9.02.2007

A letter to the exclusionary Christians.


Dear Christians who want everything they do to be marked with a Christian-friendly approval:

America is not a fan of you. In fact, America doesn't like the following types: immigrants who refuse to speak English but still demand that somebody understand them, people who are not willing to take the blame for their own lack of common sense (coffee=hot!), people who want to make us feel guilty for simple pleasures (e.g.: meat-eating), and people who insist that they only affiliate with people who are exactly like them. This is a nation founded on conflict and intellectual debate, and to effectively remove yourselves from the debate by not associating with anyone but other Christians is (in my opinion) unAmerican.

I completely understand the desire for Christian churches (duh), Christian schools, Christian holidays, Christian jewelry, Christian music, Christian literature, Christian apparel, and Christian get-togethers (e.g.: picnics and dances). I respect that Christians are proud of whom they are, want to be in an atmosphere where they may practice their beliefs without having to explain them, and just like hanging out with other Christians. But I am not so tolerant of Christian literary magazines, Christian cookbooks, Christian universities, Christian hospitals, Christian bars, Christian plumbers, Christian how-to-knit guides, Christian banks, Christian summer camps (those which have nothing to do with Christianity except being run by Christians), and Christian restaurants. Now you guys are just being silly. It would not hurt for you to step into the world of mainstream America and notice that the rest of us, the sinful and the unsaved, would be happy to have a polite conversation with you over coffee. Perhaps if you came down from your ivory towers and realized that the rest of the world has some really neat stuff in it (you'd be amazed where the arts have come since they stopped being endorsed by the Church!), then maybe you'd realize that the only thing good about your version of certain things is that it's "morally good."

Seriously guys, your music hasn't been good since Bach.

Oh, and lay off that apocalypse shit for a year or two. That shit's been old since 1001 A.D.

Love,
Zan

P.S.: Rant brought to you by the Christian Literary Magazine, Wide Awake, at UVa

8.15.2007

Cooking with Sylvia Plath!

I was busy being engrossed in what is a several month-long relationship involving me, Sex and the City on DVD, and NetFlix, when I came upon this realization: Don't date writers. Now perhaps it's not clear how I came about this, so I'll explain. Carrie, the main character of Sex and the City is a writer herself. But more importantly, at some point in the show (specifically the Fifth Season, Disc 2) she dates a writer. And I cannot tell you how much that spells doom. And some of you may know that I am actually a writer. And I'm actually married. But please don't let my husband in on it.
Writers are never social people. In fact, out of two personality types, A and B, they fall under Personality Type X. As in eX-boyfriend/girlfriend material. As in eXtremely unsociable. As in, eXcuse me while I ignore you to bask in the warm glow of my loneliness/depression/alcoholism/Faulkner obsession/hopelessly doomed love affair since that relationship will at least fuel my desire to write.
I've often found outrage at the idea that writing (perhaps more than any other art) gets sequestered into a specific "non-artistic" category. Perhaps writers should get together and boost the image of writing. They could form unions, or even e-mail groups or--wait, no, I'm sorry. They have chatrooms and unions and get-togethers. But no one ever shows up to the meetings. They're all busy trying to read Faulkner underwater and backwards to try and catch the multiple narratives.
Seriously: name me one celebrated author (dead or alive) who would make a terrific date. Plath? Suicidal after a disastrous marriage. Twain? Plagued by familial and finanical ruin. Hemingway? Alcoholism. Faulkner? Alcoholism. Capote? Alcoholism. Poe? Alcoholism (and married his cousin). Fitzgerald? Alcoholism. Melville? Alcoholism. Hawthorne? Puritanism.

But if you're seriously thinking of dating a writer, try picking one up at an AA meeting. I imagine that's the only time we'd come out of the woodwork. Either that, or join an <3Faulkner Yahoo! group.

6.28.2007

Smackdown!



I've officially kicked butt in a very financial way. I got University Housing to defer my rent until September, and I got OCC to allow my transcript to be released despite not having paid off my account (this took some lengthy phone calls to the CFO). I'm still going to file a complaint with the D.A. because I still don't think a college has the right to charge me post facto, even if it is to correct a mistake.

In other smackdowns, some 72-year-old man taught a pickpocket a lesson about crime--the broken jaw way.

6.21.2007

This ain't no Indiana Jones crap.




I'm off on an adventure! To where? To the magical land of a respectable 4-year institution where Range Rovers and frat parties abound!
I am now able to safely say I'm relocating to Charlottesville, VA to attend the University of Virginia; where I will feel pretentious to say "Mr. Jefferson's School" for the first seven times, and constantly correct myself when I say "campus." I'm hoping I won't run into too many snobby jerks, but if UVa is replete with people like this guy, I am going to fit right in (minus the legal jargon). I have high hopes my social encounters will not induce a desire to draw blood since I'll be a Comparative Literature major, and liberal arts schools tend to attract more laidback, not annoying people than the (Oh say...) business or engineering schools.

