Baggy Silk Pants

I will point out that most Indians don’t give any fucks about whether you dress like them. We actually LIKE it when you do. Remember Hinduism has few restrictions on other faiths despite what the Hindutva say and do. “You can eat beef, I just won’t” is the attitude.

You can wear bindi, sandhanam, flowers, bangles, earrings, nose rings and the like and no matter what you are going to insult someone. And Hindus are going to get upset about a lot of things. I know Indians who are upset about women wearing jeans. Do you eat beef? Congratulations. You are insulting to a Hindu. Pork? A Muslim. You are therefore insulting to most Indians. Bacon Double Cheeseburger is pretty much the most offensive dish on the planet at this rate.

Some of the links here are just plain condescending to Indians… Really. They aren’t kids. Maybe 10% will get insulted about Obama dancing the Tandavaram, but you know what? 90% will be happy that someone thought it was cool. That hinduism is considered normal enough that you can portray people in poses associated with it. There is an article that mentions Joel Stein’s silly break down about brown people, but you know what? A part here that mentions “racist fonts” and I know for a fact all that’s going through my head as an ex-hindu atheist and british indian is “Great font for a take away menu. It was probably FROM one made for a take away. They are the only people who would want a english font that looks like hindi”. And all his article proves is that racists will always exist and it’s easy to be one if you don’t know about another culture. Big whoop, even the concern brigade here are being racist in a different way.

You have posts complaining about “bollywood parties” and why Indians tolerate it. It’s not tolerance but pride in the fact that you want to play with their culture. We want it to be seen. We know it will survive a bunch of white kids trying to “pet dogs and screw in lightbulbs” at the same time. As for the belly dance outfits? That’s weird but you know what? That’s what a lot of Indians wear. Lehenga and Choli is a real outfit in India and that’s a close enough approximation. And you know what? Indian bollywood movies steal a lot of real life outfits and have borrowed belly dancers and the like from middle eastern culture.

And get this through your heads. Indians aren’t all poor. The man who lives opposite to me in India drives a Humvee. My parents invested in property wisely but the house I live in is not small in any world and I am not “poor”. In fact I would be highly upper middle class. There are a lot of pretty well off Indians who go to the west and learn things and take them back to India. Not everything in India is super great. Not everything in the UK is super great. You can learn from each other and culture is not so fragile that it cannot change or suffer from being appropriated. And if anything,  India has done more to kill it’s own “culture” than any number of white women doing yoga in stretchy pants. Or wearing bindis. That’s like saying that we should stop using decimalised mathematics because it’s “cultural appropriation” (II + II = IV). Or that yesterday I culturally appropriated a Chicken Tikka Subway. You know what? I have seen Bill Bailey “culturally appropriate” a Indian band to play music with. All that happened was a new fusion of western and indian music making for a great show. Both cultures got enriched. You know what? A lot of Indian classical music is Sitar or Veena based and the Nadaswaram is a lot more nasal and more of an acquired taste than Indian classical. Want to complain? Complain that most Indian Indians wouldn’t know how to play the damn things compared to most westernised Indians. That’s killing the culture, Not background music to a documentary.Want to get mad? Get mad about that, then go out and fucking learn the sitar. Don’t whine about whitey taking our culture then not doing anything for it.

You hate jokes about curry? Why? It’s curry. It’s one of the most popular food types on the planet. It can defend itself. It’s popularity stands for itself. I don’t see the donner kebab requiring defending on the basis of it’s the food of choice for drunk people (including myself). You hate jokes about Indians owning corner shops? Or driving Cabs? Really? Would you rather they mocked our fascination with “engineering and medicine”? We do own a lot of corner stores, we do run them rather well judging by the sheer numbers we have. You don’t want to hear jokes about how we are hairy? Fuck that. We are hairy. Deal with it. We are like italians in that respect. Good food, we gesticulate a lot with our hands and yes we do have a lot of body hair. It’s a fact of life (Sorry ladies, if I was gay I would be a bear so grizzly that I would have to worry about poachers). You hate it if people “steal” our aesthetics? Why? Come to India, the walls of my house are painted in hospital green. That’s indian aesthetics because a lot of Indians just don’t give a damn. So it irritates me when people suggest there is a single concept of Indian aesthete because someone clearly thought hospital green was an acceptable colour for a wall when it isn’t even an acceptable colour in a hospital!  The ultimate joke is that a lot of the ideas of indian aesthetics are a product of western culture, in the same way that “rustic” is an aesthete based on rural construction techniques. There is nothing wrong with buying yourself some indian aesthete stuff. Hell one of the most british of aesthetes often derided and mocked is Chintz. Or Calico cloth. From Calicut in India. Borrowing a pattern or an idea to use is not WRONG. Someone doesn’t like Yoga being removed from Hinduism? Maybe you should remember that Yoga is mainly a man’s fitness routine. Women rarely got to do it in India but now… Now it’s mainstream. You may hate it when white people tell you about your own culture but you know what I am more insulted by? When brown people don’t know anything about their own culture. White people living the Eat/Pray/Love lifestyle and travelling around India as a spectacle? Really? Would you rather white people still think Indians travel around on the backs of elephants in India because none of them have ever been? And you know what? They are pretty worldly, they didn’t have to do the travel. They did something difficult and out of their comfort zone and learnt something about the world and themselves. That’s their achievement and it’s the very point of tourism. To go to a new place and take in the sights. Venice offers me romantic gondola cruises, food and beautiful architecture. India offers me vibrant people, experience and history. India is not denigrated by white people coming to have a shuftie anymore than the Queen Lizzie’s monarchy is called to question by the throngs of american and japanese tourists standing outside Buckingham Palace. And you may hate it when the civilised world thinks it has all the solutions to “our backwardness” but you know what? You have the luxury of being a relatively rich indian in a western society far removed from the reality of India. Do you really want to come argue that “Oh, whitey cannot understand why we abort female babies” or “Why women are so malnourished” or “Why we have a massive problem with sexual harassment” or “Dowries” or “Forced Marriages”. Really? Because people who thought like this helped protect a lot of abuse because they couldn’t possibly understand how “western ideals could be applie
d to Indians”. There is nothing wrong with taking the best ideas of a group of people and using them to improve your own. It doesn’t destroy your culture, it makes it BETTER. India has improved by adopting a lot of western culture. Gandhi and Nehru were both quite westernised. Without them there would be no India, but a balkanised series of states more interested in screwing each other over than India.

Reading some of the articles and you realise that the people complaining have forgotten one thing. That culture changes. Indian culture of 100 years ago is not the same as today. It’s like NWA complaining about Eminem being white. That rap born out of a pain of racism and institutional poverty is appropriated by a white guy.

Culture changes. It won’t die because a bunch of white guys dress like me or wear a bindhi or even tattooed themselves with Oms and wheels and (fuck it) the swastika. Any more than Indian cuisine will die if you used salmon instead of king mackrel or douse chicken tikka in gravy or shove it into a sandwich.

Yes, we do face racism but you know what? NOT ALL WHITE PEOPLE ARE THE SAME. You have to recognise the line between racist pillocks and normal people. All these posts about India and Hinduism just set out to make any Indian who lies between two cultures feel like a goddamn traitor. Oh, you dated a white woman, you traitor! You just buy into the idea that white women are more attractive. You don’t like bollywood (fuck you! I am tamil, why the hell should I like bollywood? I got tamil movies which are even cheesier and even sillier) you traitor. You just think western movies are superior! You don’t do x, y or z. You like a, b and c. How dare you take your friends out to wear a sari, don’t you know the suffering of Indians who wear saris or bindis?

Yes there are a lot of things that suck like “Fair and Lovely” and the like about Indian culture but you know what? That has nothing to do with a bunch of white people putting indian things on their foreheads or carrying our bags or dancing in movies. That has to do with a society that doesn’t realise that all skin colour is beautiful. It’s due to western influences and the idealisation of beauty but you have to realise one important thing. White people are as exotic to Indians as Indians are to White People. You are just as fetishised as our women are to you.

