when the status quo frustrates.

Invisible women bloggers are everywhere

Friday, August 31st, 2007

Women may or may not dominate the blogging community, according to a survey at TechBlorge.com that apparently only they can see, for there was no external link.

The survey also revealed that more women than men are bloggers, with 20% of American women who have visited blogs having their own versus 14 % of men.

Of course, since we don’t know what percentage of men v women visit blogs, this statement is fairly useless. If that 50% of Americans who regularly view blogs is roughly 1:n men:women, where n>= 1, then whooo! Go us! If not, then meh.

The survey also reveals that the vast majority of blog readers want gossip, opinion and entertainment from their bloggers, and are in no way looking to replace their normal sources of information, which is a good thing since the vast majority of us bloggers are getting our information from the same places everybody else does. I was surprised to find compulsive blog readers like myself are only 5% of the population.

Only 13% of blog readers say they spend less time with other forms of media (newspapers, television, radio) since they’ve started following blogs.

You’ll be shocked to find that blogs are increasing in popularity as more people read them, and that this makes them attractive to advertisers. Also, because ‘blog’ encompasses everything from DailyKos and ScienceBlogs to Livejournal and Myspace pages, there are still some credibility issues.

So you there! Boys club! Stop asking where all the women bloggers are and open your damn eyes! And you there! Traditional media! Calm the fuck down!

More cheap shots

Friday, August 31st, 2007

Craig cartoon

Like the time that Dick Cheney shot that guy, I’m convinced that there can never be enough jokes about Republican homobigots getting busted for the very sort of behaviour they try to outlaw. Schadenfreude doesn’t begin to cover it.

The transcript itself.

Keith Olbermann’s—um—reenactment:

The arresting officer manages to get a bit of racism in there:

Accusing Craig of failing to tell the truth, Karsnia told the senator: “I guess I’m just saying I’m just disappointed in you, sir. I just really am. I expect this from the guy we get out of the ‘hood. I mean people vote for you. Unbelievable.”

So, it’s okay to bust working class black guys for hooking up in washrooms? That’s disturbing, though it fits in nicely with Republican values, I suppose. As Amanda pointed out, using one of my favourite plays ever, Republican moral outrage is about preserving the pecking order more than it’s about an actual moral code. This is why Craig, like Kushner’s Roy Cohn, can claim that he’s “not gay.”

The more we understand the right’s twisted psychology, the better we can fight it. Or at least laugh at it.

A nice thought, but what I could really have used was a DentistMobile

Tuesday, August 28th, 2007

We’re barely into the first week of classes and already a thrilling novelty gas-guzzling vehicle is on it’s way and the air is crackling with excitement. Can you guess who?


Pfft, I wish! The Weinermobile, how cool would that be? No, our visitor is more controversial.


No, they usually show up right before break, and stick to the bars off campus. Come on, guess!

It’s the Busybody ‘Christian’ Ultrasoundmobile! Squeeeee!


That’s right, my school is one of three (count ‘em!) universities to be on the Ultrasoundmobile’s exciting three-county, semester long tour! I can’t wait to get my unnecessary ultrasound! Girls from all over campus will flock to get free quasi-medical attention from the inside of an RV, which would save them the arduous walk to the student clinic or the even more torturous journey to the local Planned Parenthood.

I might go and get mine this week, since things should be quiet at the begining of the semester before the girls have had a chance to get their bearings and start slutting around. Another month or two and they’ll be mobbed so I’d best get mine while the getting is good.

The Fetus Pictures RV’s website promises a comprehensive set of services:

Let the media dilution of Gonzales’ wrongdoings begin!

Monday, August 27th, 2007

Q: If you’re part of the mainstream media, how do you paint a lying, partisan, criminal hack on his way out the door?

A: As noble victim of the same types of crimes he actually committed.

The Houston Chronicle’s piece this morning by Patty Reinart should be inserted in journalism textbooks as the seminal example of how to reverse reality through the guise of supposed impartiality.