I'm feeling good because I've got cheap housing and a strong sense of Northerner superiority.

1.16.2007

Fat Panda Sex


According to an AP report there's a panda in a Bangkok Zoo who's too fat to have sex. His mate has no attraction to him now that he weighs nearly 100 pounds more than she. This is just another long-running obstacle in the zoo's attempt to mate the two. They've so far staged a mock wedding, intend on temporarily separating the two (Distance makes the panda cock grow harder?), and have even considered bringing in Panda Porn (nature videos of mating pandas). So Chuang Chuang is overweight and unattractive to his mate, Lin Hui. Now they need a fancy wedding and some porn to make things work. They're not pandas; they're fucking human.

1.15.2007

I am NOT Jane Fonda.

Oh my, oh my. Apparently the feminists have succeeded, because according to this dimwit (a well-respected conservative editor, no less) we are responsible for everything that is happening now in society (specifically: the bad stuff). God damn, when did women become so powerful? Who knew we could influence this much? I guess Steinem and Fonda are out of a job now.

Seriously though. As one of the book's reviewers says: "One of the trends I've noticed recently is that a lot of younger women profess to be 'anti-feminist,' something that never fails to send shivers down my spine." What in hell is going on here? We've decided that we can toss away the ladder because it brought us somewhere tolerable? Women should not so quickly forget that it is the feminists that brought them to the place where they can vote, leave an abusive relationship, use birth control, divorce, get a career, lead a company, and wear pants. I don't see Ms. O'Beirne sending Betty Friedan a thank-you note for fighting for her right to get published in this country.

Not to mention the fact that she's attacking only a few figures in the current feminist movement. I really wouldn't mind if this was a critique on what certain women have said in the name of feminism. Go right ahead. Personally, I think Jane Fonda needs to be slapped around a bit. But it's not that. It's an attack on the movement because of individuals related to it. I really don't think George Bush would appreciate me attacking him for whatever comes from Ann Coulter's mouth just because they're both conservatives. And I don't think O'Beirne would appreciate being the receiving end of my retort on what Dan Quayle said just because they're both idiots. The Feminist movement is very diverse, and has been since the '80s. But it's clear when Jane Fonda wants to create a feminizing school for boys, she's on the fringe. There are extremists; and there are moderates. And if you want to attack a movement, you need to attack the moderates, not the fucking extremists.

1.12.2007

Holla, Rape Haters!

I've been worming my way through a surprisingly good read called The Girlfriend Test by Wendy Walsh. And while I found the title to make my feminism chuckle, it was totally worth the 35 cents at one of Waldenbooks' Crazy Sales. She finds some interesting stuff about gender relations, and it would probably be terribly useful if I was in the market for boyfriends. If you're single and confused, go buy it.

Anyways, in Chapter 8, she relays some rather valuable information to us ladies (and men...?): How to avoid Date-Rape. Walsh mentions a few studies (although doesn't cite them, grr!) in which they found--surprise, surprise--Date Rapists aren't always clear on the message of "Get-the-fuck-away-from-me" that their victims are broadcasting. She mentions a few problems (i.e.: Using "no" as foreplay), but there are some tricky ones that mask as chivalry. The Five Factors that will make a rapist think he is owed sex by his date are as follows:


  1. He initiated the date
  2. He picks the date up and drops her off
  3. He picks up the check
  4. His date hangs around in his parked car (assumably as he's dropping her off)
  5. She goes to his apartment with him


The first one is simply unavoidable. But the others... well, ladies... welcome to the Twenty-First Century. Chivalry without sexpectation is dead.

Now, this isn't by any means to say that ALL men are potential rapists. Not by a long shot. The catch is that you never know when a man is one. Date Rape is a tricky crime, because a lot of the men who commit it aren't even aware they've done it. They don't set out to rape a girl. They just think that what they've done is "payment" for sex. (Seriously, think of prostitution's historical success: men are easily capable of the equation $$=sex.) But I think this is revelatory information for girls. I've long thought it rather polite for a date to pay for me and to pick me up. I had always considered that a man who asks me out is paying for my company--not my cooch. I mean, isn't that enough? (Apparently not for some men.) I mean, I's the same thing if I asked a guy out--now I'm paying for his company. That's just how I've always thought it should work. I'm sure a lot of guys would feel rather awkward about accepting dates if they knew they were expected to perform cunnnilingus when the woman paid.

