wards. We would say that these men were in a cult and are psychopaths. So, just because the 9/11 terrorists said they did it in the name of Allah, doesn't mean that ALL Muslims are going to go off and do this. The main difference here is that Muslims aren't thought of as white people, so therefore they must be feared and not trusted, right Mr. O'Reilly? (Sorry, that was an off-topic bigot rant. Back to my point.)
In my opinion, building a mosque near Ground Zero is an excellent way to help America heal from 9/11. It would be a perfect opportunity to educate and inform Americans on the Muslim religion and to help bring tolerance and respect to many Muslim Americans who have been wrongfully disrespected and discriminated against.
The second reason I listed can be found many times in the comments section of any news article covering this issue. Many comments just flat out said that only Christians are REAL Americans and that this country is founded on Christian beliefs. Well, this country was also founded on freedom of and freedom from religion, including Christianity. Muslim Americans have not experienced either one of these freedoms since 9/11.
The fierce opposition to building a mosque in New York City clearly shows that Muslim Americans do not have freedom of religion. They are not being allowed to practice their religion in a building, to themselves, not harming other people. They are not imposing the Muslim religion on anyone. They just wanted a place in the area to chill and do their religion stuff. Muslim Americans also do not have freedom from religion, like so many other Americans. Christianity is thrust down all our throats, but Muslim Americans seem to be getting the worst and most hostile of it. Many Americans are wrongfully viewing Muslim Americans as a threat and are using Christianity as an excuse for their hateful behavior. You know, Jesus did say to love your neighbor and everyone different from you. (This is actually in the Bible.) So, according to the Bible, these people aren't really Christians. Ah, but sorry. I'm going off on my fake Christian people rant again. I apologize. Back to the topic at hand....
People who say that Muslims are not true Americans and claim this is not a racist or Eurocentric comment are truly unfortunate. I have no other description for them. They live their lives in fear of everyone who is different from them and can't be bothered to educate themselves on other religions and cultures. I think a little education and open-mindedness from these people would do them some good. Unfortunately, these people are loud and politically influential and I have to hear from them everyday of my life. But, they always give me plenty to write about!
Friday, October 15, 2010
Me
So, I forgot to introduce myself. It looks like I have a few new readers who may not know me personally. So here's me!
I'm 26-years-old with a boring office job. I have a Bachelor of Arts in Journalism with a minor in Women's Studies. I spend my free time either on the internet doing research for here or educating myself on world events. I enjoy loser things like 19th century feminist literature and angry girl music from the 1990's.
I write about politics and social issues often. I root for Democrats, liberals, socialists and pro-feminists and I can be pretty offensive to those who don't :>)
I live with my awesome fiance in not-so-awesome Chicago suburbia. I dream of going back to school to earn a law degree or a MA in Women's Studies (preferably both), but I'm too chicken shit to quit my job and give up my lovely health insurance plan. Instead, I'm hoping my blog will do for me what feministing did for Jessica Valenti.
I take requests for blog posts so feel free to leave suggestions!
I'm 26-years-old with a boring office job. I have a Bachelor of Arts in Journalism with a minor in Women's Studies. I spend my free time either on the internet doing research for here or educating myself on world events. I enjoy loser things like 19th century feminist literature and angry girl music from the 1990's.
I write about politics and social issues often. I root for Democrats, liberals, socialists and pro-feminists and I can be pretty offensive to those who don't :>)
I live with my awesome fiance in not-so-awesome Chicago suburbia. I dream of going back to school to earn a law degree or a MA in Women's Studies (preferably both), but I'm too chicken shit to quit my job and give up my lovely health insurance plan. Instead, I'm hoping my blog will do for me what feministing did for Jessica Valenti.
I take requests for blog posts so feel free to leave suggestions!
Friday, October 1, 2010
Domestic Violence Awareness Month
Happy October 1 and Happy Domestic Violence Awareness Month!
Domestic violence is an issue that is very important to me and one that I think has an affect on everyone in the world. Domestic violence is a crime that happens in all countries, in all socioeconomic structures and to people of all ages.
One aspect of this issue that concerns me the most is teen dating violence. Especially preteens and young teenagers. Due to many factors that I won't get into right now, people this age really do not understand what it means to be in a relationship and how to treat their partners. But hopefully this will change soon. There is a law in the making which would make teen dating education mandatory in all public junior high and high schools. What a wonderful plan! I love it!
Emotional abuse is very common in young teenage relationships. Technology is making the abuse worse. When I was a teenager, there were no cellphones so I feel a little out of touch with todays young teenagers. However, from what I have read about teenagers today, boyfriends are keeping tabs on their girlfriends through text messages. I can relate with what these young girls must be going through, however my emotional abuse was through a landline and I actually had to listen to his voice. I had a boyfriend who called me over 100 times a day and back then I just though he was a stalker. Since then, I learned that I was being emotionally abused. You can turn off your cellphone or unplug your landline, but that makes the abuser come looking for you, thus the threat of physical violence. Many people, youngsters included, only think of domestic violence as physical abuse. Therefore, they do not think to ask for help or get out of a relationship when their partner does not attack them physically.