First off, it helps to open a story about a political criminal by painting his political opponents as dumbasses right out of the gate. Mission accomplished:

On whether embattled Attorney General Alberto Gonzales would keep his job, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., once offered a prediction: “I think he is gone. I don’t think he’ll last long.”

How long? “Days,” he said.

That was in March, after key Republicans had urged him to step down, too.

Ha-HAH! Now Gonzales looks like the kind of defiant job-keeping maverick this country adores. And why should he keep his job? Because, on the surface, he’s just the type of guy his political enemies are supposed to champion:

Today, senior aides at the White House told news organizations that Gonzales, who grew up in the Houston area and became the nation’s first Hispanic in the top legal and law enforcement job, has indeed resigned.

Next, make sure that everybody knows he isn’t the only guy leaving. Rather, he’s part of a large, nondescript crew that’s departing the administration casually, for no real reason or anything:

He follows out the door most of his senior staff at the Justice Department and close aides to President Bush such as Karl Rove.

Okay, we’re now several paragraphs in and the smokescreen’s looking good. No mention of any condemnable acts as AG, no mention of potential perjury before Congress, just a hard-working Hispanic guy who told those stuffy suits where to stick it until he and his buddies decided to mosey on for other reasons.


Hitchens is no longer Bush’s fanboy

Monday, August 27th, 2007


Add Christopher “gin-soaked ex-Trotskyite poppinjay” Hitchens to the list of people whom it’s almost too easy to poke fun at, were it not so intensely gratifying. Like that other “sensible liberal” Michael Ignatieff, the Hitch has tried for a public retraction of his previous unconditional and vocal support for the Anglo-American genocidal assaults on Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hitchens, circa 2002:

MOYERS: Well, [the deaths of American soldiers] was a significant factor, as you know, in the growing opposition to the Vietnam War.

As the body count kept coming back, the reality kept hitting home, and no amount of euphemistic language in defense of south Vietnam would suffice to answer the growing piles of body bags.

HITCHENS: Quite. Well, this won’t be the case this time.

Hitchens, circa 2004:

George Bush may subjectively be a Christian, but he—and the U.S. armed forces—have objectively done more for secularism than the whole of the American agnostic community combined and doubled. The demolition of the Taliban, the huge damage inflicted on the al-Qaida network, and the confrontation with theocratic saboteurs in Iraq represent huge advances for the non-fundamentalist forces in many countries.

Hitchens, circa 2006:

Contrary to innumerable sneers, [Bush in 2002] did not speak only about WMD and terrorism, important though those considerations were. He presented an argument for regime change and democracy in Iraq and said, in effect, that the international community had tolerated Saddam’s deadly system for far too long. Who could disagree with that?

Alas, in 2007, it isn’t quite as easy to mount a pseudo-intellectual defense of either failed war, or of the leaders who declared them. So while we irrational bleeding-hearts sadly shake our heads—the “prize” for being right is, unfortunately, a pile of dead Middle Easterners—Hitch is trying to backtrack a bit.

How do I dislike President George Bush? Let me count the ways. Most of them have to do with his contented assumption that ‘faith’ is, in and of itself, a virtue. This self-satisfied mentality helps explain almost everything, from the smug expression on his face to the way in which, as governor of Texas, he signed all those death warrants without losing a second’s composure.

“Faith” that is little different than that of Hitchens himself—who was, through his arguments, perfectly happy to sign the death warrants of Afghanis, Iraqis, and the soldiers of the occupation forces—if you only wish hard enough, your fantasies of a just, liberating, and permanent war will come true.

In this real-world argument, there is a very strong temptation for opponents of the war to invoke the lessons of Vietnam. I must have written thousands of words attempting to show that there is absolutely no analogy between the two conflicts.

Right. He’s still for the war. He’s just against Bush.

The bulk of the article is a bunch of hastily thrown together reasons why Iraq really, really had it coming, and Vietnam didn’t. (Ho Chi Minh quoted Thomas Jefferson, dontcha know? Those jihadis don’t have that much respect for America’s greatness.)

