Lip-Shtick Service 

A few weeks ago, I decided that I definitely needed to start wearing makeup again. But there was a problem.

I’m not sure if I’ve ever even mentioned it.

You see, I’m a ginger. I know, I know. It’s so surprising. I’ve never even had the courage to tell my parents. But it’s a relief that I can finally bring it up.

 Being a ginger means a lot of things: not getting to wear orange, buying sunscreen by the palette, having my parentage questioned, being touched without my permission, and having limited choices in makeup. Or so I thought.

As I perused the Internet for makeup suggestions for redheads, I came across article after article by non-gingers that, more often than not, had no actual redheads in them.1 I was beginning to lose hope when I came across this video featuring makeup artist Mary Greenwell. She was explaining how she did Jessica Chastain’s makeup. I figured that a professional makeup artist who has worked with a natural redhead might know get shit when it comes to makeup for redheads. In the video, she said redheads can wear any color.

After recovering from the massive fainting spell that caused, I began to wonder if that could possibly be true. So I got myself some lipstick2 and decided to try out her theory. And to save my fellow gingers3 from having to look at pictures of Emma Stone & Christina Hendricks, I decided to post about it.4

I don’t have any dark lipsticks, nor do I have any neon/vibrant color lipsticks. I want to buy some plums and darker shades, but, because I can’t otherwise see myself wearing them, I will only try vibrant ones if someone else foots the bill for them.

In all of these pictures, the only makeup I have on is the lipstick that I’m demonstrating.

Continue reading Lip-Shtick Service 

  1. OMG. Emma Stone, Christina Hendricks are NOT redheads. A bottle of dye does not a ginger make. Stop saying they’re redheads. 

  2. By got myself, I mean that I bought them and the comments listed below are not influenced by any company, spokesperson, etc. They are my opinions and words. 

  3. Because I’m nice, not because I’m a shill. 

  4. You’re welcome. 

Review: For Such a Time

For Such a Time
For Such a Time by Kate Breslin
My rating: 1 of 5 stars
Recommended for: Anne Rice; anyone who thinks that the dislike of this book is unfounded; bigots

I’ve read many books that I could classify as “bad books” over the years, but this one is quite special in how awful it truly was. There was nothing enjoyable about Kate Breslin’s debut novel For Such a Time.

First, let’s tackle something that was brought up repeatedly in the book and in its official descriptions. The lead female character Hadassah Benjamin (known through most of the novel as Stella Muller) has blonde hair and blue eyes. On the back of the copy I checked out of the local library, it is specifically described as, “her Aryan-like looks allow her to hide behind the false identity of Stella Muller.” According to the official description on Amazon’s app, the description starts, “In 1944, blonde and blue-eyed Jewess Hadassah Benjamin feels abandoned by God when she is saved from a firing squad only to be handed over to a new enemy.” On page 14 of the story, she is described this way, “Morty once told her that her beauty would save her–a “changeling,” he’d called his young niece, Stella’s blond hair and blue eyes a rarity among their people.” Early in the war, this might have protected her, but it wouldn’t have been guaranteed. When you consider that Werner Goldberg, the man who was literally the poster boy for the Aryan ideal, was expelled from the army in 1940 when it was discovered he was a “1st degree Mischilinge” and had to help his father escape a hospital in 1943 so that he wouldn’t be deported to Auschwitz, you can be sure that appearance wouldn’t guarantee the safety of a non-influential light-haired, light-eyed Jewish girl. And the supposed rarity of the trait is questionable due to the fact that now 32% of German-Jewish children also have blond hair. Brown (light and dark) and black hair each have slightly percentages than that. One would assume that the dark hair stereotype is just that, a stereotype. By focusing so much attention on the appearance of this woman who is also described as a savior, it is promoting a white supremacist ideal of beauty and moral value, while simultaneously justifying that ideal’s belief of punishing those who don’t fit their narrow standards of beauty.