Since most parents suck and have no clue how to talk to their kids about anything, it is very important for public schools to teach teenagers the difference between an annoying partner and an abusive partner. Since school is where kids this age see their partners the most, school is where much of the abuse occurs.
Emotional abuse leaves just as many scars as physical abuse.
Domestic violence is an issue that is very important to me and one that I think has an affect on everyone in the world. Domestic violence is a crime that happens in all countries, in all socioeconomic structures and to people of all ages.
One aspect of this issue that concerns me the most is teen dating violence. Especially preteens and young teenagers. Due to many factors that I won't get into right now, people this age really do not understand what it means to be in a relationship and how to treat their partners. But hopefully this will change soon. There is a law in the making which would make teen dating education mandatory in all public junior high and high schools. What a wonderful plan! I love it!
Emotional abuse is very common in young teenage relationships. Technology is making the abuse worse. When I was a teenager, there were no cellphones so I feel a little out of touch with todays young teenagers. However, from what I have read about teenagers today, boyfriends are keeping tabs on their girlfriends through text messages. I can relate with what these young girls must be going through, however my emotional abuse was through a landline and I actually had to listen to his voice. I had a boyfriend who called me over 100 times a day and back then I just though he was a stalker. Since then, I learned that I was being emotionally abused. You can turn off your cellphone or unplug your landline, but that makes the abuser come looking for you, thus the threat of physical violence. Many people, youngsters included, only think of domestic violence as physical abuse. Therefore, they do not think to ask for help or get out of a relationship when their partner does not attack them physically.
Since most parents suck and have no clue how to talk to their kids about anything, it is very important for public schools to teach teenagers the difference between an annoying partner and an abusive partner. Since school is where kids this age see their partners the most, school is where much of the abuse occurs.
Emotional abuse leaves just as many scars as physical abuse.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Religion
Today, the Tribune published an article saying that atheists know more about religion than religious people. I'm not surprised by this and have no trouble believing it. I have a strong belief that atheists are complete hypocrites and are actually very religious people.
Religion - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs (www.dictionary.com).
According to the definition of religion, atheism is a religion and serves the same purpose as Christianity, Buddhism and Judaism.
In my opinion and from observation, one main religious activity is to actively recruit others into your religion. Atheists are becoming experts on this. They have taken out advertisements on buses and billboards. They are being interviewed by national newspapers and trying to make themselves more vocal. They say everyone in this country has a fundamental right to freedom from religion, but they are pushing their religion in everyone's faces exactly like their archenemies, the Evangelical Christians.
Now, I do not associate myself with any organized religion and do not have any set beliefs in anything in particular, other than that Evangelical Christians are glorified sociopaths. I am not rooting for one religion over another, nor am I saying that atheism is bad. I do however think that atheists these days are the worst and most obnoxious religion recruiters on the entire planet.
If they insist on criticizing every other religion for promoting religious propaganda in public, then they should stop promoting their religious propaganda. If atheists truly wanted freedom from religion, they would be opposed to bus advertisements and billboards claiming that God is a hoax and participating in studies that are trying to prove that they know everything there is to know about religion.
Thanks.
Religion - a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs (www.dictionary.com).
According to the definition of religion, atheism is a religion and serves the same purpose as Christianity, Buddhism and Judaism.
In my opinion and from observation, one main religious activity is to actively recruit others into your religion. Atheists are becoming experts on this. They have taken out advertisements on buses and billboards. They are being interviewed by national newspapers and trying to make themselves more vocal. They say everyone in this country has a fundamental right to freedom from religion, but they are pushing their religion in everyone's faces exactly like their archenemies, the Evangelical Christians.
Now, I do not associate myself with any organized religion and do not have any set beliefs in anything in particular, other than that Evangelical Christians are glorified sociopaths. I am not rooting for one religion over another, nor am I saying that atheism is bad. I do however think that atheists these days are the worst and most obnoxious religion recruiters on the entire planet.
If they insist on criticizing every other religion for promoting religious propaganda in public, then they should stop promoting their religious propaganda. If atheists truly wanted freedom from religion, they would be opposed to bus advertisements and billboards claiming that God is a hoax and participating in studies that are trying to prove that they know everything there is to know about religion.
Thanks.
Friday, September 24, 2010
Jane Austen
Many critics dismiss Jane Austen as a sentimental romance writer. When placed into context (early 1800's England), Jane Austen was an active feminist and social commentator.
To truly appreciate Ms. Austen, one needs some background on Victorian England social norms. Since I am a serious nerd, I can provide you with this. Only two things were important to people in early 1800's England: money and social status. Nothing else. Just money and social status.
