There are no “gender roles”

I was thinking about this and it occurs to me that this is a powerful anti-feminist meme that’s been force fed to us, the idea that there are two separate “gender roles” and that men are just as trapped and unhappy in theirs as women are.

When I was much younger I recall getting in a fight with a standard model liberal feminist (I was, then leaning towards radicalism, but was later subsumed but hey, I’m older and have learned better now) about the then emerging “men’s movement”.  If you remember the late 80s and early 90s these were the guys who would go into the woods and beat drums and cry on each others shoulders and talk about their dads and how horrible it was that they couldn’t show affection. I think the “Iron Man” book author started all this (his name escapes me too, a small mercy.)  I was deeply suspicious of this movement, considered it somehow  anti feminist but was shouted down by my friend and couldn’t, then, formulate exactly why I had the suspicions about it that I had.

Fifteen years later, it all crystallizes for me.  It’s a subtle trap they lay, and very effective.  the object of the game is to first off stop women from talking about their problems and swing it bck to the men, the poor men, their feelings, their needs.  They do this by listening (while pretending not to) and then co-opting women’s language for themselves, and twisting it.  So from these encounter sessions where men basically went camping together came some basic principles about men:

1. Men are forced into a gender role from birth that is just as confining as that imposed on women, and therefore;

2. the patriarchy hurts men too.

Now this sounds really appealing on the face of it.  It makes men the natural allies of feminism, warriors alongside us in a battle against an oppressive force.  “We’re not at war with each other,” it cries (mistaking the media coining of the term “the battle of the sexes” as a reality, instead of a reality-masking lie), “we need to work together to eliminate this horrible scourge! And since, you know, we’re working together, that means you have to help us fight our battles too.  After all, people make fun of us if we cry – that’s sexist!  Stand up for our right to have feelings!”

…and so on.

This fermented underground without my noticing until, in the late 90s, it began to rise to the surface, as scum always will, with the Men’s Right’s movement, which politically works to deal with all those nasty discriminations against men that are built into law and which don’t really exist.  The draft is a favorite red herring of theirs to drag out – the reality is that there is no draft in America and hasn’t been since one for over 30 years (no male in America who is not a senior citizen has even been subject to a draft), their sole duty they must adhere to is filling out a form with selective service when they turn 18.  They argue this *could* become a draft someday but given how enormously unpopular the last one was no politician is willing to risk political suicide by voting for another.  Yet they love to talk as though their lives are in mortal danger at all moments.  They also ignore female draft resisters AND those women who tried to force the matter of women being included by showing up at selective service Enter text here.offices and filling out card applications (which were thrown away).  They also ignore the fact that military service is often seen as a part of full citizenship, without which you are not taken as seriously by a military-minded entity like the modern State.

The other favorite red herring of theirs, of course, is the outright lie that judges give preferential treatment to women after divorce in matters of child custody, when the reality is that 70% of the time men are given custody of their children when they demand it, even or especially if they have been raping and beating the child and the mother dares speak up about it.  They want a return to the good old days when women almost never got custody of the children because they were seen as the man’s property, and if she does get the kids (like they are some prize to be fought over) he certainly doesn’t want to have to contribute any money to feeding them since he has no rights to her vagina anymore, because to expect him to do so is OMG SEXIST.

“Sexist” – that’s the other term, a kinder, gentler term like “domestic violence” instead of the more accurate “wife beating” term, invented because it sounds nicer and fairer – but it doesn’t reflect reality.

The reality is – there is no “battle of the sexes”, there is no “sexism” – there is violent oppression of women in every nation, in every religion.

The reality is, there is no “domestic violence” – there is male violence against women, children, and sometimes other men.  Men are in virtually no danger from women in the home, while men’s violence against women is one of the most common reasons they require hospitalization, men’s murder of women is the number one cause of pregnancy related death, men’s murder of women is the number one reason for women to die at work.  Yet even a simple google search trying to find this out brings you to a page of search results laden with “men’s rights” groups denying that domestic violence is primarily perpetrated by men against women or that it is as severe as it is.

And – back to the central point of my post – the reality is that there are no “gender roles”.  To claim that boys and girls are pushed into different “gender roles” is the first step by the new wave of the anti-feminist movement in denying the oppression of women.  Because of “gender roles” are these weird things “society” just made up and we’re all stuck in them, well then we just all have to make nice and stop having all these unrealistic expectations of each other!

The reality is that from the moment the doctor says, “It’s a boy!” the child is deemed to be a full human.  His “gender expectations” are that he will fully participate in society to the extent his class, race, and physical condition allow.  He is expected to grow up and have a profession, become educated, become an independent human being.  His life choices will be based partly on his place in society but also by his hard work and natural talents.  He will be encouraged to eat enough food to grow up strong and healthy and no one will think twice about him enjoying his food obviously.  He will be encouraged and praised if he is physically active and enjoys or excels at sports.  He will be encouraged or at least not strongly dissuaded from a healthy sexual appetite, unless he belongs to a particularly strict religion.  There are no doors closed to the average male, he will see adult men in every profession, at every level of government, at the head of every religion, in every area of business, in all types of sports, men everywhere, capable of becoming wealthy, capable of being widely admired, presented as the standard human who is understood and whose needs are a matter of right.

The male gender role is “HUMAN.”

In contrast, a little girl is oppressed from birth.  From the moment one is pronounced female, one is degraded.  Everything associated with women and the feminine becomes a symbol of mockery and weakness, from the color pink to a liking of flowers.  Among a girl’s very first playthings are toys designed to encourage her to become a “good” wife and mother and consumer of clothing and beauty products – toy vacuum cleaners, baby dolls that wet their pants and cry (sometimes while she is still in diapers and crying!) hair accessories, baby girl makeup and jewelry kits.  the assumption is that whatever else she may be interested in or want to become, that these interests will always be her first and foremost, her most “natural” position in society – the homemaker who thinks no further than her next shopping trip and what to make for dinner.  At increasingly younger ages, her natural healthy enjoyment of food is stifled, she is told a fat girl or woman is an object of scorn and mockery, the average girl begins dieting in elementary school now, girls say they would rather die than gain 50 pounds, and every year girls *do* die rather than eat enough to risk gaining weight – anorexia alone kills 20% of its victims, not to mention the lifelong health consequences for many survivors. (Yes I know anorexia is partially caused by genetics, but dieting behavior frequently triggers those genetics, and dieting is pushed on girls at younger and younger ages now.)  If a girl is physically active and interested in sports she will be channeled into less challenging women’s sports, and if her interest is too extreme or in an “unfeminine” sport she will be subtly or not so subtly discouraged from it.  If she persists and becomes a professional athlete she will never be as rich or successful as male professional athletes.  A girl will be simultaneously pressured into being chaste, sexually passive, virginal (by her parents and most religions) to the extent that all sex, including rape, will be considered her fault – and at the same time encouraged to be sexually available to prove her “independence” and adulthood, to dress in skimpy clothing that bares her body, to pose nude for her boyfriend, to always be sexually eager for her husband.  no matter what she does in terms of her sexuality, it will not be accepted by society.  A girl learns young that she will probably never be president, never have a place in most major religions (other than the lowest possible support role), is more likely to be a nurse than a doctor, is more likely to be a mommy than an executive.

The female “gender role” is “SERVANT/SEXUAL TOY”.

The two simply do not compare.

Men’s rights activists try to bring up anti-gay social attitudes as evidence that men must conform to a certain stereotype and that this is “oppression”.  Yet the main offenders of reinforcing this “gender role” are OTHER MEN – and taunting other men for being a “sissy” or “faggot” is only reinforcing a gender role inasmuch as being gay is seen as being less than a man, or being more feminine, which is understood to be a position of degradation everywhere.  At the root of homophobia is hatred of women – straight men imagine gay men performing the same slave role they force women into, and wish to dissociate themselves from that perceived taint of femaleness.  This is not an oppressive gender role forced on men by women, which is what a real “battle of the sexes” or “sexism” would mean – this is male self-policing.

Men’s rights activists also complain that being expected to actually work for a living is an oppressive requirement of the male role.  Give me a fucking break.  As if mothers and housewives don’t work harder than they do – for no pay.

“Gender roles” are a crock.  “Men’s rights” are a crock.  “Domestic violence” is a crock.  “Sexism” is a crock.

It’s time to stop playing nice to get along with the boys in hopes of winning them to our side.  No subtle leading them into a slightly less misogynistic viewpoint by pretending the patriarchy hurts men too – it doesn’t, not as men.  It benefits them – that’s why it fucking exists.  Even when it hurts men for being disabled, or non-white, or poor, it hurts non-white, disabled, poor women more than men of the same social strata.  Men always have a social benefit from being men.  They are more positively portrayed everywhere, they are considered the default human being.  men do not suffer from unnatural constraints of gender roles!  What is expected of men is CITIZENSHIP, ADULTHOOD, HUMANITY.

And the spoiled little fuckers complain about it.

Unbelievable.

FA and HAES

(For the uninformed, that would be “Fat acceptance” and “Health at any size”)

I’m sorry to all the FA readers or proponents out there, but I simply can’t get behind the HAES philosophy, although it probably isn’t for the reason most people think.  Do I believe a large person with a high BMI can be “healthy”?  Yes.  Do I know that someone can eat mostly vegetables and exercise every day and have low blood pressure, low cholesterol, a good heart rate, no diabetes, and still be fat?  Yes.  I suppose that was the original intent of the HAES catch phrase and idea put out there, since most of the world seems to assume that if you “eat right and exercise” you will, of course, be thin.

There’s no (yes you read that right, no) scientific proof that this is the case.  You do see indications in certain experiments that going on a diet reduces high blood pressure and cholesterol WHILE ONE IS ON THE DIET.  There is no indication that the vast majority of people are going to be able to override their bodies desperate urges to feed themselves for a lifetime (this is why 95% of all diets fail), so as soon as they return to eating food with actual flavor that will adequately nourish them, the numbers go right back up.  Not that there is any real proof that those numbers rising means ill health is around the corner either.   The entirely of the belief that there are “bad” foods that will make your blood pressure, cholesterol, and weight go up and that in turn those numbers going up will make you sick are associations built upon associations – in other words,  there is no proof that eating a hamburger every day will cause you to have a heart attack before you turn 60.  Although that’s kinda gross and wouldn’t you want something else once in a while?  I digress.

So the FA movement came up with the HAES idea anyway to try to promote to a largely uncaring public that fat people don’t necessarily live any differently from slim people, despite the plethora of media images of fat people shoving high fat, high calorie, sugar laden foods into their mouth while lying on the couch all day.  And for that they are to be commended.  But I worry about a hierarchy developing, wherein I see such things as FA proponents proudly listing the “healthy” (low fat, low sugar, organic, vegetarian/vegan) foods they eat on their blogs, talking about how much exercise they get, bragging about how low their blood pressure and cholesterol are.

