On feminism

I've been meaning to write an entry on feminism for a while now. There seems to be a lot of discussion about it lately, and I'm not 100% sure why.

Maybe it's because people are realizing that we've entered a a new age. Call it the death of ideology. Pre-feminist America (epitomized by the 50's) was an age of conformist ideology. There were rigid definitions of what constituted masculinity and femininity, and those norms were vehemently enforced even when they contradicted human nature. Dad went to work to support his 2.3 children. He worked his 40 hours a week, and he achieved in proportion to how much he worked. Mom stayed home, raised the kids, maintained the household, and catered to the sexual needs of her husband. Sex was a duty, not a pleasure.

Then came the 60's, and along with them feminism. Suddenly, we wanted equality. In all things. It was the ultimate democratic ideal. Parity in race, parity in economic status, parity in gender...The Man got us down, and if only He got out of the way, we would reach our nirvanic ideal civilization composed of those identifiable only by their one imporant distinguishing characteristic: they were people.

The problem was, we have since discovered, that it was an artificial ideal. People do not default to a difference-agnostic, non-hierarchical societal structure. We had this implicit assumption that there was some external force, some authority, weather it be the government, organized religion, entrenched racism, or what-have-you, that was standing between us and enlightenment. And in many cases there was some entity that looked like that...the George Wallaces of the world. But I think we made the mistake of assuming they were the fundamental obstacle between us and our 60's ideal when in fact they were simply reflections of a prior age that hadn't yet caught up with the shift in public consciousness. They were less active evils than simply inertial remnants of a dying age.

Now we're being forced to come to grips with the fact that the fight against injustice really isn't an external fight at all. There is no "they" that are actively perpetuating a lot of the shit we rail against. Sure, we have the neocons and the evangelicals, but even they are simply a product of their environment. Both are a movement born of the encroachment of urban existence on small-town mentality, and the struggle to salvage identity is what has given rise to the evangelical movement. But, I digress. Point being, people are, at core, utterly irrational animals that quite naturally fall into many of the patterns we always assumed were foisted upon us. We naturally follow alpha males no matter how batshit insane they objectively are. Women are attracted to assholes. Men are very superficial, visual creatures who will evaluate a woman based on her looks. It's turning out that these aren't so much artificial cultural artifacts as ingrained biological programming. And we're finding that fucking depressing, as well we should.

It is on that basis that I've always had trouble with feminism. I always agreed with the observations but disagreed with the conclusions. Sure, society is dominated by male-centric forms of social and organizational interaction, women are seen as sexual objects more often than not, etc. etc. etc. All of that is unquestionably true. But any alternative would involve an active, conscious effort on the part of both men and women to fight their natural tendencies to organize a society that way. And the larger the group of people you're talking about, the less likely that is. To paraphrase a line from Men In Black: a person is reasonable; people are primitive, scared, hysterical, and irrational.

Fighting human nature is a fundamentally losing proposition. There's a strong tendency for societies to correct against mechanisms that fight human nature. Look at how much effort communist China has to put into maintaining their societal structure, for instance. They have to spend huge amounts of energy and wealth into controlling information and putting artifical incentives in place to bribe people to stay put in the current power structure. And it's still falling apart.

No, until we find a way to coax it out of our DNA, men are going to pursue money and power, and women are going to pursue the men who have money and power. And I mean that in the most abstract sense..."power" is a very malleable concept in the modern day. Some women go for guys who control vast corporate empires or are very typical competitive alpha males. But "power" in a guy can simply be confidence, direction, self-esteem, assertiveness, etc. Any quality that might suggest he's capable of supporting her. After all, a guy with poor self-esteem, who is self-effacing, and who admits his limitations is an utter turn-off, yet those same qualities are nowhere near the kiss of death in a woman. It's an utterly instinctive power dynamic for a guy to be the caretaker and the girl to be cared for, and it's one that will inevitably play itself out on a larger scale in society. Why is anyone surprised that there are proportionally fewer women in positions of power? Fewer women are going to have competitive enough personalities to seek out those positions, and of those that do, of course they are a priori going to have a hard time being seen as leaders because of their gender. Again, I reiterate: it's not because of some artificial conspiracy on the part of the Old Boys Network so much as it is very basic human nature.

