What "Real Men" Are Like

Throughout my life, I've made the occasional mistake of talking to a stereotypical guy. They really exist, to my utter dismay. And they think they're the only guys out there.

This is only for people with thick skin. So don't say I didn't warn you. You will see a very angry side of me few people see.

I remember one conversation I had with a guy on a train. He was talking about cheating on his girlfriend like it was no big deal. He explained that he was male, so he couldn't help it. When I tried to call him out on his bullshit, he called me naive and said that my boyfriend was most certainly cheating on me. It was male "nature." So I had one of my pent-up fury fantasies, went a bit like this:

Douchebag: You guys have been apart for a month? He's definitely cheating on you.

Me: Actually, you don't know him. All guys are different.

Douchebag: (Chuckles) No they're not. Aww, you honestly believe that?

Me: Yes, most men are pretty unique. But I know one thing you all have in common. (Promptly kick him in the nuts with all the strength of my grrrl-power)

Of course, after talking to a few friends, I realised Mr. Douchebag had been trying to convince me to sleep with him. Apparently he didn't understand that I'm one of those strange women who ISN'T attracted to assholes.

Anyway, that was a serious tangent. This aggressive energy towards "typical" men is coming out because of a stupid "list of rules" for girlfriends to follow that I found on the internet. I know it was intended to be humorous, but in a "this rings true and you know it, you just don't want to say it" kind of way. Here it is, with my comments included (warning: extreme anger. I'm not usually like this):

Men are NOT mind readers.

No, but supposedly they are human. There are these things called facial expressions...oh, and body language. If you can't read those, it's not because you're male. It's because you're autistic.

Learn to work the toilet seat. You're a big girl. If it's up, put it down. We need it up, you need it down. You don't hear us complaining about you leaving it down.

Actually, you're a whiny bitch. Men and women both use the toilet with the seat down sometimes. Men already have less work when they pee. They pull it out and presto! So put the fucking seat down afterward.

Sunday sports. It's like the full moon or the changing of the tides.
Let it be.

Well, that's cool. Just know if you're that into sports then I'm not interested in you. Find someone else.

Shopping is NOT a sport. And no, we are never going to think of it that way.

No, shopping is consumerism. Sport is homo-erotic chest-beating. Take your pick.

Crying is blackmail.

Once again, crying is human. If you have a problem with that, go back to your life as an emotionless automaton and leave me alone.

Yes and No are perfectly acceptable answers to almost every question.

Only if you're a simplistic moron.

Come to us with a problem only if you want help solving it. That's what we do. Sympathy is what your girlfriends are for.

Good to know. Might as well get all my sex from them too while I'm at it.

A headache that lasts for 17 months is a Problem. See a Doctor.

It is truly sad that a woman would feel the need to pretend to have a headache in order to not have sex with you. Clearly she is afraid of losing you for some strange reason, even though it would probably make life a lot better for her.

Anything we said 6 months ago is inadmissible in an argument. In fact, all comments become null and void after 7 Days.

If you have trouble with your long-term memory, it is a Problem. See a Doctor.

If you won't dress like the Victoria's Secret girls, don't expect us to act like soap opera guys.

I'm not interested in soap opera guys. If you're interested in Victoria's Secret girls, go date one.

If you think you're fat, you probably are. Don't ask us.

If a woman thinks she's fat, there are high odds she isn't. YOUR douche-baggery is the reason women are so obsessed with weight.

If something we said can be interpreted two ways and one of them makes you sad or angry, then we meant the "other one "

You're a lazy asshole who can't handle being confronted by problems. Go live out your shallow existence somewhere away from me.

You can either ask us to do something or tell us how you want it done. Not both. If you already know best how to do it, just do it yourself.

In real relationships (a concept you'd never comprehend), both people do nice things for each other. This concept is called reciprocity.

Christopher Columbus did NOT need directions and neither do we.

That was a joke, right? Have fun getting lost. Please get VERY lost.

If it itches, it will be scratched. We do that.

So do we. If you're offended by our un-ladylike behaviour, look up the definition of "hypocrite."

