Men's Rights Meme; Episode One: Talking About Feelings

I've decided to start a new series on this blog, entitled, of course, Men's Rights Meme. The premise of it is simple, but elegant. I hope so, anyway. Basically, I'm taking memes created by Men's Rights Activists on the internet and, well, beating the shit out of them. That's basically the whole thing. I'm challenging MRA rhetoric from a feminist perspective. That's so original, right?

 This first episode will, I think, be a short one. The meme I'm looking at today is a common one, which has been refuted countless times by better minds than mine. But I think it's a good introduction to the series, so I'm going to do it anyway. Let's get right to episode one: Talking About Feelings.

Here's the offending meme, which is a commentary on Emma Watson's He For She speech. It's a really poorly done commentary, and we'll get to why in a moment, but it's a commentary nonetheless.

Okay, wow. There are so many problems with this thing that it's hard to know where to begin. I would first like to point out that this thing finally shows the hand of the Men's Right's Movement. By that, I mean that the creator makes no effort to hide the blatant misogyny that plagues what can only generously be called a movement. This man seems to think that there's some shadowy conspiracy by a cabal of female leaders designed to suck away his money, for some reason. You'd think the illuminati would have a more reliable source of income. It's like he dated one crazy person in college and then just assumed that every woman is exactly like her, always.

But as much as I'd love to sling insults at those hateful fucks who pretend to care about real issues, we have something more important to discuss.

Namely, that Watson never actually said the words, "Men should talk about their feelings more." What she said was far more eloquent and nuanced than that. I suppose I can't fault the creator of the meme for straw-manning Emma here. Sexist assholes aren't usually known for their sliver tongues or discerning intellects. I'm sorry, I'm sorry. I couldn't resist taking one more cheap shot at this guy.

The entirety of Watson's speech can be found here, but the bit I want to focus on is this, as it's the one the meme is referring to. At least, I think that's the case. Quite frankly, this is so nonsensical that I can't tell what it's trying to say. Anyway, here is the full quote, placed back in the context this guy ripped it from.

We don’t often talk about men being imprisoned by gender stereotypes but I can see that they are and that when they are free, things will change for women as a natural consequence.

If men don’t have to be aggressive in order to be accepted women won’t feel compelled to be submissive. If men don’t have to control, women won’t have to be controlled.

Both men and women should feel free to be sensitive. Both men and women should feel free to be strong… It is time that we all perceive gender on a spectrum not as two opposing sets of ideals.

If we stop defining each other by what we are not and start defining ourselves by what we are—we can all be freer and this is what HeForShe is about. It’s about freedom. 

The part that really gets me is that the above ideas are exactly the kind of thing a real Men's Rights Movement would be promoting. But, like I said, these people don't actually care about the real issues facing men today. They just need an excuse to yell about how awful women are. It's a thinly-veiled way for them to express their deep-seated rage. Personally, I think it stems from the size of their dicks. That's just me, though.

Also, newsflash, guys. Anger is still a feeling. Maybe if you listened to her arguments instead of calling her a bitch on the internet, you would understand that.

You would also understand that men don't become homeless because of the aforementioned secret cabal of evil ladies. Roughly one-third of homeless people are in that situation because of mental illness, according to this. Many of these people would benefit from the opportunity to talk to a trained professional about their feelings directly. And they would have that chance, if the patriarchy didn't regard having emotions as a sign of weakness. Watson is one hundred percent correct here.

So much for this being a short one, huh?

Anyway, I hope you enjoyed the first episode of Men's Rights Memes. Stayed tuned for the next one. I'm going to try and post these every Friday, and we'll see where it goes.

Freedom of Speech

Okay, you guys. We have to talk about freedom of speech. I've written about censorship twice before, both in the context of comedy and games. You can read those posts here and here, but I don't think the points I made there have really sunk in yet. So here is my rant about the broader concept of freedom of speech. Put another way, you dumb fuckers don't know what freedom of speech actually means, and so I'm going to beat the real answer into your skull right now. Buckle the fuck up, assholes.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequence. Nor does it mean that you have the right to an audience. I'll explain what those statements mean in a moment, after I tell you what the idea of freedom of speech is really about. Freedom of speech only applies to the government. Your freedom of speech only guarantees that the government cannot literally put you behind bars for saying something that the regime disagrees with. That is it. Freedom of speech says nothing about criticism leveled against you by private citizens. If someone has a legitimate criticism of your ideas, or they ask you not to say something, they are not infringing upon your freedom of speech. Like, if you call me a faggot, and I tell you to stop doing that, I am not censoring you. Only the government can censor you. That's what the word censorship fucking means.

