Saturday, December 29, 2007

good bye corporate world... I didn't have the balls I guess.

sorry for the long absence. In the last few weeks I've been laid off and given into the forced holiday which coincided with the christmas holiday of family gatherings. (not my immediate family of course as they live in Nova Scotia) however, as part of my update I wish to proclaim my love for David Bowies album ""The Man Who sold the World" which has been my anthem since the group layoff at my previous place of employment two weeks ago. Why is it that companies see fit to lay people off two weeks before major holidays? As if the two weeks post are too much of a burden for them to bare. Well as we all know corporations don't have to have a conscience since they harbor multiple minds/egos.

As cynical as I am, I pretty much have accepted my fate, which I always do. Nothing can be done to change what has happened but at least I am no longer working for a company that exploits the fears of a tyrant government. I've always held a "what the fuck can I do" attitude when it comes to my career. I fell into this line of work (a defense company) and although I've taken much slack from the idealists of the world I've always maintained my innocents in the matter. At least I wasn't selling weapons. But sometimes I would wonder about the machine I employed by. The machine that builds "security" devices to protect civilians from the "ever present threat" of bombs. The fact of the matter is Ilive in canada. and although malls and other consumer monuments are threatened by them, those bombs never seem to materialize. So why was selling thousands of dollars in bomb disposal equipment to people who weren't in danger of exploding? And hey, at least I'm not longer in a work environment, where my male bosses think my most important job is to make sure their coffee doesn't have cream or sugar.

In the end why would I want to stay there? in a company ruled by the opposite sex purely because they are not female. It's a sad thing to see your male counterparts be promoted above you purely because of their genitalia. It's not as if I can say that I couldn't put in the hours becaues I have children, I can't even claim that. If I had gotten laid off for that reason, rest assured, I'd be more pissed off. But lets talk about the basic issue here, which is that ever position of power in a company of over 700 employees is held by a man. and don't mistake me, there are a hefty amount of positions of power. They just happen to be held by men.

The thing is I knew I couldn't get any further in that company than I already had. Who was gonna give me a leading sales position? Its funy when you look at the departments. All the heads were men, all the minion positions were held by women. Men that walked into the positions when experienced women could have been promoted into the positions. I see this all the time. Why promote someone when you can hire someone new to take the position..someone male. I'm bitter but not bitter enough to stop trying to be at the top of something. At least at the point where I don't have to bring coffee to my boss just because I'm female and he's male. and to object... well that will cost you your job. Maybe thats why I got laid off. Maybe I objected too much. Like when male managers from completely different departments came up to me , not knowing my position or even my name and asked me to do their photocopying for them as if I was a file clerk, as if I didn't have a title I'd worked for. Maybe thats why they chose to lay me off. Or maybe it was because I didn't laugh at their jokes when they said something offensive... when they made sexists comments about the waitresses at our luncheons. Maybe thats why. One can only speculate. In the end, one can only speculate. Then again, maybe the only reason I got laid off is because the company needed to downsize. I wonder how they make the call to axe people?

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

The War of Heaven

You may as well call me an athiest. I don't claim to be part of any religion and I don't have any spiritual set of beliefs. Yet I have a confession to make, I absolutely love reading the War of Heaven. I love reading about the angels. See when I went to church as a child, we didn't get to hear about the angels. We mostly just heard about Jesus. Everynow and then one of the archangels (usually Michael) comes down to Earth to deliver a message but thats about it. See the selling point for me as a child would have been to learn about the angels. But we didnt get those stories. We got stories about how you shouldn't have sex before your married and do onto others.. the holy ghost.. blah blah, and jesus healed the leapers. I half wondered if they left out all the stuff about Heirarchy of Angels because they thought people wouldn't believe in it... cause um.. devine beings and all you know.. yet somehow it was easy to believe that Moses parted the red sea and that Jesus walked on water. So why didn't we get to learn about the angels?

I really love getting into the stories from not only the bible, but the Quran, and judaism. The stories are really similar with specific diferences. Everytime I read about Lucifers fall from heaven I keep half feeling sorry for Lucifer. I mean he's sapose to be the embodiment of evil and all that but the few reasons for his rebellion against God aren't actually all that unreasonable. It also couldn't have been that unpopular of an idea since 1 third of the choir of angels saw his way of things.

Anyway, taken like a story and not you know..reality, it's a terribly interesting subject.

The sexist pencil sharpener and a bad comparison

Yesterday Jessica Valenti blogged about the sexist pencil sharpener you see above. As a regular reader, I know that Jessica often posts pics of sexist sinks, urnals and other objects that are designed to look like dismembered female bodies.. it's creepy and sexist and downright grose. She wants to address the issue.. fine right?
Well apparently some people get a bit thrown off by this and decide to try and compare apples and oranges. Here's an article I found today and sent to Feministing just in case they hadn't caught wind of it. It's good for a laugh. I don't get how peoples minds work.. totaly lack of logic. (I won't touch on the pencil pic since Jessica already covered it and it's pretty plain to see why)So lets read the article :

Feminist blogger Jessica Valenti, author of Full Frontal Feminism: A Young Woman's Guide to Why Feminism Matters, is angry over the pencil sharpener pictured above. On she writes:

"What better way to start the week than a stark reminder of how the world sees women? (It seems the perfect woman is almost always dismembered and frequently being penetrated.) Just f***king kill me now."

I don't blame Jessica for being unhappy over the pencil sharpener, but I wonder if she would be as offended by the knife block pictured. The knife block seems far more offensive than the pencil sharpener:

1) The knife block depicts extreme and painful violence.

2) The pencil sharpener depicts a conventional, common sex act which women enjoy.

I'm not saying Jessica would reject any complaints about the knife block--perhaps she would agree with men's activists that it's offensive. But it seems that Jessica and many other feminists tend to see popular culture as "offensive to women" when, in reality, popular culture is far more anti-male than anti-female. This is particularly true when depicting violence--a dozen men can die in a movie or cop show and scarcely anyone blinks, but when a woman dies, it's a big deal. To pick one example, see my blog post Pirates of the Caribbean & Male Disposability.

First off, jesus, can we stop with the "I'm more persecuted/descriminated against than you"?? I don't see why the author thought it neccessary to even compare the pencil sharpener with the knife holder! We're talking about two very different patterns of thought behind two different sexist objects. You can't really compare them except to say that they are two sexist objects. It's silly. It's so childish to go, "well the one with the knife through it is way more sexist!!" What exactly is he trying to say, that because the knife holder exists that we shouldn't be upset by the pencil sharpener?! It's very valid to be upset by both of these tools but comparing them just to try and rationalize that men are more persececuted than women is fucking dumb and irrational.

secondly, um.. okay there is a difference between people dying in a movie and people dying in real life!! How do you go from relating sexist knife holders and pencil sharpeners, to how many more of one sex dies in movies than the other!?Here's a thought- Maybe more men die in the movies because there are generally more movies directed by men, roles written for men, and actors who happen to be men? Ever think of that? Then if you wanna talk about stereotypical gender roles in movies, well thats the issue isn't it! Thats worth talking about- and men don't have it so hot, but then neither do women. Your standard, cop shoot out movie (which Mr. Up Above is talking about) is going to be chalk full of male actors in manly hero/villan type roles. He's gonna shoot people, people will shoot at him, lots of extras will get in the way and die, usually the hero's best friend dies or gets horribly injured. The average female character in one of those movies will serve as one of two things, either she's the sexy villan or love interest, who sleeps with the hero. The villian female doops the cop and audience into believing that she's "one of the good guys". The love interest female only enter scenes to have sex with the leading male role, make dinner or become a victim. THERE YA GO! So if you got a problem with men dying in movies, why not complain to the MEN who actually create those movies!? Since ya know, the larger percentage of one sex running hollywood happen to be male.

Also, if you read the comments posted under the article you get a big insight on what Men's Rights Advocates are actually worried about - women being independent and having babies without getting married! OOO all chaos would insue!! Read this:
You see the sexual notion that women hold: men like sex, and wish women liked it. This is learned behavior. We teach this to our children, boys and girls alike. It makes men believe we need women more than we really do. Women believe it too. It is patently untrue. It can be un-learned.

But it is a very useful social convention. Were men to realize how little we really need women, society would unravel. Men have not yet even gained the ability to conveniently and easily control our fertility, and women are already bemoaning the lack of good marryable men. Middle aged middle class single women are, as Glenn pointed out elsewhere, choosing to have children without benefit of marriage. There are, I believe, two reasons for this. One is the marriage strike; the other is much much more troubling to me.

"Liberated" women seem unwilling, or unable, to endure the compromise necessary to actually marry and live with a man. They will say they have been in relationships that they hoped would lead to marriage and children, but "none of the relationships worked." What these women really mean is they were unwilling to accept someone else at face value, as another imperfect human, and actually compromise some of their deeply-held beliefs in the name of making a marriage work, and for the good of children. Women have been told they can have it all, and that is what they believe. Choosing to become a mother without a father is the ultimate act of self-indulgence. The lack of marryable men is partly due to a genuine shortage; the rest is merely a reflection of women's uncompromising attitudes.

Olivia, maybe you will be able to find someone you can manipulate long term with that thing you were born with. And then again, maybe not.