If we ask what is wrong and you say "nothing," we will act like nothing's wrong. We know you are lying, but it is just not worth the hassle, besides we know you will bring it up again later.

Sometimes it's difficult to convey when you're upset. Of course, you guys are sooo good with communication, so you never have that problem, right?

If you ask a question you don't want an answer to, expect an answer you don't want to hear.

The only questions I ask are ones I want to hear the answer to. Sometimes I ask because I am insecure. Your duty is to answer me in a way that doesn't increase my insecurity. Unless, of course, you want me to truthfully answer your question about the size of your pen15.

When we have to go somewhere, absolutely anything you wear is fine...really.

The impression I get is that stereotypical men do care what their "girls" wear. For example, if we're going out with your macho guy friends, I have to dress up sexy to make them jealous, right? If we're going out with other attractive females, it doesn't matter what I wear, because you're busy looking at boobies that you haven't touched yet.

Don't ask us what we're thinking about unless you are prepared to discuss such topics as baseball, the shotgun formation, or golf.

Oooh I love men with so little going on in their brains.

You have enough clothes.

And you have enough porn, you judgmental prick.

You have too many shoes.

But I could always go on another diet, right?

I am in shape. Round IS a shape!

Hmm. Then perhaps you should be cool with your girlfriend having that shape too.

Thank you for reading this. Yes, I know, I have to sleep on the couch tonight; but did you know men really don't mind that? It's like camping.

And I thank god my boyfriend isn't like you tools. Yes, you do mind sleeping on the couch tonight, cause it means you won't get laid. And that's the only thing you care about, isn't it?


These questions show the complete lack of respect some men have for women; even their own partners. A guy like this is not interested in his girlfriend's feelings, not interested in easing her insecurities (more than likely created by male pigs in the first place), not interested in her intelligence, communication, or ideas. The only thing he is interested in is boobies.

I suggest we send all "stereotypical" men to an island, each equipped with a pair of silicon "cyperskin" boobs, and let them play to their hearts' content. Meanwhile, women can be free to have relationships with nice men, knowing that all the creeps have been weeded out of the gene pool.

Small Schools Benefit All Involved

The East Bay Express published an extremely long, rambling article about small schools claiming that they create more problems than they solve, and the writer used obnoxious conservative fears (not using mainstream history texts, teaching children about social justice and equality, and other horrible things) to illustrate her point.

This is my response:

Reading Rachel Swan’s contemptuous article about Berkeley High School’s small schools really broke my heart. The article reminded me of the partisan hackery used by big-network news anchors in order to create controversy out of thin air when they’re running low on newsworthy stories. Swan referred to “progressive, politically correct Berkeley” just before she gave us liberals a slap in the face with the hard truth; a trick used only by the finest journalists. I have some hard truths of my own I’d like to share.

As a student who sometimes hid within the anonymity of large classrooms, I found my voice in a small school at Berkeley High School. I went through grade- and middle-school with a complete distaste for social studies, but within my first year in the Communication Arts and Sciences (CAS) small school, I discovered a strong interest in history, politics, and social justice. Some of my most inspiring mentors were teachers in that small school.

Our highly diverse class of sixty students graduated with powerful friendships, robust critical thinking skills, and a passion for social justice forged by a combination of group learning and independent inquiry. The teachers in that small school helped us find our paths and were with us every step of the way.

On top of all that, I am the daughter of the co-founder of a new small school, the School for Social Justice and Ecology. I watched my father work day and night on a large project that he hoped would changed the lives of those involved. His passion wasn’t about helping kids fake success so they could pass high school; it was about helping his students think for themselves. Unlike most mainstream schooling, the small schools prepare children for the real world outside of academia, outside of grades and completely abstract learning.

I am aware that anecdotal evidence is not the strongest form of evidence. But compared to Ms. Swan’s insulting collection of bogus facts and skewed information, my experiences are solid proof of a small school’s success. Perhaps Ms. Swan would like to try taking her work to Faux News, where I’m sure she’ll find her career would really take off.