And, as I said on twitter some time ago, "Freedom of speech means you can say whatever the fuck you want, it doesn't mean I have to listen." That goes back to the bit about right to an audience I talked about earlier. You can say anything you like, but you are not entitled to an audience. If you are sending somebody death threats, they can report you to the police. Like I said, that does not curtail your freedom of speech. If that person decides not to listen to you, if they block you or whatever, that's also okay. Freedom of speech only says you are guaranteed a platform to express your ideas. Nobody has to listen to those ideas. That's not part of the first amendment, all right? Good.

This is not just something to think about. This is not just my opinion, and it isn't up for debate. This is fact. I hope I made you realize that today.

Diversity in Geek Culture

A while back, Marvel decided to make Thor a woman. This made a lot of geeks really, really mad. I understand why they're pissed, but at the same time, I think their logic is flawed. Here's why.

And before you go down into the comment section, just know that I, too, am a giant nerd. I get where you're coming from and, as I said, I see where you're coming from. Simply put, I'm one of you. With that out of the way, let's get to it.

Also keep in mind that these are my own opinions, based on my own experiences. At the end of the day, that's all I can really speak to.

Geeks are a special breed. Many of us got picked on for being socially awkward, or day, or whatever. We are not an oppressed minority, but most of us were made to feel that way by people who were supposed to be our friends. The majority of us filled the holes left by that trauma with pop culture. In the absence of any real self-esteem, comic books became a sort of replacement for that. Star Trek isn't just a show you like. Rather, it's an emblem, a sign of who you are as a person.

So when someone changes something about it, it sort of feels like they're invalidating your identity. "If Thor is a lady, then who the fuck am I?" Geeks don't like change, because we spent years trying to find a place where we fit in. It took a lot of work, and now someone is fucking it all up.

I've been there. I get it.

But that's a bullshit mentality, man. It doesn't make any logical sense. Because the original stories that you love, that you identify so strongly with, those still exist. Nobody is taking your copy of Avengers no 1 and drawing a vagina on Thor. You can still enjoy that shit.

By making Thor a woman, you're opening up those stories, and the ones that will come after, to millions of new readers. Let's face it. Comics have been broadcasting chiefly to straight white males for a long, long time. Making Thor a women will broadcast the medium to new people, which will inspire them to check out the older stuff. Inclusivity can only be a good thing, because it brings us together. It opens you up to new experiences and new ways of looking at the world.

And that's awesome, man.

Just something to think about.

Planned Parenthood

Today I'd like to talk about Planned Parenthood. I've done so a little before, mostly on Twitter. But there have recently been some false accusations leveled against them, through the use of heavily edited videos. Through these videos, the world was given a completely false impression of the organization. This makes me angry, so I'm going to write about it. Here we go.

The video in question is propaganda. There's no point in sugarcoating it. Social conservatives, in yet another of their despicable bids to regain the power they held in the fabled 'Good Old Days', essentially took an actual interview and contorted it into a lie. Their stated goal was to harm the reputation of Planned Parenthood, and it has unfortunately been rather successful. Through this, the world was given a completely false impression of the organization. I'm here to do my small part in rectifying that falsehood.

To begin, I'd like to look at the name. Planned Parenthood. When you plan something, it is a deliberate action, carried out with forethought. There is a process involved when you are planning or have planned something. Planning something ensures that you will accomplish your goal in the manner you want to, and the manner that makes the most sense. As opposed to, say, just doing it in the spur of the moment and hoping everything works out. I think we can all agree that, in most cases, planning something is a good thing.

Then, you have 'Parenthood.' The process of becoming a parent. If you have a planned parenthood, that means you intend to become a parent, as opposed to most people who end up as parents, who do so accidentally. It's fairly easy to end up a parent when you do not wish to. Put Tab A into Slot B and repeat as necessary. It's not rocket surgery, which is probably why it happens so often.