I read this stuff all the time. Self-ish woman, and the poor neglected men being tossed aside because women are too self-centered to get married...god, it makes me wanna vomit. Mens Rights Groups are less about fighting for men's rights and more about taking away the freedom of women to choose their own path in life. It's painfully clear... makes me really sick actually. takes a certain kind of insecure person to wanna control someone... let alone an entire sex.

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Dating trends are confusing...

Oi. I was reading some interesting posts on a blog about the courting process in different countries. How of course, in north america there is quite a woman-purues-man trend thats been going on for well, at least as long as I've been alive.

So I got to thinking about the whole dating process in general and my dating history. It occurred to me that I can actually count the number of times a guy approached me to ask me, on a date. Thats two. Every other guy was approached by me, initiated by me. Now I've dated lots of people but there is something rather strange in all this that never ceases to confuse me is whats with the lack of men approaching women for a date? or of all things, a conversation? I've spoken about this with many of my gal friends and they concure that very few men have ever initiated any sort of start out relationship. Of course, you gotta leave out the late night drunken bar assholes, because those are a dime a dozen. But that's not someone looking for a relationship. It seems that for some reason, it's become more acceptable and common practise for a man to drunkenly walk up to a gal and ask her to go home with him, than for a sober man to walk up to a gal and invite her to dinner. How did this happen ? Was it always like this? I regret that I do not know since I'm only 24.

Wednesday, November 7, 2007

My Letter to Guitar World and Guitar Magazine :

I've been reading Guitar World, and Guitar Magazine since I was a teenager and something has always bothered me about them. So I decided to write them a letter about it in hope that they could make changes. Somehow I doubt that they are willing to change their mag after the 30 some-odd years they've been publishing. But a gal can try can't she? So here goes.

Dear Guitar World and Guitar Magazine,

I would like to take this opportunity to speak for the women everywhere who play a kick-ass guitar and rawk. With my sarcastic thank-yous, I would like to say : thank you for catering to an audience of awkward pimply male teenagers for the last 30 years and telling them with every guitar-girl centerfold that "yes", if they become a rock star, they too can earn the right to treat women like guitar stands.

Thank-you for continually objectifying the female body and reminding us girls that our place in the music world is to be naked, vacuous, blonde, under-weight and merely holding the guitar in an upright position and never, never with our hand in chord formation on the strings. Yes thank you for letting me know through my entire awkward teens that my efforts in learning to be a better guitarist were all in vain. I had and continue to see the truth in your magazine- that my place is not to rawk on stage, play chilling solos, plugged into a 120 watt amp through 2 impeccable 4 X 12 cabinets, but to place a guitar between my legs in an effort to shield my nakedness as men take pictures and ogle me.

Even though I have so much to thank you for, I know the ultimate thank-you is this:

Thank you for reminding me, that women can't play guitar.


One Pissed Off SG playing, mother of a guitar goddess.

Tuesday, November 6, 2007

The music industry is depressing me.

So I've been really busy with music lately. Anyway, I started an ilike page so people can check out our band on facebook.. anyway I'm looking through the stats of most played songs and to my utter shock they are actually britney spears, Kayne west, fergie and avril lavigne and I'm just wondering, WTF? Some part of me was trying to believe that the vast majority of people, don't actually wanna hear this crap. but alas, I'm only lying to myself and there are a lot of retards who suck down whatever muchmusic and mtv wanna feed them.

I'm so depressed, I'm really very depressed.

Monday, October 29, 2007

OH TV....

I'm not one of those people who self-righteously proclaim to hate and never watch tv. I'm not one of those. I actually watch a little too much screen than I should. That being probably two hours a day in the evening when my mind is too tired to actually think. However, I'm always stuck watching the same series over and over again. Seinfeld, the Family Guy, the Simpsons, Star Trek, Robot Chicken and one of the best sitcoms to come out in the last five years, Arrested Development which has sadly seen it's demise with last year. All my favorite things get cancilled. I count myself lucky that Robot Chicken is still running... I haven't seen a new episode of Aqua Teen in at least a year. I, like so many others, have taken to buying my favorite series on DVD for fear they will one day fall out of syndication. But beyond these few tv shows, the 700 and some odd channels on my digital cable box has little to offer and I'm wondering, why the hell do I have cable? Honestly I think I'd be happier owning all the seinfeld seasons and some kids in the hall than flicking endlessly until I find something worth watching. Not only that but while flicking I become horribly depressed by the commercials and various programs. Flicking through the womens television stations has to be the worst. These channels are for women yet they prodominately air reality shows about plastic surgery, cleaning you house, brides and how to dress. Then they throw in a Meg Ryan movies, or a made for tv movie adaptation of Daniel Steel novels. Are we sapose to be so vacuous? Then the commercials are beauty products, weight loss commercials... before you know it, your self esteem has just taken the beating of it's life and your wondering why you feel so shitty today.

Can we have a womens channel that actually caters to women without catering to the "every women wants to get married, clean her house and look good for her man" becuase I've yet to see it.

Wednesday, October 24, 2007

MRA spins: women and their lenient sentencing...

I think this is a good example of the type of article that MRA's use to support their hatred of women. I think it's important to draw attention to this article and the fact that it was linked on Dr Helen's blog because time will tell whether or not they will be able to use this as cannon fodder. You see Men Rights groups and supporters love to draw attention to female on male violence and then cry about how women receive lenient sentences because of the fact that they are women. The funny thing is that the articles trickle away and become ancient history very quickly if said female prep does receive a sentence that is just. It's the ones they rave about, like the famous Winkler case, where the female perp gets a "lenient" sentence that they actually remember. Those cases are few and far between. Also the most interesting issue is that the MRA's fail to include important details of self-defense, mental issues or other important factors. These important factors are called out as out-right lies by the MRA's and supporters because we all know that all women are evil and trying to destroy the defenseless men of the earth, or sorry, north america... because MRA's rarely care about the men of impoverished countries. There's one vital piece missing from MRA sites, the fact that they are only concerned about whats happening in North AMerica, UK, etc but not third world countries, or countries fraught with war.

I think it's important also to note that feminist don't profess that every woman is pure, just and honest, but that we do understand the difference between self-defense and murder. Something the MRA's of course blurr.

I'm interested to see how this case develops, whether or not it develops to the liking of the MRA, and what spin they can put on it. We'll see if this one becomes ancient history.

The Mongrels!

So its been a couple months since I've put on a show, but I'm currently working on a show with Montreal headliner the Mongrels! I wanted to take the time to acknowledge how freaking awesome this band is and how much lead singer Amy Torok kicks rock'n'roll ass. Click here for an article written by the Hour.

You should also check out their myspace page and listen to their music HERE!

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Today's Laugh : "Poor White Men"


This is so typical I had to post it. The author, like so many "poor white men" (and I mean poor as in "oh you poor mistreated little boy" not as in someone impoverished) believes that feminism emasculates men. and why not since, feminism is the reason for so much divorce. This particular author paints a picture of the dominant feminist woman (who apparently is every women in Western society according to this guy) He claims that men are tossed to the curb for being unable to "perform".

if a man is not up to sexual standards, he is given the divorce papers, falsely accused of emotional and physical violence, placed under strain physically and mentally to the point of being mentally hacked to death or sent to a psychiatric institution.

Apparently someone has never heard of Viagra... I'm sorry but what does "unable to perform" mean exactly. Erectile disfunction? or just "hey baby I'm not in the mood?"

Apparently western women are sex hungry, controlling fiends who laugh and mock their husbands/significant others if they can't maintain an errection. And guess what folks, apparently this happens all the time!! Many men suffer silently under the iron fist of the almightly wanting vagina! Did you know that Western women now run the entire western society and how men all over North America cry at night because they are so oppressed....
A woman, at times, prefers a man who performs sexually but does not perform ‘other husbandly duties’ of work, paying taxes...

awe is someone scared of female sexuality?? But you know it's all feminisms fault :

It does not help that feminism, which is a western imperialist concept, which denies the family in favour of the individuality of the woman to do whatever she wants.

#1 most typical complaint right there... feminism is responisble for the break down of the family unit... So big myth #1. Since the people who believe this say that the solution is that all women be locked into matramony for their lives regardless of how their husband treats them, or how they ended up with husband. If only the men folk could control us raging selfish bitches! (oh typical characterizing of feminist and most women by MRA activists, is that us women are just so selfish)

You know the rest of the article is really hard to stomach because he's serious, but you can read it and laugh because it's so ridiculous.

At least feminism has an antidote.

This antidote is called womanism and is in Iran. Stephania Harris has also espoused womanism in her blog. Womanism is the right of the woman to be herself but also to respect the family and the husband. It does not necessarily mean servitude for the woman. It means empowerment for the woman, her family, while ensuring domestic tranquility in the family. It is also based in spiritual concepts found in all of the world’s major religions, such as Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and Buddhism.

While this does not excuse the fact that men have to attempt to perform their duties as a husband including the sexual component, it should be remembered that married couples do not need the strains or pressures of “do this” when things can be achieved through peaceful means.

*sigh* because the middle east has been so good at empowering women.....

At least one of the commenters isn't a complete retard. She said this:
surely the solution to inequality in relationships like this is equality, not re-oppressing women. Sexual inequality negatively effects both women and men, so see-sawing back and forth between two extremes will never make everyone happy. If people were all seen as equal, regardless of gender and whatever ludicrous expectations go with that, then we wouldn't have this problem. People would be seen for who they are rather than what they are 'supposed' to be. It's obvious we haven't reached that kind of a society yet, but that doesn't mean we should stop striving for it, and it certainly doesn't mean that we should go backwards into this 'womanism'. That concept is in blatant opposition with the ideals of equality for ALL. Women can respect themselves and respect their husbands and family, but only if men agree to do so too. Equal rights means equal expectations on both sexes.

