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.

How To Do Reboots

Some time ago, I expressed support for Marvel's decision to make Thor a woman. Since then, I've been thinking a lot about what constitutes an effective reboot in the context of comic books. I say 'effective rather than 'successful' because it's actually really easy to measure whether or not something was successful. In this context, if a thing made money, it was a success. I'm more interested in, obviously, the effectiveness of reboots. Not what makes them lucrative, but rather what makes them good.

After a good deal of rumination, here's what I came up with.

Reboots have to bring something new to the table, ideally based on whatever major change the writers decided to make. What do you mean by that?" My imaginary audience asks in unison. Well, in order to answer that, let's look at the new, female Thor again, shall we?

Previously, the person who carried the mantle of Thor was a man. Now, the reverse is true. What this means is that Lady Thor has to be a character in her own right. If your rebooted character acts exactly the same as their previous incarnation, then there's no point in rebooting said character in the first place. The new version must respond to stimuli differently than those that came before her. She must make her own decisions. Essentially, the rebooted character has to be able to stand on their own.

This is a very difficult task, because if the rebooted character abandons the essence of her predecessor, then she sort of ceases to be that character at all. This results in a kind of balancing act, wherein the new character must be different while still maintaining a significant link to the original. Finding that happy medium is, in my humble opinion, the most important part of any reboot.

To do this, try to identify the most important aspect of the original character. Once you know what really makes them tick, you can play with that in interesting ways. Explore traits in as many new areas as possible. If rebooted characters must respond to stimuli in new ways, confront them with new stimuli. We’ve never seen the real Thor react to a giant, fire-breathing rabbit rampaging around the city, so putting Lady Thor in that context helps make her into a new person. Make sure to maintain some of Thor's machismo, though. The link still needs to exist.

Just something to think about.

(For those interested, my initial post about Lady Thor and diversity is here.)

Why I Love Star Trek

All of the best science fiction, in my humble opinion, is that which introduces the reader, or watcher, or whatever, to scenarios or ideas that they would not otherwise encounter. Or, failing that, places philosophical questions that are not uncommon into a context that allows them to be viewed from an alternate perspective.

Star Trek does this with an unparalleled frequency and zeal. While one could argue that the various incarnations of Star Trek are more or less philosophical than others, I think there is good philosophy in every Star Trek series. I don't agree with all of it, but I think every question the show raises is worth exploring, if only for curiosity's sake.

The Original Series of course dealt with a lot of the social and political issues of the 1960s, but the other shows seemed rather interested in exploring the more abstract, ubiquitous philosophical questions that stood the test of time, as it were. These are questions that everyone who has ever lived has asked themselves at some point or another. They're questions that, in some cases, still have yet to be answered.

One example that comes to mind is the Star Trek: The Next Generation episode "The Measure of a Man," which explores the question of whether the android Data was a Starfleet officer, or whether he was really just Starfleet property. In it, Data expresses certain wishes and seems to have a will of his own, but at the same time, he has no emotions. It isn't as if denying him those wishes would cause him any kind of suffering.

This episode was one of many that explored interesting ideas and morally ambiguous questions.

Interestingly, my favorite episode of Star Trek that deals with morality comes from a series that is often regarded as the worst of the bunch. It's an episode of Enterprise called "Cogenitor." Enterprise as a series takes place at a time in Starfleet history before the Prime Directive was ratified, and this episode explores some of the reasons why non-interference became such an important value for the Federation.

On the one hand, it asks, "Well, shouldn't you intervene if you see some injustice occurring?" It does this while also wondering whether it is a wise idea to interfere with a culture that you don't entirely understand. And what I really like about this episode and the show as a whole, is that while it leans in the direction of non-interfeerence, it leaves the question a little bit open, so that the viewer has agency. We are exposed to new ways of thinking, but it is left up to us what we do with the knowledge we are given.

That's why I love Star Trek.

Just something to think about.

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.

Objective Morality

As some of you may know, I do not believe in an objective sense of morality. But more than that, I know that there is no objective sense of morality. There are a number of reasons for this, so let's go over a few of them today.

