Weak Bitches

Lately I have really been noticing just how much people not only run from adversity, but they convince themselves that they can't do any different.....and then society panders to them, reaffirming this shit. I work in the medical field and it's really clear just how fucking weak and lazy people are when you talk to patients and they say I can't do x or I can't tolerate y. You have to be all "understanding" but really I wanna just be like "have you ever fucking tried?" " Do you ever challenge your inner dialogue/self definitions?"

It's a stupid, simple example, but for me personally, I was always someone who "couldn't watch needles being placed in me or I get faint/freak out." The thing is, I never tried.....until the last year or so. One day while getting an iv inserted I just decided that I was going to look. Guess what? Was fine, and have been doing it ever since. If you tell yourself "bitch, you're fucking doing this, okay? If you had a gun to your head you'd do it and you'd be fine, so stop being a pussy and just fucking do it, okay?" you can do pretty much anything, regardless of how many years you have spent telling yourself otherwise.

I started doing this with stretching and working out, and it's the same thing. "I can't, I don't have the strength" is really just "It hurts way too much and there's nothing forcing me through it, so I quit." I can bang out 10 more pushups than I thought I could, and I can hold a stretch much longer than I told myself I could, as long as I do it with a strong mindset that refuses to quit. I am pretty good at this now although I still quit a lot. It's a constant battle. Most people it seems don't ever even start the battle and they define themselves along the "I can't" line and everyone around them tells them it's okay, I can't either." It's just weakness.

Rape Culture Does Not Exist

Rape culture isn't real. There, I said it. It's an incorrect idea perpetrated by radical feminists and has no factual basis in reality. It traces right back to a self-reporting study by Mary Koss for Ms Magazine that gave us the bogus 1 in 4 figures (ie 1 in 4 women will be raped) feminists continue to cite. The truth is, 73% of the women she identified as victims did not believe they’d been raped or sexually assaulted. Additionally, 43% of the people she identified as victims went on to date their “attackers”. She used definitions of rape that were not even remotely rape but then included them all under the umbrella of rape. 

The results of a similar survey for men using overly loose definitions of rape as used in the study cited above which was released a while back found that almost half of school-aged boys and men were raped (95% of their rapists being women). Now, of course, this is utter nonsense, but what people need to understand is that this is the EXACT type of nonsense that gave us the 1 in 4 women stat. Overly loose definitions of rape. 

What we do know is that rape is NOT a gendered crime. Men and women are raped in the US about equally, and quite possibly is the case throughout western society. Most people do not know this because Koss and other feminists saw to it to have the CDC and FBI classify male rape victims into a completely different category of sexual violence. Therefore male victims of rape aren't included in govt rape statistics. When you include male victims of rape that the govt lists in the "forced to penetrate" category, the figures are almost identical.

One of the most annoying way the statistics are used to mislead is the stats they quote with respect to the number of accusations that result in prosecution. They will say something like "only 2 in 9 are prosecuted!!!" and then draw the conclusion that the cops and attorneys don't take rape that seriously. That drives me NUTS. Rape, by its very nature, is often a 'he said she said' type of crime aka my word against yours crime (two people alone in a room, etc). Those types of crimes are hard to prosecute because of the need to establish guilt beyond a measure of reasonable doubt. These cases are often hard to win in court so they don't go forward. It's not sexism against women, it's a consequence of the nature of the crime. Women don't need to educate men. What they need is to think more rationally.

Now, because of this "rape culture" bs, comedians are being targeted. Feminists say that rape jokes add to the "rape culture" but have absolutely zero evidence that a single rape has ever been committed because someone saw a comedy show, heard a rape joke and went "yeah, rape is pretty cool- I'ma go rape someone tonight." The people who rape are ALREADY WILLING TO RAPE. Jokes make no difference whatsoever. The other part of it that I despise is the "my feelings are hurt, someone do something about it" aspect of it, as well as the fact that people are laughing and enjoying a show, so who the fuck made you the authority and the one to stop the show because you have an inner boo boo (usually not even on behalf of yourself but perceived victims who are probably not even in attendance). If you don't like the show, LEAVE. Who on science's green earth taught you that it's reasonable to demand a group of people stop enjoying their chosen entertainment because it makes you feel funny inside?

It's time we stop unfairly villianizing men in this society.

Sources:

Nara Schoenberg and Sam Roe, “The Making of an Epidemic,” Toledo Blade, October 10, 1993

Neil Gilbert, “Examining the Facts: Advocacy Research Overstates the Incidence of Data and Acquaintance Rape,” Current Controversies in Family Violence eds.