It's irritating to think that women have to pony up for their half of the check if they don't feel like being pressured into the nookie. However, it's a reality we have to face if we want to prevent date rape. I'd like this to be a world were girls can go into a guy's apartment and not be raped, or to walk down lonely alleyways at 2 a.m., or pass out at a rave and not get raped--but it's the fact of the matter that there are situations which put us in danger. Prevention is the important end of elimintating rape. Once it's happened, there's no amount of punishment that will undo the crime and its repercussions. I'll never be the one to say that the victim is at blame, or that "she asked for it." However, I will say that we need to wisen up, and stop putting ourselves in a position for rape. Don't go walking down alleyways at 2 a.m. unless you've got a switchblade soaked in lemon juice, don't binge on any drug unless you're in the company of trustworthy and sober friends, and don't ever let your date think you owe him something.

1.06.2007

Femicrite!

Another brilliant (?) find on the internet: This dickhead. Apparently men are being systematically oppressed by the evil feminists who rose up and decided to bring the perfect male down from his elevated an well-deserved image.

Now, I'm all for considering the idea that the white male in America often does have a hard time. And I think, in a lot of ways, he does. However, does man need a bunch of women to stand up and defend him? Well, I'd hope men would learn, like women did, to push back when they got pushed around too much. And seriously, let's consider that given the mechanisms that do work against man (child custody rulings and affirmative action come to mind) he still manages to somehow come out on top in this world. Despite this consideration, there was (apparently) an outcry from the masses of oppressed male for some chick to stand on her internet podium and attack feminism. Shouldn't she get her ass in the kitchen and make them all sandwiches rather than voicing her inferior opinion on the internet? Seriously ladies: if you don't like feminism, stay in the kitchen.


What her real problem is (as with most deceptive morons) is that she can easily quote facts, without considering the most probable causes.

3. INCOME: Men constitute 60% of workplace hours, work longer hours, work harder, and are more qualified, rarely file sexual discrimination or harassment lawsuits or take pregnancy leave, yet earn only 42% more than women --Why men make up the majority of the working world is obvious, and even coincides with her apparent beliefs (men work, women stay home). Men rarely file sexual harassment claims because they rarely get sexually harassed. The pregnancy leave reason is obvious, and the statement that they are more qualified or hard-working is something I doubt was actually measured statistically--it's a subjective statement and does not belong. As for earning "only42% more"? I'd like to know how she got that. Especially since she cites this "Dept. Labor", but the Department of Labor I found says that women earn 81% of what men make. Hmm...

4. SUICIDE: Men's suicide rate is 4.6 times higher than women's --Apparently this leads to the conclusion that we are oppressing men? The NIMH says that the elderly are more likely to commit suicide too. I definitely recall Gloria Steinem saying how we must undermine the elderly... And here's a nugget: white men (aha!) over the age of 85 have the highest rate of suicide. They must be doing it because they're too old to remember the days when women were only secretaries and teachers!

5. LIFE EXPECTANCY: Men's life expectancy is seven (7) years shorter than women's -- [. . .] yet receive only 35% of government expenditures for health care and medical costs. --There's a good reason for both these things: men don't go to doctors unless a limb falls off. It's not Betty Friedan's fault that men won't get an annual checkup.

7. FEDERAL TAXES: Even though men pay 115% of federal income taxes women constitute 11% more of the voters. --This statistic makes no fucking sense. And still, whose fault is it if men aren't getting out to vote as much as women? (She goes on to say, "Because there are 11% more female than male voters, males have little to no influence on how the male tax dollar is spent," which apparently implies that women vote in blocs in order to muscle out the male vote with our tiny advantage--which is actually 3.1% according to site.

9. WAR: Men, not women, fight and die in battle [Dept. Defense -- Vietnam Casualties 47,369 men vs 74 women]. . . --Ah, which leads us to an important problem that I believe feminists are fighting to change... women on the front lines. Interestingly enough, she cites Vietnam casualties, a war that had so few women involved that there was no official count, although we can rely on an estimate of less than 10,000 (compared to the ~2.6 million troops who fought in Vietnam).

11. MURDER: Men are murdered at a rate almost 5 times that of women-- Which is funny, because men are 9 times more likely to commit murder than women, according to this report.

12. JURY BIAS: Women are acquitted of spousal murder at a rate 9 times that of men [Bureau Justice Statistics -- 1.4% of men vs 12.9% of women]-- However, juries are often well-mixed, and both women and men are apparently guilty of this "jury bias." We must remember that juries are the people, so a "jury bias" is a really dumb idea.

13. COURT BIAS: Men are sentenced 2.8 times longer than women for spousal murder [Bureau Justice Statistics -- men at 17 years vs women at 6 years]-- Apparently the requirements for Murder One (often receiving a minimum of 15 years) is biased against men too.