People did not get married because they met and fell in love. They married people who could get them more money who had a favorable social status. Since women could not have careers, they were completely dependant on a man for their livelihood. (English novelist Charlotte Bronte wrote about lower class women and how they made a living. If you are interested, check out Villette, or her sister, Anne Bronte's novel Agnes Gray.) Marriages were often "arranged". I use quotations because they weren't arranged like how marriages are today. Rather, children were directed towards who they should marry and associate themselves with. A family of "good breeding" would introduce their children to another family of "good breeding", or more commonly, cousins would be encouraged to marry. As demonstrated in Ms. Austen's novels, a couple would meet, decide they like each other and be engaged within a week. Marriage was not romantic. It was a business deal.
If a woman chose not to get married, she had few options for survival. For one, family fortunes were never passed down to daughters. If there were no sons, the inheritance would go to the nearest male relative. An unmarried woman had to rely on brothers or uncles for a home and basic necessities. Jane Austen was pretty cool. She chose not to get married and then began a writing career for herself, with the support of her brother. Both Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility were popular while she was alive.
What's fascinating about Ms. Austen is her observation of social norms and how she vilified them in her novels. Many of her main players are caricatures of things she hated about society; fat gossipy women and flashy conceited young men to name a few. All of her heroines marry men they fall in love with. Specifically, her Emma would only consider marriage if she met someone she loved. This was certainly not the fashion back then. In real life, Emma should have been damn grateful to receive any marriage proposal and to say yes to the first wealthy man who hit on her. I like to think that Jane Austen invented the notion of playing hard to get.
A feminist novel can still revolve around marriage and romance. I think people today look past the societal importance of Jane Austen and only look at the romantic relationships of her main characters. These fans miss the whole point of Jane Austen.
Take another look at Pride and Prejudice. Lizzy Bennett refuses her obnoxious cousin's marriage proposal. However, her best friend accepts and is grateful she found a man with money and a home who can support her and her family. This is what any woman back then would do. But Ms. Austen tries to demonstrate with Lizzy that women are people and not possessions to be traded off amongst men. On a side note, Ms. Austen also doesn't stray too far away from societal norms. After all, Lizzy falls in love and marries a rich man with the biggest house in the neighborhood.
I'm glad many people like Jane Austen and still read her books. I wish more women would look into the historical significance of her novels and perhaps develop an appreciation for what she was trying to do. But then again, I'm a nerd and who really wants to spend their time studying Victorian England?
To truly appreciate Ms. Austen, one needs some background on Victorian England social norms. Since I am a serious nerd, I can provide you with this. Only two things were important to people in early 1800's England: money and social status. Nothing else. Just money and social status.
People did not get married because they met and fell in love. They married people who could get them more money who had a favorable social status. Since women could not have careers, they were completely dependant on a man for their livelihood. (English novelist Charlotte Bronte wrote about lower class women and how they made a living. If you are interested, check out Villette, or her sister, Anne Bronte's novel Agnes Gray.) Marriages were often "arranged". I use quotations because they weren't arranged like how marriages are today. Rather, children were directed towards who they should marry and associate themselves with. A family of "good breeding" would introduce their children to another family of "good breeding", or more commonly, cousins would be encouraged to marry. As demonstrated in Ms. Austen's novels, a couple would meet, decide they like each other and be engaged within a week. Marriage was not romantic. It was a business deal.
If a woman chose not to get married, she had few options for survival. For one, family fortunes were never passed down to daughters. If there were no sons, the inheritance would go to the nearest male relative. An unmarried woman had to rely on brothers or uncles for a home and basic necessities. Jane Austen was pretty cool. She chose not to get married and then began a writing career for herself, with the support of her brother. Both Pride and Prejudice and Sense and Sensibility were popular while she was alive.
What's fascinating about Ms. Austen is her observation of social norms and how she vilified them in her novels. Many of her main players are caricatures of things she hated about society; fat gossipy women and flashy conceited young men to name a few. All of her heroines marry men they fall in love with. Specifically, her Emma would only consider marriage if she met someone she loved. This was certainly not the fashion back then. In real life, Emma should have been damn grateful to receive any marriage proposal and to say yes to the first wealthy man who hit on her. I like to think that Jane Austen invented the notion of playing hard to get.
A feminist novel can still revolve around marriage and romance. I think people today look past the societal importance of Jane Austen and only look at the romantic relationships of her main characters. These fans miss the whole point of Jane Austen.
Take another look at Pride and Prejudice. Lizzy Bennett refuses her obnoxious cousin's marriage proposal. However, her best friend accepts and is grateful she found a man with money and a home who can support her and her family. This is what any woman back then would do. But Ms. Austen tries to demonstrate with Lizzy that women are people and not possessions to be traded off amongst men. On a side note, Ms. Austen also doesn't stray too far away from societal norms. After all, Lizzy falls in love and marries a rich man with the biggest house in the neighborhood.
