His legacy consisted of brutal criticism and perfectionism. He was one of the wealthiest in the region. He had millions worth of properties, a copra (coconut coal and oil) company, a large distribution company, a couple of grocery stores, and a poultry farm. He was the epitome of a businessman who worked off of no capital, just a goal and a lot of persistence and hard work.

My dad described him as "strict". Him and his sibblings, along with his cousins, are required to behave around him and his wife. He was not one to give freely to his grandchildren, granted he had at least three for every one of his children.

Once the first generation of his granchildren start popping out, so did the womens' movement. The women were not jus baby-makers anymore, they can actually get out of that stereotype by performing better than the men specifically in educational attainment. But, my great grandfather never saw it that way, he would always treat the boys better and treat the girls civil. There's a glimpse of part of my family history...

Perfectionism runs in the family, and so does depression--- we all know that goes hand in hand.

It's bad enough that this advertisement is blatant fear mongering, and that it obfuscates the taxes paid by corporate polluters with the taxes facing citizens, but the ad is latently sexist (pink shirt?). It doesn't throw sexism in your face and say, "This woman is hysterical!", but it does have its (perhaps subtle) problems.

For the sake of this analysis, I will not be addressing the obvious problems of race (hello White family!) and class (look at the size of that fucking kitchen!) in the advertisement. I do, however, leave it open to you and your comments to lend your own opinions on these issues, and you are invited to make addenda/addictions to my arguments.

The implication is that the woman in the ad is the mother of the sweet, innocent child drawing on the kitchen table. Here she is, just home from a long day of work, in the kitchen, presumably to fix dinner (double shift anyone?). It may be just me, but this woman appears to be portrayed as a single mother. There is no mention of "family," which is bad enough (single mothers can't have "families?), but the ad directly manipulates feelings of empathy towards single mothers. How low can you go?

"Big thought, right?" As in... big for a woman? Contemplation of the uncertainty of the everyday life, in the case of this advertisement, seems to be something extraordinary for this woman. The colloquial language of the woman seems to imply a sort of relatability, but it comes accross as a kind of un-intelligence. "Women need not care about these matters! Wait a minute, this one is? Something must really be wrong!"

We see as the setting of the ad, the woman in the kitchen. Holy gendered much? Perhaps the Conservatives thought they had to balance this intelligent, working woman who thinks "big thoughts" while wearing her feminized business suit and looking empowered, by putting her in a setting where traditional Conservative supporters would feel comfortable seeing a woman.

Let's not forget that the woman's main concern is the loss of her home, conflating the mortgage crisis in the United States with its worldwide market effects as felt in Canada. This worry is disturbingly related to the traditional domestic sphere women have been relegated to for millennia. What could this woman POSSIBLY HAVE if she lost her home? She's already been denied a "family" (remember, single mom's don't have families), and now she's worried she'll lose her home? Oh, if only she had a strong, manly man like Stephen Harper. Did you hear that he likes to spend time with his kids?

In conclusion, the Conservative party is perversely more reactionary than you may think. Let's not forget it emerged from the amalgamation of the socially traditional Alliance Party and the more fiscally neoliberal Progressive Conservative Party. If you have any questions, comments, addenda, or any need for clarification, leave me a comment.

In a brilliant bit of superficial description, Governor Ritter spoke of how she is dull and flat having lost her sheen and gloss! Governor Ritter (no relation as far as we know to nutbar Scott Ritter) also was able to insert Party talking points concerning erratic John McCain by mentioning,

"McCain [has] "behave(d) erratically where the economy was concerned and where his response was concerned.

"Obama, on the other hand, has shown just a steady consistent way of responding," Ritter continued. "He's thoughtful, he's specific..."

The contest is over! McCain is, according to governor Ritter, completely insane while Great Leader Obama is obviously capable of leading a Special Forces A-team into hostile territory!

“Are Attacks on Obama's Religion Proxies for Something More Sinister?”

"Palin has certainly done her gosh darned best in promoting Obama as a sinister threat. Granted, she has never said anything about his being a Muslim; but she certainly has implied connections which do have a racial subtext so let’s not jump the gun in exonerating her."

Of course, truth, decorum and libel laws, not to mention the pot calling the kettle black, prevent Comrade Priscilla from explicitly stating or proving what she claims, 'Sarah Palin is an unabashed racist' for questioning in any manner Great Leader Obama.

Yet, Priscilla from News Hounds, Great Leader Obama's loyal servant, magnificently connects the dots from A to J without ever once bothering with B to I or facts.

"So while Palin is “off the hook” for not reinforcing the Obama is a Muslim garbage, she is guilty of connecting the dots, in not so thinly veiled code words"

With remarkable disregard for all ethical boundaries, Priscilla from News Hounds, proves without question that Sarah Palin is indeed an unabashed racist and anti-Semite! Priscilla's excellent and well typed use of weasel word inference let's all loyal followers understand her true meaning in this calculated and approved hit/think piece; Sarah Palin is an unabashed racist and anti-Semite!

There are so many people that do not seek truth in their lives.  Sure, they may be honest with themselves and others about certain things.  I need to lose weight.  I  need to stop drinking.  That color really doesn't look so great on you.  But similar to what I have written in the past about not being a kind person, I would say that I am not an honest person, as much as I am a person who is all about Truth, with a capital T.  Honesty is a value that I would hope that most of us possess; but truth is more intense than that, it is what we view in our souls, it is going to the deepest part of self and looking at it fully, and accepting whatever it shows to us.

However, many of us are afraid of Truth.  There is a fierceness that exists about not challenging our current reality; our current reality may be our reality, but indeed, not our Truth.  Truth comes from the deepest part of self, the part that many of us wait our whole lives to discover. 

This post was prompted by posts that have been done over the last couple of days by both CordieB and AngryAfrican on the topic of racism.  Any ism or phobia is perpetuated by our inability to face Truth.  We as a society cannot handle a Truth that we have helped to create.  Maybe those words don't sit well with some of you who may read this.  Truth hurts sometimes.  But this is Truth, pure and simple.  Why is it so difficult for us to acknowledge within ourselves that racism, sexism, homophobia, ageism, and other discriminations still exist?  Why do we deny this Truth?  Because, if we look at it, it means we need to look at ourselves, and how we have created and perpetuated this Truth in our own lives.......... by not speaking up to an offensive joke; by perpetuating a stereotype of a group of people; by not asking ourselves the questions of why we may feel the way that we do about a lesbian person, or an african american woman, or an asian man, or a hispanic family.  We don't want to ask, because we don't want to know.

We sell ourselves, and our fellow humans, short every time that we cater this fear within ourselves.  We need to go beyond that if the world is ever going to change.  We have to have the courage to look deeply within, to listen, and to acknowledge what we have always believed, and challenge that to get to Truth of what should be.  I may not enjoy the fact that I possess white priviledge, or that I sometimes still feel uncomfortable if I were to see a group of black youths walking down the street; or if I assume that the way that someone appears means that they are gay; but unless I face that Truth, the world will never change.  And our world is indeed, in need of those changes, wouldn't you say?

