4.15.2010
Hey, U.S. Government - Can Has Consistency, Plz?
4.13.2010
How Not To (Or, "Today in You've Got To Be Kidding Me")
However, the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine is calling for KFC to avoid marketing the DD Horror to children, keeping ads 500 yards away from schools and other places kids congregate, and they want a warning label on it! Now I am fine with all of that, actually. I think fast food should be less marketed to children in general, in the same way that I think cigarettes and alcohol should be less marketed to children in general - these are things that one may choose to consume as an adult, knowing the damage one is doing to one's body, but that's an adult decision, and we don't need to be encouraging children to do things that aren't good for them when they're too young to know better. And honestly, I would hope that the picture of the damn thing is warning enough - because I'm pretty sure anyone with a modicum of common sense will look at a picture of bacon and cheese sandwiched between TWO FRIED CHICKEN BREASTS and think "This is perhaps not a very healthy item for me to consume" - but if it's not, I could see putting something on it, perhaps with the fat and sodium values of the sandwich and something about "consuming excessive amounts of concentrated animal fats and sodium is Bad For You".
The problem is, though, that PCRM is not calling for anything so sensible as that. What do they want the warning label to say?
"WARNING -- Eating meat can contribute to obesity in children, and can increase their risk for heart disease, diabetes and cancer."
...
..............
....................?!?!?!
I'm sorry, did they just suggest that all children should be vegetarians, and if they're not, they will get DEATHFATZ and heart disease and diabetes and cancer?? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that the mere fact of children eating meat isn't the problem here. The problem here is the fried, salty, baconized nature and overlarge portion size of the meat in question. So why in the name of hell did a physician's group feel the need to focus on the OMG OH NOES NOT MEAT-EATING CHILDREN! aspect of this? They could have warned about portion size! They could have warned about saturated fats! They could have warned about sodium! They could have warned about deep-fried foods! And yet they want to make their statement about how eating meat is bad for children, period.
This? is How Not To have a moral panic about Thinking Of The Children.
(Also, the linked article manages to get in a nice little "Eew, fatty fat chubbies!" at the end, with their "fitness guru" [who I have renamed as their "asshole guru"] making a crack about KFC as CFC - creating fat chubbies - because that's what you'll be if you eat this sandwich. Sigh. Argleblargh. *headdesk*)
4.06.2010
This Is The Christian Moral High Ground
I'm writing this while wearing my pajamas. Oh no! I'm a pajama-wearing blogger! Please be sure to not take me seriously, ok? Just kidding. On to the post:
When Constance McMillen won her case against Iwatumba Agricultural High School, and the judge ruled that the school could not bar her from taking her girlfriend to prom, the judge chose not to force the school to un-cancel prom, because there were already plans in place for a private, parent-run prom, which the school swore up down and sideways would include an invitation for Constance and her girlfriend. See, judge? It's totally just like the regular prom would be and we promise we're not doing this parent-sponsored prom just to get out of having the nasty gayyyz at our prom.
Only the prom Constance was invited to? Was not the actual prom. It was a fake prom, with a total of seven kids in attendance (including two developmentally-disabled students who apparently also were "unfit" to participate in the real prom), while the real prom went on somewhere else.
So a whole bunch of "Christian" adults just taught their teenage kids that it's perfectly ok to lie (both to the court, as the school and parents' groups did, and to Constance's own face, as did some of her classmates when she asked for info about the prom), sneak around behind peoples' backs, and pull dirty, nasty, hateful tricks like this, so long as it's because God said to hate them. You have got to be fucking shitting me. Why is it that I, a filthy godless heathen, have a better grasp of their deity's philosophy of "love thy neighbor" and "do good to those who hurt you" and "whatsoever you do unto the least of these, you do also to me" than do the very people who said deity charged with exemplifying His love in the world?
And that's not even getting into the two developmentally-disabled students who were shunted off to the fake prom. Where in the Bible, exactly, does it say that being born with learning difficulties makes you unworthy of being treated decently?