So are people who do not have “good numbers” allowed to be in the FA movement?  What if they make you look bad?  What if, like most Americans, I am a fat person who doesn’t engage in leisure time exercise for half an hour 3-5 times a week (something also not proven to make any difference in one’s longevity)?  Am I disqualified from speaking up in the FA movement?  And… what if I am not healthy?

Because I’m not.  I am not a child, I am not ignorant on the amount of calories, fat grams, carbs, protein grams, or anything else in my food (after living 25 years with an eating disorder I can probably tell you the calories in every food I like in my sleep), I am not ignorant about exercise, I have tried, multiple times, doing about every little thing anyone has ever suggested I do to “lose weight and get fit and healthy” and the reality is – I am NOT healthy, nothing I eat or do not eat, drink or do not drink, is going to change that.  I cannot, by manipulating my diet, solve my endocrine problems, my joint problems, I cannot undo my PTSD, I cannot make my migraines disappear, I cannot reverse the effects of trauma on my life.  I am chronically ill, mentally and physically, and there is no reason to think I will not always be ill.

Should I, and other disabled people, be shuffled to the bottom and hidden away because we are not “healthy”?  Is the FA’s insistence on HAES truly a counter-cultural message, or is it buying into the societal hierarchy of “health”, where those who are “fit and trim” are on top?  Isn’t HAES just saying that “deserving” fat people should be allowed at the top too?  Does it truly challenge the hierarchy?

I’m really only interested in challenging the hierarchy, the one that puts male, white, young adult, healthy/able bodied, “fit”, thin, rich, Christian, heterosexual people on top and tells everyone else that the more they deviate from these “desirable” qualities, the less they deserve to have.  To this end, I don’t see HAES as a valuable tool.

Ed

I never was too much into the personification of Ana (or Mia, depending on your personal food kink/disorder type).

But I’ve seen a few people in recovery jokingly speak of Ed (E.D. – Eating Disorders), as a non-glamourized personification.

And I was thinking about this other day and it occurred to me, living with Ed is so much like living with an abusive man.

You don’t want anyone to know Ed is hurting you. So you hide the harm Ed does. Ed leaves you bruises and you joke about how clumsy you are. But Ed is hurting you. His physical abuse leaves you bruised, tired, sore. Your very bones ache. You feel nauseated and sick. Sometimes he knocks out your teeth. Sometimes he cuts you. You wear long pants and long sleeved shirts in the summer and say you’re cold (which is true, because he denies you enough food with iron in it to stay warm). Sometimes Ed hurts you so badly you end up in the emergency room.

He controls everything you do, deliberately isolates you from your friends so you can spend more time with him, criticizes you constantly, picks on your clothes, your looks, your makeup, relentlessly points out every flaw. If you gain even one single pound he notices, and bullies you until you do something to take it off, and five more. Ed points out other women and tells you they are prettier, thinner, more desirable. Ed points out other joggers or bikers who go faster than you, even after you’ve been going for miles, and tells you that you’re lazy if you can’t keep up.

Ed keeps you from sleeping at night, bothering you, keeping you up late, reminding you of every mistake you’ve made that day, sometimes yelling at you until you get out of bed and promise to fix your mistakes.

Ed watches your every move, and if you sneak away to have some “bad” food, he catches you at it and screams at you till you cry, sometimes until you throw up.

If you tell people about how badly Ed is hurting you, he threatens to leave you, threatens you that you’ll never find anyone else because you are so worthless, you are nothing without him, and next thing you know you are telling everyone that maybe you were just being too hard on him, or denying it all again. Sometimes you can tell people what Ed is doing to you and they just don’t believe it. They insist you look well and fine, they joke that maybe they need someone like Ed around to help them improve themselves, they tell you a little constructive criticism can be motivating. Unless Ed hurts you so badly you go into the hospital, people just don’t want to believe he can be that bad – he’s such a charming guy.

But mainly you don’t complain about him because you can’t imagine life without Ed. He has made himself the center of your world. If Ed demands you quit seeing a friend, you quit seeing them. If he demands you quit doing something, you quit doing it. After all, before he came along you were just dumpy, ordinary, lazy, clumsy, selfish, but you had such potential, and well he recognized it, and promised you he’d help you become the beautiful woman he could see inside you – just as long as you went along with a few ideas he had for you to improve yourself. No pain, no gain – no beauty comes without a price – right?

One day you wake up and you realize your life is out of control. And maybe you need help to get away from Ed. So you leave, and go to someone for help. But Ed stalks you. You look up and see him when you’re grocery shopping, when you’re at a restaurant. You’re afraid he will come around if you are alone at night, when you are naked and defenseless in the shower. At first maybe he just talks to you. You can try to tell people about it but unless he’s actually physically hurting you they tell you just to ignore him or refuse to talk to him and he’ll go away. But he keeps coming back. Maybe even 5 years later when you think he’s forgotten you cross the street one day and there he is, behind the plate glass window of a store, staring back at you. Letting you know he’s there. Always watching. Always waiting.

Okay, I know about “reasonable doubt” and everything but…

http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/03/grace.coldcase.murphy/index.html

He killed her, right?  I mean come on.

All the usual excuses are there.  “There was no physical violence in the marriage!  He was a law abiding citizen!”

Please.  He killed her.  And I bet the “fight” was her saying she was leaving him.

If I turn out to be wrong I will be very, very shocked.

Memorial Day

I don’t celebrate Memorial Day (American holiday for those of you elsewhere – meant to honor dead American soldiers), evil, God hating, man hating, war hating unPATRIotic as I am, no.

Why celebrate Memorial Day?  Well of course if you personally know a soldier in your family who died on the battlefield, yes, this day has a special meaning to you.  But if you don’t?  The guilt-laden signs are all around, rich with all the symbolism of the American military and how we should honor those who “died so we can be free”.  As if they personally, each and everyone, voluntarily joined the military out of the deep sacrificial goodness of their hearts because AMERICAN FREEDOM WAS ON THE LINE and they wanted nothing more than to defend it for the good of their loved ones and FELLOW  countryMEN.

In fact, most veterans of war were conscripts.  Until you get to the never ending stupidity of modern war-without-end on Iraq and other places overseas, and then they are “volunteers” – young men and women who come from depressed areas of the country and have little to no money for college and no real prospects for a career.  The military offers them travel, job training, college money, and rather than sit around their childhood bedroom chafing at their lack of a life, they bite, probably with encouragement from their family.  Then they get sent off to some imperialistic wank in a desert somewhere, feeling they made a huge mistake but unable to turn back on it, meanwhile being constantly screwed over, browbeat, and brainwashed by everyone around them into parroting the same lines over and over until they half believe them.  Then they are released and when they have PTSD or Gulf War syndrome the government acts like they are crazy and making it up.  So they end up back in the lower middle class, the lower class altogether, or even on the street.  So much for average citizens honoring their sacrifices – the VA can’t even be bothered to honor its own mentally, physically wounded soldiers itself.

For this I’m supposed to have some big debt of gratitude?  These are “freedom fighters” I should honor?  I’m sorry, I think of them as dumb, unlucky kids caught up in the war machine.  I don’t bear them any ill will.  But I simply don’t know any who really “joined up” for some high falutin’ ideals of God, home, and country.  My grandfather was a WW2 vet (he died when I was a baby, I never knew him) but I know damn well even he was conscripted.  And how many wars, since the inception of America, have truly been about preserving our American freedoms?  Iraq isn’t.  Afghanistan isn’t.  Vietnam and Korea sure as hell weren’t.  World War 2 we entered after an put up job of Pearl Harbor was deliberately orchestrated as an excuse to let us turn the tide of American opinion enough that we could enter the war.  Even then it wasn’t really an attack on American freedoms, but a power/land grab.  World War 1 also did not pose any threat to American freedom or sovereignty. The Civil War was a total travesty on both sides, the only good thing to come out of being the nominal end to slavery (quickly replaced, after Reconstruction, by Jim Crow Laws and the sharecropping system). Every other war we’ve been in was straight up imperialistic tendencies on our side.

If we were truly a country under frequent attack, with armed troops trying to invade us and impose their morals, laws, and way of life on us – as we are doing to others every day for at least the last 60 years – we would be right to describe fallen American soldiers as having fallen in the name of keeping America free.  but this is far from the truth.

Instead, I urge every young person with half a brain and any conscience to walk away from the army recruiting posters and their false promises of education and awesome career training.

Here is who I propose honoring as Americans who fought, risked their lives, and sometimes died defending “our” (as in, not just that of rich, white, landed men) freedom:

Susan B Anthony.   Sojourner Truth.   Andrea Dworkin.   Frederick Douglass.  Ana Mae Aquash.  Martin Luther King Junior. Johanna Justin-Jinich.  Fannie Lou Hamer.  Dr. Barnett Slepian.

There’s many more of course.  That’s just a tiny few.

“Choice”

There’s a lot of buzz about “choices”.  About women who “choose” to have abortions, about women who “choose” to be straight or lesbian, about women who “choose” to shave or not shave their legs.  About poor people who “choose” to be lazy and not work.

There’s some deeper philosophical divide going on here.  Are we all free agents moved by nothing more than our personal will?  If so, then everything bad that happens to everyone, outside of accidents or direct harm caused to a person by someone clearly more powerful than them in every way (let’s go with a neutral example of someone safely crossing a road in a crosswalk with a walk light on who gets run down by someone in a truck – clearly individual free will plays no part in the victim’s role there), all of those things are at least in part your fault.

Going by this theory, outside of being brutally raped, every woman has a total and complete choice to sleep with men or women as she so desires according to her personal inclination and political consciousness.

The other side of the theory is that we are all somehow products of society and free will is an illusion.  That we will act according to how we are raised and what is around us, influencing us.

The “truth”, I think, is somewhere in between.

I had a “choice” to have an abortion when I was 21.  Of course if I had made the “choice” not to have an abortion I would have been instantly relegated to the lowest ranks of poverty, the “father” having said in no uncertain terms that he would fight paying child support every step of the way and would have nothing to do with me or the baby, and not having any familial support since my family is a mostly a big group of insane abusers.  Of course, laws relaxing the strictures on abortion made my choice much easier than it would have been if I lived somewhere where I had to find some illegal, possibly untrained or dirty doctor elsewhere, where I would have had to fear for my life and health if I got one.  Possibly the certain spectre of loneliness and poverty might have seemed more appealing then.  But I had a “choice” to have an abortion (and thus continue on with my life) or to have a baby (which would have pretty much ruined any chance I had to do anything.)  Even at the time I was so horribly angry at having it so glibly passed off as a “choice”, as though I were choosing whether to wear a green or a yellow shirt that day.