I'm glad many people like Jane Austen and still read her books. I wish more women would look into the historical significance of her novels and perhaps develop an appreciation for what she was trying to do. But then again, I'm a nerd and who really wants to spend their time studying Victorian England?
Thursday, September 23, 2010
Home Buyers
Facebook suggestion #2 comes from my aunt. The topic: Stupid potential buyers that come to look at your house.
When I had TV, I enjoyed watching House Hunters on TLC. I picked up some useful pointers and advice for when I look for a house. I have also learned how not to act in front of my realtor and to be grateful if there are nice homes in my price range.
I have always known that stupid people exist, but they seem to come out in droves when TLC is involved (i.e. John and Kate Plus 8). I have seen few episodes of House Hunters that didn't have some brain dead woman on who couldn't find her dream house on her meager budget. (Good luck finding a $200,000 palace in Boston, crazy blonde chick from that episode that came on after Full House that one day.).
Anyways, reality TV aside, people have some odd demands when it comes to what they want in a house. My aunt told me that someone said her carpeting has too much personality. When did carpets take on human characteristics?
Stuff like carpet and wallpaper can all be removed. (Or you can be like my mother and just paint over the wallpaper.) Deciding not to buy a house because there's floral wallpaper in the master bedroom is extraordinarily petty. When you buy a home, new or used, expect to put some physical labor into it.
One thing I don't understand about people is their priorities. I would think finding a home in a safe neighborhood that had a new roof and a laundry room would be high on a "must have" list. Apparently, I'm not with the in-crowd. Home buyers are looking for things like unique architecture and built in bookcases. I guess it's fine to live in gangsta central as long you have arched doorways and plenty of shelving for your Martha Stewart literature.
Back to House Hunters (which sounds like Ghost Hunters which is why I started watching it in the first place. Loser?). Every episode is pretty much the same. The buyer is shown three houses which, according to the buyer, is always too small, too far away from the beach, too close to traffic, doesn't have enough windows, the bathrooms are too small, there's not enough closet space, the backyard is too small, the layout is weird, the kitchen is too small, the basement isn't finished, etc.
But I guess a TV show would be boring if people complained about inadequate schools and plumbing problems.
When I had TV, I enjoyed watching House Hunters on TLC. I picked up some useful pointers and advice for when I look for a house. I have also learned how not to act in front of my realtor and to be grateful if there are nice homes in my price range.
I have always known that stupid people exist, but they seem to come out in droves when TLC is involved (i.e. John and Kate Plus 8). I have seen few episodes of House Hunters that didn't have some brain dead woman on who couldn't find her dream house on her meager budget. (Good luck finding a $200,000 palace in Boston, crazy blonde chick from that episode that came on after Full House that one day.).
Anyways, reality TV aside, people have some odd demands when it comes to what they want in a house. My aunt told me that someone said her carpeting has too much personality. When did carpets take on human characteristics?
Stuff like carpet and wallpaper can all be removed. (Or you can be like my mother and just paint over the wallpaper.) Deciding not to buy a house because there's floral wallpaper in the master bedroom is extraordinarily petty. When you buy a home, new or used, expect to put some physical labor into it.
One thing I don't understand about people is their priorities. I would think finding a home in a safe neighborhood that had a new roof and a laundry room would be high on a "must have" list. Apparently, I'm not with the in-crowd. Home buyers are looking for things like unique architecture and built in bookcases. I guess it's fine to live in gangsta central as long you have arched doorways and plenty of shelving for your Martha Stewart literature.
Back to House Hunters (which sounds like Ghost Hunters which is why I started watching it in the first place. Loser?). Every episode is pretty much the same. The buyer is shown three houses which, according to the buyer, is always too small, too far away from the beach, too close to traffic, doesn't have enough windows, the bathrooms are too small, there's not enough closet space, the backyard is too small, the layout is weird, the kitchen is too small, the basement isn't finished, etc.
But I guess a TV show would be boring if people complained about inadequate schools and plumbing problems.
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
African Killer Bees and Sentient Robots: Nature's Perfect Killing Machines
I asked my facebook friends to give me topics to write about. Here's suggestion #1:
African Killer Bees and Sentient Robots: Nature's Perfect Killing Machines
I have to slightly disagree that African Killer Bees are a perfect killing machine. It takes more than one bee to do any real damage. It's quite simple to defeat them actually. Here is the recipe:
4 Alaskan Grizzly Bears
1 12-Pack of Howling Gray Wolves
3 Bald Eagles
1 White Lion
1 Dio's "Holy Diver"
With that combo, the bees don't stand a chance.
The robots, on the other hand are harder to defeat. However, with a little effort it can be done. Here is how to defeat any robot that has turned to the dark side:
6 Panthers
6 Cougars
1/2 Silverback Gorilla
7 Pterodactyls
1 Iron Maiden's "The Number of the Beast"
This concoction of natural power can defeat the man made tyranny of any sentient robot.