Don't like it? Fine...but realize in order to change it, you're going to have to fight our most basic drives.

Fun with photoshop for Halloween

What happens when you mix horror pop culture with classic paintings and photoshop? Only bad things.

I really like the David with the alien on his face. :)

Umm...

Didn't they already make this, and wasn't it called Jumanji? (Not to be confused with Jewmanji)

The last straw always comes at the weirdest moments

Ok, anyone not still convinced Bush is an utter tool, please, read on.

My favorite quote:

"'I'm surprised the president deems it wise to spend taxpayer money for his lawyer to write letters to The Onion,' Scott Dikkers, editor in chief, wrote to Mr. Dixton. He suggested the money be used instead for tax breaks for satirists."


Also, in case you weren't convinced that the Bush administration has zero trouble with cognitive dissonance:

"O.K. But just between us, Mr. Duffy, how did they find out about it?"

'Despite the seriousness of the Bush White House, more than one Bush staffer reads The Onion and enjoys it thoroughly,' he said. 'We do have a sense of humor, believe it or not.'"

How...wha? How does that work? "HAHahahaha...whoo....hehe...that's some funny shit. Ok, now, seriously, go sue them, Jenkins." Is that the same sense in which Stalin had a sense of humor? "Your satire of me...it is very amusing. Now you die."

My latest way to amuse myself

Reading Amazon.com reviews of the Bible (at the suggestion of Something Positive)

Some choice reviews:
File under "fairy tales", October 2, 2005

Reviewer:

James A. Cairney (Brighton, England) - See all my reviews

This is an interesting wee book, but it could have used a car chase to liven it up a bit, perhaps a few more sex scenes and all the best "religion" books have at least some aliens.
I thought the whole "He's Dead!!!" , "No He's not!!" ending was a bit weak and the "Deus ex machina" thing really had been done before...
The main character "Jesub" has a few good (almost god like) one liners, but Harry Potter would kick his skinny ass.

Looking forward to the follow up!

An Exceptional Work On The Nature of Human Delusions and Violent Psycopathy, October 10, 2005

Reviewer:

Ruthless (New York) - See all my reviews

This book is the product of a severely diseased mind. Every human perversion and psychosis is analyzed in depth. From all shades of prejudice, to sadism and incest, the worst of the human condition is proudly on display, married to a forceful ignorance which concludes that

1. All homosexuals should be executed
2. Blacks are merely slightly evolved monkeys
3. Women are responsible for all human sin and weakness
4. The world is a 6000 year old floating disk around which sea monsters patrol. (Various copies of this book omit this statement, as it was proven wrong in the late 15th Century. Unfortunately for the faithful, this book is the inspired word of their invisble friend who lives in the sky, whom they call "God". This God is incapable of speaking anything but the truth. Thus to omit or change any statement from the original bible is to move against God, and imply that he is capable of being wrong, which throws the whole text out the window.)
5. A man named Moses was given a tablet listing ten commandments, which govern human morality. Sadly, God is plagarizing the ancient Egyptians and their Book of the Dead here, which had essentially the same list, and was created much earlier than this Judeo-Christian work. A decidedly low blow by God there, as the ancient Egyptians never had the Book of the Dead copyrighted, and cannot sue him.

Please do the right thing and burn any copies of this book which you encounter, to inhibit the spread of this idealogical cancer. And if you ever encounter someone who actually believes the depravities and impossibilities listed in this text, please beat them about the head with a large, blunt instrument repeatedly until they come to their senses. Think of it as your Christian duty.

A good price, October 19, 2005

Reviewer:

Michelle Goodrich (west sacrmento, ca United States) - See all my reviews

The price was right. The imitation leather looks like imitation leather. A good book.

Overrated, October 21, 2005

Reviewer:

Aids Vs. Cancer - See all my reviews

People have gone through alot worse than what Jesus Christ has gone through. For example this morning I was out of milk and could not have a bowl of cereal. Turns out I forgot that I had to use the rest of the milk last night for my dinner. Which was cereal. All I eat is cereal. So it was a really big deal when I found that I was out of milk. Some people are crucified and others have to skip breakfast. The point is everybody has a really bad life. Jesus was the son of God. So what? You should meet my father. I'm sure he has put me through alot worse. He always makes me listen to Baby Boomer music and made me play sports like basketball and baseball when I was a little kid.