Anyway I got a bit of a chuckle out of the article. Very typical. The whole womanism deserves an entirely seperate post tho... god.

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Buy Me New Boobs?! What?!

I can't decide whether to laugh or cry...

None of the money, says Moore, has gone to any of the founders. "We're donors just like the other male members," he says. "We work full-time jobs and do this as a public service."

Try wrapping your head around this... you post your picture on a website and if the men folk like what they see, they can donate money to making you look more like what they want to see... a barbie doll!! This is the female body being objectified at it's best. I'm not sure who to feel sorry for in this circumstance. The poorly raised men who think this website is okay, and see nothing wrong with it telling women (who already must be suffering some kind of dysmorphia) that they need to augment their body to be desirable and also look the way men want them to..., or the women who are on there trying to raise money for their new jugs... Female objectification aside, whats the deal with this trend of making plastic cosmetic surgery a household name and worse, a house hold "DO" ? Breast enhancement, among other things, have become so acceptable in our culture that they rack (hehe pun totally intended) attention from every media source and are now advertised on radio stations, tv stations, magazines, you name it , it's there.

I think Dr. Weiner said it best in this article and thank god someone did :
"This Web site is a bad idea because anything that trivializes plastic surgery is dangerous," Wiener says. "Plastic surgery is a serious decision that should never be made light of. turns serious plastic surgery into a contest, which is something I find appalling and frightening."

You don't want to hear the testimonials for this site. This site is half a porn site and the girls pass it off as if it's MSN messenger! They interact with their donars over the net and have admitted to them being "raunchy". Oh and then one of the girls tried to compare her C section to surgery for breast implants... One of those surgeries is a necessary to remove a human life from another human being, and the other is necessary to to put a foreign object into chest to make it more appealing to the disturbed men-folk of the world and possibly your dis morphia ridden mind. Hmmm can you compare those? I don't think so.

Back From Vacation !

Back from vacation! The details are not important to this site but can be read about on my livejournal. So it's back to some serious blogging... I've missed so much. Part of being on vacation for me, is not touching my computer. It's wonderful to get away from cyber land for a while. I've done some catching up in the world of feminist blogging as well as the world of new in general. I even stopped by Dr. I wish I had a cock Helen, I mean Dr. Helen's blog to see what none sense she was getting up to while I was away. As a treat I've included my favorite quote from last weeks series of entries :

"The book opens with essential gear that girls need: the list includes among other things, a swiss army knife described as a key tool for survival, a bandana to keep your head cool, rope and twine to help learn about knots, a journal, a hair band--great advice for girls with long hair"

Wow! wonderful observation Helen! It's plain to see how she was able to make it as a forensic psychologist with these kind of keen observations! wow. natural instinct there... for stating the obvious. Still best quote over the past week.

Anyway, I guess my one regret of being away from the blogosphere is simply that I missed out on all the Laura Sessions Stepp bashing.

Friday, October 5, 2007

"Perfume" - the movie, the book, my opinion.

I was engaged in a short-lived discussion last night with my fiancé. Wait, perhaps I should back up. Monday night I was engaged in a movie which led to a short-lived discussion with my fiancé. The movie was “Perfume”, based on a highly celebrated novel about a man in 17th century France who wished to preserve the scent of women. Okay, my fiancé adored this book and claimed to have read it no less than five times. I have never read the book but have observed his copy on one of our many bookshelves. In the end he asked me what I thought of the movie. I said I found it disturbing. I didn’t get to explain much about why I found it disturbing. I managed to get out- he murdered women to preserve their scent (disturbing), that the movie portrayed a murderer of women with an overtly sympathetic eye and a disturbing amount of sanity…(the movie made it appear that the lead character wasn’t really doing anything insane or wrong at all) I didn’t get much further. It was my comment about the murdered women all being virgins, that lead him to believe my opinion was a defensive reaction, which in some way it was. I despise the whole virgin prizing. I think it’s sick. It’s just another way for men to control women. Controlling ones sexuality is to control ones very nature and freedom… oppression… anyway, we all know this. I get sick of seeing it all the time. This movie/book/piece of art, expresses that virginity is a prize, in fact a state of heavenliness… I don’t wish to spoil the ending of the movie for anyone, but if you watch the ending you will know exactly what I mean.

The thing is.. I really loved how the movie was filmed. The colouring of the shots in squallier has a blue/grey quality to impress upon the dismal existence one would lead in Paris… I can only guess. But I didn’t like the way the story was told. As if the lead character were not a completely insane beast. It was kinda fairy tale like. It was kinda.. love story like… It was pretty disturbing. I dunno, I guess the thing is, we often see movies where the lead character victimizes women yet is painted in a sympathetic light. Can you think of a movie that does this with a female character victimizing a male?

Friday, September 28, 2007

PJ Harvey Interview in Exclaim!

I'm a huge PJ Harvey fan. Her new album White Chalk I just cannot wait to hear.

Article here.

Eliminate Oppression with Oppression!

Today the The Conseil du statut de la femme( "is a government consultation and study council that, since 1973, has devoted itself to promoting and defending the rights and interests of women in Québec" ) has decided to call:

on the Quebec government to ban what it calls visible religious symbols. While a crucifix or a Star of David on a necklace would be acceptable, council president Christiane Pelchat said, public employees should not be permitted to wear such overt symbols as the hijab, a head covering worn by Muslim women, or the yarmulke, a skullcap worn by Jewish men.

Yeah, uh sorry, you can't eliminate oppression by oppressing people..

Much of the article pissed me right off... I don't even know what to say!? hypocritical bullshit.

New Study Concludes Men Are Happier Than Women!

Men are happier than women, I wonder why? Well, apparently it's because all you women have too many responsibilities and, get this, CHOICES.

"Surprising, perhaps, given the increased opportunities and choices for women in the modern world."

I would have thought it was because of the wage gap, workplace harassment, having to work twice as hard in corporate settings and being stuck in staffing positions endlessly while your male co-workers are promoted.. but that's just what I've observed.. you know, by being a woman.

The author (who is commenting on the study) points to this comment listed on the ABC website.

Of course women are less happy than men-these so-called "choices" women have are not really choices at all. The problem is with the feminist movement stopping when women began regularly entering the workforce. Women have made strides in education and career, but have remained the sole caretaker of the family. America's "family values" thread is an underlying force that drives men and women to believe that women should still take the majority of household/childcare work upon themselves. American men are all to willing to let their working wives do most or all of the household chores and care for the children while they prioritize their careers and social time for themselves. This article is a clear, concise warning that the feminist movement needs to target the American family and the division of household labor between men and women.L.V., M.S. Labor Relations & Human Resources
Posted by:
workmom71 1:01 PM

Not that I believe the feminist move has stopped, it hasn't. It's just been stuck. You can't say a movement doesn't exist just because it's been unable to undo all of the centuries of patriarchy instilled into the family unit. We're working on it.

But you know Mr Author has only this all too typical misogynistic response:

What an incredible sense of entitlement. Yep, essentially we need to change the entire world to make sure women are happy. (Much of which we've already done in order to make women happier and they end up less happy.)

Oh right.... you were just "letting" us work. We're just a bunch of whiny spoiled kids. How dare we demand so much... like the rightto divorce our husbands, the right to own property, the right to vote and gooooooooooooooooooooooooddddddd no, the right to work!? I'm sorry Mr. Man, I now realise the great lengths you've gone to, just to make us spoiled little women "happy". But I love the next paragraph from the "researcher":
Finally, the changes brought about through the women’s movement may have decreased women’s happiness.

No actually, the problem is that the women are still suffering under the fist of patriarchy, but sure, have it your way.. it was all the women's movements fault... right..

Then the author begins an attempt at being philosophical. Apparently if we have to ask ourselves if we're happy, then we're not. Oh and apparently hanging tobacco makes the author happy.

Caffeine and tylonal is bad for you.. no really?!


Dear god. You know when you go get a tooth out, or have minor surgery, or sprain your ankle? Well, they give you a little pill to make the ouchey go away. That pill is usually a combination of codeen, acetaminophen and caffeine. Now they're saying caffeine and tylonal causes liver damage!? well duh! tylonal causes liver damage you asshats. But anyway... I have a funny story about that combination drug. A friend of mine in med-school once told me that the only reason that caffeine is even in the no-ouchey pill,is because the doctor responsible for creating it needed to cut the acetomenophen and codeen with something. His genious wife..(who's lack of medical expertise may not make her un-genious) suggest "why not use caffeine! since coffee relives headaches" back then, it was widely thought that coffee did relieve headaches.... and apparently that is why we still have this stupid pill that has caffeine in it. *sigh*

GIRLS WHO RAWK- "Muffler Crunch"

I generally try not to music blog on here... especailly about bands I know cause of the conflict of interests but okay, I've gotta. To all of you Canadians who wanna hear a girl KICK FUCKING RAWK ASS, please take a listen to Ottawa's own )Muffler Crunch(

If your like me, then your so sick and tired of seeing loud rawk dominated by men. Angie (drummer and lead singer) brings a refreshing voice to the stoner-rock, genre with a touch of metal.