Do you understand how utterly moronic it is to define a culture by your skin? That by refusing to allow anyone else to partake in your culture you are preserving it’s mystery and it’s status as something that people will NEVER  UNDERSTAND and therefore will never be able to fight ACTUAL racism. Indian culture is thousands of years old and even older than judaism and survived multiple actual destructions of culture at the hands of countless invaders from nearly 900 AD who destroyed culture with swords and death. In the end all who tried got assimilated by India. Because you shouldn’t treat Indian culture as fragile, that’s one of the best bits of Indian culture. It assimilates both ways. For every second you spend whining about how white women shouldn’t wear the bindi because they don’t know the racism you faced for wearing it or the fact that racists have targetted indians for violence you forget it works both ways. That we have taken things from western culture. It doesn’t sound like you are defending indian culture, you sound like the tired white supremacist trying to defend “western culture” from us.

And you think that my culture will fall because you want to wear my baggy silk pants? Shame on you.

My pants are the baggiest and the silkiest…

Death of a God

I ran across Sacerdotus‘s article after someone asked me about “the atheism/god gene” that he refers to and I figure I could field the entire article to provide some context rather than quote mine just that section of the apparent interesect of genetics and theology.
God is Dead” these are the well known words of German Philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche.

“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it?”

This is the full quotation from The Gay Science by Nietzsche. The idea is that science has killed god. That it has provided answers that religion claimed to have. That science undermined the established idea that all society was ordered by an all powerful all knowing sky wizard of your choice (Allah, Jehovah, Vishnu.). That we have to stand up and take responsibility and STOP following religious ideology and create a code of conduct based solely on humanity. To replace the rules and structure of religion with a construct t
hat is man made to provide purpose.

Some today believe this to be true.  With the advances in technology and science, man does seem to have become god and therefore has no use for this entity.  Moreover, Atheism seems to be gaining ground in regions of the world that at one point promoted Christianity.  God seems to be a thing of the past – an archaic explanation for the processes of nature and its existence.     

We have not become a god, we have become sufficiently powerful in our technology to realise that any unexplainable phenomenon we find probably has an explanation and that attributing such a phenomenon to pseudoscience or magic is a stupid idea. It is better to stand up and say “I don’t know” because that is intellectually honest than say that “x occurs due to magic generated through a deity”. When you realise that, God starts looking more and more like a literal deus ex machina. A being lowered to explain away difficult questions without providing a real answer. A being that tries to make difficult questions easy by giving a throw away answer. God is the Wizard of Oz, a mythical entity and a fake created by men who hide behind curtains and use the entrenched expectations of mankind to create the notion that they are closer to a divine being that probably does not exist.

It’s an imaginary friend for adults. A dangerous one whose “advice” often allows good men to do evil with a smile on their face knowing that the evil they perpetrate is excused and sanctioned by an authority beyond the ken of puny mortals.

Rosa Rubicondor on her blog “No Requiem For Dead Gods” cites the late Agnostic, Christopher Hitchens’ book,The Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever.  In his book, Hitchens presents his usual hyperbolic rhetoric.   He resorts to Appeal to Authority, False cause and Appeal to Ignorance.  This is nothing knew.  Those who claim to be Atheists (who are really Agnostics) always resort to fallacious argumentation to support their ideas. 

Not really, there is no appeal to authority in that book. Mostly it’s an appeal of reality from various authors writing about their experience with faith. Sacerdotus labours under the fallacy that his particular god is more real and legitimate than other gods. The one true god. He is an atheist in every case except for one.

Atheism is based of a simple notion. There is no empirical evidence, no circumstantial and no implied evidence for a god. In the absence of fantastic evidence for a fantastic claim one has to assume that the claim is invalid. If I claimed to have the cure for AIDS but refuse to demonstrate it, making the claim that I have the cure for AIDS is dishonest. If you claim to know that a god exists but refuse to provide evidence then you don’t know a god.

In reality, Atheism is a premise that can never be proven.  It must be taken on Faith, so to speak.  There exists no Atheist who can show that there is no God.  One must take his/her arguments an
d make a conclusion based on them.  In the end, they are just arguments, not empirical evidence that are falsifiable.

I don’t think Sacerdotus understands what evidence of a negative is. You can NEVER prove a negative conclusively. There is no evidence for unicorns existing, it doesn’t mean that unicorns NEVER existed, they theoretically could have existed. Science and by extension atheists who value science cannot conclusively state that there is no “god” because that’s not how it works. A lack of proof doesn’t mean a lack of existence.

HOWEVER, there is no empirical proof that god exists. Of any faith. There is no faith in atheism, it’s simply “There is no evidence for any gods, so I am going to live my life as if there were no gods”. I can categorically disprove the judeochristian god assuming the bible is 100% accurate since it means that we are a species that suffered two MASSIVE genetic bottleneck events in the last 7000 years and one extinction level event. The genetics disprove this and human like creatures have existed on the planet for close to 3 million years. Not 7000. Christian history is categorically wrong as is their creation mythos and if that is indeed the word of god, then reality doesn’t function ANYTHING like the way the bible says it does. If the theology is that faulty then it’s probably not divinely inspired because when I inspire people to do things, they tend to take down notes a lot more accurately.

There arguments that Christians use to support Jehovah also supports the existence of Shiva. Yet Christians don’t believe in the Destroyer of Worlds. 

Rubicondior writes: 

“Just as with those old, quaint gods of recent history, today’s gods will one day join that long, un-illustrious pantheon of old dead, once immortal and indestructible, now powerless gods that no one mourns, to whom no one sings songs of praise, in whom no one now has any faith, whose grave no one can find and on which no one would bother to put any flowers.”

  • Are these words true?  
  • Will the “gods” of today “join that long, un-illustrious pantheon of old dead?”   

Yes and yes. There are gods that have stood longer than christianity that have died out. It’s high arrogance to think that your god is anything special. And eventually all things must end. The belief in all gods will die eventually. 

Well first Rubicondior must expand on what “today’s gods” actually means. In today’s world, monotheism pretty much is the dominant religious force. That being said, there are no ‘gods,’ just a God. The world’s largest religions, Christianity and Islam both believe in One God. It is safe to say that this One God is the same since Islam borrowed heavily from both Judaism and Christianity. Similarly, Christianity is the child of Judaism.

It amazes me how Islam believes in the same god yet is a completely different religion. Okay, let’s assume that Islam follows the same god as Christians and is effectively the same faith… 

  • The question remains, will this God or the
    gods of other polytheistic religions die off?

Eventually? Yes. Even this dominant force will die out. It’s dying out as we speak. There are 250 MILLION atheists across the world. You think that’s bad? There are a further 900 MILLION non religious people across the world. 1.1 Billion people (AKA 1 in 6) don’t believe in a god or if they do don’t really follow a religion. It’s the two largest growing demographies. Faith is dying. Reason is striking a death blow against superstition while the hypocrisy of faith is exposed time and time again.

While I do not presume to speak for Islam, Judaism or the latter, I will speak on behalf of Christianity – particularly Catholicism. The answer to this question is NO.  

And why not? Here comes the misappropriation of science.

God or gods will never “die off.”  Hitchens and Rubicondior are obviously aloof to the science regarding the VMAT2 gene.  Hitchens was alive when the discovery of this gene was made public, yet to my knowledge he never addressed it.  Moreover, Rubicondior on her blog claims to be a “biologist,” so she should be aware of this study, yet she seems ignorant of it.  A search on her blog will produce no results as shown here on Sept. 22, 2012 at 4:50 PM Eastern Time.

There is a reason why religion stays away from science. Because science crushes superstition.

Study? VMAT2 stands for Vesicular Monoamine Transporter 2. It codes for a protein that is integral to membranes particularly in the brain where neuroreceptor monoamines such as serotonin, norepinephrine, dopamine and histamine from cellular cytosol to synaptic vesicles prior to release.

The idea that VMAT2 is related to “faith” is a contentious one mainly because there is absolutely no research into that. The idea of that is from a book by Dean Hamer which is pop-science and not a peer reviewed book. It is however an essential gene to survive. We can breed mice which are VMAT2 knock-outs and they tend to die a few days after birth. The lack of neurotransmitter is deadly. It’s a necessary gene for high order thought which INCLUDES being religious but also includes solving crossword puzzles, socialising and aiming a head shot from across a Team Fortress 2 map. Even Hamer (the goddamn author) disagrees with the notion that VMAT2 is a “god gene” pointing out it’s one of the factors of all faith including faith in sports teams and your girlfriend.

And EVEN if a god gene existed, it would not support the presence of ANY god. In fact it would indicate that faith is purely a delusion brought on by genetics. It’s not because we know what VMAT2 does and that lacking it will cause us to die because it is vital to normal brain function.