So, you see African Killer Bees and Sentient Robots will never win. Nothing will overcome the majestic power of nature's finest creatures.
African Killer Bees and Sentient Robots: Nature's Perfect Killing Machines
I have to slightly disagree that African Killer Bees are a perfect killing machine. It takes more than one bee to do any real damage. It's quite simple to defeat them actually. Here is the recipe:
4 Alaskan Grizzly Bears
1 12-Pack of Howling Gray Wolves
3 Bald Eagles
1 White Lion
1 Dio's "Holy Diver"
With that combo, the bees don't stand a chance.
The robots, on the other hand are harder to defeat. However, with a little effort it can be done. Here is how to defeat any robot that has turned to the dark side:
6 Panthers
6 Cougars
1/2 Silverback Gorilla
7 Pterodactyls
1 Iron Maiden's "The Number of the Beast"
This concoction of natural power can defeat the man made tyranny of any sentient robot.
So, you see African Killer Bees and Sentient Robots will never win. Nothing will overcome the majestic power of nature's finest creatures.
Thursday, September 16, 2010
Child abusers
Sorry I haven't written in awhile. I have been overworked and pretty sick for a few months. But alas, have I got a story for you!
For those that don't know, I volunteer at a resale shop that benefits a domestic violence shelter. Last weekend, I witnessed a mother beating the hell out of her little boy in the shop while completely ignoring her screaming toddler in the stroller.
I don't know what happened exactly. This woman had been in the store for about an hour. Her daughter in the stroller had been crying hysterically the whole time. Her son was about 4 or 5. As a boy that age, wandering around a thrift store for an hour has got to be pretty boring. The only thing I can think of that set her off was him asking her if they could go home. (That is not a violence inducing request, but whatever.)
She then punched him in the back of his head. He fell forward and hit the front of his head on a clothing rack. Then she said," Now STOP IT!". The boy didn't cry but he did have the sense to run away from her.
That lady is lucky my supervisor was right there next to me at that point. I was ready with some harsh words and a phone call to the police. My supervisor was more subtle. She explained to that woman that this was a non violence store and that we have time out chairs if her kids were misbehaving. The woman ignored her and went into the fitting room, dragging her daughter in with her but leaving the boy on his own. The two kids were given organic lolly pops from my supervisor but the woman took away the little girls after a few minutes and threw it on the floor by the shoe rack. They eventually left about a half hour later.
I'm going to skip past the irony of beating your kids in a store that donates all the proceeds to a domestic violence shelter and discuss the implications of beating your children in public.
Some might say the only way to parent children is to beat them senseless until they are afraid of you. Those people are failures at life and should be sterilized.
I have a severe dislike for anyone who spanks their child, but more so for people who hit their children in public and ignore their screaming child while they are shopping. The child is screaming and crying for a reason. Stop being selfish, mindless consumers and tend to your child's needs! Ignoring your child is equivalent to beating the crap out of it. In addition, hitting your child only teaches them to hit others to solve their problems.
There are much more effective ways to discipline your children. Using violence is never a proper way. If your child only responds to violence, then you have bigger problems. Remember, they learn habits and problem solving methods from YOU!
For those that don't know, I volunteer at a resale shop that benefits a domestic violence shelter. Last weekend, I witnessed a mother beating the hell out of her little boy in the shop while completely ignoring her screaming toddler in the stroller.
I don't know what happened exactly. This woman had been in the store for about an hour. Her daughter in the stroller had been crying hysterically the whole time. Her son was about 4 or 5. As a boy that age, wandering around a thrift store for an hour has got to be pretty boring. The only thing I can think of that set her off was him asking her if they could go home. (That is not a violence inducing request, but whatever.)
She then punched him in the back of his head. He fell forward and hit the front of his head on a clothing rack. Then she said," Now STOP IT!". The boy didn't cry but he did have the sense to run away from her.
That lady is lucky my supervisor was right there next to me at that point. I was ready with some harsh words and a phone call to the police. My supervisor was more subtle. She explained to that woman that this was a non violence store and that we have time out chairs if her kids were misbehaving. The woman ignored her and went into the fitting room, dragging her daughter in with her but leaving the boy on his own. The two kids were given organic lolly pops from my supervisor but the woman took away the little girls after a few minutes and threw it on the floor by the shoe rack. They eventually left about a half hour later.
I'm going to skip past the irony of beating your kids in a store that donates all the proceeds to a domestic violence shelter and discuss the implications of beating your children in public.
Some might say the only way to parent children is to beat them senseless until they are afraid of you. Those people are failures at life and should be sterilized.
I have a severe dislike for anyone who spanks their child, but more so for people who hit their children in public and ignore their screaming child while they are shopping. The child is screaming and crying for a reason. Stop being selfish, mindless consumers and tend to your child's needs! Ignoring your child is equivalent to beating the crap out of it. In addition, hitting your child only teaches them to hit others to solve their problems.