As far as a choice to be lesbian goes – i.e., a choice to not sexually interact with men that one consciously makes before one becomes sexually active at all – I literally never had that choice, unless you are going to somehow argue a 40 pound child has the choice to say no to an adult male.  But the near ubiquity of the sexual abuse of girls aside, I am not going to deny that heterosexual privilege exists.  What I will say is that it is difficult to impossible for most women to give it up, just as a matter of philosophy or politics, at such a young age as to never have gotten involved with a man at all.  I can’t speak for everyone here, I don’t know what makes some women able to ALWAYS say no to men.  What I know from my perspective is this:

When I was young the word lesbian was never spoken around me.  I never saw a lesbian, never saw two women kiss.  I literally did not even know such things existed.  I was in my mid teens before that was even presented to me as a concept.  Yes I was raised very religiously, but in spite of living in America in the 70’s and 80’s, there is still such invisibility visited upon lesbians that it was not hard at all for my family to shield me from all knowledge of such things.  In spite of this, I was having lesbian longings and feelings that I didn’t even begin to comprehend – but yes everyone and everything around me demanded, expected, assumed I would grow up, marry and have children – every book, every movie, every woman I know did so.  Without exception.  In the meantime the men in my family were sexually abusive to me and all the other girls.  By the time I was an adult, let there be no doubt about how ground down into the dirt I was, how unwilling I was to step out of line, fear, shame, and submission having been literally beaten into me.  I don’t pretend I’m exceptional or alone in this.  And the fact is, you cannot look at any woman and know if that has happened to her.

For me, coming out as bisexual almost as soon as I moved away from home *was* a radical act.  Stepping out of the tracks I’d been steered into was terrifying, even if it was for something some radical lesbian feminists roll their eyes at.  I still at that time did not meet any lesbians or see any examples of lesbian culture.  I did not until I was married with a child, in my 20s.  The idea that I had a “choice” to leave my husband and take my son to go live with strangers for social/political reasons then would have been completely unthinkable, even if I had had the money to buy a single greyhound ticket to travel several hundred miles to the only lesbian space I’d ever heard of – and then they may have not wanted my son there, as some such places do not.

Do I have a “choice” to eschew all contact with males, abandon my son, and live a life henceforth free of males?  Sure I do.  Is it a realistic choice? Was it a realistic choice to expect me to make as a traumatized, impoverished 18 year old?  If you, reader, suffered for your choice to come out as lesbian when you were very young, and I could not find the opportunity or the will to do so because of various mental, social, physical factors, does that make you better than me?  More pure?  Have I made “bad choices”?  Maybe, but I can say every step of the way I always made the choices that seemed most logical to me for survival.  Not “privilege”, not a pretty house and a boyfriend who made me popular and had a lot of money, because I’ve never had that.  Much of my life has been a struggle to survive by any means necessary.  My choices, and my options, have not been pretty.  On paper I look like a total fuck up as a result.  I have no college education, a spotty work history, no trade skills, a mental health history, no familial back up, and my health isn’t the best.  Often in my life my sexual/romantic partners have been the ONLY people on my side in any way.   Even when they have been outright abusive and I knew it I had no where to go that I could see.

Maybe I should have tried harder, suffered even deeper poverty and more abuse by others and steadfastly refused to sleep with men at all.  I could have been homeless most of my adult life then, instead of only for a year or so. Would that make me more ideologically pure?

Yes some heterosexual and bisexual women seek to use lesbians as play toys in their het relationships, as evidenced in personal ads everywhere.  Personally though I think personal ads are the absolute worst place to find any kind of relationship at all.  Seriously – have you ever met one single person who’s found love or even a long term relationship that was in any way healthy through a personal ad?!  I only ever read them to laugh at them.  Try to sum up what will knock your socks off in 100 words or less and it all comes out sounding trite.

*rant rant rant*

On a Personal Note

I know there have been long quiet stretches here of late, and yes, there will be more of those to come, I’m afraid.  On top of other, smaller crises like the sudden death of my last computer, etc., well the biggest thing going on in my life right now is that my mother is dying – and at a fairly young age too.  The news of her incipient demise was unexpected, sudden, and definitive, and the happy dysfunction of the entire family promises to make this as awful as it can possibly be.  So on top of just sitting around being a bit unable to cope with it, I will also have some travel coming up in the next months.

So uh, if you’re wondering where I am – that’s where.

Questioning the numbers

According to the CDC, us fatties are costing all the good, deserving thin people billions of dollars.  (Only a fraction of what greedy, lying, thieving corporate bankers stole from all your pockets but hey – its more fun to hate fat people!)

The claim:

Overweight and obesity and their associated health problems have a significant economic impact on the U.S. health care system (USDHHS, 2001). Medical costs associated with overweight and obesity may involve direct and indirect costs (Wolf and Colditz, 1998; Wolf, 1998). Direct medical costs may include preventive, diagnostic, and treatment services related to obesity. Indirect costs relate to morbidity and mortality costs. Morbidity costs are defined as the value of income lost from decreased productivity, restricted activity, absenteeism, and bed days. Mortality costs are the value of future income lost by premature death.

Look at the wording.  “associated with” “may involve” “direct and indirect costs” “may include”  Sounds very sketchy.  Is it that fat people really cost us the 117 billion a year (adjusted for inflation) figure being claimed?  Or do costs associated with obesity related illnesses directly and indirectly maybe sorta kinda come to $117 billion?

What is an “obesity related” cost?  What is an indirect cost vs. a direct cost?  The CDC website didn’t have that information readily findable, but what is surely an impartial, caring source – Nutristrategy (trademark) – tells us a bit more:

Overweight and obesity costs total $117 billion in the United States. Direct cost is $61 billion. Indirect cost is $56 billion.

Direct costs include the cost of physicians and other professionals, hospital and nursing home services, the cost of medications, home health care and other medical durables. Indirect costs include lost productivity that results from illness and death.

Cancer costs related to overweight and obesity:
Breast cancer: Total cost: $2.9 billion, Direct cost: $1.1 billion, Indirect cost: $1.8 billion
Endometrial cancer: Total cost: $933 million, Direct cost: $310 million, Indirect cost: $623 million
Colon cancer: Total cost: $3.5 billion, Direct cost: $1.3 billion, Indirect cost: $2.2 billion

Type 2 diabetes costs related to overweight and obesity: cost is $98 billion (total).

Osteoarthritis costs related to overweight and obesity: Total cost is $21.2 billion. Direct cost is $5.3 billion. Indirect cost is $15.9.

Hypertension (high blood pressure) costs related to overweight and obesity: Direct cost $4.1 (17 percent of the total cost of hypertension).

Gallbladder disease costs related to overweight and obesity: Total cost: $3.4 billion, Direct cost: $3.2 billion, Indirect cost: $187 million.

Lost productivity costs related to obesity (BMI > 30) among Americans ages 17-64 is $3.9 billion. This value considers the following annual numbers (for 1994):

-Workdays lost related to obesity: 39.3 million
-Physician office visits related to obesity: 62.7 million
-Restricted activity days related to obesity: 239.0 million
-Bed-days related to obesity: 89.5 million

Unless they are only counting the costs of cancer only found in obese patients, and the same for the others – wait.  Are they seriously counting all diabetes 2 and 4 kinds of cancer as all being the fault of fat people?

I guess the easy way to figure that out is to check the sources.  The page cites the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases for figures on diabetes costs related to fat people.

The annual cost of diabetes in medical expenditures and lost productivity climbed from $98 billion in 1997 to $132 billion in 2002, according to a study by the American Diabetes Association (ADA) published in the March issue of Diabetes Care. The direct medical costs of diabetes more than doubled in that time, from $44 billion in 1997 to $91.8 billion in 2002.

That’s right – even though thin people can have diabetes too, and even though this figure includes type 1 diabetes (the kind kids get for no apparent reason) all diabetes costs are your fault, fatties!  Even if you don’t have it!  And even though being overweight is only one of many risk factors for diabetes 2 – including your race, your genetics and your age.  And never mind the fact that not even all old people of a certain race and genetic background who are fat get diabetes.  And never mind the fact that some of the “increase” in diabetes is caused by a redefinition of the condition to include people with no diabetes symptoms – but who are “managed” with expensive treatments anyway.

Those breast cancer numbers?  Well in the first place, I looked around a while and couldn’t find anything citing the number she stated – the CDC claims the number to be much higher.  But also, there is NO KNOWN CAUSE of breast cancer.  The risk factors they have found that are associated with breast cancer – those would be a correlation, not a cause – are:  sex (men actually can get breast cancer, as they have a small amount of breast tissue, but its very rare); age (almost all women who get breast cancer are over 45);  genetics/family history of breast cancer; race; how young menstrual cycle began; whether or not you had children or when you had them; having taken DES back when they still prescribed it; having had another kind of cancer or radiation treatment for that cancer; having taken the pill within the last decade; taking hormone replacement therapy; not having breast fed your children for at least a year if you had children; and being overweight.  But again, there is no known cause.  A woman can be old, white, fat, child free, with a mother who died of breast cancer – and not ever get breast cancer.  And nobody knows why.  Blaming breast cancer costs on fat people is fucking ridiculous.

Endometrial cancer – the most common cancer of the female reproductive system – is thought to be linked to estrogen levels, but they don’t really know what causes it.  They think – but aren’t sure – that higher levels of estrogen can cause it.  Blaming fat people for endometrial cancer and the associated costs is therefore fucking ridiculous.

Colon cancer.  They do not know exactly what causes colon cancer.  The usual ricsk factors are present, such as being old, family history, other diseases of the intestines, oh and being fat – so they say.  Although it strikes me that since getting older is a risk factor for pretty much every kind of cancer, and getting older means you gain weight, couldn’t that be why people who weigh more are more likely to get cancer?  Oh wait I wasn’t supposed to notice that, was I?  That aside, a disease with no known cause and a wide variety of risk factors cannot be blamed entirely on obesity.  That’s fucking stupid.  (Can you tell I’m annoyed?)

Osteoarthritis – hey is it starting to look like they are blaming old women for everything here?  Again being old and being female are two big risk factors for osteoarthritis.  Yes I am sure being overweight can encourage or exacerbate arthritis on weight bearing joints like the knees and hip.  However, many skinny people have arthritis too.  Blaming fat people for costs associated with osteoarthritis is asinine.

And so on and so forth.

I found another source for this same claim and a little more of where it comes from.  Some dudes named Wolf and Colditz did some study back in 1995 and- here let me just quote directly the asininity of all this:

“The researchers based their estimates on weighted data from the 1988 and 1994 National Health Interview Surveys, inflating the results to reflect 1995 dollars. These estimates were those utilized by the National Institutes of Health at the time this report was undertaken. To estimate health care costs attributable to obesity, Wolf and Colditz used a prevalence-based approach including the obesity-related diseases of type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, hypertension, gallbladder disease, colon, breast, and endometrial cancers, and osteoarthritis.“

So this “research” proving we cost the innocent, upright, moral deserving thin people $117 billion a year in the US alone is based on a 14 year old study that was based on the examination of the results of a SURVEY?! – with figures inflated to 2008 dollars (haven’t seen their new scary number for 2009 yet.)  Wait no one can be that stupid, as to do such a thing and pretend it is both science and accurate economic analysis, right?

