when the status quo frustrates.

Marrying a self-aware housewife is like if you went hunting and the deer complimented your aim with his dying breath – sure, you won but it just doesn’t feel right

Friday, October 12th, 2007

LATimes has an article about Southwestern’s “Back to the Future” collegiate level homemaking concentration, entitled- completely not patronizingly at all- “They Love to Do Their Homework.”

This fall, the internationally known seminary — a century-old training ground for Southern Baptists — began reinforcing those traditional gender roles with college classes in homemaking. The academic program, open only to women, includes lectures on laundering stubborn stains and a lab in baking chocolate-chip cookies.

[...]

Several relatives have told Felts that she’s selling herself short. They want her to become a lawyer, and she agrees she’d make a good one. But that’s not what she wants to do with her life.

More to the point, it’s not what she believes God wants of her.

“My created purpose as a woman is to be a helper,” Felts said firmly. “This is a college education that I can use.”

First of all, if they actually love to do their homework, then they are Stepford Wives of the first degree and also the program is shite. Coursework is supposed to challenge and frustrate you. Whether its calculating the free energy of a system of N particles or writing a paper on Jane Austen that won’t cause your professor to cringe over how one human being can be so wrong, college work is supposed to make you cry. These women should be throwing pinking shears at the wall screaming “I can’t believe that bitch is making me pink the hems of this thing!”

Second of all, who died and declared it to be 1914?

“The terrors of Greek, the intricacies of mathematics, the mysteries of psychology- all pale before the laborious toils of the laundry course, which requires good, stout muscle and a cheery heart rather than quick wits and a vocabulary,” reported the Times. As portrayed in the article, the young women in the Department of Household Arts were a giddy bunch of intellectual lightweights, who “whooped with fiendish glee” at the sight of a new and difficult stain, and disdained a classical education. “I hate your old Latin and Greek; what good does it ever do?” said one…

The point of the article was simple: “Nothing feminist about Teachers College, but good old-fashioned ideas and ideals.” There was no nonsense about sufferage of getting a man’s education for these girls. Instead, students “couldn’t imagine anything more fun than keeping house” and looked forward to pleasing a mother who “thinks the modern girl is an abomination.”

-Lynn Peril, College Girls p196

But most of all, it would probably help the rest of us swallow this “being a helpmeet is the most important and satisfying job any woman could possibly want” line a little better if your rank-and-file actually, you know, could stay on message? As though they might actually believe this crap?

It’s just that in the comments of some of these blogs I occasionally read when My Favorite Anti-Feminists link to them, I see maybe the slightest, barely perceptible whiff of an idea that maybe the counter-point guy in the LA Times article might possibly be right when he says:

“We’re confusing 1950s culture with the teaching of Scripture,” said Wade Burleson, a Southern Baptist pastor in Oklahoma. “I nowhere see where the Lord Jesus places limitations on the role of women in our culture.”

A completely unrelated blog post (a minister chastising a guy for wanting to exempt his own daughters from the feminine dependence trap, even if he prefers his own women to be feminine and dependent) quickly churns up a comment that perfectly distills this confused theology into its essence of hypocrisy with a top note of obliviousness:

My alumni magazine regularly features the former Lieutenant Governor (Jane Norton) and a woman doing her doctorate in something about improving the seminary education experience for women. When they brought on the current president, his wife is reported to have said, “With us you get two for the price of one” (a bit reminiscent of the Clinton “Co-presidency”, isn’t that?).

Of course we don’t want to hear about housewives! We have personal chefs (just heard about those this morning) and Merry Maids to take care of those tasks for us – women have more important things to do, like get a mention in Who’s Who or an interview on Larry King or make new laws to increase the reach and power of the nanny state. We have conferences to attend and meetings to be endured. And when we hit forty and realize there might be something deeper we missed? There’s always a surrogate in India whose womb we can rent.

Let’s ignore the boilerplate rage about all those snooty [wealthy] [white] [highly educated] women (the only beneficiaries of feminism, you know) hogging all the glory while their uteruses (uteri?) cry out for them to see what really matters, and focus on that top bit of spittle.