But what’s missing from Hitchens’ article is an honest assessment of why people (the Bush administration excepted; they have their own reasons) tend to make comparisons between Iraq and Vietnam. The similarity isn’t between the victims. There’s a continuity, however, in the aggressor’s behaviour—an American-led imperialist adventure war against southeast Asia then, and an American-led imperialist adventure war against the Middle East now. It’s nowhere near as complicated as Hitch makes it out to be.

The problem is, of course, that Hitchens can’t admit that he was wrong, that he put his faith in a lying madman, that he glibly wrote off the human costs of the wars, and that millions of ordinary people, whom he regarded with nothing but disdain, were able to grasp what he couldn’t—that these wars were Very Bad Ideas. Failure to acknowledge this is worst sort of intellectual dishonesty. But would you expect anything less?

(Hat tip: springheel_jack)

WalMart helps new college kids get an early start on railing against the establishment

Sunday, August 26th, 2007

Walmart, always famous for having it’s fingers on the pulse of the free market tried to score some secondhand cool cred off of Facebook, with shockingly less than stellar results:

Analysts have applauded Wal-Mart Stores Inc.’s new “Roommate Style Match” group on Facebook.com, created to help college roommates link up online to coordinate back-to-school purchases at the retailer. However, most of the 100-plus comments posted on the site so far from its 932 members are critical of the retail giant’s business practices.

As usual, the official company line on this minor debacle leads a reader to believe their company letterhead actually contains the slogan “our heads are so far up our asses we can lick our own tracheae.”

While a minority of the comments were positive about Wal-Mart in general, none focused on the company’s goal for the site — having users “chat with other college students by posting their comments about dorms, decorating and college life.”

…”We recognize that we are facilitating a live conversation, and we know that in any conversation, especially one happening online, there will be both supporters and detractors,” she wrote. “We’re happy that so many of our customers are talking on Facebook about why they like Wal-Mart. Most of all, we’re glad that soon-to-be roommates are using our site to come together and make choices about their dorm rooms.

So the synopsis seems to be: Walmart tries to speak to the youth in their own language of cool, plot backfires. Ok, that’s not so terrible – many companies have made a similar faux pas. Dorky and misguided, sure, but not outrageous. And certainly, this foray into the internet is a little less mind-boggingly awful than previous attempts:

Wal-Mart got egg on its face when it was revealed last year that a blog supposedly written by two independent consumers was backed by an initiative funded by Wal-Mart’s public relations firm. In addition, a Wal-Mart social network called The Hub was closed after 10 weeks last year.

But the kids have spoken, and they’ve not only spanked Walmart but also Facebook for crossing some kind of unspoken boundary about how these kids expect their social networking sites (and by extension, that precious level of advertising that they’ll accept unquestioningly) to be run.

One post, signed by Janine Carmona, wrote that “Facebook should take the number of negative comments on this page as a note that we don’t support this company [for] its use of a space for social networking. This space is for people talking to other people. Facebook, get your priorities straight.”

I guess the line is that huge multinational corporations can buy all the adspace they desire, but when they try to get all chatty with their market in the spaces that the market uses to unwind, that’s where the kids draw the line. And you know what, that’s excellent. I’m pleased as punch to see that teens can identify and reject that kind of lameass marketing play. It fills my black heart with joy.

But once again the business journalists and analysts confuse me. For even though this endeavor has about 900 comments of “No!” set against no comments of “OMG Let’s co-ordinate our WalMart shopping thought Facebook, roomie!” the establishment can’t get over how great this is going to be if only they keep on keeping on:

“For Wal-Mart, this is the right approach,” Bernoff said. “This is a great way to reach college students. It is much easier to get someone on Facebook to join your group than to get someone to come to your Web site and join your community.”

…He (Owyang) recommends that Wal-Mart start discussion group forums to try to “segment the conversations about going back to school and even consider keeping folks on topic. Continue to allow critics (you can’t stop it anyway) but try to use the forums as a guide to a discussion about school.”