Truth is not always easy; sometimes, it hurts as much as perpetuating the beliefs that we have always had.  But is ALWAYS, ALWAYS feels right.  When I came out, it is like I released the breath that I had been holding for years; only letting it out a bit at a time, and then holding it in again, for fear of rejection, including, rejecting myself. 

We all have the right to feel Truth in our souls; we can all walk confidently in the fact that who we are is TRULY who we are.  No hidden agendas or premises; just us.  As humans, we have no true sense of freedom until we live our lives in full Truth.  For in that full Truth, of self and others, is to release ourselves from all that binds us, all that holds us back, and leaves in its wake true freedom.  Peace. Bliss.  Oneness. Contentment.  Love. 

Ubuntu.

It is troubling to hear such allegations after all the attention the illegality of sexual harassment on the job has received. The men who acted this way, where have they been? In a cave someplace, cut off from the rest of humanity for the last 20 years? And even if they were genuinely uninformed, where were their manners?

I'd turn the question on its head:  Where has Hering been for the last twenty years?  I think harrasment in all its forms is reprehensible, but I'm not so naive as to think that everyone agrees with me.

... the other answer to my question is that Hering has been supporting a political party that mocks the idea that women should have the right to not be harassed, and as such, doesn't even really have the right to ask this as a rhetorical - much less serious - question.

Eugenics:

"Some states sterilized "imbeciles" for much of the 20th century. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1927 Buck v. Bell case that the state of Virginia could sterilize those it thought unfit. The most significant era of eugenic sterilization was between 1907 and 1963, when over 64,000 individuals were forcibly sterilized under eugenic legislation in the United States.^[43] A favorable report on the results of sterilization in California, the state with the most sterilizations by far, was published in book form by the biologist Paul Popenoe and was widely cited by the Nazi government as evidence that wide-reaching sterilization programs were feasible and humane. When Nazi administrators went on trial for war crimes in Nuremberg after World War II, they justified the mass sterilizations (over 450,000 in less than a decade) by citing the United States as their inspiration"

Never Again.

Israelis For Obama

First he tells off Sir Brian Lochore for missing the good old days, when men were men, women were a decorative irrelevance important mostly for keeping your home running, and children could be left in the car with a packet of chippies and smacked - but not hit - when SBL deemed it necessary.  Richard Boock says:

If anyone was in any doubt about the link between New Zealand's rugby culture and male-perpetrated violence, they only had to read the comments made by Sir Brian last week during a speech to Parents Inc. Essentially, the implication was that if we were to bring back the biff at home, all would be solved.

Richard Boock got a mauling from many over this column, which was partially rebuffed by a feature article by Donna Chisholm the following week which rehabilitated Sir Brian as a family man.  In his column, Mr Boock described the responses he had received:

As for some of the other feedback, being criticised for the strength of my opinion by NZ Herald columnist Garth George and lectured on the need for moderation by Martin Devlin, hasn't yet persuaded me that I'm on the wrong side of the argument. To those who kept their messages brief: "you are a knob", a "whiney prick", a "nancy-boy", a "girly man", and "you make logical connections just like a woman", thank you for participating.

Not content with being described as a girly man, a couple of weeks later Mr Boock had a go at sexism in sport:

Sportswomen are shabbily treated in New Zealand. They're the patronised, poor cousin of sportsmen, and on the rare occasions they do get a moment of publicity and exposure, they're often marginalised and trivialised; judged on their looks and appearance as much as their tactics and performance. For them, sexism is an everyday reality. Blokedom rules the roost. Misogyny lurks in the shadows.

He also discussed lack of access to top facilities for sports women (Canterbury women's rugby team stopped from playing at Rugby Park, but he could have chosen almost any sport and almost any province) and links between super-macho sports cultures, women-hating and violence against women.

But today there's more still, as Mr Boock asks:

WHY DID the Auckland rugby team bomb this season? Too many Polynesian players in the critical, thinking positions, apparently. That's what I've been told, anyway. Almost on a daily basis, come to think of it. Auckland were eliminated from the quarterfinals because they were an undisciplined, Pasifika rabble; Canterbury qualified because they realised how important it was to play the white boys where they were most needed.

Talking about racism in sport in New Zealand is as brave as talking about sexism - and just as likely to get Richard Boock pilloried by our sports community.

Because make no mistake - comparatively New Zealand has better access to sport for all our ethnicities, more women play sport than almost anywhere else, we have Maori All Blacks that those of us who love sport can cite going back decades.

But we also have some strange resistance to discussing how, even if we do this better than many other places, gender and racial politics are still present.

As Mr Boock points out, beliefs over who are 'thinking players' are perpetuated by many in rugby, and lets not forget former New Zealand men's cricket captain Martin Crowe's assessment of why cricket remains such a white sport in New Zealand:

"Not many Maori make good cricketers because they don't have the patience or the temperament to play a through a whole day, leave alone over a test match."

This wasn't back in the mists of time, but in 2003.

Then we have the disparities in funding for women's and men's sports, regardless of results - how many people know the New Zealand women's cricket team held the world cup in 2000 despite minimal supports, something the men's team have never managed?  Or what about the Black Ferns, the women's rugby team who have held the world cup in three out of five attempts?

Let alone recent 'inventions' like the introduction of female cheerleaders to Super 14 games.

I have to hand it to Richard Boock. I've been critical of him in the past, but recently he has not shirked writing about wider sport issues - which is highly unusual in a country in which many rallied around 'keeping the politics out of sport' while we played racially selected Springbok teams prior to the dismantling of apartheid.

But then I'm always a sucker for girly men. 

[50 Cent vs. Barack Obama: comparing/contrasting ideals of black manhood in Amerika (via Adriel via NahRight)]

And here is an interview with Byron Hurt discussing Hip-Hop: Beyond Beats & Rhymes:

Refreshing and enlightening conversation with filmmaker and activist Byron Hurt on his renowned documentary on male identity in hip hop "Hip Hop: Beyond Beats and Rhymes". The film deconstructs hip hop as it relates to African American culture and consciousness, and it illustrates the elements of violence, misogyny and homophobia that are often endemic in this cultural form. This conversation also engages on aspects of modern race relations, culture and the rise of inspiring new models of African American manhood, including Barack Obama.

[Something to Cry About]

Be a man: try crying when you need to so you don't perpetuate eurocentric, heterosexist, capitalist patriarchy. Give it a try! Don't fight the feelin', 'cause there's a lot to cry about these days...

Yours TRULY,
Senbei

p.s.

[R.I.P. Sean Bell]

Affirmative action is a general term for any policy that seeks to balance ethnic and sexual diversity in a certain area by granting minority groups special benefits and privileges. Examples of affirmative action include colleges and universities turning down the best students for minority students, and requiring businesses to hire a certain percentage of minority employees. A great synonym for affirmative action would be discrimination.

Affirmative action policies were put in place to prevent employers from a dominant group (a.k.a. Caucasian males) from discriminating against minority groups by favoring hiring of their ''own'' (whatever that means). This, of course, comes from the misguided notion that employers are racist idiots who would hire under-qualified white men over more qualified minorities simply because they think (the government, minorities, whomever...) white men still have not accepted the principle that we human beings are all equal. Yeah, OK, employers are smart enough to be in charge of a business, but not enough to know that they'll stand a better chance of success if they hire the best people for the job. Makes perfect sense, doesn't it?