When they brought on the current president, his wife is reported to have said, “With us you get two for the price of one” (a bit reminiscent of the Clinton “Co-presidency”, isn’t that?).

One could argue, successfully, I think, that the whole point of the homemaking major, and the angel of the house revival in general, is in fact a drive to make sure we always get two-for-one. That’s the point of being a helpmeet? Right? Doing the shit work so your man can concentrate on his manly important work means he can be twice, if not more than twice, as productive. A guy that doesn’t have to pick up his kids from school is totally OK with a meeting that runs over half an hour; a guy that doesn’t have to pay the prevailing market rate for childcare or cleaning yet is magically receiving these services is a happy guy who will swallow quite a bit of shit to stay in the job that allows him to have these things.

With women at home, the costs of raising children remain largely hidden (especially if you can get her to homeschool the suckers)- you can afford to pay those guys a little more because it’s still cheaper than paying both men and women enough to cover the real costs of living. Plus, before women came into the workforce in large numbers, most men would almost have cut off their own testicles before demanding such pansy-ass things as “a life outside of work.” Now, all hell has broken loose and we have things like “flex time” and “paternity leave”.

And yet, when a woman actually puts this idea out there (and accepts it! No paying Mrs. University President for all the work she plans to do for you!) it inspires scorn – she’s not supposed to talk, after all. Women’s work isn’t supposed to be active. This taking an active role in helping your husband with is career (and Mrs. Important Guy and Mrs. Politician are in fact jobs that require a certain amount of skill and experience) is just a product of ball-busting feminism; real women are too busy garnishing their mirrored table top runners with seasonal-themed curled ribbon to actually show any awareness of the deal they’ve made. That’s why Southwestern’s housewife factory’s seminar includes such hard-hitting, mind-expanding topics like the “hobby of cross-stitching,” using “the Internet to track grocery coupons,” and most importantly, a “recipe for a surefire “freezer pleaser” — a triple batch of meatloaf.”

So forgive me for putting my hand over my wallet and backing slowly out of the room when people like Paige Patterson talk about how noble being a Christian housewife is:

In their vision, graduates will create such gracious homes that strangers will take note. Their marriages will be so harmonious, other women will ask how they manage. By modeling traditional values, they will inspire friends and neighbors to read the Bible and then, perhaps, to follow the Lord.

Far too often, their slip is showing:

“It’s not limiting at all,” said Jones, 35. “It prepares women for a variety of roles.”

Paige Patterson agrees. His goal is to nurture well-rounded women who can do more than press a perfect crease: “We’re equipping them to do home-schooling.”

A variety of roles, indeed.

12.10.2007 Godbaggery, Shame on you for being a woman, Shame on you for not being rich white and privileged, What Patriarchy? 5 Comments

Punkass costume swap

Wednesday, October 10th, 2007

I haven’t done much for Halloween (besides drinking) since my freshman year, but this year the office ladies are trying to whip up some enthusiasm among the students for a costume contest. This shouldn’t be difficult, but it’s a building full of difficult people. Now generally their attempts to bring some seasonal festivity to the department are smashing successes; but this one is different as it requires us to actually (*gasp*) actively participate as opposed to just showing up to a room at some certain time where food somehow magically appeared.

As you can see, I feel morally obligated to come up with an entertaining, kickass costume. I call upon the power of the internets to help me: if you have/seen/done/wish you could do something awesome, the commence bragging in the comments.

10.10.2007 Asides 13 Comments

I thought we were aborting all the Jesus haters…

Wednesday, October 10th, 2007

After finally watching “Jesus Camp” this week, I’d been feeling a little depressed about the ability of America’s younger generations to resist the ego-stroking glitz of evangelical Christianity. Never before have humans been so good at soaking guilt and repression in the syrupy goodness of Vanilla Ice-style pop and the joy of breaking stuff; how could any kid be expected to turn his or her nose up at it?

To combat their message, I’d been working up my own atheist rap-metal single called “Abortin’ Your Soul” with my band, The Self-Loathing Pastors. Thanks to Sara Robinson at Orcinus, though, I can shelve my secular stylings. She discovered a study done by the Barna Group, an Evangelical polling and research firm, that shows younger generations turning away from Christianity in droves.