“I highly recommend that Wal-Mart consider trying a community strategy using a transparent and authentic blog or video blog series that addresses the very brand issues that they are getting slammed on,” he wrote.

What the hell? Walmart tries, in a simple, transparent manner, to start a conversation about the importance of communicating with your roommate to make sure you can use Walmart to the best advantage possible for dorm room decoration. Ensuing comments show that no one on the whole interwebs is interested in having this conversation. Spontaneous displays of Walmart love are swamped by testy, politicized teens who reject you and your stylish pompasan chairs. You can not have, will never have a “transparent and authentic blog” that shows all these kids why they’re wrong because they’re not really all that wrong about you – you’ve spent the last half century abusing the fuck out of nearly every community you touch, from the center of America to the center of China. And feel free to add to your list of strengths your staggering, patronizing cluelessness about all things not price slashing. And then continue to rock, rock on.

Sounds like a plan.

How would you know I was a man unless you were abusing my crotch with your eyes? Off to jail with you!

Sunday, August 26th, 2007

I hate women and children.

Unless they’re naked.

And hopefully being abused.

After all, that’s what being a liberal’s about — harnessing the power of “perversion” to degrade our womenchattel and child sex-toys.

It’ a shame the powerful deductive mind of one Kevin McCullough (he of the oh-so-thoughtful Musclehead Revolution) had to go and figure us out:

And if protecting the honor, privacy, and even nakedness of vulnerable women and children is juxtaposed to say the slightest possibility that someone’s right to practice perversion might be curbed – liberals will come running to the aid of the pervert. In fact liberals will go so far to protect perversion that they will actually enlist the use of potential victims to make the case, consequences to the unsuspecting females be damned!

Amen brother! Preach on about how we’re out to harm the helpless while you protect them with capital gains tax cuts and voter suppression. Hallelujah!

I’m no longer ashamed of our liberal evils, and I think it’s time we relished them. But just how did Kevbo uncover who we really are? Curious, I felt compelled to read on.

It turns out that a NYC councilman wants to make lewd gawking/peeping illegal and introduced legislation to that effect for the city. According to the Times, the proposed law says:

The bill would make it illegal to look at a person’s “sexual or other intimate parts, in other than a casual or cursory manner, for the purpose of entertainment, sexual arousal or gratification, or for the purpose of degrading or abusing the person being viewed.”

Under the guise of calling it overvague, our liberal cthulu monster, the NY Civil Liberties Union, has opposed the legislation. I mean, I don’t see how on Earth anyone could ever be unjustly prosecuted under such precise, airtight wording, but hopefully we’ll trick the masses with our media potions and witch magicks.

Kevin sees right through us, though, and drops the logic as only a true MuscleHead can:

Donna Liebermann the NYCLU’s executive director (and reportedly a female) added her own sentiments saying, “The problem with this legislation is that it’s trying to get at this amorphous, vague behavior of looking, which is very imprecise. The language of the bill reflects how vague the activity that they’re trying to get at is, and the problem is that it’s an invitation to abuse, to selective enforcement based on the whims or prejudice of the individual police officer.” Adding, “What kind of a look is degrading, and therefore unlawful, who’s to say?”

Well Donna, any woman who’s ever been the slightest bit attractive could tell you.

I’m glad Kevin pointed out that she’s *reportedly* a female, otherwise I’d have to assume that he had participated in a lingering stare at her crotch or chest and would thus be in violation of Vallone’s proposed law.

Meanwhile, in a stunning act of clarity, McCullough included this photo in his expose:
Women running in high heels.  In Russia.
No explanation was offered, but only a doofus or a pervert would fail to make the obvious connection.

Anyway, if this law passes, it’ll be time to hand out the liberal sunglasses, the ones with extra tint for maximum perversion. We can’t let a few muscleheads get in the way of our time-honored tradition of protecting of civil liberties peeping.