Richard Gelles and Donileen Loseke, Newbury Park, CA.: Sage Publications, 1993, pp.120-132

Campus Crime and Security, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education, 1997. Note: According to this study, campus police reported 1,310 forcible sex offenses on U.S. campuses in one year. That works out to an average of fewer than one rape per campus.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/cdc-study-on-sexual-violence-in-the-us-overstates-the-problem/2012/01/25/gIQAHRKPWQ_story.html
http://www.avoiceformen.com/allbulletins/honey-badger-radio-mary-koss-and-the-american-rape-machine/
http://www.saveservices.org/2014/03/e-lert-hidden-victims-men-who-are-forced-to-penetrate/
http://www.rainn.org/news-room/rainn-urges-white-house-task-force-to-overhaul-colleges-treatment-of-rape
http://time.com/37337/nearly-half-of-young-men-say-theyve-had-unwanted-sex/
http://www.genderratic.com/p/2798/male-disposability-mary-p-koss-and-influencing-a-government-entity-to-erase-male-victims-of-rape/

What Women Really Mean When Calling a Man an Asshole

Whenever a girl says some guy was an 'asshole' it almost always just means that she wants to feel like a princess and he made her feel like what she really is- just another girl*. Either that or what he wants doesn't line up with what she wants, so somehow he's an asshole even though she is not a bitch for having her own desires. 'Asshole' does not mean a bad person (in these cases). It really means "he did not make me feel special enough" and/or "he wants different things than I do." Examples:

"He texts me hours after I text him, sometimes even up to two days after! What an asshole." (not special enough)

"I said I wanted a relationship but all he wants is sex. What an asshole!" (wants different things)

"He looks at other girls right in front of me. What an asshole!" (not special enough)

"We hang out four times a week and he knows that's not enough for me but he still hangs out with his friends 3 nights a week when he KNOWS I feel left out. What an asshole!" (wants different things).

*Unless of course he's actually an asshole.

Open Letter To Chair Entertainment

Dear Chair,

(never thought I'd ever type that particular sequence of words)

I am writing to you today to ask a favour of you. You see, your company developed one of the absolute best video games last generation (no, sorry, not Undertow). The game to which I am referring is of course Shadow Complex. Shadow Complex was easily the best Xbox Live Arcade game at the time of its release, and in this (not so?) humble gamer's opinion, still is (maybe tied with Geometry Wars and Puzzle Quest but I digress). Let me tell you a little story:

I have been gaming since the late 80's. I grew up on all of the same games you all (hopefully) did. Namely (duh), platformers, shmups, adventure games and beat em ups. You all probably have your favourites from these genres, and many of them will likely differ from mine. However, one thing we definitely have in common is a love for the old school archetypal game designs of the eras bygone, one of the most prominent, and criminally (yes, criminally) underused being the so called “Metroidvania” (“Castleroid” to some, but they are from the wrong side of the tracks, so we can do as the government does and simply ignore them) design. Super Metroid and Castlevania: Symphony of the Night are the two most well known games of this type, but of course there are many more (just not enough). Clearly, you fine people noticed this travesty and decided to capitalize on the oversights of others far less badass than thou and release to the world a brand new game using this game design philosophy.

So, on August 19^th, 2009, you released Shadow Complex and the response from both gamers and critics was overwhelmingly positive. The sales were great (despite that unfortunate little trial version exploit that you wish we would have forgotten (we didn't, but I bought the game, so don't worry)) and Chair Entertainment (now a subsidiary of Epic Games, ching ching!!) was on the map. All well and good, but how do I fit into this story, you ask? Well, I am glad you did. See, to make a longer story long, I, as I stated earlier, have been gaming since the late 80's, and while I still love gaming, I definitely fall into the rose tinted glasses nostalgic old school gamer camp. Games, for the most part at least, just do not satisfy, excite, challenge or engage me the way they used to (with few exceptions) (Bayonetta, anyone?). And then you came along and holy **** I was 12 years old again! 

This Culture is Insane

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/state/florida/article20191164.html

Conversation On Agnosticism vs Atheism

OU812 wrote:

It staggers the mind, if you think about it, that so, so many of our 'enlightened, intellectual' class pass by the label of Agnostic in order to proudly label themselves Atheists. Why not be content with being Agnostic if you, as an intellectual, cannot prove any conclusive position on this point? It seems calling yourself an Atheist is a cheap and easy way to secure an appreciation of your intellect - in certain circles, anyway. I am not using this as a means of starting a theological debate, but to me, the lack of consistency exemplifies, so blatantly, human failings. Would any Atheist 'intellectual' conclude that there is no life on other planets simply because there is no proof that there is?