Okay here is a slightly more explanatory paragraph of their method:

Anne Wolf and Graham Colditz used an epidemiologic approach to quantify aggregate medical spending attributable to obesity (excluding overweight).They calculated the relative risk of disease for obese versus nonobese people for type 2 diabetes; coronary heart disease; hypertension; gallbladder disease; musculoskeletal disease; and breast, endometrial, and colon cancer. They then applied the relative risk estimates to published estimates of disease costs to determine obesity-attributable medical spending. They found that such spending equaled 5.7 percent of US national health spending in 1995 ($51.6 billion). However, because their disease costs were based on data from as far back as 1985, their spending estimate may be outdated.

So, in some cases they included all disease costs to the obese, in some cases they decided what percentage of it is the fault of obese people, even in diseases where THERE IS NO KNOWN CAUSE.  Obesity is only a risk factor in all of the diseases listed – and it is hard to explain this to people anymore because there’s so much hype thrown around, but a risk factor is not a cause.  A risk factor for a diease is merely something observed that happens to many people around the same time they develop a disease.  It could mean iot causes the disease but the relationship is unclear.  It could mean the disease causes the risk factor!  THEY DON’T KNOW.

So on the basis of obesity being a “risk factor” somehow mysteriously related to various diseases that have a long list of risk factors associated with them, the researchers blamed 5% or so of all health costs in the US on people being too fat.  Well I don’t know, 5% doesn’t really sound like all that much to me, considering how much they pulled straight out of their asses to try to inflate the “costso of obesity” as high as possible to include everything they could possibly imagine might possibly be caused by fat people.

And you may think, so okay, some fatphobic morons came up with some shoddy research claiming the rising costs of healthcare rest on my pudgy shoulders, so what?  Why does it matter?

First of all this matters because changing one’s weight to a more socially acceptable weight, while relentlessly marketed to us, even by the government, as something within our control (they call it a “lifestyle choice”), there is no evidence, anywhere, that has ever been collected, to suggest that this is true.  Consider this bullshit study trying to “prove” people can take off significant amounts of weight long term if they just do the right things:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16002825

“There is a general perception that almost no one succeeds in long-term maintenance of weight loss. However, research has shown that approximately 20% of overweight individuals are successful at long-term weight loss when defined as losing at least 10% of initial body weight and maintaining the loss for at least 1 y. “

So – if a woman who is 5′6″ and weighed 170 pounds (defined as overweight)  goes on a diet and loses 10% of her body weight – 17 pounds, putting her at 153 pounds (defined as “normal and healthy) and manages not to gain it back within a year, that is considered long term significant weight loss?  And yet even such a modest short term weight loss is only managed by 20% of dieters?

The study goes on to cite The National Weight Control Registry.  The name alone gives me the creeps.   here is their index page blurb:

The National Weight Control Registry (NWCR), established in 1994 by Rena Wing, Ph.D.from Brown Medical School, and James O. Hill, Ph.D. from the University of Colorado, is the largest prospective investigation of long-term successful weight loss maintenance. Given the prevailing belief that few individuals succeed at long-term weight loss, the NWCR was developed to identify and investigate the characteristics of individuals who have succeeded at long-term weight loss. The NWCR is tracking over 5,000 individuals who have lost significant amounts of weight and kept it off for long periods of time. Detailed questionnaires and annual follow-up surveys are used to examine the behavioral and psychological characteristics of weight maintainers, as well as the strategies they use to maintaining their weight losses.

Nice that they say its a “belief” that fat people can’t lose weight – and yet they only have 5,000 people they track out of the estimated 150,000,000 Americans we are told are overweight.  They include people who have only kept their weight off a year and people who have lost as little as 30 pounds.  We are told this is significant and long term weight loss.  The average person they research has kept off 66 pounds for 5.5 years.  THESE ARE HIGHLY EXCEPTIONAL PEOPLE.  They are literally the exception that proves the rule.  Millions of people sign up with weight watchers every year, many with Jenny Craig, many with other diet programs large and small.  Yet they only found 5,000 people who lost “significant” amounts of weight “long term”.  And this tiny percentage they claim as “proof” that long term significant weight loss is something anyone can achieve.  It’s not true.

So being fat is something that almost no one can change about themselves for any significant amount of time.  Yet partly because of studies like this one that blames us wrongly for $117 billion a year in medical costs, thus encouraging anti-fat bias, fat people are denied jobs, denied promotions and raises – particularly among women.  Because of the lie told to employers that fat employees will cost them more money and take more time off work and are less productive – beliefs supported by these outdated, inaccurate, shadily conducted estimates – we experience very real, serious penalties for something we cannot change about ourselves. Being punished for something you can’t change is cruel, angering, unjust.  Having put up with this kind of treatment for two decades now, I’m at my wits end.

Fat is a feminist issue, people.

Fat Hatred in the Feminist Blogosphere

I would like to call on all feminists who blog to put an immediate moratorium on the fat-hating comments of their visitors and themselves.  I would like to call on you all to examine the bullshit that comes out of your mouth when you lambast fat people for “liking to sit around eating twinkies all day.”  I would like you all to stop yourself before publishing or approving comments that talk about how if fatties would just realize the One True Vegetarian/Vegan way and quit consuming fatty animal products all fat and heart disease would go away.  I would like you all to stop before you publish posts where you say, as if its a truism, that “of course” it would be healthier for everyone to lose ten pounds and get more exercise, or be more aware of what they eat, or pay attention to what they eat, or eat more vegetables, or less fast food, or less sugar. I would like you to educate yourselves on anorexia, bulimia, orthorexia, and get a clue about how damaging these comments are to the millions of women who suffer with this.

I would like you all to stop blaming fat people for being fat.  I would like you all to just fucking educate yourselves for once before you spout off about how the most important thing to poor people should be that they have organic food stores in their neighborhood or sidewalks to take long walks on because you think the worst thing about being poor is we all sit around eating mac and cheese and Little Debbie snack cakes and watch tv all day.  I would like you all to stop using “fat” as an insult against powerful white men with lots of money who do something particularly misogynist.  The problem with Rush Limbaugh isn’t that he’s fat – its that he’s a hideous human being who treats women like shit.

I would like to to stop pretending, when called on it, that your hatred of fat people is just “concern” for their “well being” and I would like you to stop claiming fat people are “eating themselves into heart attacks”, are lazy, undisciplined, uneducated about food, all secretly overeaters, and the like.

I would like you to stop enshrining both “good health” and thinness as characteristics both desirable and attainable for everyone and instead take apart the numerous sexist and classist supports for these beliefs.  I would like you to examine the ways in which women starving themselves, aka “dieting” has become the new standard of morality after being sexually abstinent (for women only, again) fell into disfavor.  I would like you to be aware that not all fat people are unhealthy; that very few, if any fat people who are unhealthy are that way BECAUSE of their fat – in fact, the converse is true and often health problems LEAD to weight gain and not the other way around; that not all skinny people are either healthy or compulsive exercisers and calorie counters; that neither being skinny and healthy nor being an obsessive exerciser and dieter make a person more moral, disciplined, or educated than someone who is or does not.

I would like to challenge all feminist bloggers to look into their own assumptions about weight, health, and their attitudes towards their own bodies and others’.  I would like to challenge feminist bloggers to do a little research of their own into finding any long term studies that show it is possible for anyone who tries hard enough to lose weight and keep it off (long term being “more than 2 years”).  I would like to challenge feminist bloggers who assume that fat = unhealthy to find any legitimate scientific studies showing that being 10, 20, 50, or even 100 pounds “overweight” is more than a very, very minor risk factor for heart attack, diabetes, cancer, early death, or any of the other things we are frightened with.  I would like challenge feminist bloggers who claim their hatred of fat people is really just concern for people’s health to compare the way they treat fat people, even healthy fat people, to the way they treat people who are chronically or severely disabled and who probably will not live a long time.

I would like feminist bloggers to question the societal assumptions that have made their way into medical literature and examine the ways in which medicine, in the past, has enshrined misogyny as medicine, and the continuum; ranging from the old claim that education would atrophy women’s reproductive organs to the advent of the lobotomy which was performed mostly on women to the wide variety of social control drugs (diet pills, tranquilizers, and anti-depressants, to name but a few) that are prescribed mostly to women – to modern day “healthy living” advice that says women should weigh less and eat less food than men of the same height, to demonizing women’s fat, even though body fat is to a large extent a female health trait (women need a MINIMUM of 21% of their body weight in fat to be healthy, as opposed to 8% for men); to the inevitable outcome of the policies of encouraging women to eat less than men and certainly less meat and other protein and iron rich foods that also happen to be fatty, which is that women are chronically iron-poor or anemic in large numbers, even among rich populations, and often feel weak and tired, and girls grow to be significantly smaller with no real reason for such marked sexual dimorphism in our species (in less misogynist cultures, women and men grow to practically the same height) because they begin systemically starving themselves and avoiding “bad” foods (foods reserved for men) just at the beginning of adolescence; to medical testing of drugs and procedures that excludes women because men’s bodies are considered the norm and women’s bodies are considered too complicated and strange to be tested (although they are happy to then give us the medicines).  I would like feminist bloggers who say “but of course fat is unhealthy” to examine why even “morbidly obese” women live longer than “healthy” weight men to help them understand what a tiny role one’s weight plays in one’s longevity.  I would like feminist bloggers to stop screaming about McDonald’s and fat lazy Americans when in fact, the US does NOT have the highest percentage of obese adults, nor does it have the shortest lifespans; nor are the majority of McDonald’s customers grossly obese, uneducated, and lazy.

I’ve had about all I can take of your assumptions about fat people, especially fat women.  I’ve had enough of being shamed in places I hoped to find a glimmer of social consciousness.  I’ve had enough of being preached to about low carb, vegan, calorie counting, exercise, and “health” by people who aren’t doctors and certainly aren’t my doctor or anyone I would consult for medical advice.  I shouldn’t have to beg your pity and gratuitous absolution for my fat because I have an endocrine disorder – it shouldn’t matter to you at all why I’m fat.  It shouldn’t matter to you if I do sit around all day eating red meat and twinkies.  I am chronically ill – I expect from any feminist blogger who has a shred of social consciousness about ableism to not throw out garbage advice like if I would “just” eat less, or the “right” foods, I would lessen or be rid of my migraines, back problems, PTSD and ovarian malfunctions.  I would like feminist bloggers to quit telling fat women who’ve been raped that they are stuffing their mouths with food because of their rapes because now they hate their body and are trying to make themselves so unattractive that no man will ever rape them again – you don’t know how much I eat.

Just stop it.

Just fucking STOP IT.

*brief wave*

I woke up April 1 to a very unfunny prank of the universe, wherein my computer failed to turn on when I pressed the on button.  One week later here I sit with a new computer, slowy going about setting it up and finding all my old links.  Not dead yet.  Sorry to disappoint those of you who’ve been waiting, ha.