CD's can be purchased off the Myspace site or at

Thursday, September 27, 2007

Fucking Michael Moore is On Oprah Today

Fucking lame -ass Michael Moore is to appear tonight on lame-ass Oprah's show. I almost wanna watch it to see it implode. I have a feeling that Michael Moore will "take a stand" and Oprah will decide whether or not to agree based on the audience reaction. *sigh*

We use to play this game when I worked at the bookstore, called "guess what that person is gonna buy" ! I could always pick out the Michael Moore fans...ack. It was either "Zen & the art of Motorcycle Maintenance" or fucking Michael Moore. They were always new-age hippies. You never saw anyone but mid twenties college students buy his books and I'd like to think that most college students abstain from that kind of sensationalism. Distortion of facts with editing yadda yadda, he's a god damn journalist. Why are we suppose to trust him so much? Why? Because of Roger & Me? Because he uses humour to gain our friendship? to con us into believing whatever?? SO that he can over-simplify National problems? But my really problem with people like Michael Moore is that they offer no solutions. He pulls out a camera, catches people off-guard, makes them look like idiots. He throws his hands in the air playing the blame game and screaming about a fucking fire and offers no water to put it out and I think that why I really, hate, Michael Moore.

Oh yeah and Oprahs just fucking annoying and should stop getting rich by exploiting peoples "sad" stories and having fucking celebrities on her god damn shows. How pathetic are we people?! Do we really need to see John Travolta dance one more time? bah.

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

Get Pretty or Get Dead.

"No Surgery is Trivial" an article published in the Toronto Star yesterday talks about the tragic death of a Toronto women who passed away last week after having liposuction in New York by a general practitioner, a family doctor....

Estimates of risk vary, but researchers surveying board-certified plastic surgeons in the United States calculated a mortality rate of 20 deaths per 100,000 liposuction cases. That is higher than the U.S. death rate from motor vehicle crashes. Because the survey covered only certified specialists, the actual death rate could well be higher.

yeah, uh scary. We all know some people will do anything to have the right look, but man....

Liposuction is of special concern. Any procedure with the potential to kill an otherwise healthy person must be taken more seriously.

I absolutely agree. Although anyone who knows me understands that I see plastic surgery as a tool to promote fascism. I think plastic surgery was originally intended to reconstruct body parts damaged in accidents or fires, not to serve as tool to promote some otherwise unattainable standard of beauty. It's almost as if the media is really a bunch of little Hitlers out there running around telling you to get purdy or get off the face of the earth. With your life hanging in the balance of a procedure that will benefit your health in now way after, what are they really telling us? Get purdy or get dead.

Monday, September 24, 2007

In the face of much bridal confusion, I've got that dress thing covered!

So I've got that dress thing covered. Wait, I suppose I should first explain why I'm writing about my wedding and the planning of it on a feminist blog.. I think it's important to represent myself and other ladies. I'm a feminist and I'm getting married. It's important to me to explain that my marriage to my future husband is based on equality and not ownership... obviously! That I'm also no less an independent women because of a piece of paper. Our wedding is a chance to ultimately state to our friends and family that we're in love and in this for the long run and nothing more. Most certainly we'll have a ceremony devoid of "obey thy husband" bullshit. We're a modern couple and we want our wedding to represent us. That's why it's taking place a bar (not a church).

Back to the dress - I was unsure as to whether I should wear white. So I bought a cheap black dress, very elegant that I intended to wear at least to the reception. I almost decided to wear it to the ceremony, until Saturday when I tried on a white gown at Sherilyn's Bridal. I never looked so damn good in a dress. Now I'm typically a very modest dresser. Showing shoulders is almost too much for me. And the dresses in all the bridal shops we seen were just.... uh... ghastly? Well, trendy, girly and not me. But this dress was WOW! So I bought it. I really think this was a good move for a few reasons : a) I've never looked so good in an article of clothing before b) It will be easy to match flowers, BM dresses and grooms c) is an absolutely timeless dress that I can see holding onto as a family heirloom.

I'm not much for fashion but I have to say that theres something about European dresses that screams timeless. The many American dresses I tried on were trendy, super girly, ballerina-like, princess like and well, kinda gag-worthy. They had hideous trim, silly beading and half the time the beads appeared to glued on. The dress I got is elegant, with beautiful light embroidery. It's not at all princessey. In fact it has a very strong feminine look. I actually think it's quite bold. It isn't puffy at all! In fact its the opposite! If I were able to find a pic I'd post it. But I haven't been able to find the specific model. The designer is Alarz and the workmanship in this dress is so superior to the American dresses of comparable prices. I just love it. I can't wait. White satin and light embroidery. Lace-up back! Although like most dresses, i doubt I can dance in it. I do intend to wear it for a bit of the reception.

So no matter what goes wrong with the rest of the wedding, I know I got that dress thing covered!

Friday, September 21, 2007

Dr. Helen and her opinion on women ruling the world..

Dr. Helen posted a response to Sally Field's Emmy acceptance speach. Sally stated that there wouldnt be any wars if the world was run by mothers...
Not exactly the best blanket statement to make, but what... Now Dr. Helen:

Sally Field and her ilk don’t really mean they want just any mom or woman to run the world, what she really meant when she talked about moms taking over is that leftist women should run the world.

What??! I didn't know that left-wingers were hoping to over throw patriarchy and instill a matriarchy!? hmmm how could I have been left out of such an enormous plan!?
Notice that the women who are always talking about how great and different things would be if women were in charge never mention real women leaders like Condi Rice or Margaret Thatcher because they are conservatives.

why yes! because they're conservatives... I'm sorry what's your point? oh sorry for interupting Helen, please do go on...

Unlike some leftist women who think that their sex puts them beyond the human traits of aggressiveness and violence, Rice and Thatcher understand that the realities of national security mean that negotiation and “making nice” with the schoolyard bully does not always work.

OH your absolutely right Helen, negotiation never solved anything and only conservative women know this...

And are these leftist women really the great humanitarians they imagine themselves to be? To answer that question, let’s turn to Allure magazine. In the latest issue, contributor Judith Newman (who is also a wonderful mom!), tries to do an interview with Britney Spears. Newman keeps getting snubbed by Spears so she writes an article about Britney not showing and contemplates what she would do if she ruled the world like Britney does. In a school girlish tone, Newman states:

What would I do if were 25, world famous, unimaginably wealthy, and no one could say no to me? Well, first, I’d sleep with Dick Cheney. (It’s my World. Welcome to it.) I don’t know what it is: the commanding voice, the crooked smile, the possibility that at any moment he might have a heart attack and I would save the lives of thousands…whatever it is , this would be my priority.My first thought as I read this passage was that Cheney is probably more man than this lady can handle and she might be the one having a heart attack, but that is another post for another day. My point in sharing this story is that if this “wonderful” mother were in charge, she sees nothing wrong with using passive-aggressive techniques such as having sex with the Vice President in the hopes of killing him. Isn’t using sex this way a bit—well, a lot—icky? And sadistic at the same time? Is this the type of person we want running the country? I hope not.

WHAT?! Why did she pick THIS quote to defend her weak and pointless arguement.. and why bother arguing this at all!?! god.I mean why bother attempting to argue that women would drive the world into oblivion when men are doing a fine job of that AS I TYPE!?
and this is where i just stop reading... it just tooo ridiculous. If you would like to read the rest of Dr. Helen's opinion piece on if women ruled the world and how she thinks women are dangerous, then you can read it here.

I would like to write a post about what the world would be like if Dr. Helen ruled it, but thats an entirely seperate post.. and I'll have to get over crying about all the obscenity and suffering first.

Tuesday, September 11, 2007

Wedding Worries!

So I'm getting married next summer and have just decided to take a look at the world of wedding dresses. My first thought is, I'm totally frightened! MY god, there are so many dresses yet they all look similar. How the hell do I choose one?! So anyway, I picked up a bridal mag and realised there is tons of shit I have to figure out besides the dress. I need shoes, and jewelry apparently. Also, I'm sapose to get a special gift for all the girls in the wedding, but that part I think I've figured out! Then I apparently need something that goes around my thigh... what are those called again? I already forget. I also need a vail except some people wear tiara's... (i don't think I'm gonna wear anything princess-like) Then there's that "something borrowed, something blue" I'm hoping to god my mother can help me out. I know my soon to be mother in law will. She says she's an expert with weddings.

So fashion is not my forte. I suck at it. Not only that, I'm basically colourblind.

Then there's the super bridezilla! I'm totally not like that. In fact I want this to be as painless and fun as possible! Any tips from your married folks? I'd appreciate it!

Monday, September 10, 2007

Article: "To Much To Bare"

I think what I find so incredibly discomfiting about these pictures is their suggestion that, no matter how talented a woman is, how many plaudits she has received, how intelligent her reputation, how garlanded she has been for depicting one of the most talented writers of the last century while sporting a huge prosthetic conk on her noggin, at the end of the day, if she wants to stay in the public eye, if she wants the magazine covers and the leading roles, she has to be willing to reduce herself to tits and arse.

I completely agree, it bothers me as well... :(

Read the full article here.

Article - "What Makes Some Men so Angry"

This should be good for a laugh.