A Socialist Explains the "Socialist Agenda"

Now that we have a man that actually cares about democracy in the White House, I can't get away from the obnoxious term that right-wingers use as their only reactionary weapon against him: his "Socialist Agenda." Sort of like the Gay Agenda--you know, gay people are really really powerful and are trying to turn your children gay, by pushing their way into every part of our society's infrastructure. Similarly, apparently socialism is so popular among very powerful politicians, including our President, that they might succeed in overriding our wonderful capitalist system.

As a socialist who would readily applaud an actual Socialist Agenda, I laugh. I laugh mostly because I'm tired of crying. And I'm tired of fantasising about taking out my very much internalised aggression and anger on anything in my way, which usually in practice ends up being cushy chairs and bathroom stall doors. But I'm still unmistakably laughing. Because I see this ridiculous rhetoric for what it really is. Creating a monster that threatens the very foundation of many Americans' ways of life: taking away unnecessary, excessive possessions; "depriving" wealthy people of their "hard-earned" millions. Obstructing Americans' "freedom" to do whatever the fuck we want to others and get away with it, as long as it doesn't threaten those in power. This obstruction of this false "freedom" is far more terrifying than the real dangers out there: global warming, global hunger, massive depletion of resources, and the inevitable collapse of an unsustainable economic system.

What is society coming to, getting worked up about the concept of equitable distribution? This "socialism" monster is truly a ghost. Socialists do not have power (except in a couple Latin American countries. And no, I don't think Americans should be afraid of VENEZUELA unless they're unaware of our excessive military strength). When I admit to people that I'm a socialist, it's like I'm "coming out." People have commended me for my bravery. That's not because socialism is taking over the world. It's because socialism is a dirty word.

As for Obama, he's just as terrified of socialism as any other mainstream American. Otherwise, he wouldn't have been voted into the White House. Otherwise, the vast majority of the country and the world wouldn't love him as much as they do. He wouldn't have given massive hand-outs to—no, not poor black women with five children living in shacks*—but our country's most massive financial institutions. (I have my own ideas about a very different category of socialism that the bailouts fall into; corporate socialism, which has existed for a while in the US already.) Notice how those who accuse Obama of socialism are not against hand-outs to rich corporations. But give the hand-outs to people who are actually starving or living on the streets, and they throw an infantile hissy-fit. Socialism is about re-distributing the wealth, and that doesn't actually mean distributing it to the same people who already had it.

So "Obama-Is-A-Socialist" people, stop making up ridiculous conspiracy theories and consider this: You want to be terrified of something? In our culture, we don't need conspiracies in order for masses of people to commit horrific deeds. All we need is complacency. You don't have to do anything at all! And that is the most terrifying thing in the world.



*For the easily offended: This is referring to the image that a lot of conservatives see representing welfare: poor black women who keep having kids.

Our Gorgeous President-Elect

I would like to congratulate the United States for finally making a sane fucking decision in creating a landslide victory for Barack Obama. Showing the highest voter turnout since the early 1960s, this country finally said "genug" to the lovely George W. Bush Administration. It is really too bad that it had to come to this to get a black man in the White House.

On a bus on election day, I rode past a restaurant that had three blackboards next to each other; in sequential order, they read: "Obama! Obama! Obama!" This is in Auckland, New Zealand, where I live. On television, I saw celebrations all over the world. The most amazing one was in Kenya. I'm not used to seeing any of Africa's reaction to anything the US does, which is really too bad, considering that of all the continents in the world, they may be the most strongly affected by the US's decisions.

The whole world's reaction to this election's results bring a tear to my eye. And, upon seeing this picture of Obama and his family, I cried once again. A truly beautiful family, with a truly sincere, kind, intelligent father, who also happens to be the most poweful politician in the world. Who'da thunk it!

Anyway, thank you Obama, for bringing hope back to this dying world. I really hope you live up to our extremely high expectations ;)

Love to all!