As I said, planning is a good thing. So it follows that if you plan you parenthood, things will go more smoothly than they would've otherwise. It means you're ready to take on that responsibility and you are doing so deliberately. That's what Planned Parenthood does. It makes sure that women have the ability to plan their pregnancy and decide to become pregnant when it suits them and fits into their lives. They do this through birth control and sex education.

Notice I didn't say abortion there. That's a part of it, sure, but it's a very small part. Not all Planned Parenthood facilities perform abortions. All of them provide birth control, they teach people about their bodies, and, hell, they even treat STDs and yeast infections. They do cancer screenings, for cervical cancer and breast cancer. I could go on, but the point is, they provide valuable resources for low-income women and middle class women. In some cases, they provide the only resources these women have available.

Abortions comprise only three percent of what Planned Parenthood does. And some branches that do perform them allow women to voluntarily donate their fetal tissue to things like stem cell research. The key word there is donate. These women are not making money off this practice. There is no incentive to get an abortion. Defunding Planned Parenthood is just another tactic in the GOPs war on women, and their war on the poor. They are vile, and disgusting, and the people who vote for them need to wake up.

Just something to think about.

Censorship and #GamerGate

I've noticed something recently, a kind of strange, twilight-zone-esque phenomenon. Namely, a weird-ass confusion of what censorship means. It happens everywhere, but I'd like to focus on it within the context of the GamerGate movement today. Why, you ask? Well, because I think it's particularly egregious within those circles.

Look, GamerGaters. I know this might be a hard pill to swallow, mostly because it isn't red, but bear with me for a moment. Disagreement isn't the same thing as censorship. I don't know if your misinterpretation of the concept of censorship is intentionally dishonest, or if you're just stupid. Honestly, I feel like both of these eventualities are entirely plausible.

Essentially, you argue that by advocating for better, more even-handed representations of female characters in games, that means that violence against women will be outlawed in the context of games. Quite frankly, this makes no goddamned sense. Feminists calling out shitty behavior does not mean that the behavior will cease. Feminists challenge society to make their behavior better by appealing to their sense of reason. The change they're advocating for is not that games like GTA are banned, or even that sexist portrayals of women are lessened. Feminists want a counterbalance, which ensures that both sides are equally represented. That isn't censorship. If there are people who want to outlaw such portrayals of women, then that is censorship, and it is bad. As it stands, feminism seeks to establish more positive portrayals of women in the medium. This creates a more open space in which a greater quantity of ideas can be explored. This seems to be the exact opposite of censorship, doesn't it?

And, at the end of the day, it is up to game creators to decide whether or not to take the advice of feminists on this issue. They are not obligated to change the way they portray women in their games. It would be nice, sure, but all we can ask is that these people listen to our points. We are not forcing you to do anything, we're just presenting you with options.

Your argument seems to be predicated on the fact that power in the gaming industry is somehow finite, and that by including more balanced portrayals of women in games, that somehow means that there will no longer be games like Grand Theft Auto. This is not the case. Nor is it the case that violence against women in games causes violence against women in real life. Rather that depictions of violence against women in games like GTA reflect societal norms. Violence against women exists in the real world, that is a fact. And when you commit in GTA, you are not punished for it. This serves to normalize the practice, rather than cause it.

Just something to think about.

On Lewis' Law

For the uninitiated, Lewis' Law was first coined on Twitter by prominent feminist Helen Lewis in 2012. It says, in a broad sense, that comments on any article about feminism justify feminism. Many antifeminists have labeled this assertion a fallacious one, meant to construct a reality in which feminism is beyond criticism. In their minds, leaving reasonable critiques of feminism in the comments of an article about feminism automatically makes them invalid. At least, that's the truth according to Lewis' Law.

That seems like a valid point at first blush. But after a little digging, we find that their ideas about Lewis' Law are deeply flawed. Here's why.

Helen Lewis in no way implied that all comments on feminist articles justified the movement, or even that most of them did. Merely that some comments would apply to her assertion. Reasonable counterarguments do not fall under this umbrella.

 Some examples of the sort of comments she is talking about are things like, 'get back in the kitchen', or 'That's just the way things are.' Simply put, these sorts of statements are indicative of the kinds of societal attitudes that feminism is attempting to address. According to the Law, articles about feminism will invariably contain examples of the attitudes that feminism exists, in the first place, to challenge. These comments justify feminism in that the object being justified is the further exercise of feminism.