Because i do not base my morality on anything objective, everything I do, whether I think it's right or wrong, is entirely based on how I feel about it. Anything that does not conform to my standards of morality, I consider to be immoral. As far as I'm concerned, the only morality in this world is mine. It's really just that easy.

Well, it's easy for me, anyway. But the fact that there are so many people, from all around the world, who seem to disagree with me, only confirms the fact that there is no objective morality. If there was an objective morality, we would not be arguing over whether or not it was okay to kill children, or circumcise baby girls, or rape women. There would be no debate about whether or not it was okay to stone someone to death, or to own slaves. We would all just know, instinctively, that these things are wrong. We wouldn't have to fight about these things, we just wouldn't do them.

Now, there is a form of morality that rests outside of me, and in some cases differs from my conception of what is moral. I'm talking here about societal morality. But even then, from society to society, we all believe different things. The Nazis believed that it was moral and just to exterminate the Jews. Even during World War Two, within Nazi Germany, there were people who stood up and fought against this idea. Shouldn't the Nazis have just known that it was wrong to kill millions of people, Perhaps. But there was a certain percentage of people who did not know this, and therefore, objective morality cannot and does not exist.

This is further evidenced by the fact that there are those who operate outside of morality entirely. Stalin is a perfect example of how somebody can exist without a moral code, and still live with themselves. That's how sociopaths work. There is no objective morality.

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.

Pope Francis and Climate Change

So Pope Francis recently wrote a paper on climate change, wherein he stated that all the data points to three things. The first is that climate change is a real thing that is actually happening. I didn't think this needed to be said, but apparently I was wrong. Just shows what happens when I act as if humanity is not populated entirely by dense, knuckle-dragging mongoloids. Damn you, optimism!

Anyway, the data also says that climate change is harmful, and that action needs to be taken in order to prevent its effects from worsening even further. Again, I figured this was obvious. Again I am wrong.

Finally, the numbers point to humanity as the number-one cause of climate change. The planet is fucked, and we are all collectively responsible for this fact. I guess our species really is idiotic. Would you look at that? I was right about something for once!

So after Pope Francis pointed all this out to us, and urged the proper authorities to take meaningful action on the issue, people flipped their shit. Most of these people were the uber-religious right-wing type, which really should not have surprised me as much as it did. There were two narratives these assholes pushed, none of which is particularly accurate. Nor are they all that different from one another, come to think of it. They're both bullshit, anyway.

People like Greg Guttfeild, the 'comedian' on Fox News, claimed that Pope Francis is not an authority on science, and so the church should stay out of the discussion. In essence, he should've left the science to the scientists. That's odd. He wasn't saying that when creationists wanted to teach their crackpot theory in high school science classes, now was he? That seems a tad hypocritical to me.

And, also, his argument is factually incorrect. Pope Francis is leaving the science to the scientists. Everything he said in that document is corroborated by data and scientific consensus. Pope Francis is merely agreeing with it. He recognizes that the Church holds immense power and influence over the common people. He has elected to use that power for good, and that's awesome.

The other talking point these people spewed forth from the depths of hell is that public opinion skews against climate change. The American people don't support taking action against it, so therefore we shouldn't do it.

Quite frankly, I have no fucking idea where this is coming from. This shows that the people, by and large, support action in regards to climate change. But even so, who gives a shit? Climate change is an objective reality. It's a fact. You don't get to have fucking opinions on facts. Just trust the scientists, okay?

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.

The Lesser of Two Evils

I've heard a lot of people, particularly on the left, who have become disillusioned by the political process, and thus have ceased the practice of voting. I think there are a host of legitimate reasons to take  this position. However, the most common one I hear is not. I'd like to talk about that today.

The way I hear this point summed up most commonly is that the political candidates are all the same. the Democratic party has become conservative. they're center-left, of course, but they exhibit the same kind of corporatism that their opposition in the Republican party does. This is true to some extent. After all, President Obama made ninety percent of the Bush tax cuts permanent. This is a profoundly conservative move, proof of which can be found here.

Events like these will often lead the above disenfranchised people to say something along the lines of, "That's why I stopped voting. I didn't want to keep electing the lesser of two evils."