Seniors doin’ it Democratically

Saturday, August 25th, 2007

Maybe it’s coincidence. Maybe it’s proof of a correlation between getting laid and voting Democratic.

How these pieces of evidence relate to each other is up for debate, but we do know two things:

1) Of all age groups in 2004, 70-80 year olds were by far the most likely to vote Democrat.

My ageism revealed itself as I learned that little fact. While I knew there was bound to be some old-school loyalty to the days of FDR out there, I had no idea the Democrats possessed such a pronounced lead among the elderly. I figured there’d be a lot of cane-shaking at the tree-hugging hippies and Plan B hoochie-mamas (see what I mean about the ageism?) despite avowed Democratic support for Medicare and Social Security. Obviously, I was wrong.

It’s also interesting to note that the only ages won by the Republicans in 2004 were the 30-40 year olds. The generation of wannabe Alex P. Keatons sucks.

2) Along with voting Dem, old folks are getting laid, people:

The first comprehensive national survey of the sexual attitudes, behaviors and problems of U.S. adults age 57 and older finds many are having sex often. In fact, the frequency of sexual activity dropped only slightly between the late 50s up to the early 70s.

And more than half of those in the oldest age group — 75 to 85 — who were sexually active reported having sex at least two to three times per month, and 23 percent reported having sex at least once a week.

Approximately 47 forms of cancer run rampant through my family lineage, so I have little hope for reaching 75 (much less 85), but if I do, I pray that I’m able to make with the boom-boom as often as your typical senior citizen.

A very annoying relative once said to me that if you aren’t a Democrat when you’re 20, you have no heart, but if you aren’t a Republican by age 40, you have no brain. It appears, though, that the only majority stupid enough to be duped by the Republicans are people in their 30s, i.e. folks who are more likely to be knee deep in debt, children, and job frustration than those in their early 20s or late 70s. Anyone want to bet they’re also suffering more sexual frustration than their younger and older counterparts?

However you slice it, here’s to the generation I sorely underestimated when it came to sex and party politics. May you teach your annoying Republican children the value of free love and national health care.

Lost in the supermarket

Thursday, August 23rd, 2007

Mocking evolutionary psychologists is about as much of a cheap shot as mocking libertarians*, but every so often, I can’t resist. It’s an entire “discipline” seemingly devoted to:

1) Why first-year college boys can’t get any action with the attractive blonde women they see around campus, and
2) Why men basically suck at everything and therefore need female servants to accomplish even the most basic tasks.

Today’s article is a prime example of the latter evo-psych tendency. The Telegraph has a great piece on why women are better at shopping than men. If you guessed that the explanation goes back to the savannah rather than, say, gender expectations, you get a cookie.

The team at the University of California, Santa Barbara and Yale University, was following up years of earlier research which shows that men excel at spatial problems, such as map reading.

This probably has its origins in the African savannah, when men were hunting down highly mobile prey.

But in these ancient hunter-gatherer societies, women collected plants and this begged a key question, said the team: Shouldn’t women more accurately remember the location of plant foods than men?

Experiments conducted on 45 men and 41 women at six gatherings of a large farmers’ market suggest that they do, and that more nutritious foods are more accurately remembered, said Max Krasnow, a member of the team whose paper is published today in the Proceedings of the Royal Society: Biological Sciences.

I’m really wondering where they get funding for these sorts of studies. Is there a board that decides whether getting out of the grocery shopping is a more worthy course of study than, say, cancer research?

Accompanying the main article is Sex and shopping: the female perspective where poor Cassandra Jardine attempts to explain away her husband’s lazy and imbecilic ways using the new study. Says the poor put-upon dear:

Usually he will buy several of each item but he won’t stock up – unless given specific instructions – on loo roll, washing up liquid, canned tomatoes, pasta or any of the other things that come under the “boring but useful” heading.

He would never notice that we are running low and I don’t usually bother to make a list all the basics because a) I know instinctively and b) he would return so late that I would probably have called the police out.

I’ve always assumed that my husband’s autopilot is less good in the supermarket purely because he goes shopping less often than I do.