But in all seriousness, I applaud the author for tackling this. I'm hoping to read the next columns. Entertaining this topic is an excercize in patience. (which has never been one of my virtues)

It really is another good insight into the minds of women-hating conservatives.

It's actually really funny cause in the article a commenter notes that meat-eating apparently is a threat to men. Anyway, check it out and read the next additions to the column. I'm interested to see where it goes..

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

More demonizing. I'm sick of reading stuff like this but unfortunately it doesn't seem to be going away any time soon. But it's stuff like this that really piss me off:

For decades women have been struggling with the application of feminist theory to daily life. Does it mean all women should be in the workplace?

see! see what I'm talking about here?! This shit pisses me off. I love it when people think they know the ideals of feminism and they clearly don't. It's just ridiculous when they suggest that feminism is so extreme as to demand that all women be in the workplace.

The entire article makes me sad that a women wrote this, she obviously is no feminist.

I think it would be sad if "choice" simply meant women had an excuse to opt out of the workplace because it wasn’t friendly to them or because their husbands wouldn’t help with the housework. It would be equally disappointing to think that women were forced into the workplace if they wanted to be home with their children (though that’s life for most low-income families). On the other hand, men don’t get to hide behind making a choice, nor do very many of them have the opportunity to stay home with their children — so why should we?

So, it's another damned if you do and damned if you don't. So women who stay at home with their kids are critisized for "opting out of the workplace" oh yeah, lets not forget that apparently staying at home with your kids is an "excuse to not work". Mothers of the world! HOW FUCKING INSULTING IS THAT?!

And you know that men don't get to hide behind this choice... Look what she's implying? It's just awful. So the general population is demanding that women stay home with their kids and drop their careers. (you know that old, you can't have a career and kids silly woman") and Georgie here thinks that your just making an excuse to not work cause you can't handle the preassures of an unfriendly workplace.

I'm sorry but let me just say this : YOU STUPID CUNT! Way to show appreciation for the women fighting for your right to CHOOSE how you live your life. YOu can contact Georgie and tell her what a stupid fuck she is through the article. There's a link by her biography.

Friday, September 7, 2007

Harping on Mainstream Porn... new book!

I think I just may pick this book up today even though it's intended for men. Professor Robert Jensen's new book "Pornography and the end of Masculinity" by the review I just read sounds like it could be an interesting read. Jensen apparently "attacks" and dissects the billion dollar porn industry and relates it to all the inequities in society.

He calls our culture a "rape culture," represented in porn by its overtly racist and misogynist ways.

"Pornography is what the end of the world looks like," he said. "Porn is the product of the perfect storm of inequality."

To quote the author of the review I readHERE,

Jensen takes on pornography and masculinity, which, he said, produce sexual violence toward women, children and other men. And he does it all from a radical feminist perspective.

Unfortunately the author then begs you not to close the newspaper after reading the BIG BAD F-WORD... lame..

Read the review tho and ignore the authors bias littered throughout... Although the reviewer is a little "feminist stupid"

At any rate, I acknowledge that the porn industry is always looking for bigger better shockers. Back 20 years ago, porn that showed any kind of sexualized violence was considered S&M. However all kinds of degrading exercises have become standard. Remember soft core porn!? Gals in thongs... does that even exists anymore?

It's very sad what it has all come too ... but I still enjoy porn. So what does that say about me? I mean, good fun is good fun.. but it sounds like the man has a very valid point here. However asking people to stop watching porn is a little, well, unrealistic. I would be leaning towards the option of seeking out a non-mainstream porn. Lots of great porn can be found in female oriented adult shops. Sadly I doubt that men are going to be into it if they're use to watching the typical sperm facials, anal penetration and face slapping, choking blow jobs... *sigh*

Wednesday, September 5, 2007

Waist to Hip - Thank you Erin!

Okay because I can't put it better, I'm just going to quote exactly what super med student Erin has told me about the Waist to Hip ratio I mentioned 2 posts down.

Erin Says:

Okay, so here's some information that I adapted from a textbook I have called "Evidence Based Physical Diagnosis" by Steven McGee (2007). Just ask me if you have any questions about what's in there. All this information is based on scientific and medical studies. This means that when the word "significant" is used, it doesn't just mean "notable"; it usually means that, statistically, if the study were to be repeated, there would be a 19 out of 20 chance that they would get the same results. If you need any of the specific references for what I've given you here (journal articles, etc.) let me know. I included info on waist-to-hip ratio, waist circumference, and BMI:

The waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) is the circumference of the waist divided by that of the hips. It is based on the premise that the most important characteristic of obesity is its distribution, not its quantity. "Abdominal" obesity (aka apple-shaped) has a much worse prognosis than "gluteal-femoral" obesity (aka pear-shaped).

Most authorities measure the waist circumference at the midpoint between the lower costal margin (your last rib, on the side of your body) and the iliac crest (your hip bone, on the side of your body) and the hip circumference at the widest part of the gluteal (buttock) region. Divide the measurement of the waist by that of the hips. Adverse health outcomes increase significantly when the WHR exceeds 1.0 in men and 0.85 in women.

WHR predicts health outcomes better than any other measure of the body. Even after accounting for the effects of BMI, the WHR correlates significantly with blood pressure, cholesterol level, incidence of diabetes mellitus, stroke, coronary events, and overall mortality.

The main contributor to abdominal obesity is fat that surrounds the intestines, stomach, and other organs behind the abdominal wall (called visceral fat), not fat that is just beneath the skin (subcutaneous fat). Visceral fat is very active metabolically, meaning that it readily releases fat that contributes to high cholesterol, plaque build up in the arteries, and problems with insulin which may lead to diabetes. Fat that is around the hips and thighs, on the other hand, is metabolically inactive, except during and shortly after pregnancy.

Waist circumference is simply the waist measurement taken for the WHR calculation. Although this measurement is simpler to do, it is not as good a measure as WHR. Recommended cutoffs for increased health risk are a waist circumference greater than 102 cm (40 inches) in men and 88 cm (35 inches) in women.

The BMI correlates well with precise measurements of total body fat, much better than other formulas of weight and height. The BMI also correlates significantly with the patient's cholesterol level, blood pressure, incidence of coronary events, and overal mortality.

The arbitrary cutoff of 25 kg/m^2 was chosen in part because it reflects the level at which there is a significant increase in mortality, although increased rates of complications such as diabetes appear at lower cutoffs

Wholey! I just learned a lot! And also learned that an alcohol soaked mind distorts conversations.. wait no I knew that already!

Music Blog.

You know it's been a while since I've done a good old fashion blog on music. So let me just blog on some music for a bit.

OOO, music dweebey fact :
After recently re-watching "High Fedelity" I decided to look up the band refered to by Dick as Licorice Comfits. The one he got at Vintage Vinyl that happened to be a japanese import only. I found out that this is a made up band. Guess they wanted to fuck with all the music snobs out there.

Okay but in all seriousness, I've been lacking a certain new variety in my music diet. I really want a new band to come grab me. Lately I've been sifting threw some oldies and some old favorites. Sonic Youth of course, Elliot Smith, PJ Harvey... well you get the picture. I'm happy to report I actually do enjoy about 4 tracks off the latest White Stripes album. I've been absorbing some metal but not really enjoying much of it. I like this band, "mouth of the architechs".

There are a few noteable upcoming shows that I got tickets for:

Eric's Trip with Elevator
High on Fire
The Locust

HPV Vaccine Controversy

It never ceases to amaze me how people are willing to throw away a good thing in the face of a little contraversey. We all know (or I should hope we all do) about the HPV vaccine and how Canada is about to (and in some provinces already has) launch mandated vaccine's for their girls grade 6 to 9. Of course someone's gotta complain about it.

So there's some questions surrounding the effectancy of the vaccine to protect against cervical cancer.. okay well lets consider HPV, an STD responsible for infecting over 70 percent of the population with at least one of it's over 100 different strains, hmmm let's look at those number. Granted the the vaccine only protects against 4 of the over 100 strains but by doing so illiminates the contraction of the 4 most common ones that a.) give you genital warts and b.) cause cervical cancer c.) have recently shown also may be a leading cause of throat cancer.

For a 400$ cost to our health care system, your wanting to risk your chances here? Damn are you retarded? Furthermore let's look at how easy it is to contract HPV. A condom cannot protect you from HPV. It can be passed by oral sex, it can be passed by simple skin to skin contact. That's how easy it is to catch HPV. And yes it is true that some instances of HPV can clear up and "cure" themselves but those aren't the ones you should be worried about. You should be worried about the ones that cause re-occuring bouts of cancerous cells on your cervex,causing cervical cancer. You should be worried about constant outbreaks of genital warts. Thats what your protecting yourself and others against by getting the vaccine. And do keep in mind, you aren't just doing this for yourself, your doing this for other people.

As for the other worries about sudden HPV vaccine death :

As of May of this year, more than 2,000 adverse Gardasil-related events were filed with the US FDA, including 239 cases of syncope (fainting and temporary loss of consciousness) and seven deaths. Whether or not these incidents were caused by the vaccine remains open to study, but suffice to say that any treatment has the potential for adverse effects, ranging from the merely unpleasant to the deadly.

Please note that bold sentence. Lots of people still have adverse reactions to their boosters vaccine. But everyone still gets their boosters.

You Know How Some People Seem to be Naturally Skinny? Well, they think they proved why.