I hope these cruel, backwards fuckers still have the capacity to feel shame somewhere deep in their twisted, shriveled little hearts. I hope the knowledge of their immature schoolyard cruelty torments them for the rest of their sad, closeminded little lives. And I hope Constance and her girlfriend and the other students who were labeled "unwanted" by their schoolmates and administrators and the families in the town find ways out of that hateful place and on to towns and cities and schools and lives where they will be treated with kindness and dignity, as every person deserves.
When Constance McMillen won her case against Iwatumba Agricultural High School, and the judge ruled that the school could not bar her from taking her girlfriend to prom, the judge chose not to force the school to un-cancel prom, because there were already plans in place for a private, parent-run prom, which the school swore up down and sideways would include an invitation for Constance and her girlfriend. See, judge? It's totally just like the regular prom would be and we promise we're not doing this parent-sponsored prom just to get out of having the nasty gayyyz at our prom.
Only the prom Constance was invited to? Was not the actual prom. It was a fake prom, with a total of seven kids in attendance (including two developmentally-disabled students who apparently also were "unfit" to participate in the real prom), while the real prom went on somewhere else.
So a whole bunch of "Christian" adults just taught their teenage kids that it's perfectly ok to lie (both to the court, as the school and parents' groups did, and to Constance's own face, as did some of her classmates when she asked for info about the prom), sneak around behind peoples' backs, and pull dirty, nasty, hateful tricks like this, so long as it's because God said to hate them. You have got to be fucking shitting me. Why is it that I, a filthy godless heathen, have a better grasp of their deity's philosophy of "love thy neighbor" and "do good to those who hurt you" and "whatsoever you do unto the least of these, you do also to me" than do the very people who said deity charged with exemplifying His love in the world?
And that's not even getting into the two developmentally-disabled students who were shunted off to the fake prom. Where in the Bible, exactly, does it say that being born with learning difficulties makes you unworthy of being treated decently?
I hope these cruel, backwards fuckers still have the capacity to feel shame somewhere deep in their twisted, shriveled little hearts. I hope the knowledge of their immature schoolyard cruelty torments them for the rest of their sad, closeminded little lives. And I hope Constance and her girlfriend and the other students who were labeled "unwanted" by their schoolmates and administrators and the families in the town find ways out of that hateful place and on to towns and cities and schools and lives where they will be treated with kindness and dignity, as every person deserves.
3.31.2010
The State of California Is Willing To Maintain Its Uteri.
So I needed a checkup of the ladybits recently, and being the broke, uninsured college student that I am, where did I turn? Yes, that haven of baby-murdering, Planned Parenthood, to partake of the reproductive health services that are NOT abortion and which comprise the VAST majority of their operations. So I called them up first, to see how much it would cost.
It turns out I, by virtue of being able to reproduce, am eligible for a California Health Access card. Now don't get me wrong, I am *all* in favor of making reproductive health care and family planning services available to all people, regardless of financial status. But I have to say, the questions I was asked to determine eligibility made it quite plain what the state cares about, and it's not me as a person. It's me as a walking uterus, a potential incubator. I was asked, firstly, if I was still getting a monthly period (which I'm not, but it's by virtue of having an IUD rather than by virtue of menopause, which I was told is what they need to know when I asked for clarification) and secondly if I'd had my tubes tied. When I answered "eh, sorta?" and "no", I was told that because I was uninsured and capable of getting pregnant, I qualified for this card that means the state pays for 80% and PP eats the other 20%.
And what did I get, with my state-funding card? A pap smear and basic well-woman exam. Forgive me my ignorance, but don't women who've had their tubes tied still need those services? Don't post-menopausal women need these things? So why am I covered, when they wouldn't be? Because the state's interest is not in taking care of its female citizens, it's in taking care of the hypothetical occupants of those citizen's uteri.
So while I appreciate the state's help in getting me this health care, I very much do *not* appreciate that it has a prerequisite of my avowedly-never-to-be-used fertility. Because that, apparently, is more important than my needs as a person.
It turns out I, by virtue of being able to reproduce, am eligible for a California Health Access card. Now don't get me wrong, I am *all* in favor of making reproductive health care and family planning services available to all people, regardless of financial status. But I have to say, the questions I was asked to determine eligibility made it quite plain what the state cares about, and it's not me as a person. It's me as a walking uterus, a potential incubator. I was asked, firstly, if I was still getting a monthly period (which I'm not, but it's by virtue of having an IUD rather than by virtue of menopause, which I was told is what they need to know when I asked for clarification) and secondly if I'd had my tubes tied. When I answered "eh, sorta?" and "no", I was told that because I was uninsured and capable of getting pregnant, I qualified for this card that means the state pays for 80% and PP eats the other 20%.