Sandy


P.S. I would like to make it clear to those idiot buttfu....silly people who think Obama is a "socialist." No, unfortunately he is not. As a socialist, I would like to see a far more radical person in the White House. But making social change takes time, and socialism is about equality. Seeing a black person in the White House who happens to be a compassionate individual certainly brings my hopes up.

The Infinite Ramblings of a Self-Righteous Do-Gooder

I believe an introduction is in order.

Apologies: Blogspot is a mess, and when I alter the html to do what I want it to do, it doesn't respond. Hence the missing links.

After posting infinite ramblings on politics and environmentalism, I thought perhaps it's time I reveal a little about myself personally, and in doing so, ramble on infinitely more.

I am an agnostic, eclectic pagan who hopes to do as much as possible to help the people and creatures of this Earth in one lifetime.

I believe that there are several ways of going about this, but they must be related to social, economic, and environmental justice. This justice would be brought about by equitable power and resource distribution, as well as emotional and psychological well-being.

First, I will give an overview of some practical ways in which we can go about this change:

Permaculture: For a more environmentally sustainable world. The best idea I've found so far that can create self-sustaining systems, communities, and economies within both industrialized and "Lesser-Developed" countries.

Microcredit or microlending: A tactic to create independent, small, self-sufficient economies in "lesser-developed" countries. Made famous by the Nobel Peace Prize winning Grameen Bank. Criticisms are valid, however, and must be considered. Microcredit is a solution we can use while working within the capitalist, and even Neo-Liberal world. It is a means to get to a better end.

The Just Transition Movement: An innovative way to keep workers from suffering from environmental regulations. Put a Just Transition policy in place, and people can no longer argue that environmental regulation "hurts workers," "destroys jobs," or "hurts the economy." Also read about the organization called the Just Transition Alliance.

Politically, I label myself as an anarcho-socialist, which I feel is more accurate than saying "very liberal." The term "liberal" has been used for so long to mean "tolerant" and "open-minded," and I don't believe that necessarily applies to me. As the title of this post denotes, I am not a very tolerant person. I am generally either accepting or strongly morally opposed and self-righteous. I am aware that this may not be the most effective or healthy state of mind, and I try to change where I can, but I also acknowledge where I am today.

Some people argue that anarchism and socialism cannot go hand-in-hand, and I both agree and disagree. As it stands now, if we were to suddenly try to change into an anarchistic society overnight, then there would be chaos. We would see an even more extreme version of what we see now: huge gaps between the rich and poor, powerful and powerless, with nothing to regulate that power or wealth. Then again, that's not very anarchistic at all, is it? Anarchism is about getting rid of power hierarchies and authority. Even if we got rid of what most people call "government," we would still have imbalances of power that lead to authoritarian, governing bodies.

So instead, what we need is a quick reform, which involves equitable redistribution of power and wealth, and a lot of therapy. Once everyone is on equal footing again (I say "again," because this used to be the case about ten thousand years ago), we will have no need for governing bodies. In this sense, socialism and anarchism do go hand in hand. If there is a lack of equality in wealth and resources, then there is a lack of equality in power, and therefore a lack of anarchism.

Just so you know, I have several blogs, so I don't post everything here. Most of my stuff is on my main website: this includes a combination of personal, spiritual, political, and creative writing.

Other blogs include:

VampireOwlCat: my spiritual blog

Sitakali: my creative writing and excerpts from my novels

Voice of Change: a blog about the current changes in our world in response to crises

Bullshit Review: a blog about all the BS that gets spouted everywhere, with well-researched myth-busting.

I use the screenname Sitakali on virtually every website I belong to.

A Very Long Response

This is a very long response to a "skeptic's" critique of the graphs shown on Wikipedia's "Global Warming" page. The comment was this:

I'm curious why the 2,000 year temp chart on this link looks nothing like the the chart on your link. I'm curious why if you think the computer climate models are correct, they all cannot predict climate from the this past century. A layperson would say that the computer models have been proven wrong.