But of course, it isn’t his fault at all!

But now I’m told I may be being unjust. He’s just not hard-wired to stick out one hand to grab the vegetable oil while charging towards the soy sauce.

Evolution has not equipped men for this task any more than it has made it easy for them to find the cheddar in the fridge which their women-folk known with iron certainty is on the third shelf down, left hand side.

Hey, I have a solution: Why not refuse to cook or shop for him until he gets his act together? You might get to witness evolution in action.

* Mocking libertarian evolutionary psychologists, of course, is the cheapest shot you can make. It’s sort of like kicking a puppy, if the puppy in question was one of the yappy ones who liked to publish pseudo-scientific opinion pieces.

(Hat tip: realcdaae)

Need a chili recipe

Wednesday, August 22nd, 2007

I took the written part of my candidacy exam yesterday and tomorrow’s the oral*. Next week I find out if I did OK or not. Advice has ranged from “OMG!111!! Red alert!” to “Did you write something down for every question? Then you passed.” So who knows?

Anyway, my program is chock full of supportive people, almost a dozen of which helped us prepare by giving us a three hour interrogation last week. I invited them all over for a thank you dinner and now I need to decide what to make. I was thinking vegetarian chili, rye bread, cheesy potatoes and cupcakes.

Anyone got any good vegetarian chili recipes? I have a large Crockpot and access to a grocery store.

*Not as sexy as it sounds, although if it was then at least I’d be sure I could pass.

Dr Mike tells the kids how to police their purity of essence

Wednesday, August 22nd, 2007

Ahh, it’s the beginning of the school year – a time fraught with fraughty goodness for incoming undergraduates heading off to the first day of their new classes. I remember the computer science class where the graduate TA simply never showed up, and the resulting hissy fit some guy sitting behind me pitched while administrators scrambled to find someone else to teach (which they did by the end of the hour). A friend of mine had a physics professor tell her all about his beliefs in women’s inferiority in the sciences. Another friend had a documentary professor fresh to academia from his previous stint as a producer of one of those fear-mongering news magazine shows. He nearly failed the whole class just to show them who was boss, and was a bit surprised to find the kids could call his bluff.

And Mike S Adams, professor of criminal justice with the feminist fixation, does his bit to bewilder the students with another one of his patented “What I Should Have, Would Have Said” columns. Will he actually start his Intro to Criminology course with a lecture on the importance of emotional chastity, or does he just wish he could? I wish he would; in today’s business environment, students need to learn how to handle being a captive audience to a superior with a bizarre, completely-irrelevant- to-the-point- of-the-meeting pet cause.

Welcome to UNC-Wilmington! My name is Dr. Adams and you are enrolled in CRJ 105 (Introduction to Criminal Justice). If you are in the wrong class, please get up and leave now – unless you’re majoring in Women’s Studies in which case you would be ostracized for leaving now. And, by the way, if you dislike bad puns you should also consider leaving this class.

I’ve read that paragraph four times, and am still trying to find the pun. My brain rejects any suggestion that it lies in the word “ostracized” for purely self-preservation reasons – there’s no way I should be able to pick a pun that obscure and bad out of anyone’s writing.

Of course, maybe there is no pun and Dr Mike is required by his department head to make that disclaimer after some terrible pun-related incident in a past semester.

Let’s skip straight to the part where we suspect Dr Mike of making stuff up:

Almost every year at UNCW, I see a feminist professor or administrator (sometimes both) handing out condoms to students in the hopes that they will engage in “protected” sexual intercourse.

Pop quiz kids: who passes out the free condoms at your school? Because at every school I’ve ever been to, that task is usually delegated to the health center (which just tosses them in a self-serve basket) and student clubs, fraternities and sororities. I have yet to see a professor, even a kooky one, or any administrator actually passing out the condoms. All of the school administrators I know are usually, you know, administrating. There’s also an unspoken agreement that getting free condoms from your friends is cool, getting them from your doctor makes sense, but getting them from your adviser is just creepy – this person grades my essays, why the hell is he or she meddling in my sex life?

