Violence


With the shooting yesterday at Umpqua Community College, do you think that America is any closer to stopping mass shootings? What could be done to prevent shootings like this? Is this an issue requiring stricter gun legislation? Is it one requiring better mental health screenings? Is it an indication of a broken mental health and/or criminal justice system? Is it an indication of something wrong with our culture in general? Why do you think violence is so prevalent in America?

Daily Debate: Oct. 2, 2015


1
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 […]

Review: For Such a Time



Anything He Wants by Sara Fawkes My rating: 2 of 5 stars This book. How do I explain how I feel about this book? My feelings toward this book are very complicated. Why? I found the book entertaining, but it was also horrible. The things that entertained me were the worst parts. A good example of this is the horrible quality of the writing itself. The writing was repetitive to the max. One of the favorite repeated phrases in the sex scenes was the main character’s “weeping entrance”. It was inspiring thoughts of either weeping blisters and hives or the Weeping Angels of Doctor Who. Neither of those images are really conductive to setting up a hot scene. And when this happens in almost every chapter–sometimes multiple times in a single chapter–it becomes really hard to take. I didn’t know if I should just laugh at that particular issue or throw the book at the television. It was really confusing. There were other things that were regularly repeated, which mainly had to do with Jeremiah’s genitalia. It felt like the writer lacked the creativity to come up with any other descriptions of the characters. There were some spelling and grammar issues, as well. The most memorable one for me was where Lucy was noticing how the “sunlight shown” into the room. I’ve heard that sometimes publishers leave grammar mistakes in to ward off bad luck, so maybe that’s why that particular noticeable error got left in this story. Aside from the bad writing, there was the problem of just how disgustingly abusive Jeremiah was. You think that Christian Grey is bad? Jeremiah is, in many ways, much, much worse. Where Christian kissed Ana on the elevator before she knew of his sexual proclivities, but after they had actually had a few conversations, Jeremiah fingers Lucy on the elevator the very first time he is on the elevator alone with her. He didn’t even know her name before that day and she didn’t know his until the next day. And he didn’t have permission by her to finger her. She was attracted to him, which he took to mean that he could do whatever he wanted without ever asking. The next meeting with him is more intense and more grotesque. He sneaks up on her, has sex with her, and then offers her a ride home, but seems shocked when she doesn’t want to get in the car with a man whose name she doesn’t know and who just had sex with her without getting consent. The next day, she finds out who he is and that he knows a lot about who she is. After terrifying her by having her come to his office, he tells her that he’s been planning on firing all the temps, which is what she is, but that he wants to hire her as his personal assistant. Part of her duties include doing, as the title says, anything he wants. Because Lucy is poor and no one else is hiring, she sees the job as being necessary to her survival. This is coercive. It is sexual harassment. It is abusive. Her choice has essentially been taken away and she even admits as much. Lucy has been stripped of her basic rights & dignity and we’re just 3 chapters into the story. Of course, there’s the nice-ish side to Jeremiah. There’s the side that some people might see as being caring and compassionate. Usually, it is just him throwing a tantrum about how he hired her to whatever he wants. And the tantrums work. He gets what he wants over and over again. This is not a Dominant and submissive relationship. This is an overgrown toddler dehumanizing a woman who has been through enough trauma and grief already in her young life. Most of the book is about sex between Jeremiah and Lucy. It seems that it’s used to distract the reader from noticing that there’s not really any development of the characters or the plot. The suspenseful part of the book isn’t that suspenseful. It’s just random acts of nakedness and violence thrown together in a very haphazard sort of way. I may read the sequel to this story, but I will only be doing so if I see it at my local library. I would not buy it and I’m reconsidering my desire to read any other works by this author. View all my reviews

