Statutory Rape Cougar, or “it’s not rape, I was drunk.”

I’m almost tempted to post this article alone, without any commentary, because I am not quite sure I know what to say about it.  But this is a blog, not a RSS feed, so I guess I’ll have to find the words.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26277010-421,00.html

To summarize: Jenny Lee Mitchell, 41 years old, had sex with a 14 year old boy (as well as his 17 year old friend) and her defense to the charge of statutory rape is that she was “drunk and vulnerable.”

I’m sorry, what?  ”I was drunk” is now an acceptable excuse for a 41 year old to have sex with a 14 year old?

I really don’t know what to think about this.  Obviously the ‘cougar’ trend hasn’t died out but really, how disgusting is it that our society has reached a point where women are so used to imitating men’s behaviour that we now have middle-aged women prowling around to sleep with some hot young piece of ass?

I have to say though, I find it hilarious (and by hilarious I mean tragic) that her “I was drunk” defense is actually influencing anyone at all.  I mean, the commonly held belief is that if a drunk man and a drunk woman have sex, he is a rapist and she is a victim.  I guess they’re considering an exception when the ‘man’ is 14 and the woman is 41.

Honestly, I really would like to believe that if a woman has drunk sex she’s taken advantage of.  Because that would mean we live in a better world than this one.  But really now, wake up – women go out to bars with their tramp stamp tattoos peeking out over their thong underwear which are peeking out over their tight low rise jeans, tossing back shots and going home with men they only met that night.  It’s hard to call a woman a rape victim when she went out specifically looking for sex.

I’m obviously not talking about women who were drugged or women who were forcibly raped in a park, but the whole “if she’s drunk it’s date rape” thing is, sadly, outdated.  I know this will sound coldhearted but I really have no sympathy for a woman who went out with the intention of having a one night stand, who then says she was raped by a man she met at the bar.  Nobody else is going to respect a woman if she doesn’t respect herself.

So back to this cougar-rapist-chick.  She’s a sign of our times.  If she had money or talent she’d be the female Roman Polanski, and isn’t it just a brilliant sign of feminist “progress” that women are now “free” to be pedophiles and rapists just like men are?

I think this is the beginning of a crumbling society.

Hypocrisy, or “why I will never be a Republican.

It really bothers me that many prominent members of the Republican party say that gays will ruin the sanctity of marriage, when they had no problem choosing John McCain as their 2008 presidential candidate.

John McCain is divorced. Personally I think the fact that half of all marriages end in divorce (and a fair percentage of those splits are due to ‘irreconcilable differences’ rather than abuse or adultery) is a far greater threat to the sanctity of marriage (“til death do we part” is a vow, not an idle thought) and so long as Republicans find their politicians tainted with sex scandal, adultery and divorce they have no right whatsoever to talk about the sanctity of marriage.

Posted by Wordmobi

False Dichotomy, or “okay it’s just an excuse to try blogging from my phone.”

Why do socialists present “the people” and “the capitalists” as two diametrically opposed groups?

Other than the fact that it’s a pathetically transparent attempt to dehumanize the opposition by equating their group with humanity itself, that is.

Posted by Wordmobi

Another Obama Post, or, “Just a picture this time.”

Just a bit of humor for those of us who realized back during campaign season that Barack Obama was nothing but platitudes, empty rhetoric, and more dumbing-down of the United Nanny-State of America.

Double Standards, or “Criticism of Obama isn’t racism. It’s criticism of Obama.”

Far more people hate Obama for being a liberal than for being half-black.

I’ve just about had enough with people saying that anti-Obama sentiments are a form of racism. The fact that our President is half-black does not make him exempt from political criticism. Especially if it’s the exact same type of political criticism that presidents before him faced.

I remember when there was a big fuss made over a T-shirt that said Obama looked like a cartoon monkey. People insisted it was racism, that the comparison was “black people = monkey” and not “this person looks like this cartoon drawing” because of course the comparison would only work with a black person, right?

Er, wrong.