Do I even need to explain the problem with this argument? It's the fucking lesser of two evils. Someone is going to be elected no matter what happens. One person not voting isn't going to change that. In fact, not voting is probably the worst thing you can do if you want to send a message. The whole point of democracy is that the people must have a way to send a message to their elected representative. You know how we send those messages? We fucking vote. That's how you affect change, by electing candidates who have views that will better the nation. But sometimes boring establishment people win the nomination. Sometimes the choices aren't radical enough. You know what we do then? We vote for the lesser of two evils. As I said, someone's gonna get elected either way, it might as well be the person closest to the correct one, especially if the precisely correct one is nowhere to be found.

Just something to think about.

Censorship and Jerry Seinfeld

I recently went to see Jerry Seinfeld perform a comedy show. I thought he was excellent, and I was also a huge fan of his television show. His comedy matters to me.

That's why I was rather nonplussed when he said that he would no longer perform at colleges, given that they are too politically correct, or 'PC.' Here's the thing that weirded me out about that. Jerry's comedy isn't fucking edgey. He does observational humor, and I would've felt comfortable taking my kid to that show. It baffles me that anyone would be offended by any of his jokes.

In light of that, there are two distinct possibilities, two collections of events that could have transpired which caused him to make that decision. Either somebody got pissed at a joke that he made based on a misunderstanding of the material. That is to say, someone became angry over subtext in a joke, when said subtext was not intended. I will concede that this is plausible, but again, the material that he used at the show I attended was in no way offensive. I find it exceedingly unlikely that any rational, thinking person would ever describe him as being 'non-PC.' But maybe the material he used at the college was different from that which he used at my show. I have no way of knowing that.

Which leads me to what I consider to be the more likely possibility. Jerry Seinfeld is a sniveling, whining little asshole. By that, I mean that his joke didn't land, and he got pissed about it. Then he went out of his way to blame anyone but himself for the failure he committed.

Look, let me be clear. I do not agree with censorship in any form, least of all in the context of a comedy show. The jokes that a comedian tells are not necessarily indicative of his real feelings on a subject. His persona onstage is merely an act, intended to illicit laughter from the audience. It cannot be offensive, in my view, because it is comedy. If the humor employed by shock-value comedians like Daniel Tosh offends you, then it is your responsibility to avoid that sort of humor. You cannot force a comic to change his act. You can educate, and engage in constructive debate, but if he chooses to ignore your suggestions, then that is completely within his right. He has a right to peddle the sort of product that he wants, to the market demographic he desires. If that demo does not include you, then suck it up and deal. No one is forcing you to listen to comedians you don't like.

But, in a way, the same goes for comedians. It's still about personal responsibility. If a joke you make onstage doesn't land, it is his responsibility to evaluate why. He must place the blame on himself, and examine his material from a logical standpoint. If he discovers flaws in his act, he can change them to appeal to a broader subset of people. And if he wants to keep pleasing his current audience, that's fine too. But in the context of entertainment, my original point still stands. Both parties are personally responsible for their own actions.

Just something to think about.

Drugs

There's been something of a shift among progressive circles recently, and now many popular figures on the left are advocating for the abolition of prohibition. That is to say, they are in favor of the legalization, or at least the decriminalization, of all drugs. Their primary argument is that the cost of prohibition is exceedingly expensive, and that the sentencing laws for nonviolent drug offenses are so long as to ruin people's lives. And, near as I can tell, both of those things are objectively factual. Further, anti-prohibitionists claim that, by legalizing, taxing, and regulating substances, we would take power away from violent cartels and ensure that the substances circulating are safe and nonfatal.

Here  is a Web site which contains data about the drug war and determines that a progressive drug policy is the best fix for the problems outlined above.

The argument against is that drugs are not good for you. At least, that's one argument I hear from both the opposing left as well as the right. This is a bullshit argument, of course. Hamburgers are not good for you, should we criminalize those? If you want to criminalize something, you must take into account a whole lot more than whether it is or is not 'good for you,' whatever the fuck that even means. Snatching away and criminalizing everything that might possibly be bad for some segment of the population is, as outlined above, expensive as hell. It also needlessly ruins people's lives, and often ends up causing way more harm than it prevents.