Somehow her beauty is able to trick Aric into believing that she isn’t really Jewish and that the papers that have been stamped saying that she is must have been wrong. Aric will eventually blame her for not telling him that she is Jewish and for not telling him that she did not support the Nazi’s cause. This is after he has seen her traumatized at the brutal killing of Anna while in a camp. He saw that this broke her spirit, but he believes she still might be willing to support Hitler and his group of bigoted, sociopathic thugs.

Her beauty and position as Aric’s secretary also seem to convince every Nazi officer that she must be a prostitute. She even calls herself a “brazen hussy” when she is forced to kis Hermann in order to save the life of Joseph, Aric’s houseboy. And Hermann muses that she is a sorceress using her beauty to bewitch the Commandant into sympathizing with the prisoners. (Of course, Hermann also calls women weak-minded and mere vessels for man’s use, so he’s not exactly a great example of non-sexist thinking.)

Another serious issue is the repeated use of rape and assault as a way to threaten Hadassah/Stella into doing things & the underlying Stockholm Syndrome-esque quality of the relationship between her and Aric. When she first meets Aric von Schmidt, she tells him that the Gestapo assaulted her in some way and suggests that it may have been a sexual assault attempt. He classifies their behavior as a prank. Twenty five pages into the book, he threatens her with being returned to Dachau while he tries to seduce her. She is reminded over and over that she is essentially his prisoner, that she has no true sense of free will or personhood, but that she should be thankful for his saving her and for his attraction to her. When she has a traumatic flashback in a nightmare around page 47, Aric expects her to be thankful that he’s moved her to Czechoslovakia with him, but he’s threatening her with being sent back. He even uses sexual innuendo in these conversations, while having no regard for the suffering that she has been through. All that he cares about is that attraction he has. And he tries to make that attraction seem more important than what he knows, as he witnessed some of it, she’s been through. He threatens her when she doesn’t want to do as he has told her, tells her he will send her to Dachau for not eating, forces her to eat food pork, forces her to type of the lists sending prisoners to Auschwitz, forces her to sit through meals as Aric and other SS officers talk about the benefits of slave labor in the camps and ghettos, threatens to kill people unless she kisses him, and forces her to agree to marry him. As I read the story, I saw his behavior as similar to Christian Grey’s behavior in the Fifty Shades series, only Aric was so much more vile.

When the book started, Hadassah saw Aric as a “Jew Killer” and a potential threat to her safety. By page 82, she has begun to trust him, while knowing that he could turn on her at any moment if he found out who/what she really is. This is so reminiscent of Stockholm Syndrome. She is living in the home of an SS-Commandant and sees him as a good person who doesn’t really want to hurt Jews. She doesn’t recognize that he continuously fails to show real compassion for the prisoners in his camp–only trying to help the people who he knows and likes. It horrifies her when the General dismisses the life of Joseph, but it doesn’t horrify her that Aric is dismissive over any life other than Joseph in Theresienstadt. He doesn’t feel guilt over the absue of Morty or the sending of Sophie to Auschwitz for having rotten teeth. She doesn’t recognize that he has never truly shown her real compassion. He’s just treated her as a possession. One that he could rid himself of at any time. And he is continually pushed upon the reader as a hero? I don’t think so.

Throughout the book, there are moments of antisemitism that made me cringe. When Aric gives Hadassah a red wig to wear to cover her nearly bald head, it is a potential use of red hair as a symbol of Judaism. While not explained in the book, red hair and antisemitism have been linked for around two thousand years. Judas Iscariot was portrayed as a redhead. Lilith, the first wife of Adam, was portrayed with red hair. Liars, thieves, murderers, etc. would be described as having red hair. Any time there was racist propaganda, including art for nobles, Jews would be given red hair. Red hair was a symbol of a person who couldn’t be trusted. Even though Hitler didn’t believe redheads to automatically be Jews, he did believe that red hair was indicative of a person who could not be trusted. The red wig being used in the book until her identity was discovered was clearly an example of this continued stereotype.