Can someone please tell me how it’s okay to compare one President to a chimpanzee, but not okay to compare another President to a cartoon monkey? Making fun of appearance is making fun of appearance, regardless of the race of the person being made fun of.

And now there’s this post over at the Angry Black Woman site saying that it’s racist to compare Obama to Hitler, and that everyone who is using that (admittedly, ridiculous) tried and true form of political slander is doing it because Obama is half-black and his critics are all racist.

Of course it has nothing to do with his policies, right? I really don’t think it entered into the ABW’s mind that Obama has quite a few controversial platforms, that many people feel he offers platitudes about change while continuing to work in the interests of big banks and lobbyists, and that many people (for right or wrong) feel that he’s working toward creating a one world government New World Order.

Oh yeah and people compared Bush 2 to Hitler so many times that the only appropriate way to demonstrate it would be to link to Google’s search results.

There are a lot of racist stereotypes in the world, and there are stereotypes about every race. The people who complain about the ‘ghetto black’ stereotypes are the ones who don’t think twice about a ‘rural white trash’ stereotype. People are either treated equally or they aren’t.

Part of equal treatment is being able to accept criticism as genuine. Whenever someone plays the proverbial “race card,” they not only assume racism, but they also refuse to acknowledge the validity of criticism by saying that they are being criticized for their race and not their actions.

I think both George W Bush and Barack Obama have a cartoon-chimpy look to them. It’s the ears, mostly, and the hairline. Obama’s face is too long to be compared to Curious George, but this bit of clipart on the right is as close to Obama as Curious George is to Bush 2. While I can see how some people will think that any comparison between a black person and a primate is racist, I really don’t think it is. If I were to go around saying all black people are chimps or even that all black people looked like chimps, I’d be making a racial judgement, but comparing one specific person to one specific cartoon is a form of caricature.

Caricature is taking someone’s facial characteristics and making a mockery of them. So yes, it will over-emphasize racial features, but it will do that whether the racial features belong to the white race or the black race or any other race. And caricature has been part of politics for centuries.

I think it’s really cool that we have a President who is half-black, but I do disagree with most of his policies. I have no qualms about criticizing him, because I can tell the difference between criticizing *a* black person and criticizing black people as a whole.

Still Here, or "A post, finally."

I have been severely neglecting this blog in the past month, busy getting information and faxing information and waiting for requests for new information.  But I have good news.

From November 2007-December 2008, I lived in a suburb of Sydney, Australia. I fell in love while I was there, and he proposed.  I said yes.  I had to come back to the US in order to apply for a fiance visa to get permanent residency, and after 9 months of paperwork and waiting, my visa was approved.

I’m in love, and I’m getting married!  I am so happy I’d even hug a feminist right now.  I’d post photos of my fiance and me, but this blog deals with a somewhat sensitive subject, so I’ll make this a girly stuff topic…here’s my dress!

Here’s my engagment ring that I’ve been wearing since December:

And this is my wedding ring:

So please forgive me if I don’t do much politicking for awhile, but this is the last month I’ll have with my family, friends, and hometown (I’ve lived in Chicago my entire life aside from the year overseas) for quite awhile and I want to get the most of it. To paraphrase my fiance when I talked about us coming to the US to visit, “If we’re going to spend five grand on a vacation, it’s going to be to Europe.”  So I’m guessing it will be at least 5 years, probably more like 10, til we’ll make it to the US.

Feel free to be happy for me!

Feminist Separatism, or "If you really want to be taken seriously…"

I’ve come to the conclusion that so-called “feminist separatists” are cowards.  They like to complain about the patriarchy, and say how much better the world would be without men, but they have no intention of putting their money where their mouth is.  They like the benefits of the patriarchy too much.  So I challenge them.

I challenge you, feminist separatists, to separate.