Menchen who died in 1956 was obviously unaware of this science and therefore I cannot label him as ignorant.  Had he lived today, his writing would have had to be updated to reflect the knowledge we possess regarding the VMAT2.

What Knowledge. We know what it does, it’s not a “god gene” any more than the gene for haemoglobin makes you believe in Dracula. 

The VMAT2 gene predisposes all human beings to belief in God and the supernatural. Contrary to the idea “we are born atheists,” this gene empirically shows that we are all indirect theists at conception, if you will.

The VMAT2 gene packs neurotransmitters into vesicles in the presynaptic cleft. And belief in something doesn’t matter. If everyone believes in something non-existent then everyone is superstitious, not the non-existent thing.

In light of this, God or gods can never be dead.  “God” is hardwired into our genome.  To “kill God” is to kill us, or what makes us genetically human.

In light of this amazing discovery we have found out that there is a protein gate that packs neurotransmitters into vesicles. And belief due to this is purely pathological. It’s not indicative of reality.

No. It’s you scrambling around desperately trying to match something to your faith no matter how silly it to provide an ounce of validity.

Moreover, the comparison of the gods of ancient peoples cannot be applied to the One God. These gods were attempts by man to put into language and practice what the VMAT2 instructions give to the human being.

Clearly Sacerdotus hasn’t read any genetics or he would know what VMAT is and wouldn’t say things that are clearly wrong. This argument is one of fantastic racism. Clearly those gods were products of the VMAT2 gene (despite the VMAT 2 not doing that), while ours is real! What makes him think his god is not a figment of his imagination produced by the VMAT2 .

The Catholic Church does not devalue these attempts to define God. 

On the contrary, it’s system of missionary work and history of conversions often at the point of death while systematically destroying local culture has proven otherwise. In addition Sacerdotus implied that his god is real while everyone else’s is a product of biological chicanery and an organic mental disorder brought about by a fault in genetics.

Allow me to quote from the Catechism which explains why other religions and their “gods” are “valid” to a certain extent:
843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as “a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life.”332″

Here’s my points

1. If he is unknown yet near then you how do you know he is unknown and near.
2. Again, if he is unknown then how do you know what he wants?
3. This is basically an admission that you don’t have ANY evidence for a god yet you INSIST that he does X, Y and Z
4. And it is pretty damn insulting to other faiths because it lives under the assumption that God’s name is Jehovah not Brahman.

The One God revealed Himself to man, first to the Hebrews and now to the rest of the world through Jesus Christ.  The difference between this God and the other gods is that this God is actually alive.  This God actually works in the world.  Those who believe do so not because of fancy theological arguments or dogmas but because they experience one way or another this God.

Really? Through Jesus? Surely an all powerful magical being would reveal himself across the globe saving countless individuals through empirical proof rather than the hearsay and gossip of a bunch of shepherds.

Oh you mean the difference between Jesus and Mazda and the Greek Gods and the Hindu Gods are that Jesus is alive and works in the real world unlike the bringer of fire, the various greek heroes such as Hercules and Hindu gods such as the Avatars of Vishnu. So the Hindu euphoria of faith is false while Catholicism is true? Prove it.

And you can feel the same kind of feeling standing on a terrace of a football match. It doesn’t mean that Manchester City is the holy land, it just means that you feel group euphoria.

 Whether Atheists like it or not, we are all wired to believe in God and to seek the supernatural.  Perhaps this is why Atheists are so fixated on Theism.   Anyone who does not care to entertain religious beliefs will not dedicate so much time and thought on them.

Actually most of us have real jobs that we do. Atheism is just something we are that we call upon to reduce religious intereference in normal life. 

  • Rubicondior labels herself a ‘humanist,’ yet why is her blog solely focused on God and religion? 

Don’t know. Don’t care. Maybe because it’s her blog?

  • Where are the blogs promoting clothing and food drives?  

Do not send food or clothing to India. I swear to Mancini! Send money. Money lets us buy food and clothing. And clothing? Give new clothes. You want to help, show poor people some respect. Don’t send them your cast offs. It’s insulting.

  • Where are the blogs promoting blood drives and bone marrow donations?

Atheists? Quite a few of us donate blood (I am a regular donor) and marrow. 

  • Where are the blogs promoting efforts that help humanity with its basic needs?

Mine does. Atheist blog encouraging charity.

Vmat2 is obviously instructing Rubicondior to ask questions – to seek God and the supernatural – otherwise she wo
uld not take so much time blogging on the topic.

VMAT2 also wants me to smack my head against the desk because of all the genetics being mutilated.

God is not dead.  God is alive and working in everyone, even Rubicondior.  God died already and came back, this is why Christianity is the largest and most  influential  religion ever to exist.  We killed God 2,000 years ago and He came back.  Even today, Philosophies have tried to kill God, but He comes back.  Atheists try to kill God, but He comes back.

Christianity is the largest and most influential religion on the planet because it’s filled with arseholes who destroyed culture and forced religion on others at the point of a sword or the end of a gun. It did so by destroying culture and society and pillaging nations to fund it’s growth. To attribute it’s spread to divinity is to understand that your god is a monster of rape, racism and pillage which is the foundation of the spread of christianity in the third world at the hands of armies and the parasites of priesthood.

God cannot be killed  in the same way that Harry Potter or Han Solo cannot be killed. Plot Armour and Fictitious beings do not die. 

God will not die.  What will die are speculative Philosophies based on hyperbolic rhetoric.  Atheism, which already has the lowest retention rate will be mourned by God and those of Faith. 

Yes, you are right. There will always be people who would rather believe in superstition than in reality. There are countless people on the planet who would rather believe that they are part of a special little club which has all the answers to everything rather than the reality.

We don’t know a lot of things. It’s no shame to admit your ignorance. Science doesn’t know everything. If it did, then it would stop. No. The people who claim to have ultimate knowledge are religions and religion has proven time and time again that it doesn’t have anything but the 2000 year old superstitions of people who would consider us gods. A god dies when no one is left to believe in him and he is forgotten and becomes a relic of history. In time that will occur to Jehovah. Who knows, in the future we may all think Tom Cruise is the one true messiah to save us from Xenu in the same way that 2 billion odd people believe in Jesus but it doesn’t change the fact that Tom Cruise is not a god and neither is Jesus. At best he was a real man at worst he was a fictional character.

And the highest retention rate of faith is in Hindus, maybe hinduism is more true than Catholicism. That’s the Sacerdotus logic for you…

Women are from Venus…

Today’s double posting courtesy of the fuel strike and day off comes at the hands of CARM and their normal stuff is the usual bible themed creationism and right wing nuttery. But this time they came up with something phenomenal.

Men’s Rights level Christian misogyny at it’s finest! It’s Girl Logic. What is Girl Logic you may ask? Well…

“Girl logic” is the label given to describe that series of semi-consecutive feminine thoughts that favored “cute things,” “soft things,” and cuddly little kittens and puppies. It causes girls to act in such strange displays of behavior that the average man is stupefied in useless attempts to comprehend. The smart man quickly abandons such ventures as he soon realizes severe head pain and vertigo follow.

Men look at puppies and think “bleh” Because men cannot think cute stuff is good. Down path lies the dreaded tag of wuss and brony. Men look at pictures of beef and cars. Not silly puppies and kitties. Why the author is so macho that the mere thought of kittens and puppies cause him to suffer from physiological symptoms. Cute is kryptonite to real men.

Each and every man has encountered this highly illusive mental game of matching wits with a woman, most often to his confusion and demise. The average male thinks too clearly, too linearly, and, therefore, can’t figure women out at all. The strange marvel is that girl logic makes sense to all women.

Wait are all the women in this man’s world 12? Because that has extremely disturbing connotations. And this is what he thinks “matching wits” mean. This is less a epic lightsaber duel of wit that spans the breadth and height of human language and humour and more like two babies gurgling at each other. If this has confused you then be prepared to be very confused about a lot of things.

There is, most probably, a genetic something that unites all females this way. I have seen groups of them act in behavioristic unison — as if driven by some common cosmic feminine force — when they encounter a jewelry department, a sale on clothes, or choosing the color of their shoes. This is all fine and dandy as long as men are excluded. But we aren’t!

The Y Chromosome makes you a hive minded creature who longs for the consumption of cute things, shiny objects and the posession of many many torso covers.

