sexism

"Most men are not worthy"

Tony Thompson, , , , , , , , 1 Comment

In a 2009 San Diego Comic-Con panel on the DC mini series Blackest Night, longtime Green Lantern scribe Geoff Johns (and writer of Blackest Night) discussed his plans for that mini-series, including his plans for the various Corps he had created. Johns had already expanded the Green Lantern mythos by introducing the ‘emotional spectrum‘ (an energy field fueled by the emotions of all sentient beings). He explored this emotional spectrum by creating various multi-colored (and powered) Corps. The new Lantern Corps harnessed the power of the Red Light of Rage (the Red Lantern Corps), the Orange Light of Avarice (Larfleeze and Agent Orange), the Blue Light of Hope (the Blue Lantern Corps), and the Indigo Light of Compassion (the Indigo Tribe). These were in addition to the already existing Green Light of Will (the Green Lantern Corps), the Yellow Light of Fear (the Sinestro Corps), and the Violet Aura of Love (the Star Sapphires).

 

Like the Red Light, the placement of the Violet Light at the far end of the Emotional Spectrum means it can have a particularly overwhelming influence on the minds of those who wield it. The power of the Violet Light was discovered by the Zamarons, who found the remains of two embracing lovers fossilized in violet crystal. Their first attempt to harness this power proved its overwhelming effects, as the original Star Sapphires possessed a rabid obsession in their pursuit of love. The Zamarons have since refined their methods for channeling the Violet Light with their new Star Sapphire Corps through new Star Sapphire Rings and Batteries fueled from a massive super battery on Zamaron.

The title of this post refers to a comment made by Geoff Johns in that Comic-Con panel: “Male Star Saphires [sic]? “Anyone can join,” Johns said, “but most men are not worthy,”. To be a Star Sapphire, one must be chosen by a violet ring. Violet rings search out a host who has great love in their heart. So in Johns’ eyes, most men in the DCU don’t have great love in their heart, but women do.  This statement strikes me as yet another layer of sexism on top of the Star Sapphires, who have almost always (until recently) been female. The notion that women are driven by their nature to find love (and a husband) is one rooted in archaic gender roles.  “Women as nurturing, loving, supporters, driven by emotion.” “Men as strong-willed, courageous, driven by logic.” To have women being the ones driven by love…overwhelmed by love…rabidly obsessed by love…it all plays into stereotypical roles of women in society and how women are ruled by their hearts (and men by their minds or sexuality). I don’t think that Johns set out to define the Star Sapphires according to regressive ideas of femininity (and he didn’t create the Star Sapphire character, who had existed in various forms for over half a century before Johns created the Star Sapphire Corps).  Given that he is a product of a society permeated with stereotypes of women and men, I think his ideas were informed by our culture.  Nonetheless, one of the end results of his quest to infuse new ideas into the Green Lantern mythos was, paradoxically, a Corps that was a collection of cliched, stereotypical, sexist ideas about women. He could have offset this by balancing the other Corps with more women (with the exception of the Orange Lanterns, while there are women in all the other multi-colored Corps, they are overwhelmingly male) and/or including men in the Star Sapphires.  I tend to think doing both would have worked best, as it would have shown that love is not a feminine emotion and that other emotions are not the near exclusive domain of men. Johns’ comment about most men being unworthy of being a Star Sapphire is ridiculous.  Here in the real world, both women and men are often driven (even overwhelmed at times) by love. Women and men have great love in their hearts. It’s an insult to men to say that most of them lack the capacity to have great love in their hearts.  Men are not loveless meatsacks filled with logic and driven by their dicks.  They have the capacity to experience great love. You wouldn’t know this by looking at the Star Sapphires though (and where are the droves of Men’s Rights Advocates to complain about this legitimate slight against men?):

 

As noted above, the all-female Star Sapphire Corps is about to gain one more member, a man. Specifically, John Stewart, one of the five Green Lanterns of Earth.  

Geoff Johns is no longer steering the Green Lantern titles, so I guess someone had the idea to bring John Stewart into the Star Sapphires. I haven’t been following the books at all (yes, I continue to boycott the new 52 because of the reboot), so I don’t know what’s been going on with John, but if this makes sense in-story, then that’s all that matters. The addition of John Stewart to the Sapphire Corps highlights another problematic element of the wielders of the violet light. Take a look at John Stewart’s costume above. Now scroll up a bit and look at the costumes on the female Star Sapphires. Notice anything?  Yup. The women’s costumes show a lot of skin. They’re sexualized. They’re meant to be sexy looking women, bc lots of skin=sexy, right (although things are gradually changing, comics is still largely a male dominated industry, so images of so-called ‘sexy’ women are filtered through the lens of what men think is sexy on a woman; which is different than a woman’s idea of looking sexy. I’d be curious to know what type of sexy costume a female artist would come up with)? Why then, is John not showing a lot of skin? Is he not meant to be sexy?  Are only female SS Corps members supposed to be sexualized?  Why is that? Oh yeah, bc comics are still marketed largely to men, so women in comics get to be sexualized, while men don’t. Male characters get to be buff, manly, male power fantasies while female characters get to be objects of the male gaze.  If John Stewart were truly to become a member of the Star Sapphire Corps, he ought to receive a costume that is meant to be as titillating as the female Sapphires*. He ought to receive a costume similar to this (NSFW).  But that would only happen if all things were equal between men and women in comics.  Which they aren’t (reason #3489 in ‘Why Feminism is still necessary’).