The magical Bible that always seems to show up when Hadassah is losing hope is a different symbol of antisemitism. Instead of solely focusing on the books within it that are shared between the Jewish and Christian faiths, Hadassah ends up focusing on ones in the New Testament, including John 3:16. The author manages to, by page 311, convert a Jewish woman to Christianity, turning her into a Christian saving the poor Jews in the camp rather than an empowered Jewish woman helping her fellow Jews escape their oppressor. It is almost like the author could not allow Hadassah to be herself while executing the escape. She had to become someone different. She even says that she believes that God had abandoned her, Marty, and other Jews, while staying with Aric and Marta, her Christian friend. Considering that part of her conversion is inspired by her relationship with Aric, Marta’s past attempts to convert her, the atrocities taking place around her, this could be considered a forcible conversion. forcible conversions are an atrocity Jews were made to endure for two thousand years that promised them safety, but was often used to further segregate them within society. (They would not be trusted by Christians or by Jews after their conversion.) During the Holocaust, these conversions were simultaneously supported and condemned by the Catholic church.

Conversions like this are considered religious cleansing, which like ethnic cleansing, is a type of persecution and is not something that one should find “inspirational” as this novel seems to suggest. This is a type of violence being perpetrated on a person based upon their religion. Why is it being celebrated? Coerced and forced conversions and “inspirational” propaganda that promotes them like this have been condemned by groups like the Anti-Defamation League, “The history of the Jewish people is filled with tragic incidents of forced conversions, resulting in the death of untold numbers of Jews throughout the centuries…More recently, there has been an increase in the use of deceptive tactics by so-called ‘Messianic Jews’ targeting Jews for conversion. This new document makes clear that Christians using deception and aggression to missionize non-Christians is not only inappropriate, but a betrayal of Christian values.”

The suffering of Aric over being injured is also representative of antisemitism. He was in the hospital for a year, which lead to his offer of a position within the SS as Commandant at the camp. Hadassah has more sympathy for his year in the hospital than she has for her friends, her neighbors, and her relatives who have been taken from their homes, stripped of their citizenship, and treated like vermin for years. He’s in pain, so she feels sorrow for him. She feels less sorrow for the torture and murder of many lives she knew before the war. His suffering is portrayed as more important than theirs. Hadassah is told by Grossman that the only place a disabled Wehrmacht soldier like Aric or like Grossman could find work was within the SS; that the Wehrmacht wouldn’t want them after they were injured and that employers within Germany would not employ a soldier injured in the war. (Apparently the author has never heard of Claus von Stauffenberg, who was injured in the war and was still allowed to work for the Wehrmacht. He also was part of Operation Valkyrie, an attempt by people within the Wehrmacht to kill Hitler.) He admits that he joined the Wehrmacht willingly a decade before and believed for the next ten years that Hitler was doing the right thing, and she still supports him. Hadassah even pities that Aric is “far from the excitement of battle”, knowing that he would be fighting to continue to abuse the rights and the bodies of so many. She is more concerned with getting him away from Hitler’s reach than helping persecuted individuals get away.

There’s also a portrayal of Jews as being less educated than the Nazis. Jewish characters have poor grammar, while the SS officers have proper grammar. They are portrayed by the author as being less trustworthy, less loyal, and more prone to bad behavior/mischief than the Nazi characters. Morty’s acts as the Judenrat, acts which are grossly distorted, are seen as more vile than the beatings inflicted by the officers, the attempts to murder Hadassah and Aric by the officers, sending people to Auschwitz for bad teeth, etc. His failure to be perfect morally is seen as more grotesque than the atrocities that are being committed right in front of the characters. And Hadassah is actually shocked when she finds out that SS officers have no regard for the lives of Jews. This seems completely unrealistic.