And what did I get, with my state-funding card? A pap smear and basic well-woman exam. Forgive me my ignorance, but don't women who've had their tubes tied still need those services? Don't post-menopausal women need these things? So why am I covered, when they wouldn't be? Because the state's interest is not in taking care of its female citizens, it's in taking care of the hypothetical occupants of those citizen's uteri.
So while I appreciate the state's help in getting me this health care, I very much do *not* appreciate that it has a prerequisite of my avowedly-never-to-be-used fertility. Because that, apparently, is more important than my needs as a person.
3.26.2010
Guest Post at The Deviated Norm
I've written my first guest post this week, for a series over at The Deviated Norm called "Today in Meet A Poly Person". The blogger, DeviantE, is looking to present the variety of lived poly experiences in the voices of those who have lived them, in order to combat stereotypes and straw-relationships that are so easily knocked down. So wander on over, take a read, check out the rest of the series (still in its infancy, with only DeviantE's and my posts up yet), and if you're poly, consider asking if you can write a guest post yourself!
3.22.2010
New Commenting!
Since Blogger's comments didn't want to play nice with my template, and I also wanted the ability to have threaded comments and better moderation options and such, I decided to add Disqus comments to my blog today. It was between IntenseDebate and Disqus, and I'll admit I made the purely selfish decision to go with Disqus because I have a longer history with my Disqus profile than my ID profile and would rather link that to this blog.
However, it also takes logins from OpenID and (I believe) from Twitter, and if I got it set right, it will still allow anonymous commenting as well, so you don't have to make a new profile in order to continue commenting.
Enjoy the new commenting system, and let me know if there are any problems with it!
However, it also takes logins from OpenID and (I believe) from Twitter, and if I got it set right, it will still allow anonymous commenting as well, so you don't have to make a new profile in order to continue commenting.
Enjoy the new commenting system, and let me know if there are any problems with it!
3.18.2010
Carrying the Burdens of Proof (And How Not To Prove Things)
Twice recently, on two very different topics, with two different people, I have had the same problem. Both times, the person in question made an assertion that I then contested, only to have the person continue to assert their opinion as truth with a complete lack of evidence, expecting me to either take them at face value or do the work to disprove them. Like "innocent until proven guilty", only it's "true until proven untrue". I would like to take a moment to remind people that that is Not How This Thing Works.
The first instance took place here on this very blog, when I posted an email my father had sent me, and my response to it. His initial email described Planned Parenthood as "a financial behemoth -- one engaged in an activity most Americans find troubling". In my response, along with many many other things, I questioned whether or not one could reasonably say that "most Americans" find abortion troubling, and asked if he had proof of that claim. His response was to ask me if I had any proof that most Americans don't find it troubling. He took my request that he provide some kind of reasonable poll data, and quoted it right back at me, then saying: "Works both ways, and until either side can "prove" otherwise both sides are entitled to their opinions."
Um, no. That's not how this works. I don't have to have proof against it in order to question your assertion. If you make (or promote) an assertion, it is incumbent upon you to prove that your assertion is true. Not upon me to prove that it is false. If I say something ridiculous - like, for example, "There are no Republicans with a working sense of empathy" - it would be entirely appropriate for my father to request that I prove my assertion. It would, then, be entirely inappropriate for me to shoot back "well, why don't you prove me wrong, first?" Ve who makes the assertion must carry the burden of proof. People are, of course, entitled to continue having their opinions even in a complete absence of proof - witness the continuing popularity of most dogmatic religions - but they are not entitled to have those around them treat those opinions as fact in the absence of proof. This attitude is not conducive to productive debate and discussion.
The second incidence was a discussion on Twitter, which can function in this case as a demonstration of how not to attempt to prove your point.
After a friend made a crack about 24 being a tool of the right-wing so that they can make people believe that torture works, which I retweeted because I found it hilarious, my brother proceeded to argue with me that torture does, in fact, work. I asked what proof he had of that, and for perhaps a half-dozen tweets in a row, no proof was offered, only variations on the assertion "You can't deny it works" over and over again.