The Latest Male Terrorism

Surprise surprise – the US invasion of Afghanistan has inexplicably failed to do much of anything to protect or improve the lives of women and girls there. Men continue to rape, beat, torture, abuse, imprison and kill women despite the good and kindly hand of the US government moving in.  I can’t imagine how this could possibly happen, since, you know, our government told us over and over about how even us liberal types needed to be behind this war because it was a good war and was going to free a bunch of women from REALLY BAD chauvinists, not like the not-very-bad kind we have here who are just good party boys.

German boy kills 16, 15 of them women

Alabama man kills 10, 6 of them women, one his own mother WHOM HE THEN SET ON FIRE, another an 18 month old girl

Men beating women they claim to love is the leading cause of injury to women between the ages of 15-44 and a major “risk factor” for mental and physical health problems.  (Of course, this article focuses on what beaten, abused women can do about their situation instead of, you know, calling it a public health crisis and suggesting anything be done about the male terrorists who beat women.)

Repeat child rapist who was let out of jail YET AGAIN with a monitor on his ankle, because raping female children isn’t a real crime or anything, rapes and kills a 13 year old girl.  Her poor female family members, already scarred and brutalized by asshole rapist men, tried to keep her confined indoors for her own good, but being a free-spirited girl she insisted on doing dangerous things like walking outside in broad daylight and thus got herself raped and murdered.  Or something.  Well maybe if she hadn’t laughed at him he wouldn’t have “lost control” and been forced to beat and stab her to death.

With the full power behind him of a sovereign nation that also happens to be a major world religion run solely and exclusively by men, a high ranking Catholic authority rejected and condemned a mother and some doctors for daring to save the life of a nine year old girl by removing from her body the twin fetuses that were growing there after her step father repeatedly raped her.  In the meantime, they refuse to censure or reject this rapist of children himself, claiming their big male ghost in the sky who rules their country and the lives of approximately a billion people in the world yawns at such ho hum matters as a grown man brutally attacking a tiny girl in ways that will leave her with permanent mental and physical scars, but becomes incensed should anyone care about her enough afterward to at least try to keep her frail body from being ripped to shreds from the inside out attempting to give birth to her rapists children.  because life is sacred or something.  (Except hers).  And besides, they could have just cut her little stomach open to remove the fetuses (that are so much more precious than her) when it became so distended she could no longer walk.  However, they graciously declined to withhold from this abused, raped, half dead baby girl the blessing of their big sky daddy, since she isn’t authorized to make her own medical decisions in this yet.  I’m sure when she is older she will be fawningly grateful.  Just like the 200,000-250,000 women in Brazil who, every year, must be treated for complications arising from their illegal abortions.

And of course our usual round-up of “murder-suicides” in which a man kills a woman, usually his wife or girlfriend or ex, maybe someone close to her just to get back at her for whatever slight, real or imagined, and then himself so he doesn’t have to like, go to jail or anything.

Torturing Women as Entertainment

From a comment on my last post I got the sickening, but not really surprising information that Rhianna’s screams as Chris Brown beat her were posted on the internet.

As a followup to the “why don’t women leave” question in my last post, I ask again, where are we supposed to go?  Is there anywhere in the world, really, where men’s rape and torture of girls and women isn’t seen as partly our own fault, something we secretly wanted, something not very serious and not really his fault or under his control because he was stressed, poor dear, or something not celebrated as a vital part of the “culture”?

The Watchmen, just released, has a brutal “almost rape” scene in it.   Rape scenes are common in movies, and often serve to up their popularity among young men (who are the target audience).  The more violent and degrading it is to the woman who is the victim, the more the movie is praised for its “starkness” and “gritty realism”.  A Clockwork Orange.  Blue Velvet.  Dangerous Liaisons.  In Secretary we see a mentally ill, vulnerable girl made into a sex slave to her boss – and of course she LOVES it.  300.  Girl Interrupted.  Pink Floyd: The Wall.  Kill Bill. I could go on and on.  When I was younger I used to become ill and object when I was trying to sit and watch a movie and then triggered into a panic attack by the violent rape scenes in so many of them.  Eventually I was worn down by “friends” who repeatedly told me I just had to deal with it, get over it, learn it was part of life and therefore shown in the movies because art imitates life. However the rape scenes in movies have little in common with real life rape.  They propagate common myths about rape (it’s done by strangers, it’s only rape if it’s violent, only girls who dressed a certain way or go out at night alone foolishly are raped, etc.)

Books aren’t free of the ubiquitous rape scene either.  Stephen King, an enormously popular author, has rape or sexual abuse of a child, usually a girl, in nearly every book.  Bag of Bones.  It.  Dorothy Madder.  Black House.  Dean Koontz and various other horror writers feel it necessary to add rape scenes to their writing as well.  Sci-fi has it’s share of rape scenes, even up to the very popular Robert Heinlein in Friday.  “Historical fiction” – Gary Jennings, who writes such vivid, salacious, detailed scenes of torture and rape in Aztec I threw the book away and never could even look or think about it again (not to mention the racism of making the “other” do the worst things.)  The Journeyer and Raptor aren’t much better. And of course there is the “ground breaking” novel Lolita, in which a man plots out the rape and sexual slavery of a little girl whom he projects his own sick longings for onto her behavior, referring to her as a nymphet.  While Humphrey claims he intended to show how sick the pedophile was, popular culture has seized onto the term Lolita as an excuse to get women to dress up in styles evocative of six years olds and call it “sexy”.

Overall, in popular fiction written by men, rape scenes are generally used to show what a bad, bad man the rapist is, usually someone of the “other”  (black, foreign, a monster).  The husband raping his wife, the guy encouraging a girl to drink enough that no one will take her seriously later, the rapist “friend”, are mostly absent.   Men’s writing about rape serves two purposes: either to titillate, or to show how bad the villain or the villainous culture in question is.

(Women write about rape too, although their writing about rape usually focuses more on how awful it makes the woman in question feel and frequently sets the scene for her to be rescued by a “good” man later.  See half the romances on the market, Jean Auel’s Clan of the Cave Bear series, Feast of All Saints by Anne Rice, for examples of this.)

Rape is a staple of comics.  Complain about it at all and you are screamed at for being a censor.  The Watchmen rape scene first took place in the comic book, oh excuse me “graphic novel”, before making it to the movies.  Action comics have women ( with giant, floating breasts not seen in nature) getting their clothes ripped off and attacked all the time.  Comics are a popular venue for showing the rape of women because the “artist” doesn’t have to deal with a real live woman, and you can get away with doing things to your “artistic representation” you could never do to a live woman, even in our porn-sick culture.  R. Crumb’s “cult classic” comics depict the rape of infants as well as constant, sickening, hatred of women, violence toward women, humiliation of women.  Hentai, from Japan, has a huge, HUGE male following in the US, with much web “humor” about such genres as “tentacle rape”.  Much of Hentai, or manga, or whatever – I always get fussily corrected for getting the “style” wrong if I talk about it – is based on images of ludicrously built “ideal” women with tiny waists, childish faces, and huge breasts being chased, being stupid, being overly innocent, and being tortured and raped for it.  And if you’re feeling like losing your appetite, just look up “rape comics” online.  But I don’t really suggest it if you want to continue to delude yourself for any length of time about the depths of hatred men have for women.

BDSM is fun entertainment now too.  Sexual “pretend slaves” (oh coo, let’s not examine the racism of mostly white Americans fetishizing slavery now, shall we?) are almost always female, despite the protests of the S&M fanciers – and when they are male, a very popular theme is for them to be “forced” to dress as women.  Forced feminization, it’s called, a form of sexxxy humiliation (the tacit assumption there is that merely being identifiably female is humiliating, there’s really not any way around that, but I’m sure they’d argue the point).  So it’s either women or pretend women who get to be beaten, tied up, spanked, humiliated, made to crawl, and made to serve.  It’s entertainment!  Everyone loves it – and if you don’t, you’re a no-fun, humorless, asexual prude.  This is the MAINSTREAM form of BDSM.  To be really cool and edgy these days, you have to do something extra sadistic to your girlfriend – cut her with knives, stick needles through her privates, scar her, burn her, choke her, make her sleep in a cage. There are websites devoted to selling sexual torture devices and restraints.  Doing these kind of things is euphemistically called “play” or “edgeplay”.  Because, you know, its so edgy!  So choking your girlfriend is called “breath play”, cutting her is “blood play” or “knife play”, sticking needles through her is called “needle play”.  The movie Strangeland has an anti-hero who kidnaps women and does all of these things, citing throughout the common mantra of the BDSM crowd for why these things are good.  The only reason he is “bad” in the movie is because it wasn’t consensual, apparently, because the vividly depicted torture he puts women through is done privately in the basements of classy white suburban homes by people who pretend they are victimized because they fear being busted by the police for their fun sexxxy torture.

And of course there is porn.  Commonly semi-seriously referred to as THE reason the internet exists, porn is far from the innocent depiction of cute naked women who just happen to be voyeurs.  That’s “vanilla” and “soft core” now.  For a screaming, blinking, neon headline promising you the latest “exotic” (not white) women, women being punished and tortured, “dirty sluts”, violent sex, women being humiliated, women being raped, women having bodily fluids of all sorts dumped on to them, women being raped by large animals, little girls or women who dress and look like little girls being raped by men they call ‘daddy’, women being screwed by 2 or more men at once, look no further than your spam filter, or just your email inbox if your spam filter isn’t that good.  You don’t even have to seek it out.  If you browse the internet at all you will see these ads alongside popular blogs, comedy sites, and anything labeled “alternative”.  And if you actually look it up its even worse than I can bring myself to say.  The web is SATURATED with this shit.  Forget how “censored” and repressed poor, poor porn makers are – you can’t NOT see porn if you’re on the web.  You’re not allowed to NOT see it.  The cries of repression are bullshit.  Porn – you’re soaking in it, it’s what’s for dinner.  And only a blind person can go to any mainstream website and not see any violence against women.

“Consent” is given as a sort of get out of jail free card for it being okay to watch women be tortured in the above.  After all, either they are just cartoons or they were willing, consensual actresses.  Ignoring, for the moment, internalized misogyny and the dubious veracity of the statement that almost all porn actresses are fully consenting adult women, the “consent makes it alright” doesn’t explain things like men videotaping and putting on the net actual rapes and tortures and murders of women, and the enormous popularity they enjoy.  The stoning death of a girl in the Middle East.  Rape videos from Japan that promise to be real, not staged.  The aforementioned soundtrack of Rhianna Brown being beaten.  The Australian boys who videotaped their rape and beating of a mentally handicapped girl and posted it on youtube.  Often masquerading as “news”, these videos are then circulated as “hard core entertainment”.

Torturing women is entertainment.  Raping women is entertainment.  Murdering women is entertainment.  What does this say about the place women have in this world?