What alarmed me most was that this book seemed to lift certain elements from the lives of real individuals. For example, the alias of Stella Muller. There was a Holocaust survivor by the name of Stella Müller who was “saved” by a Nazi along with other Holocaust prisoners. She was one of the real individuals saved by Oskar Schindler by being sent by train to Czechoslovakia. Various other elements from Schindler’s story (including the theatrical version of it) were also present in this novel, including the use of red apparel (a hat instead of a coat) to distinguish an innocent individual and ash and soot being used to symbolize a life having no value to outsiders. Then there was the lack of value placed upon the lives and stories of the real prisoners of Theresienstadt when the author took real events, like the Red Cross investigation and the subsequent closing of the camp, and moved it to another date so that it would coincide with Purim? Was it so necessary to retell the story of Esther that the author needed to change real events and erase real suffering to do so?

Aside from the many issues with racism, religious violence, sexism, the abusive nature of Aric and Hadassah’s relationship, the historical inaccuracies, the potential appropriation of identities and stories of others, and the general grossness that was promoted throughout this book, the book was also poorly written. Even if all the other issues were changed, the book would still be full of purple prose. I am flummoxed by how this book managed to attract any fans, positive reviews, or awards, or how any person who has seen the recent criticism of the year-old book can see that criticism as censorship.1 If a person writes a truly awful book and people point that out to them, that isn’t censorship. This book deserves all of the criticism that it is receiving. The author may not have meant to write a book that is so offensive as this one is, but she accomplished that anyway.

I’m not always a fan of “inspirational” stories, but I have never seen one so callously written, with so much disdain for the suffering that was endured by so many. I cannot imagine anyone feeling truly inspired by this book. How does a book “inspire” when it romanticizes mass murder, racism, and abuse? How could any person see that as a way to inspire people of faith?

View all my reviews | Amazon | LibraryThing

Continue reading Review: For Such a Time

  1. Anne Rice’s claim. She doesn’t believe in people writing negative reviews if they haven’t read a book. Her lack of reading the book didn’t stop her from defending it from people who had. 

I’ll Take Missing the Point for $200, Alex

There is a difference between pointing out to someone that they have a weight issue and “calling” them fat. When it is used as an insult, it’s meant to degrade and objectify the person. It’s meant to tell them that they are worthless because that’s how media portrays overweight/obese people. I’m not completely sure how it works within the context of a partnered relationship, but calling someone fat is definitely a form of verbal and psychological abuse.

Interestingly, there is a correlation of various types of abuse in childhood and a person’s likelihood of one day being an overweight or obese adult. So, it may be considered aggressive to call an adult fat because it could potentially trigger that person to think about issues that they had as a child and abuse that they went through at that time. I base that on my personal experiences of being called fat as an adult triggering memories of childhood abuse that was related to my weight and that actually caused the weight.

Last night, I posted that comment as a response to someone saying, “How is telling someone they are fat abusive? Some people are fat. That’s how they’re bodies are. Is it that calling them fat is abusive or is it making their perceived fatness into an insult that is abusive? Because telling me I’m fat is like telling me I’m crude. Neither may be meant as a compliment, but both are correct.” I thought I had done a decent job with my response. I didn’t see how anyone could find it offensive, but apparently I was wrong and now my inbox is paying for my mistake.

First, from the person I initially responded to:

I do not have a “weight issue”. Fuck that shit. You may have an issue with my weight, but I’m just fat. Do not try to tell me that the way I am is an insult or that likening other people to me is abuse.
That’d be great.”

And, then, the ones where people obsessed on the first line and disregarded everything else.

But why would you point that out to anyone? It’s not like they don’t know! It’s not like it’s any of your fucking business! So you want to go around, pointing out the obvious to someone, that they have failed to live up to modern standards of the appropriate size, that people are judging them for that every day, and you think that’s not rude? On what fucking planet?

The only difference I can see is that one method is deemed* “politer” than the other. But telling someone either way is fucking rude.

*by idiots who think that the exact content of the message is important.”

“There’s also (and I’m prolly repeating at least one person, but wottheheck) the matter that being fat is not automatically an issue. Fat doesn’t equal unhealthy, but even if it did, it’s still rude and stupid to bring the matter up with someone, especially a stranger.

“No, they’re pretty much the same thing, except that the former is more passive-aggressive. I mean, why would you tell someone that? They know what they weigh. If you’re worried abou their health, well, diets don’t work in the long term. And being fat is much much less of a health issue than most people think.