Essentially, Lewis' law calls attention to the fact that sexist attitudes towards women still exist, and they rear their ugly head whenever feminists attempt to discuss their ideas. As long as these attitudes exist in any form, feminism will be justified.

Just something to think about.

Infighting Vs. Legitimate Dissent

 People, particularly those in antifeminist and/or MRA circles, have decried the feminist movement as being full of infighting. If even feminists can't agree on their goals or methodology, why should anyone be a part of the movement? I don't want to ally myself with something that is not entirely good and pure! The fact that no movement, and indeed no person, is without fault, seems to elude these people.

The really weird thing is that I've seen feminists take the same position on this issue. They believe that feminists have to unify in order to be taken seriously. Any hint of disagreement within the movement is seen as a weakness, which must be crushed in order to further the end goal of women's rights.

I agree with this to some extent. If the so-called infighting has devolved to name-calling and screaming, then we need to shove it aside and focus on our common goal of aiding women. But here's the thing. I don't think we've reached that point. What you call infighting, I call legitimate descent. Disagreement is absolutely vital to a movement which does not wish to be caught in an echo chamber full of groupthink. A group which shoves aside the personal feelings of its members in favor of furthering the greater good. This kind of unity is purely superficial, and not sustainable. We must all argue our points so that actual unity can be attained. If evidence is brought fourth in reasoned debate, then everyone within the movement will reach the same conclusions of their own accord.

Further, feminism is broadly defined as a movement which seeks to elevate women to standards that men have already achieved. This, in turn, will help other minority groups rise to similar levels in their respective contexts. But, given the relative youth of feminism compared to other social advocacy movements, there is still a great deal of discussion within it over how exactly we achieve our stated goal. I have some of my own thoughts on that, which you can take a look at here. However, I welcome disagreement, because only through debate and reasoned discussion can we reach real, sustainable unity.

Just something to think about.

What Exactly is Feminism?

Feminism is kind of a new movement, and its definition is rather nebulous. The way that I define feminism, and the definition that I think others agree on, is this. "Feminism aims to achieve equality for everyone by raising women to the standards that men have already achieved." That's a good starting place, but it raises a good number of questions. Namely, how the fuck do we do that? We know that women need to be elevated. The playing field needs to be evened out, but there's a lot of discussion, even in feminist circles, about how exactly that ought to be done.

Well, I figured I'd throw my hat into the ring. Here's a breakdown of what feminism means to me:

Firstly, and perhaps most importantly, I'm trans-inclusionary. This is a point of contention among feminists, with one camp claiming that feminism is about protecting 'real women,' whatever the fuck that means. In my opinion, if you identify as a women, that's what you are. And, let's be frank with each other, trans people are still oppressed, as are women. That's a shame, but it is also true. Some would even argue that trans women are even more disadvantaged than cis women. I'm against turning oppression into a competition, of course, but I'm also inclined to agree. There are several states where employers can refuse to hire trans individuals simply because of their gender identity, and that needs to stop. Feminism has to be intersectional, and work to further the standing of all women.

I'm pro-choice. I think that most feminists agree on this point, but there are some people who believe that abortion is akin to murder. This is crap. That came out a little more bluntly than I intended, but I stand by the sentiment. Before viability, a fetus is nothing more than a collection of cells. So is hair, and no one gets lynched for exfoliating. Further, the fetus feeds off of nutrients that is gathered by the mother. Until viability, it is virtually indistinguishable from a tape-worm. But perhaps that's a flimsy argument. Most pro-life people claim that abortion robs the world of potential geniuses. 'What if we aborted the person who would eventually go on to cure cancer,' they say. I'd like to take a moment to correct this. Children who receive the sort of education and support required to cure cancer are not raised by parents who consider getting abortions. Abortion ought to be available for everyone, but only people who would be unable to provide for a child take advantage of it. It's as simple as that.

Finally, I'm sex-positive. This is an easy one, and it ties into an old pro-choice argument. What someone else does with their body is none of your fucking business, nor is it mine. It doesn't matter if people want to fuck, or get abortions, or get tattoos. Just back off, man. Be cool. Also, and this is the biggest reason, sex-negativity encourages the proliferation of abstinence-only sex education, which is provably ineffectual.