There are much more effective ways to discipline your children. Using violence is never a proper way. If your child only responds to violence, then you have bigger problems. Remember, they learn habits and problem solving methods from YOU!
Saturday, August 14, 2010
Rants
I've been in a craptacular mood lately so I've decided to blog my first ever public rant session. So here goes:
Where did all the public support for Haiti go? The country has not been fixed. People are still homeless, jobless and destitute. Why did all the celebrities stop endorsing fundraising for Haiti? Where are the media reports? Charity in this country is such crap. It is some stupid fad for dumb, white Americans. They could donate their $5 and feel like they made a difference and then go to the mall and buy the new iPhone.
Speaking of charitable events, I HATE them! Like sororities and whatnot holding car washes for homeless shelters? Have they ever been in a homeless shelter? Do they volunteer for a homeless shelter? Are they even going to drop the money off at the homeless shelter themselves? Are they going to think about homeless people after the car wash? Do they even think about homeless people during the car wash? My guess is, no they do not. I'm sure they feel like they are doing something good by donating their time for 3 hours. Really, they are only stroking their egos without having to do any actual charitable work.
Or how about people who only donate food in December? People need to eat other times of the year too.
I also despise people who don't vote. The only people who could vote when this country was founded were white men who owned property. That was not very many people. Today, everyone can vote due to some hardworking people in our past who were imprisoned and murdered so we could have this right. It is not difficult or time consuming. People who don't vote and then complain about the president all the time should just cancel their existence on this planet.
Want to know who really sucks? Anti-choicers who are fighting rather successfully to make abortion illegal. Ask them what they want to happen to women who have abortions when it's illegal and they say one of two things: No women will have abortions when it's illegal or women should not go to prison, but they should be prayed for and go to counseling. So really, they have no idea what they want other than for everyone to be crazed Jesus fanatics like them.
Bill Clinton is awesome and Hillary is one lucky lady.
I guarantee that in a few more months people won't even be talking about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and by the end of the year, most people will be filling up their tanks at BP gas stations all over the country.
Ever wonder why people all over the world are disgusted with Americans?
I hate many more things but all rants must come to an end.
Where did all the public support for Haiti go? The country has not been fixed. People are still homeless, jobless and destitute. Why did all the celebrities stop endorsing fundraising for Haiti? Where are the media reports? Charity in this country is such crap. It is some stupid fad for dumb, white Americans. They could donate their $5 and feel like they made a difference and then go to the mall and buy the new iPhone.
Speaking of charitable events, I HATE them! Like sororities and whatnot holding car washes for homeless shelters? Have they ever been in a homeless shelter? Do they volunteer for a homeless shelter? Are they even going to drop the money off at the homeless shelter themselves? Are they going to think about homeless people after the car wash? Do they even think about homeless people during the car wash? My guess is, no they do not. I'm sure they feel like they are doing something good by donating their time for 3 hours. Really, they are only stroking their egos without having to do any actual charitable work.
Or how about people who only donate food in December? People need to eat other times of the year too.
I also despise people who don't vote. The only people who could vote when this country was founded were white men who owned property. That was not very many people. Today, everyone can vote due to some hardworking people in our past who were imprisoned and murdered so we could have this right. It is not difficult or time consuming. People who don't vote and then complain about the president all the time should just cancel their existence on this planet.
Want to know who really sucks? Anti-choicers who are fighting rather successfully to make abortion illegal. Ask them what they want to happen to women who have abortions when it's illegal and they say one of two things: No women will have abortions when it's illegal or women should not go to prison, but they should be prayed for and go to counseling. So really, they have no idea what they want other than for everyone to be crazed Jesus fanatics like them.
Bill Clinton is awesome and Hillary is one lucky lady.
I guarantee that in a few more months people won't even be talking about the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico and by the end of the year, most people will be filling up their tanks at BP gas stations all over the country.
Ever wonder why people all over the world are disgusted with Americans?
I hate many more things but all rants must come to an end.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Credit Scores
I guess since there is a high number of unemployment and the housing market sucks, there have been many articles written about credit scores. For the past several months, I have been reading the articles, mainly to learn more about how credit scores work. Here is a summary of what I have learned:
1. If you pay your bills on time, you will have good credit. If you pay your bills on time, you could have bad credit because you are not building a credit history.
2. If you have more than one credit card, you will have bad credit. If you only have one credit card and don't' take advantage of all the credit that is available to you, you will have bad credit and loans will be harder to come by.
3. If you open a credit card, your credit score will be affected negatively. If you close a credit card, your credit score will be affected negatively.
4. If you pay your credit card bill in full, you will have good credit. If you pay your credit card bill in full, this will effect your credit score negatively because you are not building a credit history.
5. If you take out a mortgage and don't buy a house for the full amount you were approved for, it could result in bad credit history because you are not taking full advantage of the credit available to you. If you take out a mortgage and take out the full amount you were approved for, you will have bad credit because you took out the maximum amount of credit you were approved for.