Frustration

Here is a comment I made on a mainstream media blog which almost certainly won’t get published.  The amazingly dull-witted question “Why don’t women just leave batterers?” was asked, in particular about Chris Brown and Rhianna.

It had to be short because they specified short.  Almost every other comment was sound bite length though, yet another reason I doubt mine will be published.

“Well, look at the reactions.

Chris Brown (allegedly, ha ha) beat Rhianna quite badly.  Was there an outpouring of sympathy for her?  Is there an outcry for him to be put in jail?

No.  Instead people have stretched for any and every excuse for Chris Brown.  She drove him to it.  It wasn’t that bad.  He’s having a hard time.  Oh no, the economy.  She cheated on him.   She lied.  It all amounts to “she deserved it”.  And then, after HE gets sympathy from virtually everyone for beating HER, and she gets none, people wonder why she goes back to him.  This is, in a microcosm, what happens to every abused woman.  No matter how badly she is beaten, no one cares – everyone tells her she deserves it and excuses his behavior.  Where is she going to go?  Where are her friends?  Where is her support?”

I’m just so tired of all the focus in abusive relationships being on what the victim of a beating does after being beaten, while in shock, rather than, you know, actually putting the violent, dangerous, hateful fucktard who beats a smaller person in prison.

Ever notice in all these articles where they muse on that strange creature, the battered woman, as though she is another species of exotic animal and they wonder what makes her tick, they never actually ASK an abused woman anything?  They don’t want to know what an abused woman really thinks or hear the very real barriers to her finding any kind of safety.  They just want to cluck their tongues and feel superior.

Robert Anton Wilson – Writer, Woman Hater

Oh, I can sense some people’s blood pressure rising already.

RAW (as his name is popularly acronymized), what a forward thinker!  He broke down what was imprinted on his psyche by society and religion and encouraged others to do the same:  Just listen to what his fans say:

“With all the passion of a religious crusader, Robert Anton Wilson is out to destroy all personal belief systems, to force every one of his readers to seriously question any and all thoughts they hold dear.”

“His book Prometheus Rising melded model agnosticism to Leary’s 8-circuit model of the brain to create a system that taught people how to deconstruct dogmatic personal belief systems.”

“Written during 1968-69 by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson, at that time both editors at Playboy, the Illuminatus trilogy has gone on to become one of the great classics of the last decade.”

“In conversation, you realised how liberating his brand of agnosticism is. By not believing in anything he was free to examine everything.”

“Wilson, I think I can say without doubt, was to me, one of the most influential and positive authors and thinkers, his ideas about what we as a species are capable of opened many doors that I would not otherwise have known existed, and put new light and a new way of perceiving on a few that I knew about already.”

Wow!  Sounds like a really sharp guy, who would totally subvert the dominant paradigm whenever possible, and with his knife-sharp wit tear apart all aspects of dogma and illogical human behavior, including, you know, the patriarchy and its constant, soul-wearying oppression of women?  Especially since his wife was in the women’s liberation movement at the time he was just beginning to write all these ground-breaking books and he could not possibly have escaped learning about the misery and pain the patriarchy causes women?

Let’s look through RAW’s most popular work, Illuminatus, shall we, to see what a dynamic, fresh, and interesting view he had of women, of how fully human he viewed them in comparison to men.

*ruffles through*  Well of the cast of characters so far, one has to get to page 20 before you even find a woman with a speaking line.  She is a very young woman married to a much older man, who, it is explained, “rescued” her from the miserable hell of prostitution and drug abuse.  This “rescue” apparently has made her so grateful she spends her days lying around being his willing, adoring sex toy.

About 25 pages later is a brief flashback scene with a woman in it who is completely enamored with one of the heroes of the novel for “giving” her this really awesome orgasm.  They go on for several paragraphs about the totally awesome spiritual, mind-blowing effects having sex with him had on her.

Next begins a several page long conversation between a woman and the man who pimps her out.  She clearly loathes him, her inner monologue reveals he beats her and she thinks he is disgusting.

Next women are mentioned only by reference to their marriages to world leaders in a paragraph he repeats three times, for comic effect, describing the world leaders of three different nations (the implication being that such men are all the same, no matter what culture they come from.)  Aside from describing their alpha male tendencies and ages, he feels compelled to say of these men “although he had been impotent with his wife for ten years now, he generally achieved orgasm in the mouth of a skilled prostitute within 1.5 minutes.”

The first of the ten chapters closes with another brief flashback to the woman mentioned earlier, who is still going on about how great it was to be borked by the hero.

And then – suddenly and without warning – we find a woman in the second chapter who is not totally defined by her relationship with men!  A woman of color even, her inner monologue portraying her having deep, subversive, compelling thoughts and… oh wait… then she begins waxing poetical about “her man”, a white man no less, whom she has just heard is dead, and how great it was when they had sex, and how hard life was for him since white men have no tribe and are therefore all lonely and crazy, and how special she felt that he deigned to pick her, a lowly brown woman, to “love”.

Next we see a young schoolteacher who is held up as an example of the oppressiveness of society when she is shown to be ignorant by a young, white, male student.

Next we find an ultra-repressed uber-Christian right wing woman, who, it is pointed out to us, simultaneously holds the same beliefs as the “orthodox feminists” that “male supremacy and orgasms” are both part of a conspiracy.  In fact her ultra-right wing terrorist organization was founded as an offshoot of women’s lib, with a mission based totally around destroying adult bookstores AND sex education programs, because, you know, those are TOTALLY the same thing.

Some pages later we find a woman ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING.  She breaks a rather pathetic young stoned man out of jail, using explosives and guns, as part of a mission for some strange society of which she is a member.  Shortly after they reach safety she begins to – what else? – aggressively come on to him, even though she doesn’t think he’s good enough for her.  She argues with him, hits him, and gives him a blow job.

We go back to the ultra-right wing woman whom, it is revealed, is desperate to find a way to have an orgasm.  This is, it is implied, behind her nasty, hateful, anti-sex politics.  She reminicses about the one time she nearly did have an orgasm – while being rather coldly and harshly screwed by a mean old man.  Thus ends the second chapter.

Toward the begining of the third chapter is a bit character, a female librarian, who is confused by the vast conspiracy that is the point of the book.  She in musing how awful some of the occult books she comes across are because there are people having SEX inside.  I mean, YUCK.  Because librarian women are all, as we know, repressed and repelled by sex.

No women appear except in passing conversation for a while, then we have a satanic ritual in which a woman – young, red haired, and conventionally considered sexy – is being used as an altar and must lie there waiting for whoever gets chosen to have sex with her.  Of course she becomes very excited under the clumsy, inexpert fumblings of the young man chosen to do so.

Skip forward to the end of the chapter where a white, British man is lying in bed with his dark-skinned, south American lover and she is explaining some local native deities to him. He gets up to go into the next room and comes back to find her lying dead with her throat cut.

This is just a third of the way through the book.

Does it get any better?

No.

These are the women in RAW’s “masterpiece”.  A young woman rescued from prostitution by an old man and who now shows her appreciation by being sexually ready for him at all times; the girlfriend of a counter-culture hero who talks only about how wonderfully he’s expanded her horizons by having sex with her; a whore who is portrayed as a bitter, sullen victim; wives of important men who are either boring or ugly and can’t even get them aroused enough to have sex; “skilled” prostitutes who can make world leaders have orgasms in a fairly short amount of time; a woman of color who loves a white man and feels lucky to have been “chosen” by him from her lowly position in the world even as she feels sorry for the burdens he carries by virtue of being a white man; a clueless, ignorant schoolteacher keeping down a deserving young white man; a repressed, frigid right-wing woman who surely would relax her politics if any man was bold enough to properly rape her into an orgasm; a cool, radical woman who aligns herself with the counter culture and who therefore (of course!) wants sex so much she practically FORCES it on young men around her; a repressed librarian; a woman who doesn’t even speak, being used merely as a sexual tool by satanists; and a dark-skinned woman who explains things to the poor ignorant white male lover, only to end up with her throat slit to help advance the plot.

This is what passes, even today, in the “counter-culture”, as a liberatory, ground-breaking, mind-blowing masterpiece.  All my “cool” libertarian, alternative friends were horrified when they heard that poor RAW was going broke from medical bills at the end of his life and they roused themselves to donate to his family, a collective effort so great that on his website he and his family effusively thanked his fans for their generosity.

RAW died about the same time Andrea Dworkin died.  Was her illness widely publicized?  Were her medical bills talked about on a public website, prompting people who loved her writings to appeal to compassion for this groundbreaking writer of masterpieces and give just a little bit to help her out in her dying days?  Did anyone in the “counter culture” express sympathy or concern for her pain?

No.  It was with sickening frequency I saw these same people CELEBRATING her death.  Overjoyed that the bitch, the cunt, the harpy was dead.  Celebrating what a great world we would live in now that one of the old guard sex-hating feminists had finally had her inconvenient voice silenced by death.

And that is the kind of human compassion, open-mindedness, and freedom from dogma he and followers of his “liberatory” philosophy have.

The whitewash continues

Gee, why is it that not a single woman was nominated for best solo rock performance? Let me ponder this…

Although the actual author titled the article “All my rockin ladies don’t bother putting your hands up”, boston.com decided they would retitle it, disingenuously, “”Why no female grammy nominees for best solo rock performance?”  Well the answer is simple and obvious – sexism.  Not that the author was able to use that word, or the dreaded f word, in the article.  I believe the author’s intentions are good and she simply understands the paradigm under which she works, in which any analysis of blatant sexism of any kind in the world must be approached sideways and delicately and in the form of an innocent question in order to get any mainstream attention at all.  The defensive tone of the article toward the end – no of course you aren’t pushing for “tokenism” – just proves my point.  You aren’t even allowed to talk about sexism in the mainstream media, you aren’t allowed to use the word “sexist”, even when it is as obvious as women being completely shut out of the Grammys for no other reason than their sex.

I could, if I wanted, make a list of talented, popular female stars in every single aspect of music: yes including rap, including punk, including hard rock, all those genres commonly thought of as “boy” genres.  They are there.  But go to listen to any radio station – about 75% of the songs played are by men.  You don’t have to take my word for it, just turn on your favorite station and keep count.  Any station.   This is not representative of the actual ratio of female artists, or talented female artists, or anything other than sexism – probably unconscious but there nonetheless – on the part of the music industry, from the producers right down to the DJs.

Yet as with all other things, the “mysterious” absence of women from a position of prestige and of course, money making is framed in the form of a question.  “Patriarchy” and “sexism” are words one is not allowed to use in mainstream media – unless it is about the sexism of some people who live far far away from us, of course.

“You can now use your maiden name on myspace!”