16. SECONDARY EDUCATION: Even though zero percent of American 12th grade girls were able to correctly answer basic math and physics questions, less than one quarter of America's secondary and elementary school teachers are men.-- Note: there's no citation of this. I find the former statistic extremely unlikely (or poorly conducted). The latter statistic is probably due to the fact that most men don't want jobs teaching secondary or elementary school. Of the 15 students in my college "Math for Elementary Teachers" class, there were 2 guys--one who was actually seriously considering being an elementary teacher.

17. HIGHER EDUCATION: [. . . .]-- I'm going to skip over a lot of this crap by saying Hampden-Sydney, if 44.5% in 1993 is a decline from 38.2% in 1990 I'd like to see that research, as of 2004 USAToday reports that 43% of college campuses are men, more high school graduates are girls, and if 43% make up the enrollment but 45.8% make up degree recipients then we can see that men are gaining an advantage as women drop out. (I'm not going to even touch an uncited statistic that has a figure of 0%.)

19. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: Even though study after study shows that women are the majority of the initiators of domestic violence, and 58% of the above mentioned physical altercations are initiated by the female [. . . .]-- so many studies and not a single one cited. How convenient. And yet, also lacking is a definition of what "initiating" domestic violence is. A tossed china plate? An insult? Not enough mayonnaise on a sandwich? So now we have a woman accussing her own sex of firing up men's violent tempers on purpose? How anti-woman is that? "She's just trying to get her husband to beat her because she knows the law will protect her!" I'm sure that's what all victims of domestic abuse think.

21. FAMILY BREAKDOWN: The US Surgeon General notes that divorce is more harmful to a man's health than smoking tobacco, yet as much as $1.3 Trillion of federal expenditures accomplish little else than undermine family stability.-- I'm not sure what this is claiming. Okay, so divorce is very harmful for men (assumably not the best thing to happen to women either). So let me get this straight: the government is trying to make families less stable by spending $1.3 trillion? Now, I went to this website but the chart didn't have a spot for "undermining family stability." However, we're spending more on destabilizing American families than the Health and Human Services budget (~$600 billion).

22. WOMEN PILOTS: Even though women pilots have an accident rate four times
that of men pilots, federal laws require that airlines risk the safety of passengers and hire women pilots anyway.
-- I've found no evidence to suggest any of this.

23. WOMEN DRIVERS: Even though the crash rate of women drivers is twice that of men drivers, and even though drinking alcohol increases the crash rate of men by only 5%, the majority of those imprisoned under DUI laws are men, and women are almost never imprisoned for their much higher number of non-alcohol-related crashes.-- the mangling of facts is extraordinary! Women crash more cars, more men get imprisoned for DUI, therefore, why aren't women getting imprisoned for crashing cars? It should be noted that the majority of people don't get imprisoned for car crashes, and also women have less severe car crashes. Men are more likely to do the really big fuckups (like get drunk and crash their car), whereas women often just run over a mailbox. (Also, this website says that drivers with BAC levels between 0.05 and 0.09 percent (below the average legal limit), are 11.1 times more likely to have a fatal one-car crash than non-drinkers. (Don't even look at what it becomes after you exceed legal limits.) But apparently drinking alcohol only increases the crash rate of men by 5%. (For the incompetent females who can't do the math: 5% ≠ 11.1 times more)

24. INCARCERATION: Even though feminists brag that 1.4 million American brides commit adultery, and even though women file more than 90,000 false allegations of rape, every year, only 99,000 of the 1.8 million Americans behind bars are women.-- whose bragging? And, once again, lovely juxtaposition of facts: Lots of women commit adultery and file false rape claims, but not enough women are behind bars? Adultery is not a crime. False rape allegations aren't either, although I will admit that they are a sign of how far feminists have to go. When we have whiny college girls falsely accusing poor boys of rape all over the place, we're clearly seeing a sign of weak women trying to abuse the system to get back at boyfriends. This is a case for feminism, because it will result in stronger women who won't do shit like this. However, the false allegations are no argument for imprisoning women, nor should they be understood as a reason to ignore rape victims. Rape is a very delicate situation, and it is severely underreported as well as overreported.


All in all, I think this woman is a case against feminism. I mean, if empowering women means that this dumb bunny can run her mouth off about how feminists are driving men to suicide with adultery, bad piloting, and divorce, then maybe we should just march on Washington and tell them to take suffrage back. Heh, I just kid. But hey, she's a sister and maybe all she really needs is a good reason to love her clit. Women like this are just signals about how little progress women have made. We can't even convince all the American women that they're not inferior, how can we say we've won?