It’s a bit like walking up to someone with a mole on their cheek and saying, “hey you’ve git a mole on your cheek!” It serves no purpose except to make that person feel more self-conscious.

And studies have shown that making people self-conscious about their weight is more likely to lead to weight gain than weight loss.”

“I can’t imagine a situation in which it would be helpful or appropriate for anyone (other than a person’s medical advisers) to make uninvited comments on a person’s weight.”

“Re: People pointing out how much others weigh: I fucking hate that.

I avoid going out to meet relatives and certain acquaintances if I even have the slightest suspicion that I’ve put on weight since the last time we met. I’m unfortunate enough to know way too many people who just love pointing out that I’ve gained some weight. Most of all I hate meeting SO’s mother, who takes these really annoying shots at tapping at my belly and smiling mockingly. Who does that? Do people like this really think I haven’t noticed I’ve gained weight? Do they seriously think being mocked for it is going to inspire me to lose weight? If running 10-16 km a day and eating around 1,000 calories less than what I need in a day isn’t making me lose fat, then I don’t know what to tell you. Not that they’d believe all this, of course, since being overweight is just a sign of being lazy and loving to eat and shitfuckshitfuckargh

(And no, I’m not saying men are generally shamed for being fat. I guess I just have fucking annoying people around me and a tendency to take things far too personally.)”

“So, um, why do we need to point out to people that they have “a weight issue”? People presumably know roughly what their own weight and/or size is, given that they have to, you know, buy clothes for themselves and stuff. Are you under the impression that you are giving them new and potentially revelatory information when you oh so kindly inform them that they are not slim?

I’m just not seeing how being passive-aggressive about it makes it any nicer, or why people are doing it in the first place.”

““Oh, hey! Did you know that you’re in a wheel chair? Is it because you can’t walk, or are you just THAT LAZY?”


STFU -_-;”

““You are short! Like, really short!”

“I had noticed, yeah.”

“Well, have you considered getting taller? I hear they can do marvelous things now by breaking the bones in your legs and putting bits of metal in.””

So, I tried to clear up any misunderstandings:

I think everyone is reading something into that post that I didn’t say or, at the very least, didn’t mean to even suggest.

When I said: There is a difference between pointing out to someone that they have a weight issue and “calling” them fat.
I meant: There is a difference between a doctor or a nurse pointing out to a patient that they need to lose weight and someone else calling someone fat as an insult. Calling a person fat is the same thing as insulting them. It doesn’t matter if the person is or is not fat, being fat is being used as a way to define them as a person, instead of other things like how they act. Now, a doctor or a nurse pointing it out can still be just as upsetting as someone else doing it, but they’re not using it to dehumanize a person.

When I said: When it is used as an insult, it’s meant to degrade and objectify the person. It’s meant to tell them that they are worthless because that’s how media portrays overweight/obese people.
I meant: Using fat as an insult is a way that another person is trying to make that person feel worse about themselves. That is due to a societal definition of a person’s beauty and worth as an individual being tied to being thin or in shape.

When I said: I’m not completely sure how it works within the context of a partnered relationship, but calling someone fat is definitely a form of verbal and psychological abuse.
I meant: As a person who has no experience in a relationship with a significant other, I cannot say for certain that this is what that particular reference was going for, but as a person who has endured years of abuse by others because of her weight, I am making an assumption based upon that experience. I am also making this assumption based on reports that have indicated that persons who are obese or overweight are more likely to have suffered some sort of abuse & that negative remarks about their body type have been shown to cause gains in weight.

When I said: Interestingly, there is a correlation of various types of abuse in childhood and a person’s likelihood of one day being an overweight or obese adult.
I meant: There is scientific research that backs up the idea that being abused can lead to a person being obese. There is a link between being molested/raped in pre-pubescence and being overweight. There is a similar link between being molested/raped during or after puberty and anorexia. There are also links between verbal/emotional abuse and weight gain.