If anything in the patriarchy makes it more abundantly clear that women are not human and have no personhood, it is the “custom” (read, “demand”) that women lose their names when they marry.  No, I will not say “change” their names.  They lose their names, becoming one with their husband.  Oh sure, it isn’t required.  But practically every woman I know who married does it.  Ironically enough, with over 90% of American women showing compliance to the unwritten law of giving up one’s personhood upon becoming married, many of the women I know who changed their names defended it as a “choice” to show they weren’t in lockstep with us horrible fascist feminists (being in lockstep with the patriarchy is AOK then I guess).  Besides, they wuv their husbands *coo*.

As a side note and to be fair, some of them point out they were doing it more to disassociate themselves from abusive or otherwise nasty fathers.  Less convincing is the claim “I just didn’t like my name.”  Where this fails to convince is where you don’t see men doing it.  And honestly, a name change isn’t that hard.  I’ve done it.  You file a form at the courthouse and put an ad in the paper announcing the name change and that is about it in most places.  Certainly a simpler proposition than getting married.

Then you get the “But if I don’t change my name to his what will we name the children?!?!!?!”  Maybe you could name them after their mother!  For people who claim they are rebellious for doing things the same way society has expected for a few thousand years, well, if you want a true rebellion, start giving children their mother’s last name – YES EVEN YOUR PRECIOUS SONS.  As for the people who would then assume she is an unmarried slut because she isn’t a Mrs. Somebody, it’s easily proven otherwise – or you could just tell them to go jump in a lake for even being so damn nosy about it.

In my family, and I suspect in many others, there’s a nod to matrilineality by giving girls a middle name that is the same as the first of their mother or grandmother.  This trend can persist for a hundred years or so, I find as I scroll back through our geneaology project.  But how many people know the middle name of even their friends or close family?  And doing genealogical research shows quite well the effect of patriarchy in this way.  Finding your father’s father’s father’s father is easy as punch.  Finding your great-grandmother along the maternal line is like pulling teeth.   My grandmother still lives, but her mother died when she was small, it wasn’t until last year we discovered where she came form and who her parents were – and then we find her mother died very young as well, and another blank wall.  Women aren’t important, women’s families aren’t important, only the men are.  Women are expected to erase themselves and be subsumed into his appendage, an attachment to him.  Even now that its a “choice” almost every woman does it.  The brief flirtation with hyphenated names ended badly and everyone went back to doing it the same old way.

A man changing his name to his wife’s?  Well that’s just ludicrous!  It’s hard to even find any serious discussion of it, and the rare couple that breaks tradition and does so runs into constant difficulties.

I changed my name – on my own, while unmarried, to one of my choosing – changed my son’s name as well.  Years later, while with a man I’d been with for years, discussing the pro’s and con’s of legal marriage, he mentioned sort of offhandedly something – I don’t recall, but it became obvious to me he expected, without having even asked, that I would change my name to his.

“I’m not going to change my name.  I like my name.  I paid for this name.”  Mr. oh so progressive and liberal and with it and cool, as he liked to think of himself, became horrified, shocked and hurt.

“You wouldn’t want to take my name?!”

I explained – as I should not have had to – what my name meant to me – something he should have already known, as he knew how proud I was when I changed it.  Clearly he hadn’t been listening.  He began rambling on about love and questioning my feelings for him.  I frowned.

“Well if it is important to you that we have the same last name, you could change yours.”

Another look of shock, as if I’d suggested he cut off important body parts.  He sputtered, “My mother would be SO MAD!”

The message was clear.  I was supposed to give up something I loved and identified with to prove my love to him.  Him doing it the other way around?  Unthinkable!  Shocking!  How could I even ask!

More Evo Psycho Bullshit

How many times have you heard the predatory male claim, as he plans his attack on an immature female child, “Oh it’s just natural, you know, young girls are SUPPOSED to be more attractive to men, they are more fertile, you know, and I can’t help my evolutionary inbred instinct to breed!  So don’t blame me, you old (i.e. over 25) women just don’t appeal to me anymore, I can’t help myself.”  Based on such crap we have some truly frightening “modern thinking” people, like that traitor Pat Califia, claiming that teens should “have the right” to say yes to sex, and actually convincing a fair number of people it is only some bizarre Puritan sensibilities and “sex negativity” that lead us to have laws in place that (nominally) protect teens from statutory rape.

(Yes, it is a mostly a myth that teen pregnancies happen because teens just lose control, don’t know about birth control, and can’t help themselves.  Don’t believe the crying about the poor Romeo and Juliet couples where the boy who is one month older goes to jail for having sex with his girlfriend because he is 18 and she is 17.  There is not actually one single state in America where this is the law.  Statutory rape laws are almost wholly confined to prosecuting those who are 4-5 years older than the victim, who is by law almost always under 16.  And the primary responsibility for teenage pregnancy lies with adult men, who rape underage girls because they know they are easier to manipulate into bed and also are less likely to insist on being treated properly, like, for example, demanding condom use.)

Even supposing there is some directly interfering, intelligent, evolutionary drive operating on a subliminal level motivating our seemingly complicated decisions in life (which I don’t believe, at all) this make no fucking sense.  Why?  Because, horn dog scumbag predators on young girls, YOU ARE WRONG.

Girls aged 15 – 20 are twice as likely to die in childbirth as those in their twenties.  Girls under the age of 15 are five times as likely to die.

Oh, say the cold hearted “pragmatic” ever forward looking evo psychos, “But maternal death means nothing in terms of evolution, so long as the baby survives.”

Also untrue.

“Using one year maternal age increments, it was found that infant death rates were relatively high at age 13 and decreased as maternal age increased from 13 to 19. Infant death rates then remained consistent for ages 20 to 35, and increased from age 36 to 50.” (doh.state.fl.us/family/mch/docs/pdf/InfantMortality_MaternalAge.pdf)

Even if the child lives, children who have lost their mothers are up to 10 more times more likely to die prematurely than those who haven’t. Why?  Because men can’t be bothered to actually, like, you know, TAKE CARE of the offspring they claim they have this big evolutionary drive to create.

By your stupid evolutionary psychology argument, which supposes you exist for no other reason than to be a walking sperm bank, you should find women in their early thirties MORE attactive than 16 year old girls, not less, because impregnating a 32 year old woman has a higher chance of producing a living offspring (and living long enough to raise it) than does impregnating a girl half her age.

Stop raping little girls.

Stop raping little girls.

Stop raping little girls.

Stop raping little girls.

Stop raping little girls.

You have no fucking excuse.

Just exercise! *happysparklyblinking*

It never fails that no matter what health or mental problem I am having that someone somewhere will tell me I should make sure to get some exercise and it will be alleviated.

I call bullshit.

Look around and you will see how common this is.  Exercise has been recommended to me as a way to cure or lessen the impact of arthritis, depression, asthma, backache, migraines, PCOS, and of course, fatness.

There’s a few assumptions implicit in there too, really ugly ones, when you look.

The first is that I’m not “exercising” already.  “Exercise” is clinically defined as “physical activity that raises your heart rate a certain amount and works your muscles”.  Well I do that housecleaning.  But you can’t tell doctors that, they don’t want to hear it.  The hidden definition of “exercise” is “going to the gym or doing something with your plentiful leisure time, usually involving something stupid like powerwalking or something involving sports or expensive equipment.

How do they “know” I’m not “exercising”?  Why because I’m fat, and we all know fat people do absolutely nothing all day long!

The second implication is that since I”m clearly not “exercising” I don’t want my health to get better and why is that? Because I just want a reason to complain.  You know how women are.  Big complainers, just love to hear themselves talk.

I used to walk two miles to work every day, lugging a 20 pound cart behind me, then reverse the process going home; do all the housework; push the baby in a stroller everywhere, including to the grocery store.  At another time in my life I spent 6-10 hours every week in formal exercise, as well as walking about 2-4 miles a day and doing my own exercising in my free time.

GUESS WHAT!?  During those times I STILL had PCOS, migraines, depression, backache, and asthma. In fact, some of them were worse because I overworked myself and was constantly exhautsted.  In fact, when I DON’T “exercise” now its the most amazing thing – my backache and arthritis don’t flare up!

I’m tired of hearing about how much we’ve declined from a supposedly golden age in America’s past during which people were “healthier” because they ate less (because they were poor and starving) and exercised more (because of the lack of technology).   Bizarrely enough, although they were so much “healthier”, we now live much longer – and no, it isn’t because we’re all hooked up to machines for 20 years after our bodies fail.  It’s because driving yourself to the point of exhaustion every fucking day in order to maintain a roof over your head and get enough to eat IS BAD FOR YOU.  Rest, ease, leisure, and plentiful food ARE GOOD FOR YOU.  This has been recognized through all of history until very recently, when suddenly people decided that we should self-enforce grueling labor (exercise!) and famine (diet!) on ourselves because it’s good for the body and soul or some such crap.

The reason I bitch about my health is because, since I am female and fall into the “non-fuckable” category, doctors refuse to do anything to help me.  They do not take seriously anything I say.  The crowning insult being told repeatedly over the years that the crippling pain I experience from ovarian cysts can’t be real, cysts don’t hurt, maybe I need Prozac, would you like to see a psychiatrist, oh let’s give you an MRI for your back instead and lie to you about why we are sending you for the MRI, which then reveals a slipped disc, which they tell me can’t be causing me pain either because those don’t really hurt, here go to physical therapy to learn how to lift things properly and do some exercises and geez, lose some weight.

It’s the most amazing thing!  I still have horrible pain from cysts!  I must just like being difficult, hmm?

Enough with the Evolutionary Psychology Bullshit Already

This is me sick, so sick of hearing men attempt to justify all the bullshit of patriarchy through faux-academic faux-scientific comparisons or humans to the “natural”, animal world. With leering smiles talking about alpha males with “harems” as a reward for “fighting their way to the top”.

Let’s talk about animals, mammals, since you dipshit evo-psychs seem to prefer it.  We can start with wolves since so many guys seem to think they are a good representation of a bad ass, mean predator (even though wolves are terrified of humans and most guys who brag about how bad ass they are can’t even be bothered to go exercise a few times a week and they probably live on take out):

Wolves have a hierarchy, sure – both a female and a male hierarchy.  Animals of either sex can be the pack leader, although usually the male will. The pack leader does not force other wolves to do anything, but rather, can do whatever it wishes and the other wolves will generally imitate it.  Status can change within a pack over time.  Mainly the alpha status seems to depends on whether or not the mated couple is producing young.  Feeding of the young takes priority over everything else.  Wolves are territorial – venturing into another pack’s territory can get you killed.

If humans lived like this only one couple in each neighborhood would be having children and everyone else in the neighborhood would go out of their way to make sure they had everything they needed, would watch their children and care for them while they went to work, and would follow their lead when the did something, without being compelled.  The female of the couple would decide where the children are raised and the entire neighborhood’s activities would revolve around her and her pregnancy while she was pregnant.  The alpha couple would be monogamous and have sex only when when the last child was out of diapers and walking about and talking, and then only until the female became pregnant – and no one else would have sex at all.