Researchers say they've found the cure forobesity in a gene that apparently controls the level of fat your body stores similar to a volume nob. I'm skeptical but who knows. Although scientists claim to see a dramatic recovery in obese flies, it looks like the human race is going to have to wait some amount of "years" before getting to thinnify themselves with some kind of miracle drug. Surprise. Looks like we'll just have to you know, eat properly and get excercise.

You know on a seperate note, I'm fucking tired of people who don't know the difference between being fit and just being skinny. It's really agrivating. So for all you numb nuts out there that think having the body of a 13 year old girl means your healthy, I would like to interject with a peice of info from a good friend of mine in med school who stated : "an accurate way to educate ones health is not by weight and BMI testing, but by hip to waist ratio."

which makes a lot of damn good sense to me. I know a lot of volumptious ladies who some would more callously label as fat who are actually in better health than most skinny people because of a healthy hip to waiste ratio. You take you hips and devide by your waist and presto ratio (hope I got that right Erin) My friend tells me that 8 is an average healthy ratio. I'll get a quote from her momentarily rather than my re-interpreted jargen.

Tuesday, September 4, 2007

Feminists are Apparently to Blame for the Downfalls of Western Society

Why do anti-feminists always claim that feminism caused women to "wallow in victimhood" ? I hear/read this all the time. (Dr. Helen's commenters can be accused of using this statement to further their own hatred of feminism, as can so many more obvious places)

It's one of the first complaints I hear from anti-feminist and mysoginists. It's typical really. Feminism empowers women to stand up for themselves when they are being victomized and the anti-feminist turn it around, taking that empowerment, that confidence,control and bravery away by stating- "oh your wallowing in victomhood, you weak little woman."

I was reading about author and self-proclaimed feminist Laura Kipnis and her latest book "The Female Thing". I'm always interested in looking into "non-traditional" feminist theory, which I think this can be categorized as. Yet, after reading more about the author, she comes off as less a feminist and more of another "don't blame the boys" which is construed feminism in my book. To imply that men are the cause of female problems is a blame game just as it is to imply that women are to blame for their own problems. Is it not safe to say that anti-feminists and mysoginsts as well as RELIGION be the major guilty parties for the oppression of women over the years? And today's society suffers the media and misconceived notions of what it means to be feminine and a feminist.

Kipnis is interested in the inner woman, what she calls "feminism's unanticipated opponent", who can't seem to decide whether she wants to be dominated or domineering. If there is to be a feminist revival, she argues, we have to somehow reconcile the two.

See this statement is just silly. Frist off, can we please address which women she is refering to? You get this uncomfortable feeling, like with all blanket statements. For me this is so simple. Domineering or dominated!? Another mis-conception about Feminists, that they are domineering.. (hence are out to immaciate all the men!) and then this whole domination?!

One, such as me, could address this need/want to be dominated as a bedroom thing. I'm an assertive gal in most respects and won't let someone dominate over me in conversation. But sexual desire is perhaps another matter. I want to be "dominated" in bed by my very significant other. But this isn't to be confused with wanting to be dominated in my every day life. Shoved in a position of forced motherhood or office-bound secretary. It's instinct, it's the bedroom and it's a preference I share with countless other women.

"At this point in time it is not clear to me what feminism is."

Well clearly. Maybe you could, I dunno, try speaking to some feminists?

Speaking at this year's Edinburgh Book Festival, author Fay Weldon - a prominent second-wave libber - bemoaned the fact that today's young women feel there is no reason or cause for feminism. Kipnis is not surprised. If feminism has stalled, she says, it is because it failed to acknowledge the fact that girls also want to have fun.

Again, another mis-conception, that feminism is not needed, or "girls" aren't interested in feminism. But where does this "they just want to have fun" come in? This sounds like a dangerous statement to me... because it is. What is Kipnis implying here? Let's find out!

"I can see why young people would not want to be associated with a movement that focuses on campaigning against porn, and takes itself so seriously," says Kipnis.

Not porn oh no! we love porn cause gals these days are vapid sluts trying eagerly to please their men! (please insert the sarcasim as neccessary) and seriousness?! why, girls just wanna have fun don't you know? We're irresponsible, fun loving, weekly abortion having sex kittens!

"I understand why women might not want to call themselves feminists - unless it's a turn-on for their man, of course."

OH NO SHE DIDN'T! (talking the teenage speach now! I mean apparently all gals these days can do no more than that)

Kipnis takes an unashamedly lusty approach to sex, and explores its contradictions from her particular female perspective. "Heterosexual women cannot be indifferent to men," she says. "We want them in profound ways, and despite lip-service to independence and autonomy it remains the case that women's desire to attract and keep a man dictates an awful lot of how we relate to ourselves."

Oh dear god, read "the naked ape". 'nough said. It's like she's using sex to state what side of the fence your on. (as is common) She's like so many others are turning sex into a state of being rather than an act.
One's instinct to attract a mate shouldn't be confused with one's place in society.

She describes her book as "a report from someone with a conflicted female psyche", and is unashamed about exploring it. "There is ambivalence, there are splits, it is part of the human condition," she says. "There are splits between the desire for freedom and stability, for instance, and in terms of sexual desire, just scratch the surface and you come up with plenty. Take fantasy: one of the reasons why feminism has been rejected is that women want to be able to fantasise and have fun. They don't want it taken literally. Fantasy is not the same as wanting something to happen."

OKay wait, back-up. Who said feminism doesn't allow women to fantasize? WTF mate!?! It's the same thing with the porn. The major issue surrounding porn with me, isn't that it's desrespectful to women by showing them being plowed, poked and penitrated, it's that there's a shitload of porn that is sexualizing violence (which is a whole other rant soon to come) and exploiting the women involved in the industry, especially with the spike in independant porn in the light of the internet. Under-paid sex workers, violence to workers, an un-monitered and un-regulated sex industry, is a bad industry. That's how people get hurt. That's my biggest beef with strip clubs - by all means keep the strip clubs, but god damn, make sure they're strictly regulated for the safety of those employed there. But let's continue, here we go:

The argument is that we have to accept women have an erotic identification with violation. "The rape fantasy is quite key, quite central, but incredibly controversial," says Kipnis. "It is a sub-textual acknowledgement of women's propensity to masochism."

no... actually your just wrong and stupid... I know this because I have the rape fantasy, I'm gonna come out and say it because I can actually explain it. It is incredibly common to sexualize fears. All kinds of fears. Just because I fantasize this doesn't mean that I actually want it to happen. Think about it physically for a second, fear creates adrennaline, and adrennaline is exciting and that helps get you off pretty damn quick. It's also common for sexually abused children to fantasize about rape as adults, does that mean they want to be raped? NO! I also believe that the media is much to blame for this. Growing up and being subjected to images of dominated women. Women who kinda "fall" into sex rather than actually go for it. Women who are being saved and then the hero wins a kiss?! These are all images of dominated women where things happen to them, they don't actually do anything. One can also blame religion for the rape fantasy. Growing up as a Christian I learned that women aren't sapose to enjoy sex or even want it. It's a neccessary function that happens to a gal when she's married and one should be ashamed of their sexual desires. Therefore, if sex just happens to you, then you didn't really do anything wrong, did you? It's a very twisted thought process but quite true to someone who's been taught to suppress their natural urges. Let's continue:

She blames feminism, for banging on about defensive-sounding "empowerment" and insisting on portraying women as eternally at-risk. And, she says, new forms of sexual vulnerability are emerging, exemplified by the new legal classification of "unwanted sexual advance".

women are eternally at risk from where I sit. I dunno about you. I can't see rape going away any time soon, although in a perfect world it would. (incase you didn't notice sunshine, the world isn't perfect) "unwanted sexual advances" . wow, we're really undermining the reason for restraining orders and sexual harrassment cases aren't we. If being called repeatedly after declining romantic invitations were "unwanted sexual advances" then can one safely devise that a titty grab in a bar is what? I think any gal can safely admit that an ass grab deserves a slap in the face not a lawsuit, but a repeated assgrab by that same face slapped asshole, deserves some legal action, especially in cases of employment.

Blaming everything on the rapaciousness of men, she says, conveniently leaves female desire out of the story: "If anything has made recent feminism irrelevant and ridiculous, it's this reductiveness about desire and the embrace of victimology."

OH DEAR GOD! She's now turned into a poster gal for Dr. Helen. Acknowledging violence towards women does not make one a victim wallower! (is victimology even a word?) And am I crazy of is she implying that the desires of women (what? because some have rape fantasies?) are to blame for rape? Or in some way is she stating that we're trying to diminish the belief in rape fantasy's so that you know, rape still seen for the heinus crime it is? I'm sorry, but this doesn't make any sense and I'm trying to pull it together because female sexual desires have nothing to do with rape or violence, so why is she trying to marry the two?

"Early on there was a sense that changing the position of women in society would change society as whole, but that has not happened. Individuals may have gained advantages, but social inequality has increased: the rich are richer and the poor are poorer. What kind of achievement is that?"

Okay finally I can agree with her somewhat... but lady, is feminism to blame for not being able to transform all of western society?! That's pretty unfair to feminism and all the good it has done.