• To move out in the middle of the country (not this one, that White Patriarchal Males tamed for you…find a remote spot in Africa or Asia) and live the values you preach.
• To craft your own tools (men invented saws and axes), chop down trees (men invented the lumber industry) and build your own house – without using construction techniques or architectural plans that men came up with.
• To dig your own wells and latrines, rather than relying on indoor sewage systems created by men.
• To grow and hunt your own food, devising a better method than the male-invented agricultural techniques and hunting tools.
• To protect yourselves from wild animals, without knives, guns, or any other male-created weapon.
• To successfully raise a next generation, without using either male sperm, or cloning techniques refined by male scientists.

I challenge you.

When you do this, when you stop using the male-invented internet on your male-invented computers to preach rather than practice, I will take you seriously.

Until then, you are nothing more than a punchline to a very sick joke.

A (Padded) Room Of Our Own, or "A journey into the mind of sick and twisted individuals."

I was talking to a friend of mine about the women at AROOO who I’ve been posting about, Miss Margaret Jamison and Miss E. Kitty Glendower.  He made the comment that they “all probably look like Andrea Dworkin anyway.”  I went looking for pictures of Miss Dworkin to add to the articles I wrote, when I found something that made me stop in my tracks.

This is a picture of Andrea Dworkin.  The pain in her eyes is evident.  This is a woman who has been hurt, who has been hurt badly enough that she has started to hate the world.  Yes, I do believe that all radical feminists look like Andrea Dworkin. At least in the eyes.

I’m reminded of the movie American History X.  It’s about two brothers whose father was killed by black men, and his death wounded them so deeply that they began to see all black men as the enemy.  It’s the only explanation I can think of to make radical feminist thought make even a semblance of sense.  These women were hurt by a man, and they see all men as the enemy.

Perhaps you think I’m exaggerating, that these women hate “patriarchy,” not men.  Rather than try to explain myself, I’ll let their words speak for themselves.  While you read, think of what kind of woman can think these things…what kind of person can be filled with such blind hatred that they wish to criminalize the male gender and even murder one half of the world’s population to create their version of a safe utopia.

Radical Feminism, as described by radical feminists:

On Gendercide:

Male sex ought to be enough to render a particular fetus undesireable even when pregnancy itself is wanted. -May 13, 2009

I will rank the following three scenarios, options, if you will, in order of my preference:
1. Male infanticide.
2. Female infanticide.
3. Females continue living as males’ slaves.
I believe male infanticde (sic) to be the best of those three options.  That is to say, I believe male infanticide to be a *better* option than the current circumstances. I think it’s better than what we’ve got. Note that I also feel that female infanticide is a better option than being born into patriarchy as it stands, as well. -May 17, 2009

–

On Rape, Consent, and All Sex Is Rape:

And when I say “rape,” of course, I mean to talk about all penile intercourse. [...] there is something wrong with this notion that a woman’s “consent” is what separates a rapist from a non-rapist. -May 4, 2009

In fact, I’ve almost detected an air of disappointment in the women who disagree with my stance that all men are rapists, as though I have somehow let down the team. -May 21, 2009

I cannot bother with discussing [...] how to get a man or how to keep a man…because…it is more than likely that he will rape and/or murder a woman so why want him? -April 29, 2009

You know, it’s strange to me that when I say that all heterosex is rape, women assume I’m talking about *women’s* desires.  They think that what I’m saying is that no woman is capable of deciding she’d like to have sex with a man.  This is a mistaken interpretation. What I am saying is, simply, that all men are rapists. Even if a woman wants it – and I’m sure plenty of women do – it doesn’t outweigh the fact that men would rape her anyway. The men are *rapists*.  It’s what they do.  “Wanting it” doesn’t change that, though I’m not denying that some women do in fact “want it.” -May 19, 2009

–

A dose of hypocrisy from Miss Glendower:

When the police show up, you know, the very profession that disproportionately have wife abusers in their ranks, they will do all they can to believe the woman is guilty of some wrongdoing. They will ask her accusatory questions. Their questions will insinuate that she provoked her abuser. -June 16, saying that police don’t help domestic violence victims

vs.