Since the other professors don’t let Dr Mike sit with them at their lunch table, there’s apparently no way for Dr Mike to know that students don’t come to class expecting their teacher to hand them condoms so there’s no need for him to reassure them of the true contents of his imaginary fantasy box:

This box on my desk is not full of condoms. It is full of copies of the book “Unprotected” by Dr. Miriam Grossman, a psychiatrist who wrote about her experiences working at the student health center at UCLA. The book tells many stories you need to hear – stories you will never hear from the censorious feminists who run the Women’s Resource Center.

Does he really have a box of books to pass out to the class? Does he have enough for everyone, or do they have to share? How many sections of Intro to Criminology does he teach, and who paid for this blatantly inappropriate gesture? Does the assistant to Mike’s long-suffering direct superior schedule time in advance for the inevitable grievance process every semester, or do they prefer to act surprised? Is this why Mike teaches a freshman intro class – freshmen being less likely to be aware of official grievance procedures or the location of the ombudsman’s office? Does pouring the fantasy into his Townhall column keep him from pulling these stunts in real life, or is he just working up the courage to turn his thoughts into action? So many questions!

For example, Grossman tells the story of one college freshman who started having uncontrollable crying spells. Her depression became so severe that she sought help at the student health center. It did not take long for the therapy sessions to reveal that her problem was a “friendship with benefits” she established during the fall semester. She and her casual sex partner had agreed that they would just sleep together without dating. But she was beginning to long for something more.

Those espousing the radical feminist agenda at the university had told her that using condoms would protect her – this without any reference to the emotional consequences of casual sex.

My God! This is shocking! Why, oh why do feminists promote using sex to gain approval from guys or entering into sexual relationships that leave you unsatisfied? Don’t they realize that their subsidizing of Girls Gone Wild videos actually hurts women? And why do all these homosexuals keep sucking Mike’s cock?

Back in reality, feminists would tell Betty Coed to break it off with her fuck buddy if it upsets her that much. If he drops the friendship just because you dropped the benefits, then consider that a lesson learned. People can be jerks, but if you’re smart, being burned once should be sufficient.

The same problems that Grossman saw at UCLA are also prevalent on other campuses. For example, this summer, I got a letter from a young woman who was experiencing deep pain as a result of her decision to abandon the values she grew up with and to adopt the values of the “hook-up” culture, which is the dominant culture on most college campuses. She was a virgin in her 18th year. Now, in her 21st year, her number of sex partners has almost caught up with her chronological age. And she is now beginning to learn that there is no condom for the heart.

Let’s take this paragraph in two parts:

Part A: Who the fuck is pouring their heart out to Dr Mike in that manner? No, really, who?
Part B: Girl goes from virgin to whore and suffers dire consequences – how perfectly narrative! It must be the actual act of sex that’s making her sad. It can’t possibly be that she’s been raised with conflicting messages about sex, and is now undergoing the very tough process of sorting out the truth from the lies while her peers judge her every move. And the double standard, that’s probably not making her sad either. Certainly, none of those seven guys a year for three years ever did anything assholish like being nice before getting some and ditching her right after, so she can’t be confused about that. It must be the sex, so this is nothing a little chastity won’t cure.

Patriarchy, the cause of – and solution to – all of life’s problems!

And men are also put at risk by those who would put political correctness above concern for student well-being. This is especially true for gay men.

So sex is bad for women, and bad for gays, and according to this nervous straight man, this is just the natural order of things and we’ll have to deal. Right. Pardon, Dr Mike, but your slip is showing.

If you are gay and engaging in anal sex, it is unlikely that you will ever see the words “anal sex” listed among the risk factors for contracting AIDS in any campus publication anywhere. Nor is it likely that you will ever hear these words mentioned by any professor discussing such risk factors in a relevant lecture.