Every man knows the unmerited agony of being dragged into a clothes store only to have his aesthetic senses crushed into ridiculed oblivion when he says that blue blouse goes well with that green sweater. I’ve seen girls almost lose their lunch and stare in pathetic disbelief at some poor shlup who got cornered in the women’s department and made the inexcusable blunder of commenting on how yellow and pink polka-dots go together.
But a multitude of nodding male heads agreeing about the unnecessary suffering imposed upon them in ladies department stores, malls, and markets still does not negate our need to understand some of the less sophisticated nuances of girl logic. Some of these nuances are why they like flowers and cards instead of a socket-set and pliers, why they like expensive dinners instead of pizza and coke, and why their logic finally fails them when it comes to picking a date or possible marriage partner who is obnoxious and somehow interesting.

All men are colourblind. And we are similar to T-Rex (the Dinosaur, not the Band) in that we are really good at seeing movement. Match colours in our outfits? Only homosexuals can do that. Us straight men are lucky to wear pants!

I don’t think men really like socket wrenches and pliers. I mean, if you already own a set what are you going to do with more? It’s not like you can dual weild wrenches. Men also purchase food by the calorie, and hence a pizza with a bottle of coke is the ideal meal. It must be true! We read it on CARM.

But you might ask, “How can you write about that which you can’t understand?” The very fact that you are asking this proves you are using “guy logic.” If you were thinking (or trying to think) in girl logic, the question would never have arisen. And since this is a chapter on girl logic, I won’t answer it because I simply don’t feel like it — so there.But, it is possible (upon rare moments of dynamic insight) to be able to catch a glimpse of how girl logic operates in the realm of the real world. And, although we may not be able to understand the complexities of this intricate, convoluted system, we can, with great clarity, observe its operations and effects in life. Of course, were you a woman, this activity would be completely superfluous. But, of course, we are men, and in our attempt to woo and win women, we need to know this system, or at the very least (which is, for men, the highest level of attainment) understand how to use it.

There is a subtle sense of irony in play here if you realise it’s a creationist website.

Lesson 1 in Girl Logic: Girls think with their hearts and not their

Have you ever seen a girl around a pet store? She goes straight to the puppies and kittens. She holds them, pets them, wants them, and loves them all within 30 seconds. Now a guy would look at the underdeveloped animal species and think something like, “Hmmm. That is an infant form of white cat.” Or maybe he would think, “All right, that is a brown salivating puppy. It is young, urinating, maybe six weeks old. I wonder if it could fetch.” Guys think practically; girls think emotionally. Guys say “Hmmm, I see an infant animal form.” Girls say, “Oh look at him. Isn’t he cute. Don’t you just want to cuddle him all up. Hi, puppy, wuppy. I wuv you.”

And this is why men aren’t allowed into pet stores.

And why I secretly may be a woman.

Now such diametrically opposed displays of reacting to puppyness and kittenness can be used to your advantage. When you are in a pet store with your date, or girl friend, and she heads straight to the infant-animal-forms-area, you have the opportunity to act in a non-logical, girl -logic manner. What you could do is pick up a random infant cat, if that is possible, or point to it behind the glass and say, “That kitten is cute.” The girl you are with will think that you have a deep and compassionate heart, that you are a well rounded kind of guy, and that you would be great around children. Don’t ask me how children got into the picture, but girls think about them a lot, especially around cute infant animal forms. When you say something positive about baby animals, girls like it. It is the way they are made. They can’t help it.

So that’s your dating strategy? Say something positive about baby animals? You stud you…

Next after spying another animal form of potential infant cuteness, maybe a puppy, or rabbit, or hamster, say the same sentence again, only this time substitute the different animal type in the subject part of your previously offered sentence. Say, “That rabbit is cute.” Or, “That puppy is cute.” You don’t have to get mushy and you don’t have to ramble on about animal cuteness. Just pick out two animal forms, apply an “It is cute” sentence to it and the girl you are with will be impressed to no end. It works every time.
There is a warning here, though. Do not apply this to rodents, reptiles, or insects. Don’t say, “That baby Bolivian slug rat” is cute. The girl you are with will simply stare at you in nauseated disgust and decide right there to never go out with you again. Why? because she’s thinking about what your children will look like.

Hamsters are rodents and are cute. But apart from that this advice seems to boil down to “Author Will Take You on Date To Pet-Store. May Saddle You With Thoughtless Pet. Is Cheap.”

Lesson 2 in Girl Logic. Girls draw conclusions to a set of circumstances or events in such a manner as to completely bewilder men.

Man is confused! Man hurt himself in confusion!

For example, you’re at your girl’s house or apartment. She has just gotten ready. She looks good. You both are going to the zoo. You say, “You better wear some of your not-so-good clothes because we’re going to be doing a lot of walking.” Of course, your girlfriend or date hears these words all right, but something bizarre happens in her hearing processing unit. There is a little vocabulary filtering device imbedded in this unit called…

Why are all his dates involving animals? Is that his actual plan? BEHOLD THE CAGED BEAST FEMALE! NOW ENGAGE YOUR MANDIBLES AND PRESS YOUR MOUTH HOLE AGAINST MINE!

The Bewilder Filter
This is how it works. When you say a perfectly harmless sentence that contains even the slightest implication of her possessing clothes somewhat below the level of Vogue, what she hears is, “You have ugly clothes. Wear them out in public. All the walking can wear you out because you are only a girl.” Now, you don’t mean anything like that at all. But, as sure as frogs poop in a swamp, because of this Bewilder Filter, you are now in deep trouble.

Here’s the problem. You think a zoo is an excellent date. And you can tell a woman to wear something appropriate by saying “Wear something comfortable, we will be walking a bit” so that she doesn’t show up to a date in date clothes (AKA something nice and possibly high heeled.). You are in deep trouble because you lack any sense of tact.

She puts her hands on her hips and snaps at you,
“You don’t like what I am wearing?” You instantly realize that the Bewilder Filter has kicked in. You think frantically for a clever sentence that will get you out of this predicament. “No, I mean yes. It’s fine. Whatever you want to wear is fine. You look good.”

Because you should only date women who are stereotypes from the 80s.

She examines you slightly. Her bewilder filter is now working in over-drive. “Are you saying you don’t like what I wear? Because if you don’t then you don’t have to be seen with me in public. I can always find someone who will appreciate me for what I am.”
Now, what exactly happened?! I mean, what were you doing?! Nothing! Heck, you were just trying to think about her comfort and look at the consequences. Now she thinks you are an insensitive rogue, and she’s threatening the old dumpster routine with you being the garbage. Of course, your facial expression looks like you’ve been trying to figure out quantum physics and ancient Hieroglyphics all at the same time. She then picks up on your obvious state of confusion, hurt, and dismay and quickly turns the whole charade around. “Oh,” she says compassionately, “were you just trying to think about my welfare?”

 Who does this? Does the author live in the world of 70s sitcoms?

You cautiously mutter a confused and careful, ” . . . Yes.”
You’re so sweet,” she says to her night in shining armor, “I do have another pair of sneakers I could wear. Perhaps you are right. I’ll go put them on.”
Again you are left drifting in a universe of c
onfusion wondering what the heck happened. Were you sensitive or insensitive? Were you right or wrong? There is no way to be sure. (Sometimes I think that girls do this on purpose just to keep us confused. The only problem is I can’t quite figure out if it’s working or not.)

Yes. Women have a sinister urge to keep you confused. Which is why I purple badger banana.

The obvious conclusion is simple. When Girl Logic combines with the Bewilder Filter, watch out. You don’t know what the outcome will be. So the only course of action is to be a gentleman and pray for the best. The Bewilder Filter could work to your advantage or disadvantage. Who knows? So, get ready for a ride.

Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus and there is no Babelfish. Goodluck you unlucky wankers and godspeed you fancy bastards! I can see why CARM don’t like the gays, they are jealous that they don’t have to deal with this sort of madness!

Seriously? I cannot believe someone wrote this without breaking down in laughter.

Doctor Doctor!

The problem with the internet is that anyone can stand on the soap box. Veracity is not important, merely the message. Which is why individuals such as Mike Adams from Natural News have some of the biggest and most profitable web pages on the internet.

It’s weird how often you run into anti-medicine ludditery in the west. I never noticed it till I left the UK but there are a sizeable amount of people who simply assume that medicine has no idea what it’s talking about. Today’s offering is from Dr. B. J. Hardick on Green Media Info and I have to go out on a limb and assume he is one of the few doctors who turn their back on science and evidence based medicine and go practice quackery for the dubious benefit of a fist full of dollars.