 

*I realize that John is still wearing his Green Lantern ring, so it’s possible the conflicting rings are an in-story reason why his attire isn’t as revealing as the other Star Sapphires.  Still.  Double standard.  Plus, this:

Chang: There was actually a handful of different designs that I had submitted, some that were more based on his Green Lantern outfit but had some pink accents to it — even a hybrid of both — because he still had the Green Lantern ring on at the same time. There was even one where he was almost shirtless, because the Star Sapphires don’t have a lot of clothing on them. So I thought maybe John would be pseudo-shirtless and half-naked. But at the end we ended up going with this. It’s a little more. A lot of the lines are pretty jagged. I think that has something to do with the recent turmoil that he’d experienced. But the green energy is still very fluid on his exterior. So I think there’s a nice counterbalance, ultimately, with the final design that is uniform but exudes energy.

Also, one day, I saw Van without his shirt on. That was the influence for the initial John design. [Laughs] Luckily, the editors said, “Maybe we should stick with something a little bit more conservative.”

 

"Most men are not worthy"
{advertisement}

“Most men are not worthy”

Tony Thompson, , , , , , , , 1 Comment

In a 2009 San Diego Comic-Con panel on the DC mini series Blackest Night, longtime Green Lantern scribe Geoff Johns (and writer of Blackest Night) discussed his plans for that mini-series, including his plans for the various Corps he had created. Johns had already expanded the Green Lantern mythos by introducing the ‘emotional spectrum‘ (an energy field fueled by the emotions of all sentient beings). He explored this emotional spectrum by creating various multi-colored (and powered) Corps. The new Lantern Corps harnessed the power of the Red Light of Rage (the Red Lantern Corps), the Orange Light of Avarice (Larfleeze and Agent Orange), the Blue Light of Hope (the Blue Lantern Corps), and the Indigo Light of Compassion (the Indigo Tribe). These were in addition to the already existing Green Light of Will (the Green Lantern Corps), the Yellow Light of Fear (the Sinestro Corps), and the Violet Aura of Love (the Star Sapphires).

 

Like the Red Light, the placement of the Violet Light at the far end of the Emotional Spectrum means it can have a particularly overwhelming influence on the minds of those who wield it. The power of the Violet Light was discovered by the Zamarons, who found the remains of two embracing lovers fossilized in violet crystal. Their first attempt to harness this power proved its overwhelming effects, as the original Star Sapphires possessed a rabid obsession in their pursuit of love. The Zamarons have since refined their methods for channeling the Violet Light with their new Star Sapphire Corps through new Star Sapphire Rings and Batteries fueled from a massive super battery on Zamaron.

The title of this post refers to a comment made by Geoff Johns in that Comic-Con panel: “Male Star Saphires [sic]? “Anyone can join,” Johns said, “but most men are not worthy,”. To be a Star Sapphire, one must be chosen by a violet ring. Violet rings search out a host who has great love in their heart. So in Johns’ eyes, most men in the DCU don’t have great love in their heart, but women do.  This statement strikes me as yet another layer of sexism on top of the Star Sapphires, who have almost always (until recently) been female. The notion that women are driven by their nature to find love (and a husband) is one rooted in archaic gender roles.  “Women as nurturing, loving, supporters, driven by emotion.” “Men as strong-willed, courageous, driven by logic.” To have women being the ones driven by love…overwhelmed by love…rabidly obsessed by love…it all plays into stereotypical roles of women in society and how women are ruled by their hearts (and men by their minds or sexuality). I don’t think that Johns set out to define the Star Sapphires according to regressive ideas of femininity (and he didn’t create the Star Sapphire character, who had existed in various forms for over half a century before Johns created the Star Sapphire Corps).  Given that he is a product of a society permeated with stereotypes of women and men, I think his ideas were informed by our culture.  Nonetheless, one of the end results of his quest to infuse new ideas into the Green Lantern mythos was, paradoxically, a Corps that was a collection of cliched, stereotypical, sexist ideas about women. He could have offset this by balancing the other Corps with more women (with the exception of the Orange Lanterns, while there are women in all the other multi-colored Corps, they are overwhelmingly male) and/or including men in the Star Sapphires.  I tend to think doing both would have worked best, as it would have shown that love is not a feminine emotion and that other emotions are not the near exclusive domain of men. Johns’ comment about most men being unworthy of being a Star Sapphire is ridiculous.  Here in the real world, both women and men are often driven (even overwhelmed at times) by love. Women and men have great love in their hearts. It’s an insult to men to say that most of them lack the capacity to have great love in their hearts.  Men are not loveless meatsacks filled with logic and driven by their dicks.  They have the capacity to experience great love. You wouldn’t know this by looking at the Star Sapphires though (and where are the droves of Men’s Rights Advocates to complain about this legitimate slight against men?):

 

As noted above, the all-female Star Sapphire Corps is about to gain one more member, a man. Specifically, John Stewart, one of the five Green Lanterns of Earth.  