The Barna chart says it all:

Perhaps as importantly, Sara notes that the folks who aren’t identifying as Christians have grown fed up with fundie baloney:

Ten years ago, “the vast majority” of non-Christians had generally favorable views of Christianity. Now, that number stands at just 16%. When asked specifically about Evangelicals, the number are even worse: only 3% of non-Christian Millennials have positive associations with Evangelicals. Among the Boomers, it’s eight times higher.

When Kinnaman asked senior pastors if they were seeing this too, half of them told him that, yes, they are finding their work to be an uphill battle — “because people are increasingly hostile and negative toward Christianity.” And his research bore this out. When he ranked young non-Christians’ most common perceptions of Christianity, nine of the 12 most common attributes they named were negative ones. According to the study, “Common negative perceptions include that present-day Christianity is judgmental (87%), hypocritical (85%), old-fashioned (78%), and too involved in politics (75%).”

I have to disagree with old fashioned, though. This is wicked fresh:

10.10.2007 Moronic Religions 7 Comments

We *are* a country of torture, and this debate is the proof

Tuesday, October 9th, 2007

Maybe I should go back to *not* reading, because reading the running transcript of the Republican “debate” tonight nearly cost me a forehead and a desk. In case you feel like joining me in self-flagellation, I thought I would bring you the highlights I made it through, courtesy of Rupert Murdoch’s new toy.

Kicking off the festivities was your favorite fake politician and mine, Fred Thompson. As the dollar crumbles and the housing market tanks, Freddy T kicked all that under the carpet and blew sunshine up our asses:

We’re enjoying low inflation. We’re enjoying low unemployment. The stock market seems to be doing pretty well. I see no reason to believe we’re headed for an economic downturn.

Then he remembered he was in MICHIGAN, where the moderator reminded us 1 in every 29 homes went into foreclosure in the first 6 months of 2007 alone. His backtrack:

Well, I think there are pockets in the economy that, certainly, they’re having difficulty. I think they’re certainly — those in Michigan that are having difficulty. I think you always find that in a vibrant, dynamic economy.

Hear that, Michigan? It’s your Adam Smithian duty to suffer while the rest of us wipe our asses with iPods.

Speaking of Adam Smith, John McCain took Ron Paul to task for not raising his invisible hand in a Hitlerian salute to economic darwinism:

Everybody is paying taxes and wealth creates wealth. And the fact is that I would commend to your reading, Ron, “Wealth of Nations,” because that’s what this is all about.

Some would say that basing an economic philosophy on a book written before the invention of the cotton gin mightn’t be prudent any longer, but I suppose I should cut the Senator some slack. After all, back in the day, he and Adam Smith did rush Alpha Phi together.

Perhaps the most brilliant quote of the night came from the Worst Moderator Of Our Time, Chris Matthews. While attempting to set up Mike Huckabee to talk about his “fair tax” policy that taxes spending instead of income, Matthews burbled up this gobbledy-gook:

The American economy seems to always be driven by people buying things, maybe, they can’t even afford. If you put a tax on spending, as opposed to income, won’t that encourage people to hoard their money, rather than spend it…

Amazing.
1) Matthews points out that our economy is *based* on unwise and unsustainable spending.
2) He states that a consumption tax might actually cause people to stop doing this as much.
3) He seems disappointed by this prospect.
No wonder Jon Stewart dismantled him so easily.

Honestly, though, we all know that a Republican debate comes down to who can cause the most delicious shivers down the spines of paranoid Cold War addicts. Thus far, that honor went to Congressman Hunter for this gem:

But let me tell you, Chris, what is missing from this economy: 1.8 million jobs that have moved to communist China from the United States, including over 54,000 jobs from Michigan.

You know, a couple of years ago, when our guys were getting hurt with roadside bombs in Iraq, I tried to find one steel company left in America that could still make high-grade armor steel plate to put on the sides of our humvees to protect against roadside bombs.

I found one company left that could still do that.