Are there some drugs that are so harmful that they are worth the cost, both monetarily and otherwise, of criminalization? Perhaps. But the mere fact that something is unhealthy is not enough reason to ban it entirely.

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.

Are Babies Atheists?

I've seen an info-graphic circulating around the Web recently, particularly in atheist spaces. It depicts an infant, and then below that, the words: 'you don't become an atheist. You go back to being one.'

That statement is clearly meant to imply that, since babies have no concept of a god, they must be atheists. Hence, you go back to being one.

This is a bullshit claim, and it doesn't take very long to refute. So let's do that right now. Say it with me, "LOW HANGING FRUIT!"

Babies aren't atheists for the same reason that proponents of the above theory claim that they are. I know that sounds weird, and it is, but just bear with me for a minute. This'll all make sense in time. Atheism as a viewpoint is entirely dependent upon theism to exist. That is to say, if there were no theists, there would be no atheists. The only reason that atheists are able to reject theistic claims is because we were introduced to them first. Without the concept of a deity imparted to us, we would never know how to refute said claims, nor would there be a reason for us to do so.

That's why babies don't meet the definition of atheism. Atheists lack a belief in God, but babies do not. It is impossible for them to make any decisions about their theological positions because they have no context on which to base those decisions. It would perhaps be accurate to state that babies are secular, as in wholly nonreligious, but they are not atheistic. They can't be, because they don't know who or what God is yet.

Just something to think about.

Was Reagan Crazy?

Was Reagan Crazy?

Yes. This is clear. He advocated for an economic policy that, objectively, cannot work. Trickle-down economics states that granting tax cuts to the wealthiest corporate magnates will eventually lead to greater wealth for the workers employed by said corporations, and indeed all workers. This is provably false, as when you give the rich more money, it will invariably go towards lining their own pockets. Further, economist Steven Zydar conducted a study that showed that tax cuts for the wealthy do not create jobs. So, Reagan was quite clearly politically insane. He didn't care about facts, and neither do his disciples in the modern Republican party.

But that's not what I wanted to talk about today. Ronald Reagan, who ran our country for four years, was goddamned obsessed with the concept of an alien invasion. In an infamous speech to the UN, he hypothesized that an extraterrestrial threat would help to unify the world. He claimed that the invasion would force us to put aside our differences as we worked to save the entirety of the human race.

The speech can be found, in video form, here.

For the purposes of this examination, we're going to ignore the implausibility of there ever being intelligent life outside of Earth, let alone life that represents a significant threat to the human race. Let's assume that aliens are a known quantity. The invasion is inevitable.

So, the question remains. Is this an accurate statement? Does Reagan's idea about the invasion make any sense?

I think it does. Sure, in the beginning, mass panic would cause people to revert back to their primal, animalistic states. It would most likely be every man for himself for some amount of time. Society would, in all likelihood, devolve into loosely-connected bands of roving looters, struggling to survive and doing so by any means necessary.

But, eventually, we would all realize that a lawless, purely individual societies are doomed to fail, In fact, they aren't societies at all. In the wake of the invasion, amid the death and destruction, humanity would have to come together on a larger scale, and rebuild civilization itself from the ground up. In that scenario, there's no place for bigotry of any kind. Everyone must pitch in, so exclusion of any group spells death. Humanity will need all the help it can get, and the unity that arises will be unparalleled.

That's assuming that things like race, gender, and sexual orientation are even on people's minds after the fall of civilization. Nobody gives a shit about your politics when there are giant green men coming to eat everyone. When survival is not a guarantee, there simply isn't enough room left in your brain to think about such trivial things.

All of this is a long-winded way of saying that, no, Reagan was not talking out of his ass in that video. That's surprising, I know, but there's a first time for everything, I suppose.

Then again, maybe I'm an idiot. Perhaps my idealistic optimism is clouding my judgement about human nature. Perhaps, in the aftermath of the invasion, our dividing factors would be more important than ever. Maybe, without the glue of compulsory participation in society holding us together, each group would split into their own separate nation-states. Societies then would only be made up of like-minded people who banded together out of choice, rather than necessity. Then all the groups would wage perpetual war with one another over the planet's scant natural resources. Maybe I'm giving the human race too much credit.