I wanted to *headdesk* x1000. Because that? Was a totally unproven assertion - "Torture works" - simply being repeated over and over in lieu of actually being proven to be true. Which is also not conducive to productive debate and discussion.
So let it be known, People Who Debate Things:
1. Simply saying something is so does not make it true.
2. If you say something you believe to be true, it is upon you to prove the truth of your assertion, not upon your opponent to prove your assertion wrong.
3: Since simply saying something does not make it true, repeating the same assertion over and over does not suffice as proof either.
The first instance took place here on this very blog, when I posted an email my father had sent me, and my response to it. His initial email described Planned Parenthood as "a financial behemoth -- one engaged in an activity most Americans find troubling". In my response, along with many many other things, I questioned whether or not one could reasonably say that "most Americans" find abortion troubling, and asked if he had proof of that claim. His response was to ask me if I had any proof that most Americans don't find it troubling. He took my request that he provide some kind of reasonable poll data, and quoted it right back at me, then saying: "Works both ways, and until either side can "prove" otherwise both sides are entitled to their opinions."
Um, no. That's not how this works. I don't have to have proof against it in order to question your assertion. If you make (or promote) an assertion, it is incumbent upon you to prove that your assertion is true. Not upon me to prove that it is false. If I say something ridiculous - like, for example, "There are no Republicans with a working sense of empathy" - it would be entirely appropriate for my father to request that I prove my assertion. It would, then, be entirely inappropriate for me to shoot back "well, why don't you prove me wrong, first?" Ve who makes the assertion must carry the burden of proof. People are, of course, entitled to continue having their opinions even in a complete absence of proof - witness the continuing popularity of most dogmatic religions - but they are not entitled to have those around them treat those opinions as fact in the absence of proof. This attitude is not conducive to productive debate and discussion.
The second incidence was a discussion on Twitter, which can function in this case as a demonstration of how not to attempt to prove your point.
After a friend made a crack about 24 being a tool of the right-wing so that they can make people believe that torture works, which I retweeted because I found it hilarious, my brother proceeded to argue with me that torture does, in fact, work. I asked what proof he had of that, and for perhaps a half-dozen tweets in a row, no proof was offered, only variations on the assertion "You can't deny it works" over and over again.
Me: [RT's joke about 24 making people believe torture works]
Him: Can you deny that it works? Doesn't make it right, but it works.
Me: Frankly, until *proven* otherwise, I'll err on the side of not torturing people. Got *proof*? I'll reconsider.
Him: Proof it works? There's plenty. I'm still not saying its right, but there's no denying that it does in fact work.
Me: I've heard plenty of denying that it works, actually. So where's the proof of which you speak? I'm genuinely curious.
Him: So you're saying that people won't give up information under duress? Because even though it may be wrong, it DOES pay off.
Me: What I'm saying is, I have neither seen nor heard actual *proof* that such is the case, and until I have, I cannot support it.
Him: I don't support it either, but I'll admit it definitely results in information being given up.
I wanted to *headdesk* x1000. Because that? Was a totally unproven assertion - "Torture works" - simply being repeated over and over in lieu of actually being proven to be true. Which is also not conducive to productive debate and discussion.
So let it be known, People Who Debate Things:
1. Simply saying something is so does not make it true.
2. If you say something you believe to be true, it is upon you to prove the truth of your assertion, not upon your opponent to prove your assertion wrong.
3: Since simply saying something does not make it true, repeating the same assertion over and over does not suffice as proof either.
Who Wants To Consider Women's Voices on Women's Lives? Not Bart Stupak!
So you're making a big decision that will affect millions of lives. Two groups are offering you conflicting advice, ostensibly working under the same belief structure. One group, a small group of old men who spend their time pushing papers and playing politics, advises you to decide one way. The other group, a thousands-strong group of women who are in frequent and close contact with the people who will be most affected by your decision, advises you to decide the other way. To whom do you listen?