Affirmative action is bad for a number of reasons:

1. Businesses are forced to hire minorities instead of having the freedom of hiring whomever is the best candidate for the job;
2. Boys are already behind girls in school.[1] Privileging girls over boys will further widen the education gap between the sexes;
3. Affirmative action seeks to rectify past wrong-doings by privileging minorities over caucassian males. Not only is this unconstitutional, but if allowed to go on, it will create a vicious circle in which one subspecies or sex will attempt to oppress the other to make up for past wrong-doings.

- Xenocrates

verybody loves a fiesty bitch - especially if it wears lipstick. Sarah Palin is quite possibly the cheapest in a long line of Republican tricks to win an election. John McCain is a clever bastard. He realised that the crowd was swooning for the younger, blacker, hipper candidate. Since Barack Obama forsook his bitch option (Senator Hillary Clinton) for a smartass (Joe Biden) and for very good reasons, he thought; 'what better way to even the odds (or at least, attempt to do so) by selecting a hot, young, bona fide bitch for VP'. It's a brilliant ploy that reeks of gimmick and sexploitation. Ever since this über-bitch took the stage, the media has suddenly stopped cutting John McCain's speeches short for Obama's. Now they're cutting them short for hers. Even though she has proven that she is just as clueless as the president her ticket is hoping to replace, I suspect that some elements of the American idiocracy will swoon for her just the same - because that's what idiocracies do. The only time Sarah Palin seems remotely in touch with anything that comes out of her mouth is when she's not repeating memorised speaking notes as she plays the role of John McCain's fiesty biting poodle. Good thing her bark is worse than her bite as was evident when Katie Couric showed her who's the baddest bitch around - and Katie didn't even have to get fiesty. Rawr. This proves more than anything else that Palin's more MILF than VP material. I ain't even gonna lie. I'd hit it.

Evening the odds

Now what better way to even out the ticket than picking a VP who has been officially implicated as abusing her power in the firing of Alaska's Public Safety Official for his failure to fire a state trooper (who happens to be her sister's ex husband) over allegations that the trooper threatened her family. Great choice John. You picked a bitch to fight a prophet. Clearly you've forgotten the Biblical story of Jezebel to know how that turns out. Well, at least she has great legs.

Now that America has matured Barack Obama from being the ultimate Affirmitive Action Poster boy, an old, cranky, white dude who is nothing more than a fossilised remnant of the old age of America only reminds the intelligible masses of exactly where they don't want to be. That was an America where the world was run by old white men who sent young men to die in needless wars while exemplifying gross incompetence in economic mismanagement. John McCain took a while to realise this. He failed to capitulate quickly enough to the fact that Obama's message of "change" is a systemic one - not some cheap campaign slogan. That's where the Palin factor comes in.

[caption id="attachment_171" align="aligncenter" width="485" caption="The Republican Ticket"][/caption]

If John McCain really wanted to even the score though, he would've picked a young successful BLACK woman with just as much pretentious badass as Palin. Unfortunately, most of those women are too busy having five kids for dead beat dads. So Sarah Palin was the next best option. She has five kids for a dad that cares. Awww... how sweet. Now that she's his running mate, it's like the Republican party has almost completely dumped McCain. With the level of fame she's suddenly gotten, Palin might as well run for president. McCain's her bitch now. Not the the other way around. Meow baby...

Her opening speech at the RNC was pretty hot. Even I liked her - and I couldn't even see her legs that time. I even thought briefly that the Republicans might actually win this. I applauded John McCain for this move - until I heard Palin virtually repeating her speech verbatim everywhere she went. That's when everyone, including Bush's dog, started to wonder if she's got anything else under her belt. That's when the Palin novelty wore off, and Katie Couric took off her gloves and took this biatch to the cleaners.

The Dumb Blonde Effect

So you might be thinking "pfssh - Another anti-republican, anti-Palin, blogster who doesn't know what he's talking about and is just mouthing off for attention". I scoff at thee, oh clueless one, if that's how you feel. Clearly you have not been watching the events of the last couple of weeks on television. The Palin factor has demonstrated more than anything else, that she is nothing more than a pretty puppet - a dumb blonde of sorts who's been shoved into a role that she lacks the experience and capacity to support. She, like the Bush factor before her, has become nothing more than an epic laughing stock for the media. I guess that's why McCain no longer accuses Obama of being inexperienced. Haw Haw. You fcked yourself there buddy. Feast your eyes on this gem:

CNN was having a blast with that one. Saturday Night Live (which typically has mediocre ratings) has blown up and now has the highest ratings in seven years! Now think about this for a second: If SNL is making a killing vis-a-vis Tina Fey on this VP hopeful, that can't be a good sign, can it? Did you get the joke from what CNN's John King observed? He wasn't sure if it was life imitating art or art imitating life. That is sad! The fact that SNL used what Palin said almost verbatim as material for their funny rendition illustrates the sheer dread that America needs to feel when considering that this moronic hockey mom might become President of the USA should the McCain croak.

Do you realise that nobody is making as much fun of Obama? This is not SNL being partisan (as was suggested by a Republican buffoon in CNN). Obama's not that easy to make fun of because he's not an intrinsic idiot. It's hard to make fun of someone and make it genuinely funny if they don't provide you with the material to do so. The media treats the candidates for what they really are. Obama gets a music video homage made out to him while Palin gets made fun of. It would seem that the Republicans of late are proof that the American Idiocracy is a self defacing, self lampooning engine that is inexorably bound to it's own stupidity. But wait, it gets worse:

WTF?

Her childishness in her capacity to reason on simple ideas is remarkable. It makes you wonder if McCain is really serious about her as a running mate. I mean, seriously?!  If she gets into the White House, John Stewart, Saturday Night Live, Stephen Colbert and everyone else in between are going to have a blast and the last eight years of this over rated idiocracy will pale in comparison. The comedians will weep if Republicans loose this election. But seriously, that level of ignorance should FRIGHTEN you. What's even more frightening is that there are so many people blindly backing this woman. Why is so much of the electorate so dunce? Now if that doesn't scare you, this might:

Oh. My. God...

Have you ever sat an exam where you were required to answer a question that you didn't really know the answer to and you just concocted a bullshit response that would come as close to the answer that you think it was? Doesn't that seem eerily like what Governor Palin was doing just now? Jack Cafferty was right. That level of ignorance for someone going into one of the highest offices in the land is simply inexcusable. It is in this moment that the gimmick is exposed and the clueless cutie pie becomes fodder for SNL:

I said some time ago that there is a very good reason why men still rule the world. Apparently this new turn of events even more so validates what I said before. Consider the two women who've been profiled in this election. The Democratic female candidate hopeful, Hillary Clinton, ran her campaign to the point where she almost completely destroyed the party. The selfish bitch kept going even though she didn't have a popsicle's chance in hell of beating Obama. She gave lots of female voters misplaced hope and almost sent 18 million Democratic voters off the deep end. The idiot only put 18 million cracks in the Democratic party's walls - not the ceiling. Then comes along this fiesty hot thang (with amazing legs might I add - oh wait, I said that already ) who has all but made a fool of McCain, the Republicans and the dumb blondes that support her.