-10 points for not mentioning 9/11 specifically (probably because of Guiliani’s trademark), but otherwise, outstanding job. He worked in xenophobia, job loss, Communism, China, soldiers, roadside bombs in Iraq, and an inability to protect ourselves in 3 sentences.

I threw up a little in my mouth after that and decided to take a break. Somehow I doubt I’ll be making it back this evening.

09.10.2007 Wingnuts 5 Comments

Someone wishes she could hate you to death

Monday, October 8th, 2007

Shorter Michelle Malkin I: I can’t believe the gall of these people, using children to raise support for the Children’s Health Insurance Program, as though that were at all relevant.

Shorter Michelle II: If these people are poorer than you, well, then you’re already thinking “screw ‘em.” But if they are as rich or richer than you, then you should be fuming over the fact that they may have taken some of your crumbs! It’s not Bush’s fault for dropping fewer crumbs, it’s the Frost’s for taking your share!

Anyway, should this become one of those shit-stirring conversation pieces at work, you might want to arm yourself here and here.

08.10.2007 A million ways to mortgage the future, Politics 2 Comments

If Jesus wanted us to question creationism, he never would have invented talking snakes who handed out apples to rib-based women and then removed all physical evidence of this while leaving tons of red herrings like dinosaur bones to throw us off track

Monday, October 8th, 2007

As I mentioned recently, I no longer have a day job in IT. But the truth of the matter is not that I quit to become a producer. In fact, I was fired because I claimed during a meeting that the movie The Matrix was fiction and stated it was extremely unlikely we’d ever actually lose a war against machines who would then turn us into batteries.

I know, I know, it is a movie, but you have to understand that there are some serious Matrix fans out there. A few of my coworkers were incensed that I would insult the story of their savior Neo by dismissing the possibility of his future coming. These Matrix fans informed my superiors, who determined that my insensitive views made me unfit to work closely with both humans and machines who might be believers.

…okay, that didn’t happen. But this did:

A community college instructor in Red Oak claims he was fired after he told his students that the biblical story of Adam and Eve should not be literally interpreted.

Steve Bitterman, 60, said officials at Southwestern Community College sided with a handful of students who threatened legal action over his remarks in a western civilization class Tuesday.

Sheesh. If I’d had any idea it was this easy to fire a professor with whom I disagreed, I would’ve cleared out a lot of the chaffe at UT — especially in the math department. It was so annoying when they told me that MY answers to the equations they presented were wrong. How dare they disrespect my belief that {k = 1}^n {2k – 1 = n^2 } was equal to {dx}x, you know?

Seriously, though, welcome to another sign of the coming intellectual apocalypse in America (or the Midwest, at least). It begins with teaching intelligent design alongside the theory of evolution during students’ early years under the guise of open discourse. Then we close discourse by preventing anyone from questioning the underpinnings of creationism in later studies, as done here in Iowa. Then we shoot all the scientists.

Okay, maybe there some steps in between those things, but not as many as you’d like to think.


Above: Albert Einstein teaches your innocent children about the Theory of Relativity.

And is it any surprise that the fundies use the threat of expensive legal action to force what is probably an underfunded community college to cow to their demands? Not only is this further proof that the Right is the true culture of frivolous lawsuits, it also helps explain why they enjoy emptying the wallets of our schools so much. When educational institutions lack the funds to fight back, they become much easier to bully.

Church groups and corporations could sue anyone they like into the stone age, and from Steve Bitterman’s perspective, they’d probably like that:

“I just thought there was such a thing as academic freedom here,” he said. “From my point of view, what they’re doing is essentially teaching their students very well to function in the eighth century.”

Ahh, the good old days — when peasants were god-fearing and taxation had never even heard of representation.

May not be long now…

08.10.2007 "Science", Edumakashun, Godbaggery 5 Comments

Vote Lemonparty!

Saturday, October 6th, 2007

The hideous GOP convention logo that Pam posted the other day is suggestive enough without Photoshopping, but I thought I should add my contribution to the pile-on.

GOP convention original
The original. What were they thinking?

Remix after the cut.

(more…)

06.10.2007 Public Procrastination, Unintentional Humor, Ze Goggles! Zey Do Nothing! 3 Comments

Reading iz hard

Friday, October 5th, 2007

Blogging isn’t about writing. It’s about reading. You read enough articles and books and neoconservative fart bubbles, and the responses/reactions immediately present themselves.