To be fair, you do actually have to open the publications and read what’s inside of them rather than just imagining what might be inside of them. Sometimes you don’t even have to go that far. My mom, for reasons that will god willing remain forever unclear, was the recipient of a postcard that listed from left to right all kinds of sexual activities. The background was a gradient from green to yellow to red, and the act’s place on the postcard represented it’s relative risk. Up in the top left, greenest corner was abstinence, and unprotected anal sex was about as lower right as it could get, just slightly to the right of unprotected vaginal sex and unprotected oral sex. Protected sex of any kind was in the yellow to yellow-orange region.

Mom passed the postcard on to my roommate, who passed it on to me. The point is, this information is not only out there, sometimes you don’t even have to look for it. And the “relevant lectures” have to cover it just to make sure there’s one more drop of sanity to counter the tidal wave of bullshit that sweeps curious students into human sexuality courses. Not that I have any idea where this bullshit comes from, mind you.

But because your health and well-being is important to me – despite my religious opposition to your lifestyle – I want you to get better information than you are likely to get on this or any other college campus.

I guess I don’t have to take the obvious shot here.

I’ll start by offering you a copy of Dr. Grossman’s book. If you need additional information, I’ll send you somewhere off campus to ensure that you will get accurate information.


Ok, sorry, I couldn’t resist. But come on, a guy who writes about how just hearing the word “vagina” gives him ED should be more careful about suggesting that he deeply cares about the sexual health of his homosexual students before stating that he’d be happy to direct them to an off-campus location to learn more. I realize that at some point after anal sex but before Grossman’s book giveaway he switched back to addressing his whole audience (women and fags, mostly, as straight men are too manly to let a little sex get them down) from addressing just the gays (at least, I hope he did) which makes the suggestion, while still insanely inappropriate, at least less blatantly homoerotic. So I guess depending on how you read that, Dr Mike is in need of either a really good copy editor or a really good therapist. Either way, how those poor kids handle him on the first day of class will be the first step towards making adult decisions like what their coping strategy is for dealing with insane people who, for whatever reason, can’t be ignored.

Strawberry Shortcake speaks to our deepest instinct for survival.

Tuesday, August 21st, 2007

They were right all along

A woman and a neuroscientist (same person) asks, why are all these little girl products pink? Do the girls really love the pink so much?

Answer, yes, yes they do and they can’t help it. They evolved that way.

As the mother of a newborn baby girl, Dr. Anya C. Hurlbert wondered why all the products aimed at her daughter tended to have a pinkish tint.

…In more formal terms, females in the study showed a preference for the reddish side of the red-green axis of colors, while males didn’t. There was no gender difference in preferences on the blue-yellow axis, with everyone tipping toward blue. The study included 208 participants, ranging in age from 20 to 26.

That bluish preference seems natural, Hurlbert said — blue skies and all that. The female tilt toward pink, she speculated, arose from evolutionary influences millions of years ago. “Females were the ones who gathered red fruit against a green background,” she said. “Red is healthy in faces and in fruits.”

Arguably, this woman couldn’t help herself- that iPod looks just like a strawberry

Cultural influences may have accentuated this natural female preference, she said.

Oh, really? Color me shocked.

Some Chinese people were included in the study along with native Britons, to get evidence that the results were true in more than one ethnic group.

While there has been speculation about a possible female preference for pink, “there has been very little hard evidence for sex differences,” Hurlbert said. “We now have provided pretty robust and reliable evidence.”

Some Chinese people? Well, I guess it’s the thought that counts. The important thing is that you took a bunch of data collected from a single test on adults and made an overreaching but media-friendly conclusion. Don’t let the obvious stand the way of your book deal:

Kathy Mullen, a professor of ophthalmology at McGill University in Montreal, said, “I wouldn’t be surprised at all that there is a gender difference. That’s not to say that it’s genetic. It might be a cultural thing.”

Color preferences are also known to change with age, Mullen said.

But at least she solved the mystery of why all her little girl’s things are pink, even if she failed to solve the mystery of why all the little boy’s things are blue when everyone likes blue equally.