I couldn't help but make the incontrovertible observation that she sticks to the same nonsensical responses irrespective of what is being asked of her in the above mentioned interviews. She's not very different from Hillary Clinton when she gets all fired up. That's why women in these kinds of top positions rarely do well. All those electrochemical reactions discharging in their brains defeat their capacity to be rational. That's why Hillary Clinton lost the Democratic primaries and that's why SNL's Tina Fey has more material than she knows what to do with. It shouldn't be considered an act of comic genius that SNL had a skit with her and Hillary sharing the spotlight. The point is that these two women have proven that it is irrational to argue with an irrational woman - crystalising what every man has always known about women in top positions. That's not being sexist. It's being realistic.

Barring her gaffs during interviews, Palin has uttered a lot of nonsense since she's been shoved into the spotlight. I'm pretty sure that she's being spoon fed this garbage. Clearly she doesn't suffer from diminished cognitive capacity - or does she? As McCain's campaign is flailing like a haemorrheging headless chicken, Palin's job as 'attack dog' is pretty clear. As such, the campaign has resorted to hurling mud at the left since it effectively has no other substance with which to win the election. The latest of her accusations that Obama 'pals' around with terrorists is ludicrous to say the least:

The fact that Obama was eight years old when Ayers was on a bombing campaign automatically moots the accusation. Serving on the board with this dude doesn't imply that Obama is a terrorist and it doesn't mean that he agrees with Ayers. That's just as ridiculous as the accusations that because there are family ties between Bush and Adolf Hitler that he is furthering Hitler's agenda. It's just plain dumb and reeks of desperation. Appropriately, all this mud hurling has backfired at the McCain campaign, and now he's stuck with the job of cleaning up her puke:

Republicans have 'officially' gone

These people support the Republican party for all the same reasons that the media swoons for Obama. They are not interested in facts - just what is being said. Now if you go around hurling mud at the left like that, especially using a dumb blonde like Palin to make these kinds of nonsensical remarks, what do you think is going to happen when a large portion of your supporters are uneducated, church-going, white trash, Joe six-pack, post civil rights grudge holders, living in backwater hick towns where words like "moonbat" are still being used? Now that the republitards actually believe that Obama is an Arabic terrorist, (how dumb can these people really get?) how is John McCain going to dig himself out of this crap? Way to go McCain. You just lost the election. Better luck in 2012.

Oh wait, you'll be too old then. Nevermind.

Conclusion

Already there appear to be cracks in the Republican ticket. As far as conservatism is concerned, Palin and McCain are on the two far ends of the spectrum. If this ticket doesn't get to the Whitehouse, it is likely that she will run against McCain loyalists in 2012 and all this garbage will come back to haunt her then. She will try to distance herself from McCain when issues like stem cell research and prolife choices come up and the Democratic team will use that to tie her to McCain's flailing campaign. If Obama wins, it looks like he is already a shoe in for a second term if this is the best that the Republicans have to offer.

Senator John McCain may be a real American hero - but he doesn't make much of a convincing politician. He was putting his electorate to sleep when he spoke and the news media (even Fox News! *Gasp!*) made fun of the fact that he is a lame orator. Let's face it, Sarah Palin injected needed life into his campaign. She's hot, young, sassy, pretty and has an annoying accent (is that Alaskan?) that seems to resonate with moms on the far right. McCain barely knew Governor Palin when she was selected, which adds to the conspicuous nature of this gimmick.

If I were a feminist, I would be rightfully offended of the exploitation of a skirt to make an old fogie look good. I'm not surprised that feminists on the far right however, have ignored this obvious abuse of femininity for political mileage - which clearly exposes the inextricable link between feminism and the bullshit I like to call "double standards". Is she really that dark that she doesn't realise that she's being used? She's probably too excited about the possibility of being a VP to care about all that.

To that end, I've hidden an image somewhere in this post which exemplifies how many people truly feel about the Republican Ticket. It's an Easter Egg. I must warn you that it's not PG-13.  If you can find it, you will either be deeply offended or love it. (Hint: it's a URL link). Ahh, the brilliance of manipulating feminine desperation. Happy hunting. Now in the true spirit of blatant misogyny, I leave you with this truly inspired piece of sexploitation which captures the dirty old man's wandering eyes, as he tossing around the idea of removing that wedding ring:

Now that's hot.

This piece on LabourHome by Mike Ion, Labour's PPC for Shrewsbury in 2005 and occasional Guardian Comment is Free writer, begins:

"According to Jon Cruddas (Tuesday's Evening Standard) the far-Right BNP is busy exploiting the present economic crisis and could easily end up winning seats in the European Parliament for the first time."

It is always worthwhile to prefix BNP with 'the far right' to try and scare potential deserters from leaving your party.

Ion states twice that the BNP is racist, but gives no further information and seems to have conveniently forgotten about Harriet Harman's racism against whites and sexism against men, e.g.

Harriet Harman in plan to give parties all-black shortlists

White men face jobs ban as new law favours ethnic minorities and women

Of course, what Labour is best at is bringing in ridiculous, unfair, unworkable legislation in order to set neighbour against neighbour on a whole range of issues. It's called divide and rule.

We cannot let Labour get away with inferring that they are the party for a peaceful and fair society when they have done just about everything they could to ensure the opposite will be the reality.

Ion finishes by saying:

"What Britain needs is a broad anti-fascist coalition, a new coalition of the willing. This broadest possible coalition against the BNP must be constructed nationally, regionally and locally. It needs to involve trade unions, black, Asian and minority ethnic communities, faith groups, lesbian and gay groups and every other community threatened by the rise of the far right."

White British heterosexuals can stay at home then?

He sounds very scared of the BNP's potential to harvest his comrades as they jump from the rotting hull of the good ship New Labour before it sinks under the weight of its lies, treachery and bloodshed.

Could the BNP be any worse than Lib/Lab/Con? You decide!

Sfarsitul de saptamana nu trebuie lasat sa treaca ca orice zi normala. E printre putinele tale sanse sa mai iesi in evidenta si sa bei pana nu mai reusesti sa iti gasesti prietenii sau mintile. Eu am decis sa imi iau o zi in avans si sa ma duc aseara in club cu cativa prieteni zdraveni de pahar. Pentru ca vreau sa imi gasesc alinarea intr-un pahar cu sangrita sau intr-o surubelnita facuta bine.

Petrecere mare in Metropolis, la fel si-n Suburbia... singurul lucru la care ma gandesc e sa dau drumul distractiei mai repede. Sunt deja ametit; o sesiune scurta cu baietii la coltul blocului au asigurat acest lucru, asa ca lumea deja pare un pic mai prietenoasa si fetele par ca ma vor toate, dar e doar alcoolul.

Club Suburbia e mai aproape, asa ca nu ma gandesc prea mult... o sa le schimbam pe parcursul serii oricum, noaptea e inca lunga si companioanele noastre par sa se distreze si ele. Una e Oana si cealalta e Maria, ultima fiind o fosta relatie de scurta durata care s-a incheiat la fel de repede cum a inceput. Nici ma mira, la cat de des o vedeam s-ar fi simtit mai apropiata de filtrul de cafea decat de fata mea obosita de alcool si droguri ieftine. Baietii nu par prea fericiti, poate si datorita faptului ca sunt treji. Iulian si Gabi nu sunt cei mai petrecareti oameni pe care ii stiu, dar inca am sperante pentru ei; la ultimul bairam am reusit sa terminam 2 sticle de stalinskaia de cate-un litru in prima jumatate de ora... care inca ramane un record personal.