Gnosticism deals merely with knowledge, not belief. That's where theism comes in. Everyone is agnostic, since NO ONE knows for sure. Saying you're 'agnostic' is a nonsense statement in a sense since it says nothing about what you believe. Even the most religious person on earth is agnostic, no matter what they say. So when someone asks if you believe in god(s) if you're one of those people who shrugs their shoulders and thinks "I dunno" that's not what they asked.

The right answer (and this is where people start getting annoyed and whatnot but it's just true) is that you don't currently hold a positive belief in god, aka you're an agnostic atheist. If you think 'I dunno' when someone asks if you believe in god you're definitely not a theist......which makes you an atheist. There's no third middle option. That middle option people think of is actually the answer to a separate question (do you KNOW a god exists).

Theism= belief in a god.
Prefix 'a' denotes the lack of something.
A-theism= the lack of a belief in god.

Gnosticism= knowledge of god's existence.
Prefix 'a' denotes the lack of something.
A-gnosticism= the lack of knowledge of god's existence.

Two different things. It's not agnostic or atheist; those are two different answers to two different questions. I am an agnostic atheist.

OU812 wrote:

That may be accurate in a literal sense, but i don't think most people, particularly those in the public eye who voice their opinion on the matter, go any further into the definitions of atheist, agnostic and believer/theist than as I had originally argued. That would certainly make sense since I believe those in the forefront of politics and popular culture, the opinions I am hearing and evaluating, are the pseudo-intellectuals Sowell so elegantly swipes at in his books.

You, Sowell, and those like you are all making the same mistake. Let me quote you to show you what I am talking about:

OU812 wrote:

Now both believers and non-believers require the same level of proof to come to their conclusions -- none. It is the Atheist, however, who claims the intellectual high ground for his position, ridiculing those who disagree.

The problem with this is that the burden of proof is always on those making a claim. The axiomatically correct stance in any case of the asserted existence of some thing is the null hypothesis until proven otherwise. This position should only be changed to belief/acceptance of the claim when sufficient evidence is given to them by those making said claim. So, in the case of the existence of a god, the human who says "hey, a god exists" to a second human, or a group of humans, must then prove that this is true. Much like the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a court case, the god believer must demonstrate to the people he is preaching that the god in question exists and he must do beyond all measure of reasonable doubt. If they fail to do this, the 'atheist' is holding the correct position- that of disbelief. He need not defend this disbelief nor is it correct to accuse him of holding a faith based position. It is in fact the philosophically correct one.

Sowell is wrong and imo, he just gets off on writing off the atheists as angsty pseudointellectuals. It's lazy.

In Defense Of 'Crazy' Stay At Home Moms

We all know the trope of the 'crazy' suburban mom; you know,  the one who screams at her kids and husband all day despite being medicated to the gills with pharmacological agents and vodka coolers and while I have done my share of sneering at them to myself and others (shitty behaviour around kids is hard not to sneer at) I have been thinking a lot about these women and what might be at the root of the problem and I think that "they're just crazy" isn't fair and what really may be going on is totally not their fault but actually the fault of the way we engineered post-industrialization/post-agricultural societies.

If you travel back in time to say 50,000 years ago, what was the life of a mother like? Were they alone, separated into individual houses, or together as a community, dealing with everyone's' kids all at once?

It was the latter.

Assuming we all agree on this point, (and how can't we; I'm always right after all, right C-man? fuma!) what can we take from this? Well, it logically follows that evolving to raise kids in a community would lead women of future generations to basically needing said communities for support and ultimately, optimal mental health. So, separating into houses all along a street and living in their own little worlds with their kids and hubbies (when home from work) could possibly be setting them up for failure. Living contrary to ones' nature is a recipe for mental illness, right?

If we think about the nature of women, are they more oriented towards being solitary or in groups? I think we all know the answer. They are definitely wired towards being hive minded. Men are generally the more solitary creatures. So, in the interest of fairness here, is it really any wonder that once they are separated into individual homes alone with their kid(s) all day that they go "crazy?" They are living without the social support networks they evolved to need!

I always think/talk about how the way this culture is engineered is really bad for men, but I am starting to consider the possibility that it's bad for women as well. It's bad for all of us, I think. One day I'll stop being so lazy and really dig into this idea and post a detailed, cogent, thought out piece about it. I really think there's a lot about the way we are living that we need to rethink. I'm just so lazy.....damn culture's fault!