Right now, unless we’re talking about video production or (gulp) fantasy football, every reader of this post knows more about everything than I do.

Bottom line: I had no idea how passive my reading habits were. Now that I don’t have a day job presenting me random slots of time like 20 minutes between meetings or the post-lunch lull, I literally wind up reading nothing. As a result, I have nothing to say. I want to have something to say, since punkassery is in my blood, but it would be absurd to feign awareness while scanning some randomly selected piece.

This is entirely my fault. I thought that if I made time to write, I would be good, and for the last two weeks, I have made said time. But nothing has come, and it took me those two weeks to realize I’m a current events idiot at the moment.

So, new plan: at least 30 minutes of reading a day, and we’ll try for an hour. Hopefully, by the end of next week, I will finally have something to add to the blogoaether.

Other than my own ridiculous navel-gazing of course.

[Note: technically not my navel.]

05.10.2007 Punkass! 4 Comments

And after the bill becomes a law, we have a kick-ass afterparty

Thursday, October 4th, 2007

Teehee.

He inserted a memory chip into his computer which he thought contained graphics showing how legislative bills became law.

Instead, a series of pictures of topless women appeared on the screen, although Mr Barrett said he shut down the computer within seconds.

Once, during a group meeting, our resident conservative guy loaned his computer to the visiting, matronly Indian scientist for a presentation. She made one stray mouse gesture and all of the sudden Windows Media Player was up, ready to play “Horny sex adult spanking cock sluts cum nude ass fuck”

We had the good class to sympathize with the guy over having downloaded what was clearly (*ahem*) the result of a computer virus.

04.10.2007 Sex No Comments

Feminism: Empowering women to hurt themselves.

Wednesday, October 3rd, 2007

A few days ago we heard from a young lady who felt feminism failed her and no doubt you felt my post lacked balance. What, you asked, about the men? What do they think? You ask and sophomore print journalism major Josh Bass provides.

Upon returning from what I assumed, based on her flashing eyes and violent body language, to be an unsuccessful date, a friend of mine bitterly spat out a phrase I have come to recognize as the international anthem for disrespected and mistreated women everywhere: “Chivalry is dead.”

For years now, the cry has sounded from high towers, railroad tracks and marriages arranged for wealth rather than love. Ladies in desperate need of one decent knight are left to fend for themselves against dragons, dastardly mustached villains and boorish fathers.

So right off the bat we know that this is going to be a fresh, original opinion piece that makes a lot of good sense, because I totally got what he was saying there. But I’m not exactly sure what a knight can do against a boorish father, because if I recall correctly, back when chivalry was at its height, possession was still 9/10 of the law, if you know what I mean.

Looking at the bemoaned loss of chivalry in our society, I can’t help but wonder if chivalry had – in accordance with popular belief – brought about its own demise or if more sinister forces were at work.

If you’re about to blame feminism, you are so behind. The real problem is plastics. If you really want to go back to the golden age of gender roles, then you should reduce, reuse and recycle.

The latter accusation is not without validity, given the somewhat primitive state of many of those with a Y chromosome, the underestimated difficulties of courtship and maintaining a meaningful relationship.

Ergo, therefore, vis a vis as you can see, a shiny quarter to whomever can make sense out of the previous two quoted sentences, which in Josh’s mind are related in some manner. Anyway, blah blah blah men are pigs, blah blah, women are to blame. We’ve all seen this song and dance before.

On July 19, 1848, a group of revolutionaries gathered in Seneca Falls, N.Y., and, shedding the feminine shackles of inferiority, began to pull the sword of equality from its historically misogynistic stone prison. What they did not consider at the time was the fatally double-edged nature of that sword.

That? That’s not a metaphor. This is a metaphor:

A lot of women have concluded that the problem is that guys, as a group, have the emotional maturity of hamsters. No, this is not the case. A hamster is much more capable of making a lasting commitment to a woman, especially if she gives it those little food pellets. Whereas a guy, in a relationship, will consume the pellets of companionship, and he will run on the exercise wheel of lust; but as soon as he sense that the door of commitment is about to close and trap him in the wire cage of true intimacy, he’ll squirm out, scamper across the kitchen floor of uncertainty and hide under the refrigerator of nonreadiness.