If you're an anti-choice Blue Dog fake-Dem like Bart Stupak, you listen to the old men pontificating, and dismiss the women's views in disdainful, contemptuous terms ("When I'm drafting right-to-life language, I don't call up the nuns."). Because after all, they're just women who actually work with the affected populations. What the hell could they possibly know that the Important Men At The Top don't?
Thanks, Stupak, for making it abundantly clear yet again what the anti-choice, pro-forced birth assholes really think of women's lived experiences and the value of our voices. Fuck you very much.
If you're an anti-choice Blue Dog fake-Dem like Bart Stupak, you listen to the old men pontificating, and dismiss the women's views in disdainful, contemptuous terms ("When I'm drafting right-to-life language, I don't call up the nuns."). Because after all, they're just women who actually work with the affected populations. What the hell could they possibly know that the Important Men At The Top don't?
Thanks, Stupak, for making it abundantly clear yet again what the anti-choice, pro-forced birth assholes really think of women's lived experiences and the value of our voices. Fuck you very much.
3.17.2010
Rated "W", for WTF?
I present this review/rant in honor of St. Patrick's Day. If you are a fan of the second Boondock Saints movie, TURN BACK NOW. This is your last warning.
I want to start by saying, I really liked the original Boondock Saints movie. I only watched it for the first time this past year, and that because my ex made me - it's his favorite movie and he wanted to share. But I really, really enjoyed it. Enough that I introduced Ozzmodious to it this past month or so, and he loved it too. So when we found a copy of Boondock Saints II: All Saint's Day on Blu-Ray at Target over the weekend, we had to get it RIGHTNOWOMG. So I'm not someone who's hated both of them, or who hates gun-porn movies, or whatever, just looking for excuses to tear this movie down. I went into this with high hopes, I really did.
I. Want. Those. Two. Hours. Of. My. Life. BACK. Now, please. Someone give me a time machine so I can go back in time to yesterday afternoon and spend my evening doing something more productive. Like reading MRA blogs. Or watching YouTube of Palin rallies. You know. Something that would enrich my life more and piss me off less than this movie did.
The entire thing might as well be replaced by scenes of men screaming at the top of their lungs, "OUR PENISES ARE ENORMOUS AND ENGORGED AND ALSO WE HAVE BALLLLLLZ THE SIZE OF CANTELOUPES, DO YOU NOT SEE HOW MANLY WE ARE YET? DO YOU NOT? WE ARE MEN, DAMMIT! MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN!" interspersed with scenes of random gunfights in slow motion, and the occasional shot of a stripper doing the "sexy businesswoman" look in towering stilettos while making sexyface and/or grinning seductively at the camera while her hair blows around her in slow motion a la Victoria's Secret commercials. Seriously. I have just described the movie, so if you haven't seen it, you can now spare yourselves the trouble and headache. Toss a buck in the tip jar on your way out. ;-)
For example. When the ONLY female character in the entire fucking movie is introduced, it's with a getting-out-of-car stilettos-and-stockings slow-motion strut to sexy music, which lasts for an egregiously and unnecessarily long 30 seconds before you even get to see that hey, she is not just a pair of perfectly-stockinged legs with black stripper heels on, walking around without a body! The first crime scene she does, she puts one of the (male) detectives on his knees in front of her, after taking down her hair and shaking it out all sexy-girl-like for no discernable reason, to "illustrate" a point. There are several his-face-her-crotch shots to make sure we get, HEY HE'S ON HIS KNEES IN FRONT OF SEXAY-LADY!! Her cleavage and legs are emphasized at EVERY. POSSIBLE. MOMENT. She is absolutely the Token Badass Sexy Lady. Yes, she is quite competent. But that takes a backseat to her being sexy. UGH.
But I think the worst part, the most ridiculous 3 or 4 minutes of film I have ever witnessed IN MY ENTIRE LIFE THUS FAR, was the Anxious Masculinity Montage, about 3/4 of the way through. In it, the two brothers are in a dream sequence with their dead friend Rocco, from the first movie. And they go on a rant about "real men" that is just...fucking.......there are no words. Seriously. Words fail me to describe that monstrosity. Just read it for yourself.