From there, she gets to talking about motherhood and equity, I don't disagree much but she also isn't offering any solutions to the problem women face with motherhood. She's just stating the obvious. Obviously we all know that there needs to be more support to make child-rearing possible. Oh but she says it more crasly and says "to make child rearing more rewarding"... god. But wait! Then she get's all weird:

She believes that the overbearing style of today's former careerists turned full-time mothers is breeding selfish narcissists who will surely perpetuate our problems. "You have to wonder what industrial-strength varieties of neurosis will soon be appearing in this generation of over-parented children as they near adulthood," she writes.

So one moment women can't afford enough time for their children and the next they can afford too much. Either way they end up ruining their children acording to Kipnis. It sounds like Kipnis is a very confused 51 year old lady. (and sexually repressed)

"But in the largest sense I am interested in more freedom for all, regardless of gender. I believe there should be much more economic justice, and I would like to see feminism keep that in mind. Now, it's not just about women, but greater equity right across the board."

Obviously feminism is about equality. Kipnis doesn't seem to think that men are treated fairly even tho (at least in this article) she doesn't state how men are treated unfairly, only that feminism places blame on men for their woes (which could be more correctly defined as oppression and inequality but you know it's apparently a gray area...right)

Okay her other book I would probably read :
I her previous book, Against Love, Kipnis examined coupledom and concluded that adultery is nature's way of keeping marriage alive. In this one, she identifies household chores as the sex war's front line, commenting that "men's refusal to really share the housework isn't just the big hurdle for gender equality: the whole future of heterosexual marriage probably hangs in the balance".

But when I find my very significant other lagging in that department I just tell him and he makes the extra effort to clean.

Reflecting that some women say cleaning helps them to deal with their feelings about their bodies, Kipnis says: "Perhaps the shape of the problem begins to come into focus: the household and the body stand in for each other at some sort of not entirely conscious level. But here's the complication: wouldn't scrubbing away at unwelcome feelings also serve the dual purpose of confirming them? Can you scrub away an existential condition?"

No but you can lose some weight while your cleaning and not live in squaller. Man, everyone's gotta clean. Cleaning is neccessary and I suppose that some women could feel better having acomplished something physical that day. I think someone's reaching here...

At the end of this article I really wanted to dismiss Kipnis as an older lady who's *shocker* just not impressed by the younger generation. Oh and she says this:one book she would recommend for a 15-year-old girl is Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex. "It is really radical, far more thinking than most," she says. "She tries to be scathingly honest and there's a refreshing lack of sentimentality, which is the great feminine downfall."

oh that last statement makes me wanna slap her. And finally :

And if there was one warning? "Make sure you are secure with your own income source. It is absurd and naive to assume that you are going to be supported by a man for the rest of your life."

I don't know any younger gal who thinks a man is gonna take care of her.. Someone's a little out of touch with the younger generations. YA THINK? Oh and Cindy Lauper is so 1980's even if she did make that little come-back with Cher! Don't recude my generation to a 25 year old Cindy Lauper pop-hit.

If you wanna read the article: it's here!

Dolly Mix!

Check out this entry on DollyMix. It's pretty damn funny. I know I'm a little late posting it. Sorries!

Thursday, August 30, 2007

Facebook Weirdos...

So I know this isn't fem news, or canadian news but I just had to blog about facebook strangers. Does anyone else have trouble with facebook strangers? I always get the weirdest comments from complete strangers to my inbox. Over the last month I've received 3 enquiries from different people wondering if I'm their long lost, sister, daughter, and neice. I've posted about the retard Cliff who was bugging me before and blocked me for some reason, even tho he was the one who was pestering me??! strange.. today I get some random guys correcting me on my list of bands and then trying to be friendly, because you know, if you wanna make friends with someone you should always correct them to make yourself look superior first.

Anyway, does anyone else get weird "stranger" emails from facebook?

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Dr. Helen on Domestic Violence.

Oh Dr Helen, Dr. Helen

You have to wonder what kind of crazies she "hears" from. Cause you know if you got nothing to blog about, then you just make stuff up!?

Here's how today entry started:

When it comes to domestic violence, we're frequently told hear that men getting hit doesn't matter because even if men get hit, they are rarely hurt.

(Oh yeah, and she spelt the wrong "here" but who am I to care about spelling and grammar errors)

If reciprocal violence results in more injuries

what if one person hits their attacker, there might be more injuries?! Are you serious!?

By focusing only on men, women never get the help they need to reduce violence. The false notion that men perpetrate the majority of domestic violence and women are on the receiving end just doesn't seem to be holding up in study after study.

It's a shame all the studies she links all lean in favour of the commissioners opinion.

I always love Dr. Helen's domestic violence posts because of how they attempt to demonize women... not that most of her other posts don't do that as well. Anyone with any ounce of brains knows that men are victim of domestic violence as well. Dr. Helen however is of the opinion that men are the majority of domestic violence victims just like she believes that the majority of men who are accused of rape, are in fact falsely accused.

To really grasp how fucked up Dr. Helen is, please read her "about me" section. It gives you a perspective on her general outlook on western society and people.

I think Dr. Helen's mission statement should be changed to "Let's make cookies so the boys will like us"

Monday, August 27, 2007

Dear God...

More backwards thinking from Dr. Helen!

I have been reading the fascinating new book by KC Johnson and Stuart Taylor on the Duke Lacrosse fiasco entitled, Until Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case. The book brings to light the factors that led to three innocent men being railroaded by the criminal justice system and by a society that presumes white men are guilty by virtue of their sex and race.

God, need I say more? The women needs a dose of reality. Or maybe she needs to walk around as a minority for a few years.

Lady Not Allowed In Club Because of Size

I meant to blog on this a few days ago when I frist read the article but the weekend was insane.

I dunno if this is true or not. I've been to the Dome and although I fully hate it and can't understand why anyone would want to go there, I've seen plenty of full-figured women in there. Although I'm not sure I can say I've seen anyone specifically over-weight. But why the hell would you wanna go to that glorified meat market when you can go to the Attic upstairs and hear some good music.

Anyway, I feel bad that the gal has met this kind of descrimination. At the very least she can make the owners look like scum bags if the business bureau won't take any action.

Why You Should Use The F-Word More Often.


"The Hoya" Georgetown University's newspaper published a nice article on why we should use the "f-word" more often. That F-word being Feminism.

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Something about feminism not being neccessary?

It's not even 9 oclock in the morning and already I gotta read this crap.This article from the Times touches on an article I blogger on earlier in the week. And this is the second time I've seen this :

Only the older career woman, worried about a life ahead without a family to fall back on, still feels there is a battle to be fought.

Since when is a family a fall back plan? Confusion. Is that how men really view their families..?

Okay let me attack this:

At a stroke, Ms Weldon seemed also to be disposing of the famous Naomi Wolf argument, which once claimed that the fashion and cosmetics industry, dominated by men, dictated how women should look, forcing them to strive for a state of impossible, male-imagined, perfection. Those goals are still there, of course – in fact if anything they are more demanding than ever – but they are set, or rejected, by women.


OKay then the author goes on about books with wives of domestic virtue...

The article gets better sort of... but I fear that I don't understand what the authors acutal point is other than disliking the work of Ms Greer...

Anyway the whole beginning of the article was just aweful... and man am I ever hungover!?

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Apparently the Common Cold Now Causes Obesity

This article claims that a virus that causes the common cold can now be blamed for causing obesity.... for gods sake. People will stop at nothing!? We all know the cause of obesity... why are scientists wasting money on stupid research like this?

Monday, August 20, 2007

Because, Glamour Has Been the World's Leading Expert in The Wage Gap Since 1939...

This study coinsides with a Glamour article (November 2006) I was reading last week entitled "Are You Normal at Work?" The article stated that only 32 percent of women ages 25-34 clock 35 or more hours per week. Apparently, part-time work and flexible work are important to women as 80% of women polled say they'd take extended time off to care for family in the future. Perhaps some of what we call unequal pay, particularly as women get older is the choice of many women to take off time to raise families, a noble endeavor. To really evaluate how much gender discrimination plays a part in pay, studies must focus on the same job performed by men and women working exactly the same number of hours in today's market with the same requirements.

I've heard this arguement before and I still think it's retarded. It only makes perfect sense that Dr. Helen would believe this. Instead of realising that women are being punished for having careers and not being the stay-at-home mom, Dr.Helen explains that it's us ladies fault for making less money than the "hardworking" men.It's almost as if she's saying, work or childcare. In Dr. Helen's opinion you apparently can't have both. So you know all those single women working to support their children.. you know they made their choice..right... But Dr. Helen wouldn't take these circumstances into account.

But you know, if Glamour Magazine said it....

"ladies these day's don't know how lucky they are"


I can't help but think this is just a "you young women don't appreciate your freedome" speach, rather than someone being blatantly ignorant to pressent day sexism.

We get it. We know that women 30,40,50,60, 500 years ago had way worse than we do now. But did the women of the 60's roll over and say, "hey, at least we don't have it as bad the women 50 years ago?!" and therefore dropped a pursuit of equaility? NO! They didn't.

Then there are dumb statements like these:

"Men have them and are terrifically interested in them till about 45," she said, "and then their interests can shift to their wives and families. But working women, they don't have time, so they don't have this other fall-back situation."

Which I find quite insulting. Cause you know, men's families are "fall-back plans" when their jobs are no longer fulfilling...great..

I'm sure she didn't mean it quite like that... I hope she didn't mean it quite like that.

Thursday, August 16, 2007

Toronto Strippers Taking a Stand.

I meant to blog on this yesterday.