This is my response:

Laypeople are also capable of thinking logically, if they so choose. A wise layperson would only say that the computer models had been proven wrong if there were numerous accounts of models showing they were wrong. Once science has developed a strong hypothesis or theory, it is standard for those who “debunk” that theory to be asked to show large amounts of evidence, all with strong peer-reviewed support. As for that specific example you showed me, there is no strong peer-reviewed support, and it is only one piece of “evidence.”

Perhaps the reason Wikipedia did not include that graph, is because it was put together by Dr. Craig Loehle, who uses few and questionable citations in his article; and was originally published in a scientific journal called “Energy and the Environment.” Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, one of the many global warming “skeptics” editing the journal, has been quoted as saying, “I am following my political agenda—a bit.” Energy and the Environment has been criticized for its weak peer-review process; Referring to one study: “If it would have been properly reviewed, it would have been rejected on the basis of methodological flaws,” and one article was said to contain "collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source data, obsolete data, geographical location errors, incorrect calculation of principal components and other quality control defects."

The World Climate Report, the newsletter that republished the article you showed me, is produced by Greening Earth Society. Greening Earth Society was created by the Western Fuels Association, whose tagline is “Coal is where your power begins.” Not hard to imagine the ulterior motives here. In addition, Patrick J. Michaels, climate scientist and editor of the World Climate Report, has received funding from Exxon Mobile and other oil interests, and at least $115,000 from coal and energy interests. Research a climate change “skeptic” and you’ll frequently find energy interests behind them.

Your link also refers to a fixation on the “hocky stick representation of temperature history.” This myth has also been debunked.

External Costs

Unfortunately, the American economic system doesn’t value nature. Because it is capitalistic, material value is only considered, and it is rated by cost. Since it is so hard to determine the value of nature, it has been rendered valueless, which is certainly not the same is priceless. Many have tried to figure out what the value of nature would be.

Many things must be taken into account—for example, a tree would not just be the cost of its wood, but all the creatures it affects and the environment it affects have to be considered. I created an equation that I think includes all the important aspects of a tree.

A tree is made of partially water and also wood. Its roots prevent soil erosion and it takes carbon dioxide out of the air, which protects us from global warming. It also puts oxygen into the atmosphere, which helps us breathe. It is also the home to many creatures.

So, the value of a tree would be the value of the water it holds (H2O) + the value of the land it protects (L) + how much it would cost to fix soil erosion (S) + the value of how much oxygen it puts into the atmosphere (O2) + the value of each creature that depends on it (C). So, Tree (T) = H2O + L + S + CO2 + O2 + C.
But, wait! We must figure out the value of each creature that a tree houses. Creature (C) = value of the amount of land it saves from overpopulation of its prey (L) + value of energy it produces (P) + value of each creature it keeps alive by being its prey (C).

Therefore, C = L + P + C; therefore C is infinite; therefore the value of a tree is infinite. I’m not even going into how valuable land is, because of how many creatures it keeps alive.

It is impossible to accurately determine the value of a tree, or any life for that matter. In this economy, maybe for now, it is important to at least value nature at something. But it should be pretty damn expensive.

An Argument I've Been Making for Years

This is a Sarah McLachlan music video, but it's so much more. It demonstrates how disgustingly consumeristic and gluttonous our society is.


World On Fire

Hearts are worn in these dark ages
You're not alone in this story's pages
The light has fallen amongst the living and the dying
And I'll try to hold it in, yeah I'll try to hold it in

[Chorus]
The world's on fire and
It's more than I can handle
I'll tap into the water
Try and bring my share
I try to bring more
More than I can handle
Bring it to the table
Bring what I am able

I watch the heavens but I find no calling
Something I can do to change what's coming
Stay close to me while the sky is falling
Don't wanna be left alone, don't wanna be alone

[Chorus]

Hearts break, hearts mend
Love still hurts
Visions clash, planes crash
Still there's talk of
Saving souls, still the cold
Is closing in on us

We part the veil on our killer sun
Stray from the straight line on this short run
The more we take, the less we become
The fortune of one man means less for some

[Chorus X2]

Feminism and Anti-Monogamy

I have had the unwanted privilege of watching the polyamory* movement grow before my very eyes, in friends, and in movements. It has become so strong that it helps define movements. I am an anarcha-feminist, so I was very disappointed to see an article on the anarcha-feminist community about "saying no" to monogamy, but none about being a strong, monogamous female. There is a big difference between being radical and denouncing something because of its inherent flaws, and being pseudo-radical and denouncing something because it is the status quo, and therefore must have been created by patriarchal society.