Review: Anything He Wants


Beneath This Man by Jodi Ellen Malpas My rating: 2 of 5 stars What. Did. I. Just. Read? This book was not good. No, that’s an understatement. This book was very bad. It wasn’t the absolute worst book I’ve ever read, but it’s pretty high up on the list of sucktastic books. There is a lot about this series that I just hate. I was hoping this book would be better than the first, but it really wasn’t. The quality of writing was a bit better, but the story quality is still crap. Ava needs to get new friends. Seriously. This is a woman whose best friend is totally cool with a guy stalking her, forcing her to move in with him, and being an abusive and manipulative jerk. Kate knows that Jesse treats Ava horribly, but she’s basically cheering him on with the abuse, stalking, and manipulation. I don’t know why Kate hates Ava so much, but it is very clear that she does. Jesse blames his “not an alcoholic” behavior on Ava. She drives him to drink. Her leaving him drives him to spend four days downing shot after shot of vodka, so that’s her fault. His sex with other women during that time period is also his fault. He’s never felt like drinking so much in his life, but being with her makes him want to drink. He tells her this. His friends basically tell her this, too. This is not okay. He can’t take responsibility for his self-destructive behavior, so he puts it on her. And she seems to be okay with taking the blame. It sort of makes sense, since she’s also the one who is responsible for his forcible and coercive sexual actions on her. This kind of thinking is so horrifying that I just wanted to scream as I read it. That’s probably why it took seven days to read this book. It isn’t a hard read style-wise, it just sends the kind of message that victims of domestic violence and rape are responsible for the abuse that they face. You know, the despicable kind of thinking that we should be way past in the twenty-first century. Remember when I said the writing quality was a bit better than it was in the first book? That’s true, but the writing quality is still pretty bad. There was a lot of repetitiveness. If you say that a character is dressed smartly in the first part of a paragraph, you don’t have to say it again two or three sentences later. The same goes for talking about a character being in tight white boxers. It doesn’t need to be repeated right away. The brand dropping was also pretty common in this book, which was very annoying. I get that she wanted to convey that Jesse lives a rather luxurious lifestyle, but mentioning all the brands was just so tacky. And the high fashion that was mentioned didn’t sound very fashionable. It definitely didn’t sound like the brands that were being described. The whole book was a serious disappointment. Between the tacky writing, the god-awful story, and the heavy use of tropes, the book was just not worth reading. Unless you were really into the first book, I really wouldn’t recommend tackling this book. The only reason that I’m going to read the last book in the series is that I want to find out what things this group of social weirdos is going to do next. I’m guessing whatever they do, it will be horrible. View all my reviews

Review: Beneath This Man



1
Previously published on Thought Catalog   Before Janet Bloomfield even launched into the meat of her diatribe on the lies feminists tell, she decided to tear down all feminists. If a woman is a feminist, she is an “unattractive, angry woman who blames all her problems on men. She is single, bitter and spends most of her time showering other women with contempt for not making the ‘correct’ feminist choices, whatever those happen to be. She is loud, screechy and deeply unhappy.” While she acknowledges that this is a stereotype, she seems to have no issue with promoting it. She even justifies it, which makes sense. People who promote intolerance often justify that intolerance in some way. And she uses this intolerant view to promote five lies that she thinks feminists tell. And when she says this, she makes sure to use hyperbolic language to promote her own feelings of intolerance. The problem with this is that she is using her own feelings of anti-feminism to promote ignorance and not promote actual facts. Let’s take a look at what she and many like her get wrong.   MYTH: Trigger warnings are a feminist thing that turns women into children. They are illogical and only exist for women. FACT: Though many feminists talk about trigger warnings, the warnings exist outside of feminism. Triggers are words or actions that lead to a trauma victim having flashbacks. These flashbacks happen not only to women, but to men and to transgendered persons. They don’t just happen with victims of rape and domestic violence, but to people who have gone to war, been in car accidents, women who had a difficult delivery, or been in any other traumatic situation. Though they have only recently become a part of everyday language, flashbacks, trauma triggers, and PTSD have been discussed throughout history. By the end of the first World War, the British army had dealt with 80,000 cases of a condition that is now best-known as ‘shell shock’. These men would have unrelenting anxiety, tics, and nightmares. Despite the fact that it was the cause of 1/7th of the disability discharges in the British Army. Though these men had killed other men, while fighting for their country, they were labeled as cowards or weak. (If they deserted, like some did, they could face execution.) When people like Janet Bloomfield suggest that feminists who support trigger warnings want to turn grown women into children, she is doing the same thing to them that people did to men returning from war almost a hundred years ago. Having PTSD is not something that makes a person childish or weak or a coward. It is not something that people should be mocked for having. In fact, it’s sometimes summarized as a “normal reaction to abnormal events”. Asking for people to respect your limits is not a childish thing. It is an establishment of a boundary, something that is very difficult for persons with PTSD.   MYTH: Simply stating that there is something triggering could trigger. FACT: For some, yes. For some, no. Some people do get triggered by the warnings themselves. Some don’t. Some are triggered by graphic descriptions. Some are triggered by seeing a simulation of the trauma they endured. Each person’s triggers are different, but that doesn’t mean that we have to stop respecting them by doing away with the warnings.   MYTH: Feminists view people who can’t deal with being triggered are “pathetic simpletons” who are “incapable of controlling their emotional reactions or confronting the slightest bit of adversity or conflict”. They see women as being emotionally fragile. FACT: No. Having a mental health issue does not make a person weak or fragile. Trigger warnings for people PTSD are like allergy warnings for people with food allergies. If you don’t call a person who is allergic to peanuts “weak” because a chocolate company puts a warning that a product that doesn’t have peanuts was manufactured in the same factory as food that does have peanuts in it, then you shouldn’t call a PTSD patient’s trigger warnings a weakness. They are just a warning that there is the possibility that if you look or listen to a particular thing that there is a possibility that your illness will be triggered. If you look at people who openly discuss their triggers as being fragile or being weak, then that really says more about you and your intolerance than it does about the person being triggered.   MYTH: Feminists who talk about “victim-blaming” don’t view women as smart, rational or aware. FACT: Feminists do view women as smart, rational, and aware. They also know that the blame for a rape lies on the rapist. A rape victim can be dressed provocatively or like a slob. A rape victim can be drunk or sober. A rape victim can be pretty or ugly. A rape victim can be drugged or they can be asleep or they can be awake. A rape victim can be raped by a stranger or by someone that they know. A rape victim can be a baby or a small child or an older child or a teenager or a young adult or middle aged or elderly.  A rape victim could be armed and still be raped. A rape victim could know self-defense and still be raped. A rape victim could drink water from a bottle they’ve brought from home that has never been opened. This bottle might never leave their sight. They could still be raped. The only thing that is true for all rapes is that they were committed by a rapist. And the reason that victim-blaming is often brought up is that there are people who continue to blame any and every rape victim for their rape. For example, when Austin Clem received a suspended sentence for his conviction of the rape of his neighbor from the time she was thirteen until she was eighteen, someone commented that it was an affair, saying, “At what point […]