The tide is turning.  When once it was unheard of for a doctor’s opinion to be challenged, today’s patients are getting second and third opinions, seeking out alternative care and pursuing natural, organic solutions to their health issues.

This is not a good thing. Natural and Organic mean precisely nothing in terms of medicine. Curare is 100% natural yet you wouldn’t want to run afoul of poison darts. It’s medical use is well documented and strictly controlled. You aren’t out chewing south american leaves but a known dosage of the drug is injected to produce local effects. If you really think an unknown quantity of drug should be used then you are clearly not thinking clearly.

Alternative care categorically does not work. No proof has ever been produced that organic care beats regular care. You literally have a series of anecdotes and every comparison between alt. medicine and the placebo effect has proven to be non significant.

Dr. Brawley shocks us with statistics.  Americans are suffering and dying avoidable deaths.  America spends 1.5 times as much per person on health care than any other country, yet it ranks 50th in life expectancy and is 47th in infant mortality.  He blames unnecessary and unproven treatments on a lack of scientific knowledge and the financial attractiveness of supporting pharmaceutical companies, medical manufacturers and hospital financial targets.  This is a shame.

Actually it’s due to the fact that the USA has a two tier medical system involving private healthcare for some and public healthcare for others. This results in private healthcare DUMPING cases on public healthcare and situations where people have no healthcare at all forced to utilise ER services ratchetting up costs. Prevention is not a word being bandied around the USA.

And “50th in Life Expectancy” isn’t that big a gap. The average American lives 75 years, the average French? Nearly 80. Infant mortality in the USA is due to daft reporting of unviable births as preventable mortality. Unless you can magic some lungs into a 20 week old foetus there is nothing you can do to save it. It’s got a 97% chance of dying because in all our haste to declare hearts and brains as necessary for life we forget that hearts and brains need lungs to work.

American mortality is due to the fact that many americans even with insurance fear rising rates so don’t take advantage of healthcare unless necessary and by necessary, we mean “Stuff has gone horridly wrong”.

“The triad of obesity, lack of physical activity and high caloric intake (bad diet) is creating a tsunami of chronic disease.  If the system persists as is, medical costs will grow dramatically over the next several decades as the number of patients with diabetes, cardiovascular diseases, cancer and orthopedic injury dramatically grows.”[i]
America is focused on sick care refinancing, not health care reform.  The medical system is bankrupting the economy – the U.S. spends 18% of its money on medicine.  The average cost of a health insurance policy for a family of four is $19,400 per year.  Much of that cost is born by the family itself as health care benefits are becoming too costly for the employer to provide.  In  Canada, the government spends about two thirds of that amount providing health care, and citizens complain that their health care needs are not being met.  And much of that money is spent on unnecessary and often unproven treatment.

The UK spends a bit more than Canada on healthcare and I know we spend roughly 50% of what the US government spends on it. This is a suspect value.

Doctors cannot exercise for you. Doctors REPEATEDLY state that you should put down the pie and go for a run. Yes, fat acceptance is nice and you should like your body and all that but we aren’t Cosmo. We think you should lose weight because it is healthy. Fat people are sick people, the statistics are clear. In the USA no one would ever, EVER produce a healthcare policy that reduces people’s freedom. You are free to chose what to eat and what to feed your kids. Obesity is the patient’s problem. It’s treatment is willpower and diet and if you don’t want to do those then we cannot help you.

You know not to touch a live exposed wire because you are educated about electricity and the dangers. Yet somehow you don’t want to remember the tonnes of education about healthy eating. The obesity epidemic’s fault lies in the laziness of consumers, the tastiness of junk food (Not their fault) and the unwillingness to accept some blame. McDonalds makes burgers, they aren’t forcefeeding you with them.

It amazes me that alternative medicine sites consider anything used in medicine to be unnecessary and unproven when they often flog energy crystals, magnets and magic water.

Health care consumers have every reason to be angry.  The costs are unsustainable, and most importantly, the well being of every Canadian and American is at risk.  Thirty-five years ago, Senator George McGovern criticized the war on cancer, saying that the annual billion dollars provided by the government was being misspent on treatment and ought to be directed toward prevention.  “How can you assert the vital relationship between diet and cancer and then submit a preliminary budget that only allocates a little more than 1% of the National Cancer Institute Funds to this problem?”  This statement was made by Senator McGovern at the 1976 U.S. Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs.

George McGovern is a historian. If we wanted to discuss history we got to a historian. If we want to get our car fixed we go to a mechanic. Why is it that in medicine, it is acceptable to ask a historian to dictate what doctors do to the general public?

A simple example of prevention and people who oppose it? The HPV vaccine. Stops between 92 to 97% of all cervical, penile and lower colonic cancers. Look at the backlash. Everything from people who think that vaccinating for it will cause women (and men) to slut it up and people who make grandiose claims that the HPV is designed to kill you. Never mind the thousands of women it will save. How much more do you want to bombard a public who really don’t want to listen to you about nutrition?

The only other alternative is mandatory sport for children and enforced physical education. If your child is obese you get your child
automatically taken for actual dietary regimens. IF you made legislation like that no one would vote for you.

Study after study shows that a good majority of cancers are preventable through lifestyle.  The upside down spending of 1 to 10% on prevention, giving the rest to treatment needs to be reversed.

Except many lifestyle changes are completely untenable. And yes many are avoidable. And I think the good doctor has forgotten how lung cancer rates are falling in our society thanks to the effect of anti-smoking drives often spear headed by doctors. 

What can we learn from this?  Take responsibility for your own health.  Read, research, and challenge what you’ve been told.  Seek out information about what you can do to maximize your potential for continued health and long life.  Quality nutrition, reduced stress, increased fitness, minimized toxins and maximized nerve supply are the five essentials that will optimize your health.  You can live a full life free of illness and disease.  Make wise, informed decisions.

This is where the woo comes in. No doctor advocates McDonalds. Nutrition is key and nearly every doctor tells you to eat a balanced diet and do exercise and avoid stress. However some people CANNOT avoid stress (eg. Doctors). But the one of note here is Minimised Toxins which is often a reference to real medicine because the quacks flog the notion that nothing in nature is toxic and that things like morphine, curare and botox (I kid you not, there are anti-vax who give out botox injections for wrinkle treatments but complain that vaccines are filled with toxins) are not. Maximised Nerve Supply is just one of those terms that doesn’t mean anything. If your nerve supply is anything but maximum you are in trouble.

Eventually you will die. This mantra that you will have a full life free of illness is pretty much what he is complaining about. We die because our body breaks down. Point in case? My uncle had a mild heart attack 3 weeks back. He used to exercise regularly and eat simple food. His two brothers are older and didn’t despite that. The reason? Age. Age is killing him. And for now there is not much we as doctors can do. In the future?

No doctor is against eating right and working out. The problem is eating right is not “eating fancy organic food and snaffling enough fancy vitamins to choke a donkey”.

Fear Me Ladies!

Trigger Warnings – Massacre and Rape and Abuse (they make sense in context).

I recently started poking around Reddit, mainly to entertain myself when bored, but also as a source of information and blog ideas.

And then someone told me about the Men’s Right Reddit and boy has it paid off…

Apparently this is an article written by a “feminist” called Anwesha on why the ladies shouldn’t trust men who are feminist. Well who treat women as equals, the article is vague. So without further ado…

Usually men shriek at the mention of the word ‘feminism’. Being involved with a feminist is probably a man’s worst nightmare. Thus, men who are feminists themselves are a rare commodity. However, despite being something of a novelty, such type of men do not find much favour with women. In fact, most women hate men who claim to withhold feminist ideologies.

Not really. Listen, Anwesha here may not have any real idea how men think. You have to be pretty disconnected from reality if you would say such a thing because.

The infamous Icecream Gambit

1. Not everything men do is designed to impress women. We do have other interests and fears. Calling yourself a feminist won’t cause us to go “ZOMG RUN AWAY”. Unless you are CRAZY. If you said “I Am a feminist and I believe all men are potential rapists so give me a good reason not to mace you and unload my entire taser charge” then I would probably run… That’s not feminism, that’s crazy. Feminism is the mere notion that women are equal to men bar biological differences (AKA Women can have babies, men are bigger and stronger)

2. We are a product of nurture rather than nature. If you teach your young boys to respect women they will grow up to respect women.