When the sister told the group that she found her child alone and wanted to teach her brother a lesson, most everyone felt she was wrong and the brother was justified in hitting her.  Only the police, the f****** police thought it was wrong for Joe to hit his sister. -April 14, two months earlier, saying the only ones to help a domestic violence victim were the police.

–

And A Stronger Dose by Miss Jamison:

So, while I will not excuse, justify, celebrate, or applaud getting married or mothering sons, I’m also not going to vilify women who are, for whatever reason, stuck doing exactly that. -April 20, saying she won’t vilify women who get married

Upholding misogynist ideologies by calling women who’ve had heterosexual experiences in a world where heterosexual intercourse is demanded outright when it isn’t simply acquiesced to by default ‘contaminated’ and those who were never so bowled over ‘pure’. -May 28, criticizing those who call women contaminated for having heterosexual sex

vs.

A bunch of house slaves.  Grateful, fawning, a**-kissing, d***-sucking house slaves. I might have compassion if not for the fact that they make it more difficult for women in worse circumstances, and women who see through all this bulls***, to free ourselves from this oppression. -July 6, vilifying married women using words far uglier than “contaminated.”

–

On the “Separatism” they claim to want:

Separatists must come to see that male-loving women are our enemies.

The best separatists might be able to do is save ourselves.  And I’m not even sure how it is we can do that.

What bothers me most about the necessity of separatist dependency upon non-separatists is the thought of little girls being raised in and by male-supremacist “family” units before they’re ever given a chance or a choice about freedom.  Is separatism really to be denied until adulthood, except in those few cases in which a woman who has chosen separatism brings her daughters?  How are we to get men’s women to agree that their daughters deserve the opportunity of separatism (Editor’s note: I think mothers would take issue with the fact that you “feel that female infanticide is a better option than being born into patriarchy”), even if they do not want it for themselves?

I think I need to understand better about what motivates women to actively work against other women who would rather opt out of the competition. Is it possible to trust these women to present separatism as a choice to their daughters, without derision or disdain or anger? -July 20, 2009

–

All I want to say to this, is…nobody is stopping them from leaving.  From creating their own self-sufficient communes out in the middle of nowhere, where there won’t be a man around to bother them for miles.  And if I had a daughter, I would show her exactly what separatism meant.  I would show her this post in my blog.  I would let her know that feminist separatists would prefer that I had aborted her rather than raise her in a household where I was married to her father. And more importantly, I would try to protect her from experiencing the pain that would drive a woman to embrace blatant misandry.  But there is no way I would indoctrinate my daughter with this feminist garbage, any more than I’d imagine these women would encourage their daughters to get married and love their male children as much as their daughters.

I once saw an episode of Law and Order (I believe) where it was discovered that a woman had killed her mother when she was a teenager.  Her mother had adopted this woman’s child (her own grandchild) and was raising him as her son.  This grandmother would torture the boy, scrubbing his penis raw with a Brillo pad, while she told him that he was evil and dirty for being a boy, that his penis was wrong and would make him do bad things.

Radical feminism is a hate-filled, destructive doctrine.  If there were a doctrine that advocated killing all female fetuses, saying that women were criminal by nature, there would be a nationwide outrage.  How is it that these women have managed to remain under the radar?

ETA: Apparently David Thompson just blogged about Miss Jamison – I’m glad to see I’m not the only person who wants to expose this nutjob for what she is.  I wholeheartedly support free speech, but when the speaker is encouraging women to kill their sons (Jamison used the term ‘infanticide’ rather than ‘feticide’ or ‘abortion’) I think that a line needs to be drawn.

Sunday Girly Stuff – 8/02/09

My hair finally touches the middle of my back.

The funny part is, I haven’t consciously been growing my hair…I moved to Sydney for a year, and when I got back the salon I usually went to was closed, and it’s really hard for me to trust a stranger with my hair.  For the past 8 months I’ve been saying “When I get back to Sydney I’ll have new layers put in,” and just left it at that, so right now it’s been over a year since I saw my hairdresser in Sydney.