My opinion is, let em dance. By not allowing immigrant women to work in strip clubs your not stopping exploitation or making a dent in the sex trade industry. It's that whole thing all over again. Limiting the rights of women are not going to stop horrible things from happening to them. Can we please address the real issue!? Why not place heavier surveillance in the strip clubs to monitor possible human trafficking, and drugs? Honestly, stripping has been around forever. It's not gonna go away (nor does it have to) and these women should be able to work in these clubs just like Canadian women, if they so choose. I'm be a lot more worried about regulating the clubs than stripping strippers of their rights.

Quebec Mennonite Parents Fear Losing Their Children to Child Services.

Mennonites, Canada's Amish well, not really.

A Mennonite group consisting of about 15 families are forced to relocate because of what they say is a local intolerance of their religion. Child services was threatening to take away children Mennonite children from their homes because the children were not attending government approve schools.

For the school to be legal, the teacher would have to be certified and Quebec's official curriculum would have be taught.

"To do that, we would have to send teachers to schools we don't want to send our children to," Mr. Goossen said.

Community members disapprove of other schools because "we don't agree with the emphasis

on evolution, which we consider false; we don't like the morality standards; and we don't like the acceptance of alternative lifestyles," he said.

Okay, I am not very tolerant of religious beliefs when they are imposed on myself or others. But I feel a little bad for these people even tho they don't want to teach evolution, and think homosexuality is a sin. However, I only feel bad that they are being threatened. But I do believe their children have a right to a proper education (not that any of East Coasters got a proper education. jk.) I know Mennonites from back home who went to school with everyone else. I would assume that their parents taught them that evolution was not part of their religion. One can still learn evolution and reject it (although it's pretty damn hard cause evolution is god damn fact, but that's what they're scared of right)

Obviously, I don't agree raising your children in a censored environment. Which is very much what some of the more extreme Mennonite groups do. Limiting knowledge is just dangerous. Breeding ignorance is dangerous, but that's how religions like these work. Control.

But this is a more extreme group.One of my friends grew up as a Mennonite. She still goes to church but she doesn't follow the more strict teachings, such as the banning of technology.

It's hard, because when religion is involved, you don't want to step on any ones toes. But religions that cause harm have been shut down. So does the limiting of education inflict harm? I would say yes. But taking children away from families..No. There must be some compromise here? Sadly, I don't have an answer. It would be nice if they just sent their kids to school... you know to at least learn tolerance.

Antimisandry crashed PunkOttawa!

This Punk Ottawa thread was crashed by Marx from yesterday. I just had to post it cause it's quite comical. Thanks to steve and jordanna for their awesome posts!

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

Man Kills Wife, Kills Himself, it's like a big 'ol american trend.

So I was bugging wing-nuts on Dr. Helen's page again. They've got their chastity belts all in a knot over that about the Winkler case. It's a tough case! I wouldn't know what to convict her of either. Self defense? Could really can't tell from the evidence mentioned in the articles. They are all mad over there and think she got off light cause she is a women. But personally I think that's just silly. So I send them a list of men getting off light from the They promptly accuse me of being an idiot because those are Canadian listings. So I start googling for US listings and I was shocked!! The number of pop-ups I got weren't that men were getting off light, it was like a plague of men, murdering their wives, and families and then shooting or hanging themselves!

Here's the search I did first.
You can find even more if you narrow the search.

It hit me though, I wonder what this is all about? There are so many listings in the last couple years that it seems like common place. However, I have only found 2 articles where a man killed his wife and was then arrested. No sentence mentioned in the documents tho.

If anyone can find more info about US wife slayings I'd like to see. It just seems so shocking at the homicide then suicide rate over there...

Another Mom Blaiming Article.

Blaming pregnant mommy.
Researchers say kids likely to crave unhealthy fare if their mothers ate junk food while pregnant

Hear that ladies? Your bad! Bad women! You have determined that your child's fate as a fatty with your horrible lust for junk food while pregnant!! (insert sarcasm please)

Okay, let's just review this article for a begins with:

A little ice cream and the occasional pickle is one thing.

(wait whats wrong with pickles?and ice cream has calcium right? But if the London Royal Veterinary College says so...

A Harvard University study released earlier this year showed that women who gain excessive weight while expecting were four times more likely to bear children who were overweight by age three than those who remained slimmer during gestation

no way?! you mean if you put on weight then the baby growing inside you will too?

But it's also been suggested that these mothers raise fatter kids because they continue poor eating habits long after giving birth, and pass these on to their children.

really?! poor eating habits cause children to be overweight!? no... it couldn't be.. I mean, noo.... your joking..

OKay, then the study claims that mothers who eat fatty, salty, sweet foods will actually "re-wire" a babies brain while in utero, to crave those food all their lives! So wait, I guess that means that before said mother ate deliciously unhealthy food, that the baby would have grown up as a perfect being who would be pre-disposed to enjoy only food of the utmost healthy quality.

oh and the researchers used rats for this... which they say "removed human social, cultural and psychological factors that could prompt youngsters to choose burgers, chips and doughnuts." Because they have done this, they are saying that it proves a direct link between a maternal junk food diet and the development of the appetite. I'm sorry but this sounds like horse-shit to me. I can't believe they'd waste money on something like this. Are they not taking in account that humans have their free will and ability to choose what tastes they find preferable?

Why are people constantly looking for a way to explain obesity when the answer is obvious? I'm so sick of these damn studies. Not a day goes by before I see another one. And apparently we must now blame mothers everywhere for "re-programming" their children to be fatty,sugary,salty eating machines before they even have a chance to try solid food! Bad mothers! Your fattify-ing the entire population! If only you could show more restraint while pregnant and horrible uncomfortable, and starving constantly, and puking, and not sleeping, and being kicked by your child, poked and prodded by doctors we wouldn't have fat kids everywhere!!!

The fact of the matter is, shit does get passed to your baby in utero. Stuff that fucks it up, like drugs for instance. But what they're suggesting is "re-wiring" of the brain and that's just silly. You want a baby that's not overweight then get a copy of the Canadian food guide. Don't blame yourself because you binged on some french fries. The messed up this also, is that the article never states how much weight gain during pregnancy is "excessive".

Tuesday, August 14, 2007

Aggressive Panhandlers slay man in Toronto.

Crack Heads !

Well I can't help but think the particular people who took part in the slaying were actually 21 year old x-run-away kids.

I'm deeply disturbed at how bad Ontario cities have it right now in regards to the homeless population. It's happened now that crack is so cheap (less than $3 a rock) that more and more of the homeless population are addicted. I live off the main drag in ottawa and am asked for change every two blocks at least. All of the panhandlers I encounter are either high or drunk. When is Ontario going to wake up and do something about this? When are they going to fix the system?obviously these people weren't always like this.What cracks did they slip though? It's so sad. Ottawa is such a beautiful city, we don't want hostile streets.

I'm Engaged!

Yeah, I decided to out-myself on here. I just realised this is the only blog I haven't made the announcement. We're getting married next summer!

Oh Dr. Helen... hours of entertainment.

Wait, maybe I should just call my blog "trashing bigots" . What do you think?

So I've been reading Dr. Helen's blog..okay you have to check it out cause she's just so silly. For someone who claims to have so much education, you'd think that critical thinking would have let her address her own bias.

Exhibit A failure to address authors descriminatory mark about the donation of left over eggs. Heterosexuals only!

Dr. Helen isn't all bad, but for the most part she's just plain silly. I like the article on tipping where she's saying the best tip is when someone told her she'd better get a better attitude if she wished to get a career in waitressing. Now everyone who's ever waitressed has had a customer like that. But Dr. Helen says "I left shortly afterwards, realizing that what she said was true--with my personality, I had no future in waitressing" I know I'm just harping on the smaller things she's said on her blog.. but I'm of the opinion she can't be someone with a lot of redeeming qualities anyway. If I know one thing, it's that people who can put up with the horrifying treatment that a waitress receives just to make ends meat, have amazing will power, drive and tolerance. Dr. Helen, couldn't have needed her job very badly... Anyway, she also has a whole paragraph on tipping. She also says:

I have also noticed that hairdressers and spa services charge more than psychologists get for an hour of psychotherapy from Medicare, our share? 67.00 per 60-75 minutes. I went to my hairdresser yesterday, and was there an hour and a half--my total bill: $110.00. You could say that the poor hairdresser has to pay for being in the spa, but try the overhead of a professional office, it's probably more

I'm sorry but if you've got $110 dollars to blow at a salon, then your making some good cash lady.. and btw, the overhead costs of hairdressing is substantial! You'r paying for product they use in your hair while your their (incl. shampoo, gels, spray, dye, tools) plus time for cutting your damn hair perfectly.

oh then, she says :

If doctors and professionals can deal with people who balk at having to pay a five dollar co-pay for their care, then massage therapists and hairdressers etc. can tolerate not getting the whopping tip they think they deserve each and every time.

okay wait a second... is she comparing doctor's salaries to hairdressers salaries and saying they're equal.. I'm sorry... am I misreading her? Correct me if I am please. I can't understand why someone with "education" could say something like this...

OKay so maybe I'm still mad at her for cutting up feminism and being too stupid to see the goals of feminism. Maybe I'm still bitter because she's so sucked into the idea that feminism is about female superiority and not equality... yes I am. So? What ya gonna do about it? I think I should do a weekly blog on her.