3. I think you are confusing “Feminist Men” with “Nice guys ™”. A feminist man understands that there is a time and a place to grab a consenting woman, a Nice Guy attempts to use niceness to try and gain consent which actually means he isn’t nice but is “nice”. If I buy you an ice cream it’s a nice act, if I buy you an ice cream to convince you to wash the dishes then it’s not niceness but a business transaction based on dairy deception dessert. There is a right time and a place to chain the right woman to a bed.

So what is wrong with us men?

1. Against Their Nature: Wouldn’t it strike you as strange if a tiger suddenly turned vegetarian? This is because it is against their basic nature. In the same way, feminism is against the basic nature of men and that is why women hate men who claim to be upholders of women’s rights.

I think Anwesha gets all her ideas from men from Cosmo which can be boiled down to touch him on the penis. The basic nature of straight men is to LIKE women and want to have sex with them (bar some specific cases). Treating men as if we are incapable of anything apart from penis waggling and oppression is highly insulting. The MRA’s who  posted this may like to think that they are a titan of uncontrolled male aggression and this is highly sexy to the ladies but you know what?

We are not “in our nature” to hate women. A tiger is a biologically driven carnivore, we are not biologically driven to fuck women over.

In terms of simple logic? I do not gain ANYTHING by being a dick to women or oppressing them. Let’s look at this logically.

1. If women are equal, she will earn the same as me. I will have more money if I hang out with one and marrying a woman won’t be considered “dead weight” or a poor decision financially.

2. If women are empowered the need for marriage for financial security falls. I don’t have to worry about people “claiming” to like me for my money. Pre-nuptial agreements can be the norm because a woman who may earn more than me will want that same security. It’s sad but prudent. The world is built on prudence. There is nothing wrong in agreeing how disagreements will go.

3. I don’t lose anything by women being equal to me. My value doesn’t depreciate in society. I don’t become useless if a woman does what I can do. If you think cooking, cleaning, laundry and the like are demeaning then you really are a slob.

4. I won’t feel sad or sorry if I have female children, that they would have to grow up in a world where men are trying to screw them over (And a fair few women by the sound of things…). I don’t have to treat my children according to magic gender roles. If my hypothetical little girl wants to throw a rugby ball and roll around in the mud screaming obscenities at other like minded people then I won’t have to tell her the truth that “Some People Consider It Unlady Like”. (Same applies if my hypothetical son does a Billy Elliot).

5. I am not bound by gender roles. I don’t have to bring home the bacon always. If something happens my hypothetical wife can carry her own weight. Why the hell would I want to marry some stay at home wife? Monetarily speaking it’s a poor decision. Socially speaking? What the hell would we talk about? She won’t understand what I do and will forever be bored that I have a job that comes first and requires extra work at home and I will forever think she sits at home twiddling her thumbs and watching day time TV (To be fair if I am at home like that? That’s what I would do…)

6. Independant women = Independant me. If my girlfriend or wife has her own “stuff” to do then you know what? It’s best that she goes and does it. I know some people exist who can walk around chained to each other, but I cannot. I need space. I have friends. Sometimes I want to go be stupid with other men and drink beer while watching the football (Drinking Wine and Play Videogames). An independant woman who has her own life will let me have that time. I can do activities that she may not enjoy because she isn’t forced to chain herself to me leaving with a choice of either doing the activity and feeling li
ke a heel or not doing the activity and feeling irritated.

If I wanted a loyal obedient slave who I can train to jump through hoops I would get a dog. No. I want a human being, and human beings are all equal. Did Anwesha ever think that men LIKE feminists because that’s the kind of woman they like? I mean jokes aside the major reason we date people is because we like them for who they are and that they fulfil some important and often nebulous requirement that we find attractive.

2. Traitors To Their Own Cause: The types of men who start calling themselves feminists are seen as ‘traitors’ among men folk. Generally, men despise male feminists much more than they despise female feminists. How do you trust someone who has betrayed their own kind? If they have betrayed their own gender that is men, they might as well betray you.

Apparently the male cause is stupid. The only people who treat men who are feminists as traitors are the Men’s Rights Activists and they are not really nice. You aren’t betraying anyone by treating women as equals. It’s like saying “See! They treat you with respect! They are bound to stop because many men don’t treat you with respect!”.

3. No Chivalry: Usually men who believes in the rights of women lack chivalry. They treat women as equal, but not better than men. So when you are an equal, he doesn’t have to hold the door for you or pay your bill. Just like Atheists have no holidays, feminists have no concessions for being women. That is why legendary actress, Marilyn Monroe once said, “Women who want to be equal with men lack ambition.”

Why the fuck should I have to pay your bills? Chivalry? It also means I have to keep men at arms and own a castle. And real life chivalry was a bit more Game of Thrones and a lot less Sir Gawain and the Green Knight. We have romanticised codes of conduct such as chivalry and bushido forgetting that they were rather not all that great outside stories and movies. For every Seven Samurai story there is one of reality. No, Bushido like Chivalry is a barbarous ideology used to justify it’s followers as good and honourable. 

And I hold open doors for everyone. I give up seats for the elderly and pregnant women. I am sorry, I missed the part where you think paying bills is “chivalry”. Sure, for a long term girlfriend treating each other to fancy meals is “nice” but frankly you always split the bill. Right down the middle. And modern iterations of chivalry are up for definition. And atheists have days where they remember real people andd real events. A “holiday” doesn’t need religious connotations.

You don’t have to duel for her honour (although I warn you. I have had fencing lessons).

I understand the shirtlessness, but why the baby oil?
 4. More Liberation Than We Need: When a man turns feminist, he becomes much more radical than the most rabid feminist. They start preaching for much more liberation than women want or need. Now, we may believe in our right to not wear bras as it is a symbol of oppression and gender stereotyping; but do we really want men to be burning bras on the street for our cause?

No? I am pretty feminist and accept that there are some “crazy feminists” who hate men out there. But you know what? Most sane people think they are crazy.

And to my knowledge most men wouldn’t burn bras. It seems like a frightful waste of lingerie. And feminists wear bras… There is nothing wrong with that. Wait? We just came to the conclusion that feminists want equality. How is equality more freedom than you “need”.

5. Women Like Bad Boys: No matter how technically correct feminist men are, women hardly ever get attracted to such men. Women have this sinister quality to get attracted to all the ‘wrong’ kinds of men. The mythical ‘bad boy’ who is a woman beater and a chauvinist still reigns supreme in the fantasies of women. Put it simply, women are a bit masochistic from within. That is why it is not unnatural to see beautiful, confident and successful women seek out potentially abusive relationships.
This is less a fault with feminist men and more a fault of idiots. Listen, if you want to set yourself on fire then don’t complain about being burnt. Women do not have this sinister quality where they date “bad men”. It’s just that bad men exist and many people end up dating them. Because bad men LIE. They aren’t bad to start with. They are “nice” and you think they are nice and maybe a bit dark and wild. But then they slowly become abusive. An abusive boyfriend or husband didn’t start a relationship through a highly romantic black eye, it’s a slow spiral of threats and violence building up to that. 
And I must explain the difference between a fantasy and reality. If you ask a woman’s fantasy about “abuse” then you will hear a FANTASY. An idealistic set of conditions where the woman would be willing to have the “abuse” perpetrated on them by an appropriate person. The ultimate point of a fantasy is that the woman who fantasies about being beaten is STILL UNDER CONTROL. She can stop the fantasy at any point since she is under control when it is in her head. When it is being acted out then the control in a respectful relationship will still remain with her despite the illusion of a lack of control being present. I know feminists who have rape (yeah seriously) fantasies. It doesn’t mean that they want to get raped. It means that they want to pretend that you are a intruder and have consensual sex DISGUISED as what they fantasise rape to be like. In the same way women who like being “hit” during sex actually lay out strict rules on what can and cannot be done and will tell you if you are hitting them too hard or soft. That’s the thing. This is all consent based. No woman sets out to get beaten up during a relationship.
At no point during any of this does anyone require the man to be a horrible person. You can be a good honest feminist man and indulge in a fantasy. 
If you keep dating terrible men on purpose then you are the problem, not feminist men. You are actively repeatedly making empirically bad decisions and there is nothing men can do about it.
All in all, feminist men are not bad, but they are too good to be true. Would you like to date a man who calls himself a feminist

Wait. So the main closing argument is that “Man, those feminist men must be hiding some pretty weird shit if they have to treat women like equals”.