I’ve gotten so vain about my hair these past few years.  It’s naturally wavy, thick but not obscene, and is a light brown color with natural blonde and red highlights.  Yes, the hair in the picture is mine.  I tried to take a shot of the length, but the only way I could do that was in the bathroom mirror, and I wanted to show it outside in all its glory.

I didn’t always have long hair.  As a teenager, more concerned with fitting in (I was a goth. They still conform.) than cultivating my own natural look, I once chopped off my hair in the style now associated with Victoria Beckham…then colored it black.  For years I had black hair, eggplant hair, once even bleached blonde hair.  And to get my naturally wavy hair as straight as Posh’s, I had to subject it to a blowdryer and flat-iron every morning.

But no more.  I really think it’s sad the way women are conditioned to cut their hair short, the way that anything below the chin is considered “long hair,” and all the myths that are associated with it.   The only thing we hear is “Men love long hair,” which is true of course, and as a side note I would strongly, strongly recommend that any woman who is in a relationship ask her significant other’s honest opinion before having her hair cut.  On another side note, all you ladies with short hair, ask your SO if he thinks you would look okay with long hair.  Watch his eyes, not his lips.

But what about us? What about the confidence a woman feels when her hair is long and healthy? What about the boost to our self esteem we get, knowing we have beautiful long hair in an age when most women prefer to keep it short?

This is a very limited hair how-to guide.  Limited because I’m speaking only from personal experience.  This is a how-to guide for those with sort of thick, naturally wavy, caucasian hair who want to grow it long.

Elisabeth’s Hair-Care Rules

Wash your hair every other day in winter, unless it’s covered in styling products.  In the summer, see if you can get into a wash-wash-no wash pattern, if it’s not too hot out. While washing your hair does stimulate the follicles on the scalp, inspiring hair to grow, it also strips the hair of oils that conditioners can’t completely imitate.  You don’t just want long hair, you want long, healthy hair.

Use a shampoo-conditioner combo instead of separate products, and spend 3-5 minutes washing. I use Pantene Beautiful Lengths, and it seems to work for me. That will work the conditioner into your hair, while the shampoo gets impurities out and the massaging stimulates your scalp.  If the ends of your hair are dry enough to need extra conditioning, only work it into the bottom 1/3 of your hair and don’t leave it in longer than a minute or two, otherwise it will weigh down your hair.

Blow-dry your hair on the cold setting, and only until it’s about 2/3 dry. Let the rest dry naturally.  The only reason to blow-dry your hair with heat is to straighten it, or to save a few minutes getting ready.  And blow-drying hair completely dry will ruin the curl of your hair, let it finish drying naturally and fall into place the way it should.

There is no need to trim your hair every 2-4 weeks. I know, I know, people say you’ll get split ends, but I think they’re wrong.  My hair definitely needs a trim now (after a year) but I usually go 3-4 months between cuts.  My best friend gets her hair trimmed every couple of weeks because she has perpetual split ends…she also artificially straightens her hair, covers it in products so she has to wash it every day, and puts highlights in it.  Basic rule: if your hair does not need to be trimmed, don’t trim it.

Brush your hair immediately before showering. Brush it well, to remove any dead or dying strands.  Before you get out of the shower, wring your hair like a mop to get the water out of it, and run your fingers through it before you towel dry.  Gently dry it with the towel, and run your fingers through it again to separate the strands.  Don’t brush it while it’s still wet, wait until it’s dried enough to be damp. This is so important – brushing wet hair breaks it, and snags it, and gives it split ends. If you absolutely have to, get a wide-toothed wooden comb (not plastic) and do it gently.

Sleep with your hair in a loose bun or braid. Leaving your hair loose as you sleep on it will tangle it, and just make it yucky.  Even a loose ponytail is better than nothing.

I know that I seem to be all naturalist and stuff, but I do on occasion abuse my hair by teasing it or scrunching it.  As a general rule though, when I style my hair, I look at my hair first, and try to see what styles would go well with its natural attributes, rather than finding a style and trying to force my hair into that mold.

This Is A Feminist Bookstore, or "It's only funny cause it's true."