Dave Barry is a professional writer, and he advises you to not try these metaphors at home. You see, Josh, Dave made your point thirteen years ago, and it was a joke then. The difference between you and him is that you’re actually sincere, and also an asshole.

Along with the empowerment and individuality they so undoubtedly deserved came a complete rejection of all things classically feminine and a new phrase to make men shudder; “I can do it myself!”

…And so emerged a group of warrior princesses affectionately referred to as Feminazis; lean, mean, emasculating machines in power suits who proved to the world that women are intelligent, strong, capable and incredibly frightening.

Issues much? Jesus, Josh, there are women o’plenty, especially on a college campus, who’d be pleased as punch to accept a graciously offered movie ticket or dinner. Unless, of course, you’re a complete cocksucker. Just saying.

So blah blah, time passed and things have changed on the meat market, which Josh seems to think was caused by an Attack of the 50-Foot Feminists having some sort of tantrum for something like 150 years, because the chronology leaps from 1848 to today.

In either case, when the red tint of rage in her eyes faded and the vein in her neck eased, woman did not ask chivalry to come back. Instead, chivalry took advantage of the destruction of feminine stereotypes to fully access her needs, both sexually and romantically.

So women said, fuck chivalry, and then when they were done pouting said, yeah, we were right: fuck chivalry. And chivalry said, “I’ll show that bitch.” What a classy guy, why did we ever dump his ass?

Also, I believe if chivalry was fully accessing women’s needs romantically (“Swipe card, enter PIN. Welcome, Bass J. You are authorized to access the following needs:”) the whole introduction to Josh’s essay would have been shot to shit. Unless romantic is a euphemism for sexual, in which case Josh is truly an idiot because there’s really no need to euphemism-ize something after coming right out and saying it.

Without the age-old strictures forbidding harlotry and all other forms of public taboo, women became free to do what they wanted with whom they wanted without an inordinate amount of societal backlash or the need for a long-term relationship.

*Sputter rage!* And the WOMEN! They organized! For rights! And freedom! And then they got most of it! And started acting like real people, with rights! And freedom! And no one was punishing them! No one! They were out there doing exactly what the men were doing, but no one was punishing them! No slut-shaming or rape or shotgun marriage or anything! Josh is like boggled! He can’t believe that he grew up in a world with 50% less slut-shaming than his father! Seriously, why aren’t you people upset? Women! Just doing things! With not nearly enough social backlash! Like hardly any!

Just wow. How oblivious do you have to be to actually type those words and then submit them. I’d say someone’s editor let that one go to press just to maximize the hate mail.

As women, the traditional gatekeepers and pacesetters, collectively dropped their standards and engaged in commitment-free, purely physical relationships, they opened the door for the treatment that their behavior elicits.

That’s a two-way road, buddy. For example, your stunning self-absorption and barely masked loathing of the fairer sex means that you actually do deserve to be alone. So very alone. Quite honestly, if I was your right hand I’d refuse to form a fist. That’s how alone you should be.

When a guy is given the option to bypass courtship and gain entry without much effort, it takes no great Holmesian deduction to discover why proper treatment and respect fall by the wayside.

Dave Barry, if I may refer to the master once again, once praised Rod Stewart for his cleverly subtle lyrics “Spread your wings/And let me come inside.” I hereby award the Rod Stewart Award for Class and Subtlety in Sexual References to Josh Bass, Sophomore Print Journalism Major. *clapclapclap!*

But that does not mean that chivalry cannot be resuscitated, or that it does not live on still in the hearts of a good number of men. And after listening to me prattle on in rebuttal to her no doubt unconscious remark, I think my friend may have gained a new perspective.

No, dude, she knew you were a dick before you followed up her crappy date by boring her to death. Also, she’s pretty sure you just called her a whore.

No, this doesn’t mean she’s free next Friday.