Muzica chillout si o atmosfera identica

Clubul e destul de gol, si bautura destul de ieftina... eh, dar macar unul din criterii e indeplinit. Canapele sunt la fel de confortabile cum le stiam, asa ca ma asez langa fetele fara prea mari pretentii la baieti, si imi las personalitatea debordanta sa isi faca efectul asupra lor:

-"Si cum e-n club pisi?", ma rastesc la Oana sa ma poata auzi printre atatea sunete de cascade si pasari care ciripesc. Cine dracu s-a trezit dimineata si i-a venit lui asa in minte? - frate, muzica chillout tre' sa aibe pasarele - sa-mi bag pula-n ma-sa de panchist. Urasc pasarelele!

-"E marfa, da nu-mi place muzica".... raspunde tarfa; intotdeauna au ceva de comentat bai nene, ba o ai prea mica, ba o ai prea mare, ba vrea in Twice, ba nu vrea sa-ti suga pula ca maine se duce la dentist... treziti-va tarfelor, o sa muriti toate virgine! Frate nu sunt o persoana rea, dar discutiile de genul acesta reusesc mereu sa scoata ce e mai acid in mine.

Ma calmez si imi redirectionez atentia catre febletea mea de-o saptamana. Incerc sa reinod o discutie interesanta despre prietenele ei cum faceam in trecut, desi imi venea sa ma injunghii in gaoaza cand auzeam cum se vaita saraca pasarica de prietenii ei ipocriti... Nici nu mi se scoala pula... tipic, e la fel de plictisitoare cum am lasat-o. Clubul incepe sa se umple si baietii par sa simta ritmul distractiei din ce in ce mai mult... stiam eu ca nu i-am judecat gresit. Omu' meu Iulian e deja calare pe boxa si Gabi vrea sa se ridice langa el... nu reuseste, dar faptul ca incearca incontinuu reuseste sa-mi rupa un zambet imbecil de pe fata.

Ma ridic sa dansez si dupa vreo juma de ora se antreneaza si fetele suspecte in hora noastra hiphop... macar au schimbat si ei stilul. Maria e la fel de sexuala ca intotdeauna, mai are putin si imi pleaca cu piciorul drept acasa. O las in pace, surubelnita din mana ei imi spune ca actiunile ei nu sunt cele mai obiective. Imi place insa de Oana, care danseaza cu ochii inchisi in propria lume in timp ce e frecata de 3 tipi pe care nu cred ca i-a intalnit vreodata. O las in pace, macar acum poate o sa aibe si ea parte de ceva actiune... din cate observ din comportamentul ei de femeie neatinsa, are nevoie.

Alt club, alta mancare de peste!

Am ajuns deja in alta parte si muzica imi inunda creierul aruncandu-l intr-o reactie psihedelica care ii nedumereste pe oamenii mei de pahar. Bautura e prima mea prioritate. Barmanul imi pare cunoscut, si realizez ca asta e barul in care se serveste cea mai buna sangrita din oras. Deja ma cunoaste, asa ca tot ce trebuie sa fac e sa ii arat pe degete numarul de shoturi pe care il vreau la inceput... imi tarasc ochii printre oameni si realizez uimit ca mi-am pierdut colegii. Oare sa fi plecat fara ei? Dumnezeule, cand dracu am ajuns aici, si ce mi-au pus astia in bautura?

Dupa o perioada de timp nedefinibila si irelevanta ii gasesc pe o banca-n undeva in spate, de parca se ascundeau de cineva... dar stai, brusc fetele cu care suntem sunt mult mai atragatoare... mai putin Oana, muia aceea acra ar fi in stare sa sperie si un orb. Dar Maria... Maria por che? Oi Juan, estoi embarassada! Puta!!!!!... Ma scuzati, e doar alcoolul ramas in sistem. Un impuls salbatic ma face sa vreau sa ma asez din nou langa ea, poate ii mai dau o sansa sa se salveze de imaginea de pizda ignoranta pe care i-am creat-o.

Au trecut deja vreo doua ore si discutiile mele cu ea despre ce ochi ne plac si cat de buni sunt prietenii ei de fapt, ma fac sa ma indoiesc ca are o singura personalitate. Oricum, probabil am uimit-o cu faptul ca vorbesc atat de mult cu ea, fiindca deja umarul ei se impinge in subratul meu si pare ca incearca sa imi asculte bataile inimii sa vada daca mi-a crescut una intre timp.

Usor, usor vorbele ei incep sa capete o conotatie personala, cu tot mai multe referiri la fosta noastra relatie... parca presimteam, stiu ce urmeaza. Acelasi lucru pe care il vezi in telenovelele de pe Acasa si pe care il auzi mereu in fata la McDonalds... reprosuri. N-ai pus portie mare de cartofi!! Tu nu ma iubesti!!! Tarfa, imi vreau sosul acrisor!! Nuu Jose, nu esti un barbat adevarat!!, Ma simt prizonier intr-un film prost cu lesbiene si tractoristi in calduri.

-"Si spune-mi Ion, de ce ma tii in brate acum daca nu mai vrei sa fii cu mine?"... catea nenorocita, tu te impingi in mine de parca incerci sa ma dai mai incolo... mai am putin si ma mut la masa alaturata.

-"Fiindca vreau sa te duc acasa si sa rup pasarica in tine cum faceam cand ne cunosteam".

-"Ah, si acuma nu ma cunosti?"

-"Nici macar nu-ti stiu numele de familie" ... pana aici. Aparent asta a fost o expresie care a pus capac.

Brusc s-a schimbat la fata, si am vazut-o cum isi intinde mana catre geanta din stanga mea. Credeam ca izbucneste in plans si cauta servetele, jur. Doamne, doar continuam o discutie superficiala retardata si prost interpretata. Nu-mi termin gandul ca deja o vad smulgand geanta peste mainile mele, cum impinge o grasa din drum si iese pe usa ca din tun... baietii inca petrec si Oana e inca frecata de giboni intr-un colt... cred ca au urmarit-o. Oricum n-o sa ne simta lipsa...

Nopatea in care era sa-mi pierd viata si zarit sirenele

Mi-am dat seama ca am facut-o de oaie un pic; poate nu aveam nici un drept sa vorbesc asa cu ea... vroiam sa ma port frumos cu ea, dar ultima sticla de gin se pare ca se impotrivea; am iesit si am incercat sa ma apropii putin, clipa in care s-a ridicat din pozitia aia de victima cu mainile apropiate duse la piept, le-a lasat usor jos pe langa corp, a strans pumnii si a rupt-o la fuga pe scari. Am incercat sa ma duc dupa ea.... dar brusc scara a inceput sa ma izbeasca de toti peretii si sa ma puna in genunchi. M-am oprit o clipa. Trebuia sa imi trag sufletul. Imi strang mintile de pe jos si ma pregatesc din nou. Totusi nu voiam sa o las sa scape, asa ca am fugit in continuare dupa ea cu o incapatanare cum numai un om beat poate avea.