10 Myths Anti-Feminists Have About Feminists


@judgybitch1 @brooklynjuggler Women don’t die at work? They don’t have jobs that threaten their lives. Really. You sure you want to go with that argument? Brenda Yeager was killed at work. She was a social worker. Boni Frederick was killed at work. She was a social work aide. Teri Zenner was killed at work. She was a social worker.  Frances Mortenson was killed at work. She was a case manager. Diruhi Mattian ran a program for mentally ill children and young adults. She was stabbed during a call to a client’s home. Social workers1 are frequently sent alone and unarmed to dangerous situations in neighborhoods that police do not enter without a partner and a gun. This is a profession that is made up mainly by women; 79% of social workers are female. It’s a job that requires a great deal of training in order to have. And part of this training involves classes where it may be stressed, at least in the ones I took, that this is a job where you will risk your life daily. The facts hold this up. Estimates are that one third to three quarters of all social workers have been threatened at work. Most do not report the threats. According to one survey, 19% of social workers have actually been victims of violent crimes while at work. Other surveys say the number is even higher. According to a 2000 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics report, 48% of all non-fatal injuries from assaults and violent acts in an occupational setting took place in health care and social services settings. This report also noted that social workers had an incidence rate of 15 per 10,000 full-time workers for injuries resulting from assaults and acts of violence. http://www.socialworktoday.com/archive/exc_032511.shtml http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/02/18/violence_haunts_job_for_social_workers/?page=full http://www.socialworkersspeak.org/media/article-outlines-dangers-of-social-work-profession.html http://www.herald-dispatch.com/news/x1724959940/Dangers-of-social-work-gain-attention http://www.radiotimes.com/news/2012-01-30/is-social-work-britains-most-dangerous-job http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1697&dat=20061204&id=oyoqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Y0gEAAAAIBAJ&pg=6266,496569 http://www.naswma.org/?51 In other words, I call bullshit. via Tumblr What social workers do and why it’s important. Not sure why nursing is considered the only important primarily female field, but this is the same woman who made a post about the age of consent being lowered and how 13 year old girls who look like adults should be charged with prostitution if they have sex with a celebrity. ↩

“Men DIE at work. Women do not.”