There are two key parts to this question:

1) Monogamous relationships and
2) Marriage, as defined by Western society.

The first is perfectly natural, and can be found in human beings and other animals, including some mammals. It is not about ownership, or power struggles. It is about finding a reflection of yourself, a soulmate, and for some people there is only one. I have the right to choose to be monogamous, just as I have the right to choose anything else as an individual woman.

The second is created by a patriarchal society, and possibly has an original purpose of tying the woman to the man, so he is the sole owner of her children. But that's how it is defined in Western culture, not how it has to be. My parents' marriage is incredibly egalitarian; my mother did not take on my father's name, and I have both of their names. They share in the work, although my father does cook more, because he enjoys it. My mother has a private practice, my father is a teacher. They are both strong feminists who don't shave :)

I understand that being a minority in this culture, polyamorists feel anger toward the status quo, just as homosexuals may feel anger towards heterosexuals, blacks towards whites, and so on. But that does not mean that monogamy is unnatural, just like heterosexuality isn't unnatural, and whites aren't evil. (This is a simplification; I am very aware of homophobia and racism). Just like striking out toward the oppressor isn't necessarily striking out toward all whites, or all heterosexuals, you don't denounce monogamy as a whole because a few monogamists sneer at polyamory.

Moreover, claims that monogamy has been proven to be destructive and not work, are completely unfounded, considering that I have yet to find a stable polyamorous relationship. This in no way suggests that polyamory is inherently unstable; it merely points out that humans have relationships, some of which do not go smoothly. If you have trouble in relationships, be it power dynamics, insecurities, jealousy, etc., those problems will show up in a monogamous or non-monogamous relationship. Just like it is irrational to seek a lesbian relationship because you have trouble with men (even though you're attracted to them), you cannot seek polyamorous relationships just because you suck at monogamous ones. In my opinion, you must truly feel in your heart that you will be happier seeing more than one person. Some people become polyamorous because of fear of commitment. They say that humans are naturally sexual, loving creatures and therefore need more than one partner. This is bullshit. If Sally says humans are naturally non-monogamous, then it's because Sally is non-monogamous, and is confusing herself with the entire human race.

People like to blame the entire human race for their own natures. Some of the most angry, bloodthirsty people I know say that violence is human nature. Yet it is their nature that they're talking about. Humans are naturally:

Adaptive
Social
Plastic (flexible)

That is true human nature.

I will end with four points, two of which I have made before:

Humans are naturally peaceful.
Humans are naturally violent.
Humans are naturally monogamous.
Humans are naturally polyamorous.

The "human nature" argument gets nowhere past me!


*Polyamory is a descriptive term (defined by contrast with monogamy) for the practice of being open to more than one loving, intimate relationship at a time, with full knowledge and consent by everyone involved. (Wikipedia)

Dear Misguided People of the World:

The theory of global warming is a conspiracy. Why, you might ask, would the greatest scientists in the world join up with environmentalists to create such a huge hoax? The reasons are multifaceted:

1) To move our dependence from oil and coal on to more sustainable resources

2) To reduce pollution, and the medical problems that result from it

3) To get humans, as a whole, to understand and respect our relationship to the rest of the environment

Now that you see the horrible, self-interested reasons that the wealthiest, most powerful people in the world (AKA scientists and environmentalists) have for creating the myth of climate change, you understand why it makes sense that it is a conspiracy. Come join caring right-wing politicians and the humble petroleum industry in putting an end to the greatest joke in human history.

Because our only agenda is to keep the truth alive.

Sincerely,

ENRON
Exxon Mobile
Saddam Hussein
George W. Bush