Quick!

What do you get when you cross the Olsen twins with Nazis? Give up? Prussian Blue!

Conservative pundits are batshit insane

Case in point.

You know, a politically savvy associate once suggested to me that people like Coulter really do know that they sound like crazy, feces-tossing controversy monkeys. I increasingly am inclined to believe this, particularly in the case of Coulter. Tucker Carlson may just be that stupid. I mean, the man wears a bowtie. Granted, its the visual equivalent of a catch phrase, but it's still a fucking bowtie.

I think Coulter just makes her living off saying stuff that pisses people off. I mean, take a minute to review her prior statements. Canada is lucky we allow them to exist. We should invade the middle east and convert them to Christianity. Liberals eat puppies. (Ok, I made up the last one, but it was disturbingly plausible, wasn't it?). No, I think she knows damn well that she sounds batshit insane. She just enjoys making lots of money off all the people who are dumb enough to take her seriously.

Brilliant parody of gamer culture

"You know, like, when your clan-mate is getting fragged in RL, sometimes you gotta drop everything and lay down some cover fire..."

No space sex?!

Goddamnit...why bother doing space research then?

BuyBlue proposition analysis

Interesting analysis of who is backing each of the propositions in the California special election.

If nothing else, a quick look at the backers of prop 78 and prop 79 should tell you which you should be voting for.

Unicef bombs smurfs

You heard me.

You know, it's funny...just this morning I was thinking, "Why hasn't anyone bombed the smurfs lately?"

God bless you UNICEF.

Balls!

You know, sometimes I wonder what it's like to see the world through the eyes of an evil, corrupt fuck. I'm thinking, ok, you're a world-class sleazebag, everyone knows it, and now there's court admissable evidence that your behavior is actually illegal. Basically, you're caught red handed. Sure, put up a token fight. Proclaim your innocence. Whatever.

But DeLay had the audacity to turn around and subpoena the prosecutor. The god. damn. prosecutor.

Wow. I did _not_ see that one coming. Kudos, DeLay! Truly, your douchebaggery knows no bounds.

Special Election propositions

(Update: link to all the propositions: http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#2005Special)

All right, you fuckers, let's do this (be sure to vote November 8th). Incidentally, let me take a moment to remind everyone that letting every nitwit vote on every complicated social and budgetary issue was, is, and always will be a terrible idea. There was a reason the Framers decided not to create a system where every inbred redneck got to come and vote on intellectual property statutes. Anyway, onward:


73 (Waiting Period and Parental Notification Before Termination of Minor's Pregnancy): No.

A no-brainer. You are retarded if you vote for this, and that's all there is to it. Put a waiting period on the treatment of that cancer you have while you consider the moral implications of killing a defenseless tumor, and then we'll talk.


74 (Public School Teachers. Waiting Period for Permanent Status. Dismissal.): No.

You're honestly trying to "get tough" on public school teachers when there's already a major shortage of these underpaid, underappreciated state workers? I'm sure some of them do suck...so what? Until you can figure out a more effective way to improve the public school system, take 'em where you can get 'em. It's not like ivy-leaguers are pounding down the doors to get these jobs.


75 (Public Employee Union Dues. Restrictions on Political Contributions. Employee Consent Requirement.): No.

Partisan attempt to gut a Democratic power base. Demand that corporations get consent from their employees to give money to particular political parties, then we'll talk.


76 (State Spending and School Funding Limits): No.

Why are Californians retarded? I'm serious. They have this idiotic penchant for hard-wiring the state constitution with very specific spending limits, and it's utterly ridiculous. If you don't like government, fine. Let's live in an anarchist state where I can finally go ahead and shoot you for being an idiot and be done with it. Short of that, let the normal political process do its work and reach a compromise omnibus budget that can reflect all the budgetary tradeoffs, and stop trying to impose childish, draconian, and arbitrary rules on them. If you don't like the result, vote the fuckers out of office like a normal democracy.


77 (Redistricting): No.