So, yeah. That's my personal brand of feminism, and it's the direction I think the movement as a whole ought to be going in. But I'm always open to hearing and discussing new opinions, so if you disagree, tell me.

Just something to think about.

Is Age of Ultron Sexist?

Is Age Of Ultron Sexist?

Chris Costello

As I’ve stated previously on this blog and elsewhere, I am a strident feminist. (You can read about why this is here.) I am also a comic book fan, particularly of Marvel. These two facets of my personality often clash, as the way women are often depicted in comics boarders on despicable. Objectification is common, as is the portrayal of some women as damsels in distress who need men to save them. Things are improving on this front, but the fight isn’t over just yet.

I think that’s why some feminists were so outspoken about the new Avenger’s film, Age of Ultron. In it, Black Widow is revealed to be sterile. Her uterus was, in fact, forcibly removed by the organization that trained her and used her as a weapon. In her own words, “They take away the one thing that might matter more than the mission.” 

This is where some feminists take issue with the film. Every character on the Avengers team has some kind of personal tragedy they must overcome. Iron Man is a genius, but he is also an alcoholic with anxiety disorder. Thor is a literal god, trying to find his place among mortals. Steve Rogers is a super-soldier from World War Two, trying to reconcile his past upbringing with the values of this strange new world he finds himself in. The Hulk transforms into an enormous green rage monster at the slightest provocation.

Hawkeye is a reformed criminal with no superhuman abilities, struggling to fit in amongst not only living myths, but also heroes. He worries that he is not fundamentally good. 

Black Widow can’t have kids.

When put into perspective, her tragedy seems almost inconsequential. It lacks the earth-shattering relevance of the trials faced by the others. The reason for this, to critics, is because Joss Whedon believes that women are meant to have children. If that’s the thing Widow cares about so much, then it must mean that all women are obsessed with starting families...right?

I don’t think so. Never mind that Whedon himself is an outspoken feminist and even supported Anita Sarkisian at one time or another. Many feminists, myself included, have called into question the legitimacy of his claims on this matter, so maybe we shouldn’t take it into account now. I’m okay with that.

I disagree with many feminists on this issue for one key reason. I don’t think Whedon was trying to make a point about gender. I think Black Widow wanted kids, and when that ability was taken from her, it hurt. It was purely a character moment. It has nothing to do with gender or women as a whole. It concerns Black Widow and no one else.

That’s my take on things. I enjoyed the scene, I thought it packed a hefty emotional punch, and it offered Widow some much-needed character development. You could argue that the development she did receive did not serve to differentiate the character from other female characters in her position, and I understand where you’re coming from, especially given her romance with Bruce Banner, which felt tacked-on and unnecessary.

I just disagree. I don’t think Age of Ultron is sexist. That’s my story, and I’m sticking to it.

Until someone else makes a more persuasive argument, of course. Open-mindedness is the most important thing when we’re discussing important issues like this one.

Just something to think about.

The Hypocrisy of Antifeminist Atheists

The Hypocrisy of Antifeminist Atheists

Chris Costello

I am an atheist and, as anyone who’s spent any amount of time with me will tell you, I am also a feminist. This is kind of an odd combination, given that many outspoken internet ‘anti-theists’ have also devoted their time to ranting about the evils of feminism. The Amazing Atheist is an example of this. I’d call him an excellent example, but nothing about TJ Kirk is excellent. But, hey, nobody said that atheists all have to think a certain way, especially because the only thing uniting the atheist community is our lack of belief in magical sky people. So while atheistic feminists are certainly unusual, they still exist. Let’s move on, then, because there’s something else I wanted to discuss today.

If for some reason the title didn’t clue you in already, the subject of today’s article is the hypocrisy that is found within the atheist community, particularly as it pertains to feminism. I am speaking, of course, about cherry-picking.

Outspoken atheists, myself included, will often berate religious people for cherry-picking their beloved holy texts. In my experience, this is mostly a Christian tactic, but I am positive that people of all faiths employ it. The exchange below is a common example of the sort of thing I’m referring to here.

(EXT-PARKING LOT, MID-AFTERNOON. THEIST AND ATHEIST ARE STANDING NEXT TO A CAR, DISCUSSING RELIGION)

THEIST: The Bible (or the Quran, or the Torah, or whatever), is a book of purely good things. It is an ironclad moral code. God is entirely good, as is His word.