putmeincoach: janersm: putmeincoach: janersm: shaeroden: papa-and-the-sea: shaeroden: papa-and-the-sea: shaeroden: draumbouy: papa-and-the-sea: draumbouy: soyeahitsdevin: mankindglobalmedia: No, that’s the Feminism you wish to convey. The one at the top is the Feminism that we encounter. No, the one on the top is the one that is noticed. Radicalism is always easier to notice than fair minded social justice. NO THATS THE ACTUAL FUCKING FEMINISTS.  ya know id think you people would actually do some goddman research once in a while to look into feminism and the current leaders and the roots of its political birth. currently feminists are royally fucking men over in court among other things these arent radicals. these are college educated feminists with law degrees and womens studies degrees doing literally everything they can to fuck men over. not some stupid teenage misandry4lyfe bitch on tumblr, though that is also problematic. and nobody is trying to stop them. and you saying “not all feminists” doesn’t mean shit. nobody fucking cares about your stupid blog. you aren’t doing anything. you’re just spewing rhetoric and acting like it excuses the connotation and association you have with psycho bitches. what people care about is that you chose to take up the banner of a hate movement without even remotely researching it to find out wether it was a good idea. people care about the stuff that the real politically active feminists do. people care when valerie solanas a feminist revolutionary writes books about gendercide and attempts to assassinate andy warhol. of course you probably have no idea what the fuck im even talking about because you didn’t do your research. you dont know what the fuck you are talking about and you side with a hate movement that had roots in white supremacy if you dont like the shit a political party does stop defending it and leave the party. you choose to be a feminist instead of an egalitarian or what have you. you’re choice sucked and we are tired of hearing you defend it. shut up. Ahh another idiot who just believes anything they hear and believes fucking Bullshit CONGRATULATIONS I linked everything to a list of proof…..this is kinda awkward for you. if the above image were true, feminists would have no problems at all with the men’s right’s movement. i have yet to see any feminist express any sympathy for the MRM. Why would amyone show sympathy for people who have EVERY right but are working to somehow get more? > “men have every right” > “men want more rights” can you even math? Yes you just proved how stupid MRAs are because there are no more rights they can even have. oh yeah.  men have all the rights, huh? you mean like the right to not have our dicks sliced open shortly after birth? you mean like the right to refuse to sign up for selective service? you mean like the right to custody of our own children? oh yeah.  so many rights.  i’m just about drowning in them. Stop blaming feminism for Selective Service, circumcision, custody rights, etc. Male circumcision? Did you realize that “feminist friendly” countries have already banned it? Yep. Don’t believe me? Check out Scandinavian countries. Don’t want to be drafted one day? (Even though the draft hasn’t been enforced in about 40 years. Odd how feminists who weren’t even around in the 70s get blamed for this and other shit.) Tell your Congressional representative. The Congress is predominantly a Republican institution right now. Explain to an anti-women’s rights political party that you feel your rights as a man are being violated because women aren’t being drafted. I’m sure they’d be willing to swap it over to women being forced to sign up if you do that. By the way, when Carter originally reactivated the conscription process, he said it should apply to women as well as men. Congress said no. Clinton also tried to include women. Guess what happened?! Congress. Said. No. So blame fucking Congress for that. As for what does the MRM do that goes against feminism: Supporting 2013’s House version of the VAWA is the first thing I can think of. I know the name throws some MRAs off, but the House version would have stripped the rights of abused people and strengthened those accused of DV. This included taking rights from male victims. Advocating against rape shield laws. Not only would this have publicized the sexual history of female accusers, it would have publicized the sexual history of male accusers as well. Denying the wage gap. I’ve seen some acknowledgement that there is racial pay inequity, but no real acknowledgment by MRAs that even amongst different racial groups, men still make more. Custody rights are unfair. Despite numbers that show they aren’t the gender biased issue that many think they are. Most men don’t seek custody of their kids. (Sad, but true.) And in cases where they do, men being awarded primary or sole custody is more common now than it has been in a long time. Also, protective divorces and lack of custody can be a result of domestic violence. Being completely opposed to child support. I have seen so many MRAs complain about paying child support and then talking about how their greedy bitch of an ex won’t let them see the kid until they pay up. Here’s the thing you guys forget sometimes: child support is meant to take care of your kid. It is based on your salary and the cost of living where your child lives. It is not alimony. If your ex misuses it, tell the court, but do not complain about supporting your child. Slut-shaming. If a woman supports free birth control pills, she’s a whore. If she talks about not being a virgin, she’s used up. If she wants to have sex, she’s a Jezebel. If she complains about being viewed this way, she’s a tease who likes to friend zone men. If she refuses sex, she’s a prude. If she […]

Back and Forth on Feminism vs. MRAs


Thieves Caught on Video Stealing 6-Year-Old Burn Victim’s Beloved Pug: Ellis Barrett is a 6-year-old boy who had multiple surgeries earlier this year after a terrible accident with scalding water. Peaches is the treasured pug puppy who comforted him when he came home from the hospital in February. This is a video of some jackholes in pink tracksuits chasing down and stealing Peaches. via Tumblr