And then they wake up and go kill more people. That chunk right there advanced the plot not a bit, contributed nothing to the pacing, seriously had NO purpose whatsoever except to make sure, in case you hadn't absorbed it well enough yet, that every single viewer understood that THIS IS A MEN'S MOVIE. And that by MEN they mean ONLY ADHERENTS TO TRADITIONAL VIOLENT-TOWER-OF-STOICISM MASCULINITY NEED APPLY.
If you wanted to be able to name a movie that perfectly encapsulated the Cult of Anxious Masculinity and the anti-feminist backlash, and Judd Apatow's body of work wasn't doing enough for you, this should be at the top of your list. I doubt we'll ever watch it again.
I want to start by saying, I really liked the original Boondock Saints movie. I only watched it for the first time this past year, and that because my ex made me - it's his favorite movie and he wanted to share. But I really, really enjoyed it. Enough that I introduced Ozzmodious to it this past month or so, and he loved it too. So when we found a copy of Boondock Saints II: All Saint's Day on Blu-Ray at Target over the weekend, we had to get it RIGHTNOWOMG. So I'm not someone who's hated both of them, or who hates gun-porn movies, or whatever, just looking for excuses to tear this movie down. I went into this with high hopes, I really did.
I. Want. Those. Two. Hours. Of. My. Life. BACK. Now, please. Someone give me a time machine so I can go back in time to yesterday afternoon and spend my evening doing something more productive. Like reading MRA blogs. Or watching YouTube of Palin rallies. You know. Something that would enrich my life more and piss me off less than this movie did.
The entire thing might as well be replaced by scenes of men screaming at the top of their lungs, "OUR PENISES ARE ENORMOUS AND ENGORGED AND ALSO WE HAVE BALLLLLLZ THE SIZE OF CANTELOUPES, DO YOU NOT SEE HOW MANLY WE ARE YET? DO YOU NOT? WE ARE MEN, DAMMIT! MEN MEN MEN MEN MEN!" interspersed with scenes of random gunfights in slow motion, and the occasional shot of a stripper doing the "sexy businesswoman" look in towering stilettos while making sexyface and/or grinning seductively at the camera while her hair blows around her in slow motion a la Victoria's Secret commercials. Seriously. I have just described the movie, so if you haven't seen it, you can now spare yourselves the trouble and headache. Toss a buck in the tip jar on your way out. ;-)
For example. When the ONLY female character in the entire fucking movie is introduced, it's with a getting-out-of-car stilettos-and-stockings slow-motion strut to sexy music, which lasts for an egregiously and unnecessarily long 30 seconds before you even get to see that hey, she is not just a pair of perfectly-stockinged legs with black stripper heels on, walking around without a body! The first crime scene she does, she puts one of the (male) detectives on his knees in front of her, after taking down her hair and shaking it out all sexy-girl-like for no discernable reason, to "illustrate" a point. There are several his-face-her-crotch shots to make sure we get, HEY HE'S ON HIS KNEES IN FRONT OF SEXAY-LADY!! Her cleavage and legs are emphasized at EVERY. POSSIBLE. MOMENT. She is absolutely the Token Badass Sexy Lady. Yes, she is quite competent. But that takes a backseat to her being sexy. UGH.
But I think the worst part, the most ridiculous 3 or 4 minutes of film I have ever witnessed IN MY ENTIRE LIFE THUS FAR, was the Anxious Masculinity Montage, about 3/4 of the way through. In it, the two brothers are in a dream sequence with their dead friend Rocco, from the first movie. And they go on a rant about "real men" that is just...fucking.......there are no words. Seriously. Words fail me to describe that monstrosity. Just read it for yourself.
Connor MacManus, Murphy MacManus: Sláinte
Murphy MacManus: You know, he was sort of a badass though, wasn't he?
Connor MacManus: Shades of Eastwood. Charlie Bronson.
Rocco: Duke Fucking Wayne!
Connor MacManus, Murphy MacManus: Duke Fucking WAYNE!
Rocco: Men build things, then we die. It's in our fucking DNA! THAT'S WHAT WE DO!
Murphy MacManus: And when it all falls down?
Rocco: We build it right back up again.
Connor MacManus: But this time bigger. BETTER!
Rocco: Look! Look what we can do. Look how fuckin' beautiful we are. You think the men that built all this had it easy?
Murphy MacManus: Hard men!