La iesirea din club am observat-o alergand spre metrou... era 3:40, nu stiu ce mai spera sa prinda la ora asta... am luat-o la fuga in mod stereo (adica haotic) spre ea strigand-o cu o voce obosita si ametita de alcool, moment in care m-am trezit brusc tintuit la pamant... Printre scartaituri de roti si tipete de disperare, am deschis ochii si nu am vazut decat un far inclinat stins si o culoare galbena... era o masina, o masina care ma avea pe mine sub rotile din fata... am crezut ca daca ma misc voi fi la un pas de moarte... mi-era frica, nu voiam sa mor, inca mai aveam de experimentat sexul in 4 si cunnilingusul... Maria vine fugind spre mine, fiindca ii pot auzi pantofii lovindu-se violent de asfalt, din ce in ce mai puternic... in mod ciudat sunetul ma deranja mai mult decat faptul ca nu puteam sa ma misc. Soferul a iesit sa vada ce se intamplase si daca mai traiesc. S-a aplecat peste mine... m-a prins de maini incercand sa ma ridice, moment in care am inceput sa tip: „Nuuu!”. Inca nu stiu stiu ce gandeam in acele momente, dar eram sigur ca aveam coloana fracturata... soferul mi-a dat drumul imediat si am cazut in fund. Nu aveam nimic, masina nici nu ma lovise,  ma impiedicasem si cazusem ca un retardat. Bine ca soferul masinii oprise la timp... se pare ca farul il avea spart de mai mult timp, ii tot spunea lui Maria ca vroia sa il schimbe dar nu avusese timp.

Prima bataie si ultima intalnire

Maria m-a tarat pe trotuar, m-a luat in brate m-a strans si apoi mi-a dat drumul numai pentru a continua cu un ropot de palme care a speriat toata betia ramasa in mine: „Prostule, Idiotule, Nemernicule... esti inconstient, daca te lovea!”. Am lesinat... cred ca stresul acumulat amestecat cu bautura si palmele acelea zdravene imi pusesera capac. Un neant imens se intinde in visul meu post-traumatic. Tot ce pot vedea e o mare intinsa si un grup de sirene care ma cheama in larg... doamne de vis homosexual si idiot. Macar sunt atragatoare...

Am simtit cum cineva ma prinde de mana si infige un cutit in ea... cine dracu vrea sa ma priveze de un vis atat de frumos? m-am trezit brusc din inconstienta... eram pe trotuar, cu o echipa de medici de pe o salvare, imi injectau ceva in brat.

-"E doar glucoza, o sa te trezeasca mai repede din betie".

Merci tarfa... am dat o gramada de bani pe bautura asta, chiar crezi ca vreau sa ma trezesc asa repede? Dar nu ma asculta... Dupa o scurta analiza cu beculetul pe pupila si cateva intrebari elementare m-au intrebat cum ma simt, si m-au rugat sa merg cu ei la spital pentru niste analize... am refuzat, ultimul lucru de care mai am acum nevoie e o clisma si un coleg de salon cu probleme de prostata.

Ma uit in jur, ea insa nu mai era acolo... cred si eu, la cate se intamplasera in seara asta, nici eu nu cred ca mai stateam prin preajma. As fi vrut sa-mi cer scuze sau sa mai vorbim.

Oricum, eu sper ca restul grupului sa fi ajuns cu bine acasa, fiindca eu abia m-am trezit, si am o pofta zdarvana de suc de portocale.

Merci pentru tot Maria... dar asta nu schimba faptul ca esti o pizda proasta care era sa ma omoare.

Te pup, Ion.

From The Wasilla Project, this video is the first of a four-part series.

Media Matters' Eric Boehlert also discusses how the rape kit controversy has not been de-bunked, contrary to what some in the mainstream media would have you believe.

In fact, Palin had a direct role in charging rape victims for exams.

Stay tuned...

So, here's how my math class went the other day:

Meathead #1: This pen is so GAY!

Me: (pissed) It can't be gay! You have to have a brain (or other central nervous system) in order to be gay!

Meathead #2: No, not gay, gay. Gay like mentally retarded gay.

Me: So you're saying gay people are mentally retarded?

At this point in similar conversations, the other person usually launches into a string of, "No! No, I don't mean that! I love people! I know this gay guy! He's great!" Instead, this is what happened:

Meathead #2: Yeah!

Me: Waiwaiwait. You're saying gay people are mentally retarded?

Meathead #2: Well, no, just...I'm just anti-homo. I think homos can do whatever they want, but it's disgusting. Like, you think lesbians are disgusting, right?

Meathead #3: I have no problems with lesbians...if they're hot!

(Neanderthal high-fives and chuckles abound)

Me: What a horrible, sexist, homophobic thing to say! How can you be so totally sheltered and stupid?!

Biblical Meathead: The bible says we shouldn't be gay.

Me: The bible also says don't get haircuts...

Biblical Meathead: Actually, my hair grows like this naturally.

(Neanderthal high-fives and chuckles abound)

Then they all sat and laughed at me, the stupid girl who decided to have a conscience and not skip around smearing on lip gloss and shoving my boobs into their faces. You know, like girls are supposed to?

Nobody expects girls to have political ideas at my school. Boys wear Obama pins, anti-war buttons, political bumper stickers, but when i do it, I'm branded as the shrill feminazi who all the boys mock and objectify so that they can feel more powerful.

Well, here's a newsflash, dudes: You are powerful. You are rich, white, Christian, conservative, straight guys, and you're popular. You freaking rule the Western world. I'm not sure why you feel you have to make women and black people and gays into little jokes when you can have pretty much every single opportunity you want in the world. But it's still not enough. What the hell, guys? I mean, really. You are not oppressed by feminism. You are not oppressed by black people. Homosexuality isn't contagious. You can stop building up barriers of intolerance and smug self-satisfaction.

I guess in the end it must be fear. For the last, what, two thousand years? People like them have lived on top of the other people below them. Now we're catching up. We're gaining equality, and some of these guys can't deal.

Hopefully, they'll mature. Maybe not. I really don't know.

But you know the funny thing? This scenario happened twice in one day.

Hurrah for the future of America.

[/rant]

I think the moment my creeper-like behavior became most salient to me was a couple of weeks ago. Someone needed to use the department's copier and the secretary was not in, so the student asked me for help. I don't have a code for the copier, so I had to ask the nearest professor, who happened to be the one whom Mr. Crankosaur has christened with the Bondian nickname Dr. Hotbody in honor of the massive crush I have on him. As I walked behind him to the copy room, I had my eyes pretty much glued to his ass. Now, my memory of this moment is a bit fuzzy, so entranced I was by this aforementioned ass, but I think I may have made some sort of face or motion that is typically used to signify saying, "Ohhhhhhh yeah! That's what I'm talkin' 'bout!" After his code was inputted into the copy machine and I ascertained that the student had all she needed to make successful copies, I went back to my office and reflected on what happened, and how similar my behavior was to that of the creepy psych. professor Mr. Crankosaur and I had once. We would always make fun of the way he would practically lick the glass as he passed by the windows overlooking the school's indoor pool. He was a total creeper, and that's what I was behaving like: a creeper.