Just something to think about.

Humanists Behind Bars

Recently, an inmate in a correctional facility in Oregon sued the prison for the right to practice his 'religion of humanism.' The Federal Bureau of Prisons recognized his plea. This means that, for the purpose of the prison system, humanism is considered a religion. This new designation affords humanist prisoners the right to form study groups, hire chaplains, and speak to philosophers.much in the same way that Christian inmates would be allowed to hire priests.

This seems to be following the US Army's example of recognizing humanism as a 'religious choice.'

Now, many atheists, most of whom refer to themselves as secular humanists, take this as a mixed blessing. And, honestly, I can sort of see where they're coming from. After all, humanism is not a religion, and recognizing it a such might contribute to the collapse of the already tumultuous relationship between outspoken atheists and conservative Christians. After all, we've spent years correctly denying the claim that atheism is a religion, and now it is being recognized as such. At least it is in one specific context.

So, doesn't this designation sort of undermine our push for scientific literacy and reason? We claim that said push is not about furthering a religious agenda, and this law seems to be in direct opposition to that claim.

In this context, I don't think it does. See, this isn't really about the classification of humanism. It isn't a religion, but I don't think designating it as such here will actually contribute to misinformation among theists. At least, not among those theists who still have functioning brains. There aren't many, but they're out there. My point here is that calling humanism a religion is a means to an end. If there were a way to get around that, I'm sure prison officials would have taken that path. But I don't know. Maybe I'm giving these people too much credit.

Or rather I would be, were it not for the fact that this case does not designate humanism as a religion. It explicitly calls it a religious choice, as the US Army did. This is not the same as a religion. I think it can best be summed it with a quote from Bill Maher. "Atheism is religion like abstinence is a sex position." Yes, these two things are very different, but they're on the same spectrum. Opposite ends of it, sure, but the same spectrum nonetheless.

This case is not about religion. It's about whether or not secular humanists are entitled to the same protections under law as religious folks. Quite simply, this is a matter of human rights. The FBP was sued by the American Humanist Association, and they agreed to acknowledge humanism as a worldview, rather than a religion. So, really, the argument against this is meaningless.

This decision allows humanists in prison to request time and space for activities, the right to form study and debate groups, and many other things. Before, only theists had these rights. This breaks down the barrier between special religious rights and opens the door for debate and discussion. This is about equality. We have to focus on that, rather than the technical label.

Just something to think about.

The Thing About Symbols

I like Christmas. The fire crackling in the hearth, the stockings stuffed to the brim with candy and gifts. The tree standing there, ornaments glittering in the light. It is regal and grand, a symbol of the season. It is proud, and it fills me with a sense of belonging, of hope.

That is, until I get to the top. The angel on high, looking down on me from her kingdom in heaven. They tell me I am loved, and that she serves as a reminder. I can tell none of them ever paid attention in English class. Show, don’t tell. If I am valued, it is not enough to say it. Be there for me in times of crisis, let me know it will be okay. Only then will I feel as though I matter.

The illusion is further shattered when I look back at history. Throughout time, the angel has been used to torture and oppress in the name of freedom. It has been forged into a weapon, a tool of dehumanization. How can it make me feel loved if it forces me to change who I am?

The Last Will and Testament of Me

How do these things always start? “Being of sound mind and body?” Is that a requirement, because I’ve been having trouble with that lately. I guess this thing has to get done eventually, and there’s no time like the present. I don’t have much in the way of concrete possessions, nor do I have some nugget of invaluable wisdom to impart from beyond the grave. Assuming, that is, that such a place exists.

If there’s one thing I can say, one piece of advice that I want to leave you with, it is this: Get over yourself. Take a step back. Stop focusing on your life for just a moment, and talk to somebody else. Talk about something different.

As people, we have a tendency to put this notion of individuality on a pedestal. Uniqueness is our most precious commodity, and that’s fine. That’s natural. But take one second to break that barrier, to let go of the idea of you. Exist as part of the crowd. Be a cog in the machine of human experience. You might not hate what you find.

Also, cremate me. Whatever.