Weird sexual things like this…

 The issue is not that men and women should be equal, it’s just that Anwesha thinks that no man can ever be good.


Trigger Warning – Content that follows the jump contains a discussion of Rape and indeed Todd Akin’s comments…

I don’t think I need to repeat what everyone else thinks about Todd Akin’s “Legitimate Rape” comment, but needless to say it’s quite possibly one of the most idiotic things said by someone in a position of authority this year.

Needless to say that this has attracted a lot of flak, not just for the sheer callousness of such a statement but because it is a trigger to the countless people who have been raped and demonstrates the kind of thinking many rape victims have to face from people who literally have no idea about rape.

Now, most of us men aren’t subject to sexual assault. Many women however have. So we don’t know what women feel towards the event. Many people are forever traumatised by it and any statement such as the one made by Akins causes a negative reaction. And here is the thing why we write “trigger warning” and the like on posts. Because it warns those who suffered about the content within a post and that they are continuing knowing what the contents are.

The reaction of people who were raped to a trigger is perfectly legitimate because the people traumatised by the event can respond to a trigger by different and unique methods. You cannot tell a combat PTSD sufferer that his fear of balloons is idiotic and then pop balloons at him. Likewise you cannot tell a rape survivor (and PTSD sufferer) that their reaction (no matter how ludicrous it seems to you) is incorrect. Because you don’t see what the person sees.

Unfortunately Mark Goldbatt from Patheos doesn’t seem to grasp that when he tries to explain why the Eve Ensler’s statement – “as if to imply there was such a thing as ‘illegitimate’ rape. Let me try to explain to you what that does to the minds, hearts and souls of the millions of women on this planet who experience rape. It is a form of re-rape.” is wrong. He calls it a “Pathetic” letter. Again I must point out that Mark indulges in some pretty vile moves so Trigger Warnings galore…

This is the first I’ve heard about “re-rape.” Maybe it’s an elusive concept, and maybe only rape survivors like yourself can grasp it; I know I’ve mulled it over for several days, but I still can’t fathom how a two-bit politician putting his foot in his mouth is the psychic equivalent of your own description of the original act: “I want you to close your eyes and imagine that you are on your bed or up against a wall or locked in a small suffocating space. Imagine being tied up there and imagine some aggressive, indifferent, insane stranger friend or relative ripping off your clothes and entering your body—the most personal, sacred, private part of your body—and violently, hatefully forcing themselves into you so that you are ripped apart. Then imagine that stranger’s sperm shooting into you and filling you and you can’t get it out.”

Well, I think I grasp the idea since Eve explains it in her article. That at its core the Akins comment makes women feel like the only way that their rape is legitimised is at the behest of a man who arbitrarily determines what isn’t and is rape. That there is a concept where rape is acceptable or a part of reality (How many women are told that they were raped because of the clothes they wear or because of alcohol?).

It’s not “putting his foot in his mouth”, it’s a serious error of character where a man with no grasp of human biology and psychology has deemed it fit to make a statement about those two issues and this is a man in power who has routinely made it a sticking point to argue about women’s health rights and champion a reduction in the rights of women to access basic gynaecological healthcare.

So I’m sitting here weighing those two things—a congressman saying something stupid versus a crazed attacker violently penetrating my body—and for some reason I can’t get the scales to balance. Still, I know there must be something to what you’re saying because, well, you’re Eve Ensler, author of The Vagina Monologues, and because I’ve read enough feminist theory to know that men don’t “get” certain things . . . even though, of course, believing that women don’t “get” certain things is grounds for a lawsuit.

It’s not stupid. It’s a cruel and callous statement made thoughtlessly by a man who genuinely believed that women’s uteruses are magic. This is a man who has fought relentlessly to prevent access to abortions and whose argument in context was made to exclude women who were raped from having abortions by claiming that the women who got pregnant from rape “weren’t really raped”.

Still, I have to tell you, Eve—do you mind if I call you Eve? I don’t want to misspeak and inflict still more horrific violence upon you—there’s something, well, disproportionate about your response to Akin’s buffoonery, something that goes beyond a standard election-season gotcha, beyond even your attempt to tar Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan with Akin’s remarks on the grounds that the two of them were among 227 co-sponsors of a May 2011 bill called “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.” That bill included the phrase “forcible rape”—which the FBI has been using for decades, and which Akin now says he meant rather than “legitimate rape”—in order to distinguish rape involving physical violence, or the threat of physical violence, from rape in which the victim may express outward consent—such as cases of statutory rape when, for example, a 19-year-old boy has sex with his 17-year-old girlfriend.

It then takes on this really creepy tone where he tries to treat Eve not as someone who has made an argument but as someone who literally is so fragile and thin skinned about rape that she brooks no discussion whatsoever.

And the legitimate rape isn’t as much as a faux pas as many people think. What the problem is its combination with the notion that in cases of “legitimate rape” the woman can shut down a pregnancy (possibly though magic). That’s what was crazy, because he was flogging the notion that women who were raped and have children due to that were pregnant because they on a small level were to blame. That they are LIARS. That’s why they are pregnant. You can explain “Legitimate vs. Forcible” and try and weasel your way out of that but the female body doesn’t have any way to shut down forcible rape any more than it has the ability to fly.

Statutory rape is an entirely different beast and there is date rape or rape through the use of coercion where consent may be given out of a lack of choice.

The bill’s sponsors say they were attempting to address a loophole in the Hyde Amendment that bans the use of federal tax dollars to pay for abortions. Under current law, Medicaid funds can cover abortion costs when the pregnancy is the result of a rape or incest. By including the phrase “forcible rape,” the sponsors wanted to prevent the use of Medicaid to pay for abortions for minors whose outwardly consensual sex nonetheless met the legal definition of statutory rape.

Oh! That make
s it completely acceptable! #Sarcasm

It just means that the people involved were planning to throw rape victims under a bus if they weren’t threatened or if they were under age. Minors cannot give consent, which is the entire fucking point of statutory rape; you cannot say that statutory rape is not technically rape.

Other outwardly consensual sex? Date Rape, Consensual Sex That Goes out of Control, Coercion and Altered State of Mind Rape. Those aren’t “legitimate rape” right?

Whatever you think of the wisdom of the “No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act,” its intent was clearly to strengthen the Hyde Amendment. . . . Oh, I’m sorry; you don’t think so, Eve? You read it as something more sinister, something akin (no pun intended) to the way “rapists played with us in the act of being raped—intimidating us, threatening us, muting us. Your playing with words like ‘forcible’ and ‘legitimate’ is playing with our souls which have been shattered by unwanted penises shoving into us, ripping our flesh, our vaginas, our consciousness, our confidence, our pride, our futures.”

Yes it is. The Hyde Amendment is a shocking piece of legislation akin to saying “Fuck Women’s Health”. It was put into power by a bunch of men who think a block of cells is the same as a human being. It’s a pointless piece of legislation designed to harm women’s health while claiming to be moral. Even if we ignore that for the most part it reduces the reproductive choice of women while placing monetary penalties on one gender primarily for the act of sex, it also forces raped women to pay for abortions (or rely on charity or state level programs which may or may not be available) which is a dick move. Yes, you may not agree with giving women money to have abortions. But if you think women ENJOY having abortions then you probably think that people enjoy having their teeth pulled.

(As an aside, Eve, I notice that you keep referring to women’s “souls,” which you specifically differentiate from their minds and hearts. If a woman’s “soul” is distinct from her mind and heart, what does it consist of? Where does it come from? Oh, and when does it arrive? You see where this is going, don’t you?)

She is using the romantic version of a soul. The idea of a combined personality that makes Eve who she is that explains her state of mind and personality. It’s a poetic construct, when she uses it. It means that rape damages who she is. And that it has changed her for the worse. And it’s high lunacy for an Evangelical Christian to doubt this statement considering Mark Goldbatt believes in an actual physical soul that can be affected by his deity of choice and that will be rewarded with stuff if he believes in Jesus and doesn’t believe in science, gays and women’s health. To mock someone else’s idea of a soul is hypocrisy. 