When I said: So, it may be considered aggressive to call an adult fat because it could potentially trigger that person to think about issues that they had as a child and abuse that they went through at that time. I base that on my personal experiences of being called fat as an adult triggering memories of childhood abuse that was related to my weight and that actually caused the weight.
I meant: As a person who has been abused and is obese, being called fat reminds me of that abuse. My grandfather molested me when I was a small child. When I had to live with him a few years after that, he insulted me regularly and told me I was unlovable because of the weight. Since the weight was directly related to other abuse that he had schlepped on me, being called fat as an insult reminds me of both abuses. Being called that now can sometimes trigger me to self-injure, overeat, or attempt to starve myself. It reinforces negative beliefs that I have about myself and my worth because of that abuse.

And, of course, that comment is getting shit on, too, because it was so long.

What’s even more ridiculous is that the people who actually said shitty things about being fat or about calling people fat not being abusive were absolutely ignored. But my comment, which was not meant to be offensive, is apparently the shittiest thing in the whole world. Sometimes I just feel like interacting with other people isn’t worth it.

Look, “Lester”, I’m Allowed to Support #NoMRA

When I got online this afternoon, I saw that “Lester” left 2 comments on the Facebook page about the Op-Ed by Marc E. Angelucci on the conference in Detroit. My response to his two postings got to be a little wordy, so I thought that I would post it here.

Hi. You don’t know me, but you decided to share your link on my Facebook page for my blog. Perhaps you thought that this would enlighten me or sway me to your side of this discussion. It won’t.

I don’t like MRAs and I have a very good reason for this. You see, despite what the movement claims, no actions are really taking place within it to improve the lives and rights of men. Most of what goes on is bashing of women, declaring us to be misandrists; telling male feminists that they’re playing for the wrong team or that they are emasculating themselves. Basically, a lot of bullying and very little actual activism, which sucks because there are a lot of issues that impact men that deserve to be advocated for.

In the Op-Ed, Angelucci suggested that people who paint MRAs in a negative light were ignorant. I can assure you that this is not true. In a lot of cases the people who criticize the movement are actually very aware of what has been said and what has been done. When MRAs are called misogynists, it’s because they are. When Chris Brown attempted to kill Rihanna and she decided to file charges against him, it was the National Coalition for Men (which Angelucci states he is the Vice President of) that decided that it should criticize Rihanna for speaking up against Brown. It was also the National Coalition Men that declared that their support would go to a GOP backed version of Violence Against Women Act, which would have empowered abusers not victims. H.R. 4970 was not only anti-women, it was also homophobic and would have denied rights to gay males who were victims of domestic and sexual violence. The Senate version of the bill (S. 1925) would have protected all victims of domestic violence. This makes his group hypocritical with regard to concern for the rights of all men.

Now, with regard to the actual conference, I refuse to change my opinion on a conference that has speakers who have advocated or been apologists for abuse.

Warren Farrell

“When I get my most glowing positive cases, 6 out of 200, the incest is part of the family’s open, sensual style of life, wherein sex is an outgrowth of warmth and affection. It is more likely that the father has good sex with his wife, and his wife is likely to know and approve — and in one or two cases to join in.”

“First, because millions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really a part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves. Maybe this needs repressing, and maybe it doesn’t. My book should at least begin the exploration, Partial scan of the issue.

“Second, I’m finding that thousands of people in therapy for incest are being told, in essence , that their lives have been ruined by incest. In fact, their lives have not generally been affected as much by the incest as by the overall atmosphere. My book should help therapists put incest in perspective.”

“The average incest participant can’t evaluate his or her experience for what it was. As soon as society gets into the picture, they have to tell themselves it was bad. It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy.”

“Incest is like a magnifying glass, in some circumstances it magnifies the beauty of a relationship, and it others it magnifies the trauma.”

“Most women’s ideal is to not be sexual until nine conditions are met: physical attraction; respect; emotional compatibility; intelligence; singleness; success (or potential ); being asked out; being paid for; and the man risking rejection by initiating the first kiss…. Men want sex as long as only one condition is met—physical attraction.”