6. If you take out a car loan instead of paying in cash, your credit score will be affected negatively. If you pay for a car with cash instead of taking out a loan, you are not building a credit history and this could reflect negatively on you when you go to purchase a house.
7. If you try to make sense out of how credit scores work, you will go insane.
1. If you pay your bills on time, you will have good credit. If you pay your bills on time, you could have bad credit because you are not building a credit history.
2. If you have more than one credit card, you will have bad credit. If you only have one credit card and don't' take advantage of all the credit that is available to you, you will have bad credit and loans will be harder to come by.
3. If you open a credit card, your credit score will be affected negatively. If you close a credit card, your credit score will be affected negatively.
4. If you pay your credit card bill in full, you will have good credit. If you pay your credit card bill in full, this will effect your credit score negatively because you are not building a credit history.
5. If you take out a mortgage and don't buy a house for the full amount you were approved for, it could result in bad credit history because you are not taking full advantage of the credit available to you. If you take out a mortgage and take out the full amount you were approved for, you will have bad credit because you took out the maximum amount of credit you were approved for.
6. If you take out a car loan instead of paying in cash, your credit score will be affected negatively. If you pay for a car with cash instead of taking out a loan, you are not building a credit history and this could reflect negatively on you when you go to purchase a house.
7. If you try to make sense out of how credit scores work, you will go insane.
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Why Feminism is Needed
My answers to the infamous question:
Feminism is needed because the other day I was driving through a construction zone and saw a sign that said "Men Working" and saw 2 women working.
Feminism is needed because 85% of domestic violence victims in the U.S. are women and 1.3 million women are physically assaulted each year by an intimate partner. (NCADV)
Feminism is needed because women seeking health care at Planned Parenthood's around the country are harassed and assaulted every day by anti-woman organizations and activists.
Feminism is needed because a woman earn 78 cents for every dollar a man makes. (NOW)
Feminism is needed because little girls are entering beauty contests, wearing make-up before they enter puberty and suffering from eating disorders. (TLC)
Feminism is needed because women are constantly pushed out of the music industry (Tribune)
Feminism is needed because the person bagging my grocery always asks me if I need assistance to my car.
Feminism is needed because people like Sarah Palin exist.
Feminism is needed because girls in Africa are having their clitorises removed to prevent them from enjoying sex. (UNICEF)
Feminism is needed because 1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. (RAINN)
Feminism is needed because female politicians are criticized for their clothes and hair instead of their policies. (Clinton)
Feminism is needed because the word "guys" is used to address a group of men and women.
Feminism is needed because "he" is the default gender when describing animals.
Feminism is needed because my cardiologist assumed my primary care physician is a man and my primary care physician assumed by cardiologist is a man. (They are both women.)
Feminism is needed because gay marriage is not legal in all 50 states and in most countries around the world.
Feminism is needed because the website stopmilitaryrape.org is a necessity and female soldiers are being punished for reporting rapes.
Feminism is needed because women's sports lag behind men's in popularity, profit and facilities, but certainly not in athletic interest or talent.
Feminism is needed because magazines like Playboy and Hustler exist.
Feminism is needed because high school students don't know who Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Abigail Adams are.
Feminism is needed because birth control pills are not covered by health insurance companies and Viagra is.
Feminism is needed because football players are called "girls" and "ladies" as insults.
Feminism is needed because girls ask for breast implants as graduation gifts.
Feminism is needed because women's access to reproductive rights is currently being debated in Congress.
Feminism is needed because girls and women seeking an education in Afghanistan are being bombed and getting acid thrown into their faces. (CNN)
There are many more reasons why feminism is needed. The facts written above are the reasons why I'm involved. Too many people think women have achieved equal rights. I don't see it, and until I do I will continue to work as a feminist activist.
Feminism is needed because the other day I was driving through a construction zone and saw a sign that said "Men Working" and saw 2 women working.
Feminism is needed because 85% of domestic violence victims in the U.S. are women and 1.3 million women are physically assaulted each year by an intimate partner. (NCADV)
Feminism is needed because women seeking health care at Planned Parenthood's around the country are harassed and assaulted every day by anti-woman organizations and activists.
Feminism is needed because a woman earn 78 cents for every dollar a man makes. (NOW)
Feminism is needed because little girls are entering beauty contests, wearing make-up before they enter puberty and suffering from eating disorders. (TLC)
Feminism is needed because women are constantly pushed out of the music industry (Tribune)
Feminism is needed because the person bagging my grocery always asks me if I need assistance to my car.
Feminism is needed because people like Sarah Palin exist.
Feminism is needed because girls in Africa are having their clitorises removed to prevent them from enjoying sex. (UNICEF)
Feminism is needed because 1 in 6 women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. (RAINN)
Feminism is needed because female politicians are criticized for their clothes and hair instead of their policies. (Clinton)
Feminism is needed because the word "guys" is used to address a group of men and women.