Likewise, you hear a more sinister subtext in Akin’s mindboggling suggestion that women rarely become pregnant as a result of rape because, as he explained, “if it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.” Generations of female slaves and their biracial children might beg to differ, of course. But I keep hearing that as mere biological ignorance. You, on the other hand, noticed something else in Akin’s words: “It would seem you were saying that getting pregnant after a rape would indicate it was not a ‘legitimate’ rape.”

The biological ignorance means that Akin should not be allowed to make any decisions with regards to women’s healthcare at all. It’s not biological ignorance so much as a massive failing of the education system. It can happen in third world nations, but this is fucking America. If you are willing to elect men who are clearly morons to power then your country is going to be run by morons. This is basic goddamn high school biology indicating that Todd Akin requires basic biology and sex education of the proper kind. Generations of Female Slaves? That’s where you are getting your answer from? Not the wide variety of women who have become pregnant from rape?

No, Eve heard right, that’s what it implies. That a man who was setting out to reduce the rights of women to access healthcare and believed that they shouldn’t receive that healthcare because their vaginas and uteruses functioned through magic. That this was a man who legitimised rape if you got pregnant. It is a horrific thing to hear from a man who is planning to run for office.

That can’t be strictly what he meant since he said cases of conception from rape are “really rare” (not “nonexistent”) because the female body will “try to” (not “always”) shut down the fertilization process. But isn’t there another, more (how shall I say this?) charitable way to look at it? Isn’t it at least possible that Akin, like many pro-life advocates, struggles with the consistency of his beliefs in the agonizing case of pregnancies resulting from rape and incest? That he struggles so much he’ll grasp at any explanatory straw, trust any nugget of pseudo-science, telling him that such cases are exceedingly rare, that women’s bodies somehow mystically repel evil sperm.

Because rapists only hit menstruating women? Conception from rape is not common in the west due to access to condoms (many rapists have used them) and because women have access to the morning after pill and the like which they do use post rape.

However if one pays ANY attention to Africa or any other place where rape is widespread or used as a weapon then one notices an inordinate amount of children born to women who are raped.If he is a pro-lifer then he has demonstrated a completely idiotic grasp of women’s reproductive health and should not have any say in the healthcare of women because he is a fucking moron. He is demonstrating pro-life idiocy and actively spoke out loud things that are being told to young children across America in lieu of proper sex education. This attitude is not one that’s new, but it is not one you wish to hear from someone at that high a level of government.

As I’m sure you’re aware, Eve, the most intellectually consistent pro-life position doesn’t allow exceptions for rape or incest . . . and forcing pro-life advocates to admit this fact is always a good way to score political points. But must we seize every opportunity to score political points? Aren’t we all emotional, as well as intellectual, creatures? Don’t we all struggle with hard cases? Don’t we all occasionally grasp at straws hoping the hard cases will just go away?

Really? This is like shouting “Barrack Obama is a Nigger” then trying to claim that the ensuing labelling of yourself as a racist is an attempt to score political points. The mildest complaint about Todd Akin that I can think of is that he doesn’t have an internal filter that stops him from saying idiotic things. And that’s the MILDEST.

This isn’t a hard case. This isn’t even a case at all. This is like banning hysterectomies for women with cervical cancer because it will ruin their reproductive organs. It’s a medical procedure to prevent an event that may ruin a woman’s life.

Grasping at straws? It’s not grasping at straws, at its best its a testament to the idiocy of pro-choice and its worse its an attempt to legitimise the notion that pregnancy through rape means a woman wasn’t really raped.

Is it really necessary for me to point out that pro-choice advocates face their own problem of consistency in the case of partial birth abortions? To point out that the most intellectually consistent pro-choice position permits the killing of b
abies—not just miniscule embryos, not just tadpole-like fetuses, but hand-squeezing, eye-blinking, air-sucking babies? Isn’t the most consistent pro-choice position that sentient, medically viable babies can, at the request of the mother, be killed until the moment of their delivery, and arguably until the cutting of their umbilical cords? Don’t pro-choice advocates agonize over consistency, and occasionally grasp at straws, when it comes to the hard case of partial birth abortions?

Partial birth abortion is an abortion of last resort usually done to prevent the birth of congenitally defective children or terminate a pregnancy that has exceeded statutes on women who are not going to be benefitted from the pregnancy. It’s a horrific procedure for everyone involved and necessary for women who have to deal with either the birth of a child that is going to be horrifically damaged and in pain or if the pregnancy actively threatens the life of the mother. And it’s a choice. No one is FORCING you to have a late term abortion. And yes many of the partial birth abortions are products of incest and rape where traumatised women are afraid to come forward because of arseholes like Todd Akin requiring a late term abortion at least for the woman’s sanity.

95% of all abortions take place in the first 12 weeks of conception. The remainder after 20 to 24 weeks (20 weeks is the well baby ultrasound visit that can detect congenital anomalies). The few that occur after 24 weeks are rare. Like less than 1% rare. Mark Goldblatt doesn’t grasp what choice means. At the request of the mother? It’s not done at the request of the mother. It’s done under medical circumstances. The rules with regards to late term therapeutic abortion generally require a doctor’s recommendation. A healthy mother with a child will be encouraged to tough it out for 8 more weeks and deliver at term and most such Obs/Gynae who do the procedure do not do it on women who just “want one”. And most women don’t want one, they want the option being there should the need to use it arise. No one WANTS to terminate a late term foetus, they HAVE to.

A choice means that you can decide. It’s simple, there are two ice creams. Vanilla and Chocolate. You can pick which you want. No one is forcing you to abort your baby; it’s just a choice that is available. You can risk your own life and carry to term. Yes you can walk around feeling smug and superior that you survived a risky pregnancy without terminating your child. You can even attribute it to your imaginary friend of choice and feel superior to all the women who didn’t make your choice.

But what you cannot do is take that choice away from women.

What I’m asking, Eve, is whether the debate over abortion—which is how we got here, remember?—must always be fought over the most agonizing cases. Must it always be couched in overwrought rhetoric and larded with purple prose? Must it always be “the Republican war on women” versus “the Democratic war on the unborn”? Must the sides forever see one another as “those people who want to force rape victims to bear their rapist’s child” and “these people who want to permit the killing of living, feeling babies”?

No it need not. It can be fought with economic and common sense reasons. However the problem is there is no common sense option from pro-life. It’s a movement entrenched in fantasy and ignorance. There is literally no sane argument for a movement that thinks that pro-choice means compulsory abortion.

Don’t we all just need to take a deep breath now and then and let nonsense speak for itself?

By which you mean that we shouldn’t criticise idiots.

This is high hypocrisy! Mark Goldblatt clearly thinks that Eve Ensler’s article is nonsense. Shouldn’t he follow his own advice?

Here is some advice, don’t defend Todd Akin. Don’t tell rape victims that they are being stupid for “feeling angry or hurt or uncomfortable around people who make such a remark”. Don’t reduce the choice of women to access healthcare.

Above all. Engage your brain and think about your actions not in terms of whether a 2000 year old book written by bronze age shepherds and compiled by a Roman Emperor agrees with you; but how your actions affect other people. Otherwise you end up trying to defend a terrible viewpoint based on the notion that it’s what a bunch of people who didn’t know how a woman’s reproductive system function would have wanted. 

Broken Record

So I waited a while to post this mainly because I wanted to make my mind up on the whole Atheism Plus issue. I figure I am late to the party.

What it boils down to is combining atheism with social activism and indeed some level of skepticism. Which makes sense.

Otherwise we turn into broken records. We keep repeating the same tired arguments (Atheism = No God… Repeat) or having to respond to actual encroachments rather than making active changes. Now I understand Jennifer McCreight and Greta have tried to distance Secular Humanism from this but you know what? They are pretty similar except for the fact that atheism plus is a bit more exclusive (You can be a Christian Secular Humanist) and indeed this seems to be Secular Humanism With Atheists.

I am tentatively for it, but it remains to be seen if the individuals involved can actually pull through (considering I am still waiting for the Atheism United thing to set up) rather than it just be another empty statement.

My major interest in the movement is the diversification of atheist culture. It’s not very diverse and we know little about other faiths outside Christianity and Judaism. Islam is rarely represented and Hinduism is all but absent from the discourse (there are ex-hindu atheists out there and quite honestly the only reason I started blogging was because at the time of starting there were no realy equivalents). There are many atheists from non abrahamic backgrounds who are rather poorly represented within atheism.

Let’s see where this goes…