“In San Diego there is a highly popular course called How to Marry Money. Note that the marriage is to money–not to a person. I inquired about the percentage of men attending… ‘The course is really for women,’ [the instructor replied,] ‘it’s not relevant to men.'”

“When men give lines, women learn to not trust men. When women wear makeup, men learn to not trust women. Male lines and female makeup are divorce training.”

“When divorces meant marriage no longer provided security for a lifetime, women adjusted by focusing on careers as empowerment. But when the sacrifice of a career met the sacrifices in a career, the fantasy of a career became the reality of trade-offs. Women developed career ambivalence.”

“From the male perspective, when commitment is associated with diamonds and mortgages, promises of love can feel like promises of payment.”

“When women are at the height of their beauty power and exercise it, we call it marriage. When men are at the height of their success power and exercise it, we call it a mid-life crisis.”

“We have forgotten that before we began calling this date rape and date fraud, we called it exciting.”

“Women attempt suicide more often because they want to become the priority of those they love rather than always prioritizing them.”

“Unemployment to a man is the psychological equivalent of rape to a woman.”

“Minimizing the role of sexual attraction in rape denies our responsibility for reinforcing men’s addiction to female sexual beauty and then depriving men of what we’ve helped addict them to.”

“Feminism has taught women to sue men for sexual harassment or date rape when men initiate with the wrong person or with the wrong timing; no one has taught men to sue women for sexual trauma for saying “yes,” then “no,” then “yes.” … Men [are] still expected to initiate, but now, if they [do] it badly, they could go to jail.”

“Evenings of paying to be rejected can feel like a male version of date rape.”

“The reporting of depression is often associated with the dependency of women on men. But it is dependency on men successful enough to allow a woman the time to think about more than survival. Which is why, when we think about women who report depression, we think of middle-class women, not working-class women. The working-class woman is too worried about survival to report depression. Depression is a diagnosis that tends to increase among those with the luxury of worrying about something other than survival. The more a person is in Stage II, the more that person can afford to focus on depression.”

“A man being sued after a woman has more sex than intended is like Lay’s being sued after someone has more potato chips than intended. In brief, date rape can be a crime, a misunderstanding, or buyer’s remorse.”

“If a man ignoring a woman’s verbal “no” is committing date rape, then a woman who says “no” with her verbal language but “yes” with her body language is committing date fraud. And a woman who continues to be sexual even after she says “no” is committing date lying.”

“We often hear, “Rape is rape, right?” No. A stranger forcing himself on a woman at knife point is different from a man and woman having sex while drunk and having regrets the morning. What is different? When a woman agrees to a date, she does not make a choice to be sexual, but she does make a choice to explore sexual possibilities. The woman makes no such choice with a stranger or an acquaintance.”

“Spousal rape legislation is blackmail waiting to happen.”

“By starving our children of men, we have made them more vulnerable to the very abuse we are trying to prevent.”

Erin Pizzey

“Given that history, you might think I would be pleased to learn the Government is looking closely at the issue of domestic violence, and is launching a consultation on whether the definition of domestic violence should be widened to include emotional bullying and ‘coercive control’. But I’m afraid quite the opposite is true: I’m horrified.

“The Home Secretary Theresa May says: ‘Coercive control is a complex pattern of abuse using power and psychological control over another — financial control, verbal abuse, forced social isolation. These incidents may vary in seriousness and may be repeated over time.’

“In other words, she believes that in the eyes of the law it should no longer be only physical violence which constitutes domestic abuse.”

“Domineering, bullying husbands who shout at their wives but never lift a finger to hurt them would find themselves in court.”

“To me, the definition of domestic violence is quite clear: if you are not in fear of your life, you are not suffering it. In all other cases, where the aggression takes only an emotional form, or a few coffee cups have been chucked around, women in modern Britain thankfully have the option of finding a lawyer and choosing to separate from their husbands if they wish to do so.”