Connor MacManus: Doing hard shit!
Rocco: and that gives me a hard on... But not in a gay way or anything like that.
Murphy MacManus: No, 'course not
Connor MacManus: Yeah it goes without sayin'
Rocco: I am so sick of all of this self help, twelve step, leftover hippie generation bullshit!
Connor MacManus: Now they don't want you to do anything, right? Just sit there. Don't drink.
Murphy MacManus: Don't smoke. Don't drive fast.
Connor MacManus, Murphy MacManus, Rocco: Kiss my ass!
Rocco: Fuck it! Do it all I say! Do you think Duke Wayne spent all of his time talking about his feelings with a fuckin' therapist?
Connor MacManus: There's no fucking way he did!
Rocco: John Wayne died with five pounds of undigested red meat in his ass. Now that's a man! Real men hide their feelings. Why?
Connor MacManus, Murphy MacManus, Rocco: Because it's none of your fuckin' business!
Rocco: Men do not cry. Men do not pout. Men jack you in the fuckin' jaw and say...
Detective Greenly: Thanks for comin' out.
And then they wake up and go kill more people. That chunk right there advanced the plot not a bit, contributed nothing to the pacing, seriously had NO purpose whatsoever except to make sure, in case you hadn't absorbed it well enough yet, that every single viewer understood that THIS IS A MEN'S MOVIE. And that by MEN they mean ONLY ADHERENTS TO TRADITIONAL VIOLENT-TOWER-OF-STOICISM MASCULINITY NEED APPLY.
If you wanted to be able to name a movie that perfectly encapsulated the Cult of Anxious Masculinity and the anti-feminist backlash, and Judd Apatow's body of work wasn't doing enough for you, this should be at the top of your list. I doubt we'll ever watch it again.
3.16.2010
Spinning Straw Into Nickels
Somewhere between putting a quarter into a jar every time you swear to break yourself of the habit, and LGBT groups taking pledges from the community to raise donations per minute they are protested by hate groups like Westboro Baptist Church, is the new, single-campus campaign, Nickels For Change.
Two college women, fed up with the casual -isms they hear every day at their male-dominated science and engineering college, have decided to turn the prejudice into profit for a charity they will choose by year's end. The idea is, every time they hear a rape joke, misogyny, racism, or other -ism coming from the people around them, they will donate a nickel to the Jar. While they do this, they'll be raising awareness with letter-writing campaigns, and at the end of the year, they plan to total it up and donate the sum to an anti-violence organization. They'll publicize the total to those they contacted, in the hopes that the sheer weight of evidence - "You raised HOW MUCH at a nickel per incident?" - might shame people into better behavior.
I think this is a great idea. Particularly taking place on a college campus as it is. Colleges like to look good to parents of prospective students, and who knows how motivated they might be to make their campus a friendlier atmosphere for the diverse groups whose money they would undoubtedly be happy to take, by the public knowledge of how far they currently fall short of the mark? It's hard to claim your college as a great place to go, when you've got a couple of activists holding out a total and saying "This is what your atmosphere *actually* is."
I wish them luck. Am I old enough to say how I wish more young people were like these two? ;-)
Two college women, fed up with the casual -isms they hear every day at their male-dominated science and engineering college, have decided to turn the prejudice into profit for a charity they will choose by year's end. The idea is, every time they hear a rape joke, misogyny, racism, or other -ism coming from the people around them, they will donate a nickel to the Jar. While they do this, they'll be raising awareness with letter-writing campaigns, and at the end of the year, they plan to total it up and donate the sum to an anti-violence organization. They'll publicize the total to those they contacted, in the hopes that the sheer weight of evidence - "You raised HOW MUCH at a nickel per incident?" - might shame people into better behavior.
I think this is a great idea. Particularly taking place on a college campus as it is. Colleges like to look good to parents of prospective students, and who knows how motivated they might be to make their campus a friendlier atmosphere for the diverse groups whose money they would undoubtedly be happy to take, by the public knowledge of how far they currently fall short of the mark? It's hard to claim your college as a great place to go, when you've got a couple of activists holding out a total and saying "This is what your atmosphere *actually* is."
I wish them luck. Am I old enough to say how I wish more young people were like these two? ;-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