Feminism is needed because "he" is the default gender when describing animals.
Feminism is needed because my cardiologist assumed my primary care physician is a man and my primary care physician assumed by cardiologist is a man. (They are both women.)
Feminism is needed because gay marriage is not legal in all 50 states and in most countries around the world.
Feminism is needed because the website stopmilitaryrape.org is a necessity and female soldiers are being punished for reporting rapes.
Feminism is needed because women's sports lag behind men's in popularity, profit and facilities, but certainly not in athletic interest or talent.
Feminism is needed because magazines like Playboy and Hustler exist.
Feminism is needed because high school students don't know who Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Abigail Adams are.
Feminism is needed because birth control pills are not covered by health insurance companies and Viagra is.
Feminism is needed because football players are called "girls" and "ladies" as insults.
Feminism is needed because girls ask for breast implants as graduation gifts.
Feminism is needed because women's access to reproductive rights is currently being debated in Congress.
Feminism is needed because girls and women seeking an education in Afghanistan are being bombed and getting acid thrown into their faces. (CNN)
There are many more reasons why feminism is needed. The facts written above are the reasons why I'm involved. Too many people think women have achieved equal rights. I don't see it, and until I do I will continue to work as a feminist activist.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Sweet Valley High with Vampires
The Twilight series is the most sickening trend in my lifetime. The books are not literature, are not well written and are not encouraging young women to read; they are encouraging young women to consume.
Sadly, I have read the book Twilight. My best friends mother lent it to me thinking I would enjoy it. This was before Twilight mania began. The book is written for young women, probably between the ages of 12-17.
The focus of the book is a high school girl who becomes stalked and harassed by a 100-year old high school "boy". (Why a 100-year-old would want to attend high school is beyond my comprehension. Unless he has a wish to meet Chris Hansen.) This "boy" sneaks into her bedroom and watches her sleep and does not allow any other males to come near her. The main character sees this as romantic. Emotional abuse is not romantic, Ms. Stephanie Meyer.
The only reason why people think Twilight books are good is because, unlike the DaVinci Code, they actually understand the plot. It is written in the same reading comprehension level as the Babysitters Club, R.L. Stine's Fear Street Series and Sweet Valley High. The average American stops reading novels after high school, thus never developing their critical thinking skills beyond the Lord of the Flies. This one reason why Twilight is popular amongst adults.
As a feminist, I must also point out society's obsession with dumbing down girls. The main character of this book rarely thinks for herself. All decisions are made for her by her 100-year-old boyfriend. She doesn't question why this person watches her sleep or knows where she's at 24 hours a day. She just quietly accepts the fact that that's how romantic boys act and violence towards her is just a part of being in a relationship.
Young women are eating this up and discussing which 100-year-old male vampire they love most. They are buying posters, sound tracks and t-shirts with the actors and actresses on them at Hot Topic and wait in long lines to see the new movie. Buy, buy, buy! Don't' spend your money on more books (since Twilight makes you want to read so much.) Buy a load of crap and secretly wish you could be bitten and abused by a 100-year-old man!
If I could, I would pluck every Twilight book out of every young woman's hands and replace it with The Secret Life of Bees.
Sadly, I have read the book Twilight. My best friends mother lent it to me thinking I would enjoy it. This was before Twilight mania began. The book is written for young women, probably between the ages of 12-17.
The focus of the book is a high school girl who becomes stalked and harassed by a 100-year old high school "boy". (Why a 100-year-old would want to attend high school is beyond my comprehension. Unless he has a wish to meet Chris Hansen.) This "boy" sneaks into her bedroom and watches her sleep and does not allow any other males to come near her. The main character sees this as romantic. Emotional abuse is not romantic, Ms. Stephanie Meyer.
The only reason why people think Twilight books are good is because, unlike the DaVinci Code, they actually understand the plot. It is written in the same reading comprehension level as the Babysitters Club, R.L. Stine's Fear Street Series and Sweet Valley High. The average American stops reading novels after high school, thus never developing their critical thinking skills beyond the Lord of the Flies. This one reason why Twilight is popular amongst adults.
As a feminist, I must also point out society's obsession with dumbing down girls. The main character of this book rarely thinks for herself. All decisions are made for her by her 100-year-old boyfriend. She doesn't question why this person watches her sleep or knows where she's at 24 hours a day. She just quietly accepts the fact that that's how romantic boys act and violence towards her is just a part of being in a relationship.
Young women are eating this up and discussing which 100-year-old male vampire they love most. They are buying posters, sound tracks and t-shirts with the actors and actresses on them at Hot Topic and wait in long lines to see the new movie. Buy, buy, buy! Don't' spend your money on more books (since Twilight makes you want to read so much.) Buy a load of crap and secretly wish you could be bitten and abused by a 100-year-old man!
If I could, I would pluck every Twilight book out of every young woman's hands and replace it with The Secret Life of Bees.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)