After all, there are women all over the world who have male confidants and close friends, but they never for once take a step back and realize that the person with whom they are constantly sharing their romantic woes is in fact ­- male.

And so to that widow of romance out there, when next the words seem about to spill unbidden from your lips, bite your tongue and look a little harder. You may have to seek, my lady, but ye shall find.

Wait, wait, that didn’t make any sense. Let me run it through Babelfish…let’s see…from “Douchebag” to “English”

I’m a Nice Guy(TM)! How come women never want to go out with Nice Guys(TM)! All I did was point out that I’d treat her with respect and if she doesn’t like it then she’s a slutty mcharlotwhore who just doesn’t appreciate what a Nice Guy(TM) I am. But all these bitches will see. Oh yes, one day they’ll see. They’ll be all “Help, help, I’m being raped!” and I’ll be all “Well you deserved it, skank.” And they’ll be all “Oh, why didn’t we see how wonderful Josh was when we had the chance, ow! Ow!” and then I’ll jump on my horse and pick up a maiden and we’ll live happily ever after.

Seriously, why can’t these hos see how great I am?

03.10.2007 Douchebag on Feminism, For the ladies, HUH!?, Pigs, Sex, What Patriarchy?, another fucking sex post 12 Comments

Must be nice to have a 0.0% crime rate

Wednesday, October 3rd, 2007

At least, I assume Italy must have vanquished crime in all of its forms to have the time and, let’s face it, the stones for this:

In Italy, the land of fashion and elegance, it’s only natural that public officials want to look good too. And so the Italian police ordered high heeled-shoes for its 14,750 female police officers, who wanted to give their uniform a younger and sexier look.

The nearly 15,000 female police officers were reportedly “delighted” to get to wear stilettos to work. I’ll admit, the one Italian woman I know does wear insanely inappropriate shoes to work and insists that once you get used to it it’s totally cool, but I have a hard time believing that 15,000 police officers were uniformly thrilled to finally look younger and sexier, the prime concern of any police officer.

sexyrimbacop
Sure, it’s impractical, but perpetrators frequently tip me upwards of $10 in singles before they realize I’m not kidding about the right to remain silent. I’ve never been more motivated!

We’ll never know how the great Official Calf’n'Ass Sculpting worked out, because while sexual discrimination standards vary from nation to nation, penny-pinching, ill-communicating bureaucracy is a universal language:

However, the Interior Ministry made a fatal mistake when it tried to save money on the shoes. After studying various bids, it awarded the €600,000 ($850,000) contract to a factory in Romania instead of to Italy’s famous but expensive shoemakers. The clinching factor was the Romanian company’s elegant design — and the low cost of €20 a pair.

But the authorities failed to realize that Romanian sizes did not conform to Italian norms — with the result that the shoes were too small for Italian feet.

Well fuck, if the government can’t be trusted to buy shoes then how are they going to be able to get the vinyl catsuits with the bras that shoot poison darts?

h/t Erica

03.10.2007 For the ladies, HUH!? 1 Comment

Why do conservatives hate penguins?

Tuesday, October 2nd, 2007

tango
Nefarious agents of the homosexual agenda.

I post about penguins probably more often than I should, but they’re terribly cute, and for whatever reason, they seem to get used as political footballs far more often than the poor things deserve.

Well, it’s happening again. The most challenged book of 2006, according to the Chicago-based American Library Association, was And Tango Makes Three. I haven’t read it, but it sounds cute: A zookeeper gives two penguins a fertilized egg, it hatches, and they raise the little penguin chick as their own. Aww. Penguins.

I bet you can guess why conservatives don’t like this book.

“The huge majority of parents would avoid this book if they knew it was brainwashing their children to support and experiment with homosexual behavior,” said Randy Thomasson, president of the California-based Campaign for Children and Families.

That argument might be more convincing were it not for the documented existence of gay penguins. Better keep those kids away from zoos as well.

You know, I always wonder about people who go on book-banning campaigns. With all the good causes out there, why expend that sort of energy to make yourself into the kind of laughing stock that tries to get a picture book about penguins pulled from libraries?

02.10.2007 Books, Family, Teh Gay 5 Comments

Newer Entries