And those are just the first two speakers1 that are listed. But with those two speakers alone what do we have? Incest apologism. Objectification of women and viewing women as prostitutes. Date rape apologism. Equating rape and unemployment, which is beyond repulsive. Classism. Ableism. Support of allowing spousal rape to continue. Blaming women’s rights for child abuse. Suggesting that emotional abuse isn’t really all that bad.

I’m wondering how it is that you support or defend these people. How can you support a movement that claims to help men, but spends most of its time suggesting that abused persons weren’t actually abused? How can you support a movement that denies the reality that 99% of rapes are committed by men? How can you support a movement that blames victims for their rapes? How can you support a movement that mocks and ridicules people who have PTSD or Borderline Personality Disorder or other psychological issues stemming from traumas they have suffered? How do you support a movement that objectifies women, treating them as little more than sex toys, while simultaneously accusing women of either being too slutty for “Nice Guys” or of putting “Nice Guys” in the “friend zone”? Before you regale me with the sob story of how your movement is so misunderstood, maybe you should explain why you can support such a lying and bigoted movement in the first place. Better yet, save us both time and just walk away.

By the way, I’m guessing that you are a troll since you had to create a Facebook page just to spam my Facebook page for this site. It’s not all that shocking since I’ve encountered other troll-like MRA accounts that exist on Twitter for the sole purpose of deriding feminism.

  1. Other speakers: Robert Franklin, Esq., Dr. Miles Groth, Barbara Kay, Karen Straughan, Carnell Smith, Paul Elam, Sen. Anne Cools, Dr. Paul Nathanson, Dr. Tara Palmatier, Psy.D., Tom Golden, LCSW, Vladek Filler. 

Drip It

I guess I must have been out of the loop somehow because I just recently heard about IV Vitamin Therapy aka Dripping aka The Party Girl Drip. Basically, if you party or you just manage to convince yourself (and the Physician at the place) that you need vitamin in IV form, you can do it from the comfort of a nice little boutique. What vitamins are included? It all depends on the drip you get, but, at some places, they have ones like Vitamin B-3, B-5, B-6, B-12 (with or without folic acid), B-Complex, C, and D, as well as other goodies like zinc, calcium, selenium, glycine, taurine, and magnesium. I even read about drip boutique that offers people IV iron therapy.

Well, isn’t that nice?

I’ve been waiting for months to get a 1 mL dose of B-12 that was prescribed for me because I have an actual vitamin deficiency and there is a nationwide shortage going on, but these people can just walk into a place and get them for unverified deficiencies. Even with 2 melt-away tablets every single day, I’m having trouble with numbness, paresthesia, and thinking because I can’t get a treatment that I need, but they can get vitamins because they decided to go out and drink too much. There is a place in Vegas where they give people a shuttle service if they can get a group together for the B-12 injections. There are children and adults who need these nutrients. There are people whose health can actually be damaged because of the deficiencies. There are babies that are in hospitals that need these. These “people” are endangering not just the lives of people with deficiencies, they are endangering their own lives. Consuming massive amounts of unneeded vitamins causes cancer. Certain vitamins given in the wrong doses can cause sudden cardiac death. In the case of IV iron, if the person doesn’t actually need it, then they can suffer from an allergic reaction or iron overload or just have a negative reaction. Actually, those things can happen if you do need it, but if you don’t need it, then you are willingly risking your life for a pseudo-scientific claim. I’m willing to go through infusions that could kill me because having an actual lack of iron will kill me.

If you are partying so much that you think that you need IV therapy, then maybe you should consider that you need a different type of therapy. If you are going around pretending that you have a deficiency that you don’t have and that that justifies going through IV therapy, then you too are in need of therapy. If you are so narcissistic that you are using these to keep yourself looking young, then you need therapy. Basically, if you don’t really need these vitamins, then you need to see someone for whatever psychological issues you have going on because they are obviously fucking you up royally.

And for anyone who is into “dripping” and doesn’t care that what they are doing is morally reprehensible, I have two quick words for you: Fuck. You.