Okay but we’re not wolves, are we?  We’re primates, that’s right!  You have to look at primate behavior!  Well there are a lot of primates.  It seems we look at chimpanzee behavior.  But realize nothing obtained in a lab situation tells you about real chimp behavior.  You have to look at them in their natural environment to see how they really live.  Let’s look, shall we?

Chimpanzees live in many places and there are a few species or subspecies.  They are omnivorous, but different communities have different eating habits based on what food is available. Males vie for dominance, set up social groups for themselves, and behave in a territorial fashion, males cannot leave their territory without risking death and will attack any strange male who enters their territory.  Female chimps cross territory at will, without challenge.  Males mating with a female may try to entice her to remain apart from the group with only himself but she cannot be compelled – often female chimpanzees have many sexual partners. Male chimps prefer older females.  Female chimps are smarter than male chimps, learn new behaviors and use of tools at a younger age and show more dexterity at it.  Some chimpanzees of both sexes engage in homosexual activity.

If we lived like chimps, there would be a male dominance hierarchy in every neighborhood and men would never leave the neighborhood they were born in, while women could go wherever they wanted.  Women would have sex with any male they wanted, unless a stronger, more dominant female interfered.  Sometimes people would have gay sex when they felt like it and no one would really remark on it. When women had babies other women would help her take care of the baby and would sometimes have to protect the baby from vicious, hungry men who decided to eat the baby because they couldn’t find a steak.  Older women, not young girls, would be the preferred mates for men.

Okay I could go on with this but unless you are being a deliberate ignoramus in total denial you can see my point.  There is no animal model that supports the “naturalness” of the patriarchy.  The animal kingdom is largely without rape, as sex is something that happens largely based on the female’s inclination and natural cycle.  The animal kingdom has hierarchy, sure, but male over male hierarchy, not male over female – its a male vs male situation in which they fight over who gets to be good enough to be worthy of the females.  Lower ranking males often don’t get to have sex at all, so all you boys who whine about women being “gold diggers” or “shallow” for overlooking your pasty, flabby, lazy ass poorly shaven self with the crappy dirty apartment you share with five other guys with tattoos and BO?  If you were animals you wouldn’t be getting laid either.  You are at the bottom of the pack.

If we were animals the pack status also wouldn’t mean half of what people try to justify it meaning either. If animal packs the pack leader doesn’t get a hundred thousand times the food the lowest ranking animal does.  In animal packs the children never go unfed so the pack leader can store an extra antelope in his den.  In animal packs the lowest ranking animals do not slave away fro the good of the leader all day and then lose the right to eat.  Animals do not have jails.  Male animals do not kill female animals because they reject them sexually.  In fact, once you look past the patriarchy-blinded interpretation of animal behavior that has typically been the lens through which we are taught about them, you can see if anything, females in the animal world have more choices, more freedom, and more control over other animals than males do.

Also, virtually everywhere in the animal kingdom, it is males who dress themselves up, court, dance, show off, have contests, or whatever to attract the females’ attention.  Females are simply valuable BECAUSE THEY ARE.  All the “alpha male” bs we hear about is largely something that only concerns the other males of that species – all the male hierarchy is largely a competition to see who is worthy of the females.   Yet somehow male anthropologists managed to get out of this that male animals are “in charge” while female animals merely sit back passively following their lead and the alpha orders every other animal in the pack around.  In reality, female carnivores hunt just as male ones do, even the lowest ranked animal of any pack is not deliberately starved to death, most animals do what they need to do so long as the don’t piss off another animal who ranks higher than them, and all mammal animal societies are based around the care and feeding of the young, females and males take part in child care, with mothers enjoying a natural high status and being highly prized mates by the males, who fight over them.

There is your REAL evo psych garbage.  Now get with the program and bring me my natural society where I have some worshipful males fighting over who gets to spend time with me, as I am an older female who’s had a child, while the rest waste their time down at the club doing silly “bonding rituals” in the middle of town since they aren’t allowed to go anywhere else, meanwhile me and the other women in the neighborhood will all hang out and look after each other’s children between times where we go out and get something to eat.  When we aren’t having lesbian sex for the heck of it.

Don’t Talk to Me about “Little Caylee”

For fuck’s sake, how do people get off calling her “Little Caylee” and practically crying over her anyway?  They act like they personally knew her and her mother (already tried and convicted in the media) personally took from them someone they knew.

I don’t want to hear about “Little Caylee” anymore.  Here are just a cases in which men murdered children in the US during this same time period and you likely only heard about one or two of them, being that they are just the normal background noise of the patriarchy:

The suspect is a runaway out of Ventura County, who also had a juvenile warrant for his arrest relating to a robbery, police said. He is the boyfriend of the victim’s mother, Roxeanne Rodriguez, 20, and was residing with her and the child.

But the biggest story in Vermont in 2008 was the tragic death of a young girl, and its disturbing aftermath: The killing of 12-year-old Brooke Bennett was voted the top story of the year by Vermont news organizations. The Braintree girl disappeared June 25, triggering Vermont’s first-ever Amber Alert and a furious search by police, rescue workers and volunteers that ended July 2 with the discovery of her body in a shallow grave in Randolph. Nearly as shocking as her disappearance and death was the arrest of her uncle, two-time sex offender Michael Jacques, who’d been released early from probation in a previous sex case after being called a success story. Jacques was convicted in the 1992 kidnapping and sexual assault of an 18-year-old woman in Rutland, and he was released from probation in 2006 despite strenuous objections from prosecutors.  Jacques, 42, of Randolph, was charged with kidnapping resulting in death and five child pornography charges. He could get the death penalty if convicted, although federal prosecutors have yet to indicate whether they plan to seek it.  Prosecutors say Jacques concocted a sordid plot in which he used her MySpace page and fictitious e-mail identities to orchestrate the abduction, tricking the girl into thinking she was going to a party before taking her to his home to initiate her into a child sex ring.   He drugged, sexually assaulted and smothered her with a plastic bag, according to federal prosecutors, who are still weighing whether to seek the death penalty. He has pleaded not guilty.

A Sioux Falls man pleaded not guilty in the death of his girlfriend’s son.  Christopher Brian Fisher faces alternate charges of second-degree murder and first-degree manslaughter in the Thanksgiving Day death of 16-month-old Preston Vensand.

A mother’s boyfriend has been charged with murder in connection with the alleged physical abuse of her young son last month in her Palmyra home. Meredith Rogers, 29, of the first block of Hornsby Drive, Marlton, was arrested Tuesday at the Burlington County prosecutor’s office after a monthlong investigation into the baby’s death.

Licking County Deputy Coroner Dr. Jeff Lee determined Carson had died from internal bleeding caused by tremendous blunt force trauma to his abdomen. The bruising pattern on the child’s stomach was consistent with a fist, he wrote. Police allege Flugga was the only adult to come into contact with Carson when the deadly blow could have been inflicted.

Gallegos, who lived nearby, followed the boys to the small community park and attacked them, then walked back to his home.

A 25-year-old man who claims a 2-year-old child in his care was injured when she was pushed by a sibling has been charged with murder in connection with the toddler’s death.

The teenage parents of a League City infant who died in October were indicted in the child’s murder last week, police said Tuesday.[...] [Jose] Herrera was true billed on the charge of capital murder and [Jessica] Trevino was true billed on the charge of injury to a child. *

(*translation – he did it while she was there and because of the law of the patriarchy that states Stand By Your Man she didn’t stop him.)

Cunningham told police that Elijah drowned in a tub after being left unsupervised while he was bathing him at a Travelodge motel off I-75 and Cleveland Avenue, but an autopsy determined the boy was beaten to death.

Not to mention the following women who were killed by violent, vindictive men in that same amount of time:

Police said the two men entered the convenience store shortly before 11:30 p.m. Friday. Police said the men lured Heckman, a clerk in the store into the men’s bathroom, where Guess struck her three times in the head with a miniature sledgehammer, killing her.

A LeRoy man accused of killing his pregnant sister-in-law in the room he shared with his wife and children was in court Tuesday for a status bearing.Jason Marksteiner, 21, is accused of the Oct. 28 death of Jodi McGrew in a bedroom of his parents’ LeRoy home. Strangulation was listed in a coroner’s report as a contributing factor to McGrew’s death. The 19-year-old victim was hit several times in the head and sexually assaulted, according to charges. Marksteiner faces three counts of murder and intentional homicide of an unborn child.

A rural Harrisburg woman was on a morning break when her estranged husband shot and killed her and then himself in a Sioux Falls parking lot, police said Friday as more details emerge about a Christmas Eve murder-suicide.

Four teenagers have been arrested on suspicion of murder following an arson attack in Harrogate which led to the death of a 93-year-old woman. Yuen Har Ho was rescued from a burning ground-floor flat in Newby Crescent, Jennyfields, on 1 November. She died in hospital on Saturday night. Three of the suspects, a 17-year-old male and two boys aged 14, had earlier been arrested and released on bail. They were re-arrested for murder on Tuesday along with a 17-year-old male.

A Hutchinson man who is being held on $1 million bond in his wife’s death had a history of domestic violence.

Susan Schaffer, killed while interrupting two teen males in a home burglary.

And of course the man who dressed up as Santa Claus, shot an 8 year old child in the face, then proceeded to slaughter everyone in the house – why?  To punish his ex wife and her entire family because she divorced him.

And close calls:

A former child actor killed by police after a two-hour standoff as he held his 7-year-old son hostage in a restaurant was a suspect wanted for the 2004 murder of his girlfriend.

Police have taken a man into custody in connection with the abduction and assault of a 4-year-old girl who was find partially buried in a field early Christmas morning. Police say 24-yea-old Juan Gomez-Jimenez showed up at Community Regional Medical Center at the same time the victim was being treated. He claimed he had also been abducted and assaulted, but police say his story did not add up. The little girl disappeared during a Christmas Eve party at a home on Cornelia Rd. in Fresno County. She was found by people at the party in a field near the home. Police say she had been sexually assaulted and partially buried in the ground. She is in stable condition.

Suddenly, at least one gunman in a group of five to 10 young men in the area shot at the car, police said. Gunfire hit the boy in the arm and grazed his chest.  New Orleans EMS paramedics took the boy to Children’s Hospital, where he was listed him in good condition.

Cpl. Jonathan Matthew Gould remains in Onslow County jail under a $1 million bond. The Onslow County Sheriff’s Department charged him with attempted first-degree murder last week and say he used a hammer to beat his wife, Erin Marie Gould. She remains stable but unresponsive, family members and authorities said.

Note the excuses given the men, even in the papers.  He was schizophrenic, he was too young to know what he was doing, it was an accident, he was upset over the bitter divorce, he lost his job, they didn’t mean to kill anyone.  Anything to make the nauseatingly common story of men who murder and rape even their own family members seem somehow an aberration.

Perhaps the most telling thing is the frequent comment reiterated by the friends and family of the “Santa killer” – “But he seemed so normal!”

He was.