I'm torn on this one. Gerry-mandering is a pet peeve of mine, but nonetheless I don't think this is the way to solve the problem. I don't think you're helping anything by giving preference to the biases of a panel of aging, prune-like judges with questionable remaining mental faculties over the biases of the legislature. Theoretically, Scalia has a life-appointment and therefore should have no personal a priori stake in the outcome of any given decision he makes, but he nonetheless seems to persist in being a right-wing douchebag who happily hands the Republican party most of the opinions they want. Just because their job isn't on the line doesn't mean people can't still be opinionated wackos.

Personally, I think you should let a computer draw the districting lines randomly, and, moreover, let it redraw them every few years. That's the only way to make line drawing truly unbiased.


78 (Prescription Drug Discounts): No.

I am thoroughly unimpressed when any piece of legislation contains the term "voluntary." This is vaporware legislation so that drug companies can pretend they're actually being good citizens and not gouging people.


79 (Prescription Drug Discounts. State-Negotiated Rebates.): Yes.

Collective bargaining for the state's old and poor. Novel idea. Might just work. Also, any time you invoke mythical, paranoid ramblings about the giant conspiracy on the part of lawyers to create laws that will incite lawsuits to argue against something, that's a really good way to get me to vote for it.


80 (Electric Service Providers Regulation): Yes.

How'd that whole energy deregulation thing work out? Right...that's what I thought.

Mmmm...sacrilicious

The Passion...Reloaded.

Providing stuff for free doesn't make you money?!

Shocking!

Seriously though...being able to look at the source of something you're trying to build off of or inter-operate with is a Good Thing(tm). On the other hand, giving something you worked very hard on to your competition for free is a Bad Thing(tm). And unfortunately, in the current world, you can't really separate those two.

Personally, I think it should be perfectly legal to look at anyone's code and even mandatory that such code be released by companies, but it should be illegal to actually build it. Look but don't touch! Just like boobies. In fact, let's call it the Boob-Respecting Archetype (BRA) model.

(I am a genius, incidentally.)

Suicide by PowerPoint

If it hasn't actually happened yet, it will.

The dark side Dilbert didn't tell you about...

Do they read this stuff before they print it?

"He rejected charges that he picked a White House crony when many other candidates were available. He said he has known her a long time and believes she shares his conservative philosophy and will do so for decades to come on the high court if confirmed by the U.S. Senate."

Okay, do you want to run _your_ definition of "crony" by me then?

See? I told you so.

Children don't make people happy, and neither does money.

"Public surveys measure what makes us happy. Marriage does, pets do, but children don't seem to (despite what we think). Youth and old age are the happiest times. Money does not add much to happiness; in Britain, incomes have trebled since 1950, but happiness has not increased at all. The happiness of lottery winners returns to former levels within a year. People disabled in an accident are likely to become almost as happy again. For happiness levels are probably genetic: identical twins are usually equally bubbly or grumpy."

You hear that people?! Children don't induce happiness! Your genes are telling you to reproduce because of their own selfish fucking desires! They don't give a shit about you except insofar as you help them propagate!

I've been saying this for years. Don't blow your money on annoying and ungrateful children. Spend it on yourself. Enjoy your life. Tell your genes to kiss your evolutionarily designed ass.

...and the browser wars begin again!

You thought the browser wars were over? Apparently not.

Of course, I exaggerate. IE won. No one is going to displace it any time soon. But it's still amusing to see Netscape installed by default by a major PC vendor.

I actually had not heard that Netscape had been revived. I was even more intrigued to learn that the (ostensible) reason HP made the move was because Netscape 8 can use either the Firefox or the IE rendering engine. So even if you use Netscape, you may still be using IE. How entertaining.

(anybody played with it? I'm deeply suspicious of anything AOL creates, but I gotta admit the ability to render pages either as IE or as Firefox is alluring...)

Another reason to distrust Linux

...and remember, Linux has the final say about any submissions against the Linux kernel. And he thinks specs are a bad idea? Wow...no wonder the quality of Linux is so crappy. The problem with specs is not that they're inherently bad...it's that people aren't forced to write complete ones and aren't forced to maintain them. A complete, high-level spec is a very, very good thing. It's trying to piece together incomprehensible pieces of code that leads to components that don't bloody work together.

For fuck's sake...if software designers don't start going through much more rigorous, formal processes, software is always going to be a buggy piece of shit.