Now, what exactly is a creeper? I don't know if there is a set definition, but there exists a range of different behaviors that your typical creeper will exhibit. Ogling people inappropriately is one. Seeking out forms of media that will provide people to ogle is another. Demanding a maximum amount of doable people in media in general. Sexually commenting about strangers as they pass. Putting more weight in a person's appearance than that person's accomplishments. Objectification. Doing what this guy does. All the behavior of creepers, and many that I have exhibited. I mean, how many times have I watched Y Tu Mama Tambien for the Gael Garcia Bernal-on-Diego Luna action? How many times have I decried the lack of hot menz on television, in movies, in all forms of media? How many times have my prurient thoughts tuned out the words being spoken by a particularly attractive guest on the Charlie Rose show? Okay, that last one, only once, but I was thinking some pretty disgusting things. And yet, as many creeper-like behaviors as I may exhibit, I don't think that I could really be considered one. Why is this?

I think to properly understand what makes a creeper we have to understand the social mechanisms involved. I believe what contributes to a person's creeperdom is not necessarily that person's behavior, but rather the place that person holds in society in relation to the targets of the creepiness. A creeper can only be considered a creeper when the behavior serves as a tool to dominate and instill fear. We can see the way this plays out in cases of sexual harrassment. I once read about an interview study of restaurant workers on their opinions on sexual harrassment. Between co-workers, a lot of behavior went on that could be construed as inappropriate and could easily fit the textbook definition of sexual harrassment: a lot of flirting and sexual comments. None of the respondents reported feeling particularly uncomfortable in these situations; they were peers, they were joking around and having fun. However, when one of the managers or an older co-worker or a customer behaved similarly, this was described as making the respondents feel uncomfortable. Here we have the added dimension of power. It is the feeling that someone has power over you or is trying to take your power away that makes these situations uncomfortable.

This is why men often appear to be confused when women take offense to their "compliments". They imagine they would be flattered if a strange woman walked up to them and told them they're hot, but that behavior does not reinforce any patterns of dominance and does not instill fear. When a man approaches a woman like that, however, because of the way society is structured, it is an act of dominance. Even doing something as seemingly innocent as telling a woman she's "pretty" serves to reinforce this idea that women are ornamental, that their appearance is all that matters, that any man has a right to pass judgement on her because he holds this privilege as a man. And although there is the occasional extremely rare case of woman raping a male peer, women do not typically pose a threat to men. On the other hand, when a strange man walks up to a woman and talks to her, there is a perfectly rational fear she has that he may pose a threat to her.

Allow me to use an example from my own experience to illustrate another aspect of what makes a creeper. Recently after one of my classes, we all, professor included, went to the bar across the street to hang out. The professor, who is also my thesis advisor, sat next to me. After my officemate peer pressured him into downing a beer and three shots, he was a little... let's say handsy. He had moved his seat considerably closer to mine and punctuated our conversation with a lot of hand and shoulder touching, with one brush against the leg for good measure. The rest of the class emptied out pretty fast and our party dwindled down to me, him, my officemate, and her husband. They were parked next door, so I got to take a little walk to the parking garage with Dr. Pervazoid*, during which he made known his approval of me as what he referred to as the best kind of woman, a feminist who still knows how to be sexy and look like a woman.

...?

He then went on to tell me how he's interested to see my paper and that he thinks I show a lot of promise or something, but after the events that transpired over the course of the evening, the seeds of doubt had been planted. Does he actually think that I'm talented and intelligent, or is he just hitting on me? Is he actually paying attention to what I'm saying, or is he pretending he is so he can try and look up my skirt? There is a sense of being duped, of being used, of being made a fool of, that does not often exist when a woman exhibits creeper-like behavior toward a man. A man's competence and intelligence and authority are all seen to augment his attractiveness, whereas those same qualities are thought to diminish a woman's attractiveness, and her attractiveness is seen to undermine those qualities. A man can hold a conversation with a woman who appears to be interested in him sexually and not have to worry if it's an act, or feel demeaned, whereas a woman speaking with a man who appears interested in her sexually cannot help but wonder if he is lying to her, if he is putting on an act, if he doesn't take her seriously. It's like that Twix commericial with the guy impatiently listenting to the hot female blogger, pretending to share her opinions while all the while looking for a moment to interject and get in her pants. A man's intelligence is something to be attracted to, a woman's is an obstacle to be overcome.

As I said before, despite my creeper-like behavior, I don't think I could qualify as a creeper, because what makes a creeper is the possibility of using sexual dominance, deception, and fear against another person. This is not to say that there are no female creepers. Take a look at any case involving a female teacher sleeping with an underage male student: not all creepers are rapists, but all rapists are creepers. However, in a patriarchal society, women typically do not hold sexual power over men, and therefore incidents of female creeperdom are extremely rare. This begs the question: can creepers exist outside a patriarchal system? I hope to try and address that question soon.

* I assure you that I intend to lay some verbal smack down on Dr. Pervazoid before class on Tuesday. However, I can be pretty horrifically bad at confrontation, so any encouragement would be appreciated.

However, the first line of Kristoff's op-ed piece in the New York times on Wednesday read:

The Bush administration this month is quietly cutting off birth control supplies to some of the world’s poorest women in Africa.

The rest was just as scary.  To see the article, click here.

Personally, I am a real believer in family planning.  If you look at poverty rates and then compare them with average number of children per family, there is a distinct correlation. In the past, and in some areas where subsistencefarming is the way of life, families need to be big.  They need to ensure that some of the children survive (this assumes that some will not) and that they have enough hands to work.  With the technology and medical advances, this should no longer be the case.  Certainly, it is not in the developing world. 

Part of family planning is teaching couples proactive ways to avoid unwanted pregnancies, thus avoiding dangerous--sometimes back-alley--abortions. Birth control and condoms are the best (easiest, mot reliable, and cheapest) ways for people to do family planning.

In the last weeks, "U.S. Agency for International Development ordered six African countries to ensure that no U.S.-financed condoms, birth control pills, I.U.D.’s or other contraceptives are furnished to Marie Stopes International, a British-based aid group that operates clinics in poor countries."

This is unacceptable.

John McCain, instinctively, supported the plan. "When a reporter asked him this spring whether American aid should finance contraceptives to fight AIDS in Africa, he initially said, “I haven’t thought about it,” and later added, “You’ve stumped me.”"

I believe that it is important that we use contraception as a fundamental part of battling AIDS. I also believe that poor people around the world should be able to plan their families and use contraception just as people in the US and other developing nations do without thinking. Furthermore, I think this plan backfires on it's pro-life backers, increased unwanted pregnancies not only increase unwanted children, they also increase abortions.