A mental illness is a medical condition that disrupts a person’s thinking, feeling, mood, ability to relate to others and daily functioning. Just as diabetes is a disorder of the pancreas, mental illnesses are medical conditions that often result in a diminished capacity for coping with the ordinary demands of life. Serious mental illnesses include major depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), panic disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and borderline personality disorder. The good news about mental illness is that recovery is possible. Mental illnesses can affect persons of any age, race, religion or income. Mental illnesses are not the result of personal weakness, lack of character or poor upbringing. Mental illnesses are treatable. Most people diagnosed with a serious mental illness can experience relief from their symptoms by actively participating in an individual treatment plan.1 I’m mentally ill. This isn’t really news. I’ve never been ashamed of being mentally ill. I’ve never felt the need to say that I am embarrassed by what’s wrong with me. I’ve been open about my experiences. I’ve made a fool of myself a few times because of my mental health issues. I don’t feel that my issues are all that makes me me. Even though they impact most aspects of my life, they aren’t all that there is to me. I know other people don’t feel this way. Meet one of these people: At first I thought that I was misunderstanding Paul’s response to Marci on the issue of gun control. He brought up mental illness as part of his argument against gun control. He was very big on his interpretation of the Second Amendment2 and how his right to bear arms was somehow the most important thing in the world. He wasn’t so big on other Amendments and how they might impact other people. For example, the Eighth Amendment3 or the Sixth Amendment4 First, it was a Twitter discussion. Then, Paul deleted the tweets and decided to blog about it instead, so here are the responses I have to what he has said: Los Angeles, CA—There is little doubt that every mass shooter in the USA suffered from severe mental illness, usually schizophrenia. Most or all have rejected taking anti-psychotic medication and accordingly they went on deadly rampages. Nope. Not true. The Washington Post actually addresses this myth in a recent article by Dr. Dewey G. Cornell, a forensic clinical psychology.5 And it’s time that we stop blaming every single one on the mentally ill, okay? We used to put these people in mental hospitals that were more tolerable and comfortable than our jails. After our medical community determined that wonder drugs were more humane that hospitalization they convinced government officials to close the asylums. Now the same people are simply sitting in jails and prisons without treatment. The effort to be more humane has backfired. The solution offered against violence by the insane is to eliminate gun rights for the sane and law-abiding. They seem to forget that the insane use knives, clubs or brute force to murder. They can’t seem to understand that before the Oklahoma Bombing and 9/11 attack on America that the most significant mass murder was committed with a single gallon of gasoline at the Happyland Social Club taking nearly 100 lives. Bringing up those events within the context of a discussion on mass murder has me wondering what all we’re considering to be mass murder. Oklahoma City was a bombing committed by an American anti-government, right-wing extremist. The events of 9/11 were 20 non-Americans using planes as weapons because a terrorist group didn’t like American foreign policy. The Happy Land fire was an arson committed by the jealous ex-boyfriend of one employee that ended up killing 87 people because the business blocked the fire exits. She survived the fire. We have two acts of terrorism with political motivations and the act of a guy who thought he could get revenge on his ex and the place she worked. Are we going to include other acts of terror? Perhaps since 9/11 led to one war directly and another indirectly, we should include things that happen within wars. Perhaps we should also include things that lead to wars. Should we include acts of terror against other countries that were perpetrated here? Should we include other anti-government acts, or do the reverse and show acts of violence perpetrated by people on behalf of the government that ended in the deaths of other people? Since we’re talking about a fire started by a jealous ex-lover, do we include all acts where an ex kills or attempts to kill someone because that ex feels jilted in some way? Do we include school shootings? Do we include workplace violence? Do we include spree killers? Do we include family annihilators? Do we include serial murders? Do we include genocidal actions towards the indigenous population of America? Are we going to talk about all mass killings or just the 1-in-6 that are known by the public?6 Or that 25% of mass killings that don’t involve strangers, gangs, or robberies are due to a breakup.7 Or how 57% of victims knew the attacker, even if they weren’t that attacker’s initial target.8 Or how some are from being fired9 or being evicted10. Now, I don’t know Paul’s experiences in the mental hospitals of old or the jails that exist, but from what I know, they were not “more tolerable and comfortable” than the jails and prisons in this country. I’m guessing that he didn’t realize that compulsory sterilization laws impacted people in institutions for criminals and ones for the mentally ill, as well as outsiders, the poor and minorities. The eugenics law craze started in 1907 in Indiana and spread to 30 other states. People who were seen as defective underwent sterilization procedures. I’m guessing he also was unaware that between 1936 and the late 1950s, an estimated 50,000 lobotomies were performed in the United States. Between 1953 and 1957, in Athens County, Ohio, […]

Pot Meet Kettle


When I got online this afternoon, I saw that “Lester” left 2 comments on the fuzzypinkslippers.com 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, […]

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