ATHEIST: But what about the part where it advocates the murder of gay people? The KKK and the Sovereign Citizens are both right-wing, Christian terrorist groups, you know.

THEIST: I don’t believe in those things, so they don’t count. Not all Christians are hateful, intolerant bigots. Don’t lash out against an entire group of people based on the actions of a very loud minority. Stop painting with such a broad brush.

ATHEIST: All right, I get that. You aren’t an asshole, so that must mean that Christianity can be a force for good. It does often encourage people to aid the poor, after all.

THEIST: Precisely.

(THERE IS A PAUSE)

THEIST: Incidentally, did you know that Pol Pot and Stalin were atheists? That must mean that you’re a violent, oppressive dictator, right? All atheists are evil!

ATHEIST (ANNOYED): You realize that’s the same thing you told me not to do, right? Painting with a broad brush?

(THEIST BEGINS TO WALK AWAY)

That’s a perfect example of both hypocrisy and cherry-picking from religious people. Every atheist has been on the receiving end of something like that at one point or another, and it pisses us off, mostly because it’s fucking asinine. The anger that arises from stuff like this has caused most atheists to rally against hypocrisy and cherry-picking, in any context. For the most part, I agree with the sentiment that these two things are always bad.

So why, then, do antifeminist internet atheists regularly engage in both of these practices, often at the same time? To illustrate my point, I’ve included another scene. Consistency for the win!

(EXT-PARKING LOT, MID-AFTERNOON ANTIFEMINIST AND FEMINIST ARE STANDING NEXT TO A CAR, DISCUSSING FEMINISM. FOR THE SAKE OF THIS SCENARIO, BOTH ARE ATHEISTS.)

FEM: My definition of feminism is equality for all genders. We seek to elevate women to standards men have already archived, thereby furthering equality for everyone. It’s an intersectional movement.

ANTI: But what about Sydney Greenheart, who believes that we ought to control the population on men in America by killing them. She calls herself a feminist, so she must be one, right? That means that the entirety of feminism is evil and obsolete. It should be eradicated, man.

FEM: The official name of North Korea is the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea, but we know that it’s really a communist dictatorship. Just because somebody uses a label doesn’t mean that label actually applies.

ANTI (NODDING): Okay, that makes sense.

FEM: See, now you’re getting it. Also, though, hold on. You just cherry-picked the most extreme example of feminism you could find to straw-man my argument. You wouldn’t want somebody doing that to you, right?

ANTI (NERVOUS): Well, no, I guess not.

FEM: Exactly. What you just did there is exactly the same as a religious person saying that all atheists are evil because Pol Pot and Stalin used the label. It makes even less sense in this context, given that Ms. Greenheart doesn’t meet the definition of feminism that I use. She’s a misandrist, pure and simple. I thought you were against hypocrisy. Whatever happened to that?

ANTI: Uh, um, uh, that’s different.

FEM: How is it different, exactly?

(ANTI BEGINS TO WALK AWAY.)

Just something to think about.

No Call For Equality?

No Call For Equality?

Chris Costello

This is going to be a short one, but I felt I had to write it anyway. This is my rebuttal to a very common argument that I hear from the Men’s Rights Movement, or MRM. They often bust out this little gem in response to a feminist, such as myself, saying something like ‘women make up half of the US population, and yet they comprise only about fourteen percent of CEOs, or scientists, or political leaders. I feel that this disparity is too great for it to be entirely a matter of personal choice. Discrimination against women still exists, and we must work to fix it.’

To which the Men’s Rights Activist will invariably respond, ‘well, garbage men are over ninety percent male, and you don’t hear feminists whining about being underrepresented in that area. They only care about the comfortable positions, they’re not really concerned with equality. All they care about is power.’

Now, I’ll give credit where it’s due. At first glance, this point appears legitimate. Then you turn around and see the hole that’s big enough to drive a fucking tank through. Feminists do want power. The whole point of the movement is to empower women, for fuck’s sake. That’s why there’s a call for more female CEOs. Because CEOs can affect change. They can advocate for policies that help women. They have real clout, and are able to elevate the standing of the female gender. Sanitation workers, sadly, are not. So at the end of the day, it isn’t actually about feminists wanting all the power. It’s about people, wanting to affect positive change.

Just something to think about.