Iformation of the article:

1. Author's name : Minic, Danica
2. Title of the article : What Makes An Issue A women’s Hour Issue?
3. Title of the journal : Feminist Media studies
4. Date of publication : Sep 2008
5. Volume and issue numbers: Vol. 8 Issue 3
6. Page numbers of the article: 15
7. Permalink to the article : http://0-search.ebscohost.com.lib.aucegypt.edu:80/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=34011154&site=ehost-live
8. Subject headings of articles: Feminism and mass media, Radio & women, Women & journalism, Sexism in mass media, Women in the press

In an ideal world, perhaps those who did the right thing wouldn't need praise because there wouldn't be so many negative aspects. However, let's be realistic. The world isn't ideal and the people who do the right thing are lessening all the time. I believe in rewarding people for doing what they're supposed to do. I'm not sure where the idea that doing right means not receiving love and appreciation, but I would wager a guess it can be traces through religion (specifically Christianity), but that may just be my bias. Specifically...

I believe when a man does not beat his wife, he should be praised and appreciated. I'm sure everyone can agree that men have always been the dominant figure. They are taught to only show "strong" emotions, and never weakness like sadness, mercy, or sympathy. Men are taught that they must defend their home, their families, and their country. Men are taught that to be men they must take part in "man" activities which are often violent, such as contact sports and hunting. Men are encouraged to undervalue women, to not maintain committed long-term relationships, and to gratify their animalistic desires to procreate, dominate, and destroy. Thus, when a man realizes that what society teaches them is wrong, that they don't have to resort to violence, or be "tough" or dominate, they deserve to be praised.

When parents don't beat their children, they deserve to be recognized and appreciated. So many things go into this. Violence often comes from people who lack the ability to express themselves with words, and our society has a history of oppressing every emotion, especially those deemed "sinful". People still have not learned to communicate, or how to not control. Parents are taught to see their children as property that they have to control and mold, like some sort of pet. Women were also forced into the role of motherhood, unable to use birth control to stop unwanted pregnancies or have abortions when mistakes happen. They were forced into marriage and taught that they weren't people, but living incubators whose sole purpose was to create life and obey their husbands. Men were forced into the role of fathers and husbands, before they even reached maturity. See above point concerning men and violence. Another factor is parents were taught to discipline their children with violence, do we forget the phrase "spare the rod, spoil the child"? Therefore, when parents learn that they cannot control every aspect of their child and cannot beat these children into submission, they should be praised. When parents learn that the way they were raised, and the discipline they received was not the most healthy way, they should be praised. When they realize their parents were human, and made mistakes, and they should learn from these mistakes and try to find a better way to raise their children, they should be praised. When parents realize they need to use their words to express disappointment, pain, fear, uncertainty instead of violence, they should be praised. When women know they don't have to be mothers, and instead are able to make an educated choice from desire and love, they should be praised. When people stop looking at having children as an unfortunate event, something that ruins their life, and ends all their dreams, they should be praised.

I could go on for pages. I could list the reasons why someone who owns their privilege should be praised, or a teenager who doesn't succumb to peer pressure to have sex or do harmful drugs, or when people aren't homophobic or racist or sexist should be praised. We all know the stereotypes. We have to look at the state of the world, and see that obviously "punish the sin" only mentality is not working. People are tired of feeling ashamed when they make a mistake and being ignored when they try to be good people. Folks are sick of being grouped in with the negative, and being called out and insulted when they try to stand up and disassociate themselves.

It has always been my policy in life to ignore those who do the horrible things, because no attention is worse than calling them out, and to lavish praise, appreciation and acceptance on those who do the right thing.

Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar:  The Madwoman in the Attic:  The Woman Writer and the Nineteenth-Century Literary Imagination

The Madwoman in the Attic by Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar is a perfect illustration of bra-burning, patriarchal-hating, feminist literature.  In chapter 2 of their book, Gilbert and Gubar rail against the male-dominated literary world.  The two authors show how the Freud inspired Bloomian critical theory, the "Anxiety of Influence," which illustrated the pressures that poets and writers have to exceed the accomplishments of their forefathers, is a blatantly sexist, male-oriented structure.   This Oedipal-based structure completely excludes any way in which female writers are able to define themselves without rejecting their female qualities.  Furthermore, Gilbert and Gubar assert that the Anxiety of Influence is an exclusivist literary structure that forces women into a rebellious, and often self-destructive, subculture, identified as the "Anxiety of Authorship" model.  In this model, Gilbert and Gubar question the ability of the "anxious woman" writer to even contemplate her status as a uniquely female writer.  Where Bloom finds competition and aggression between male writers and their precursors, women struggle just to recognize themselves as writers.  For any female writer, of any significance, the effect of writing outside the patriarchal system, absolutely necessary for any distinctly female writer, is tantamount to original sin and worthy of a good ole' fashion condemnation by a Winthropian, puritan society.

Gilbert and Gubar's illustration of the inherently sexist quality within the Western literary structure is an appropriate critique of the American Christian gender-role doctrine.  In fact, Christian gender-role doctrine may be the underlying cause of the male-dominated literary structure, and all other inherently sexists structures in American society.

As Gilbert and Gubar state, "it is debilitating to be any woman in a society where women are warned that if they do not behave like angels they must be monsters".  Or heathen, or the Antichrist, or just a loony.   Nowhere is this type of thinking more obvious than in America's Puritan society.  Gilbert and Gubar recall "City on a Hill" proponent John Winthrop's scathing condemnations towards colonial free-thinker Anne Hopkins, wife of Connecticut's Governor.  The authors quote Winthrop saying that she "has fallen into a sad infirmity, the loss of her understanding and reason . . . by occasion of her giving herself wholly to reading and writing, and had written many books."  How could she have avoided this?  According to Winthrop, "if she had attended her household affairs, and such things as belong to women . . . she [would] had kept her wits."  She acted outside her boundaries as a woman, therefore she was out of her mind.

Do not blame Winthrop, entirely, because the rationale for such a blatantly sexists worldview is based on the Bible's own patriarchal complex, in both the Old Testament and the New Testament.  Call it the "Christian Anxiety of Influence"-the inability of the American puritan society to breakaway from its patriarchal, sexists past.  This Christian model is, unfortunately, easily extrapolated from New Testament text, particularly from the ridiculously bigoted Paul.   Amongst numerous other passages, this one from I Timothy is particularly illuminating of the blatant sexism inherent in Christianity:  "I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man. She must be silent, for Adam was formed first, then Eve, and Adam was not the one deceived. It was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner."   Although it may not always been followed exactly as many sexist, conservative theologians may wish, it provides the foundation that much of the American literary thought is built upon.  This is the notion that women do not belong in the thinking world-where reading and writing activities take place-she must be SILENT!  Obey this command or find yourself amongst the heathen of the world!

Although the modern-day situation may look a little less bigoted than John Winthrop's Massachusetts society, the residual effects are strikingly noticeable.  One only needs to take a church tour through the American south, where women are forbidden from ascending to the holy pulpit during the sermon.  And God forbid a woman deliver a sermon or attend a seminary!  Where are the female theologians and preachers?  Due to a male-dominated literature structure, most present in the many books of the Bible, women are still subjugated to second-rate status.  In the spirit of the great sexists (and probably homosexual) Paul, the bigotry continues to this day (where you in Chapel this morning?  I was).  If any woman dares deviate from this sound doctrine, they would be brining upon them the condemnations of a still-sexists society.

Imagine, Christianity without Paul.  America without Paul.  Literature without Paul.

Hillary won the debate on Tuesday.

Women won't forget. We will never forget.