Geoff Johns is no longer steering the Green Lantern titles, so I guess someone had the idea to bring John Stewart into the Star Sapphires. I haven’t been following the books at all (yes, I continue to boycott the new 52 because of the reboot), so I don’t know what’s been going on with John, but if this makes sense in-story, then that’s all that matters. The addition of John Stewart to the Sapphire Corps highlights another problematic element of the wielders of the violet light. Take a look at John Stewart’s costume above. Now scroll up a bit and look at the costumes on the female Star Sapphires. Notice anything?  Yup. The women’s costumes show a lot of skin. They’re sexualized. They’re meant to be sexy looking women, bc lots of skin=sexy, right (although things are gradually changing, comics is still largely a male dominated industry, so images of so-called ‘sexy’ women are filtered through the lens of what men think is sexy on a woman; which is different than a woman’s idea of looking sexy. I’d be curious to know what type of sexy costume a female artist would come up with)? Why then, is John not showing a lot of skin? Is he not meant to be sexy?  Are only female SS Corps members supposed to be sexualized?  Why is that? Oh yeah, bc comics are still marketed largely to men, so women in comics get to be sexualized, while men don’t. Male characters get to be buff, manly, male power fantasies while female characters get to be objects of the male gaze.  If John Stewart were truly to become a member of the Star Sapphire Corps, he ought to receive a costume that is meant to be as titillating as the female Sapphires*. He ought to receive a costume similar to this (NSFW).  But that would only happen if all things were equal between men and women in comics.  Which they aren’t (reason #3489 in ‘Why Feminism is still necessary’).

 

*I realize that John is still wearing his Green Lantern ring, so it’s possible the conflicting rings are an in-story reason why his attire isn’t as revealing as the other Star Sapphires.  Still.  Double standard.  Plus, this:

Chang: There was actually a handful of different designs that I had submitted, some that were more based on his Green Lantern outfit but had some pink accents to it — even a hybrid of both — because he still had the Green Lantern ring on at the same time. There was even one where he was almost shirtless, because the Star Sapphires don’t have a lot of clothing on them. So I thought maybe John would be pseudo-shirtless and half-naked. But at the end we ended up going with this. It’s a little more. A lot of the lines are pretty jagged. I think that has something to do with the recent turmoil that he’d experienced. But the green energy is still very fluid on his exterior. So I think there’s a nice counterbalance, ultimately, with the final design that is uniform but exudes energy.

Also, one day, I saw Van without his shirt on. That was the influence for the initial John design. [Laughs] Luckily, the editors said, “Maybe we should stick with something a little bit more conservative.”

 

“Most men are not worthy”

The creator of Dilbert is an oblivious d00d

Tony Thompson, 3 Comments

(Hat tip to Tauriq Moosa at The Indelible Stamp)

Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, shares his thoughts on the recent catcalling video that highlighted the problem of street harassment.  Spoiler: he’s an entitled, oblivious, privileged twit.

As regular readers know, I am a big fan of the feminist movement through history. A lot of brave people sacrificed and worked hard to move society toward greater equality. That was all good stuff. And the problem of sexism was so large a few decades ago that you really did need to approach it with a sledgehammer and not a scalpel.

But in 2014, sexism is not so much the “can’t vote” type of problem it once was. It’s more of the “Someone is making me uncomfortable” or “I think my gender played a role in a decision” or “I can’t tell if this is a business meeting or a date” sort of thing.

Right off the bat, we see how ignorant he is of the problem of sexism.  He thinks all the big stuff is out of the way and sexism is relatively minor. Uh-huh. Mmm-hmm. Right. Ok. Sure.  <—-All those links? First page of a Google search for “examples of sexism in the United States”. They weren’t hard to find.  I just had to take about 10 seconds to search and BAM!  Adams really ought to do the same thing.

So today we have pockets of sexism as opposed to universal sexism, at least in the United States. That is still bad, obviously, but the point is that in 2014 feminists need to use a scalpel instead of a sledgehammer. And to use a scalpel you need some feedback on how the cutting is going. I am here to help

“Pockets of sexism”?

WTF?! Google. Search. Not. Hard. Go. Now.

One of the huge obstacles to successful feminism today is that there is no useful feedback on how their message is doing with men. Men have been trained to keep their heads down when this topic comes up. And that is a great disservice to women who need to know whether they are being heard on this topic, and whether the message is effective.

The hell is this?! I don’t even…

If men have been trained to keep their heads down on the topic of feminism or sexism, then they have failed. Utterly. So bad that they don’t get just an ‘F’. They get a ‘F’-squared. Men most certainly do not keep their thoughts to themselves.  Every single article about sexism or feminism I’ve read online has men who chime in with their thoughts and a great many of those comments are from men demonstrating why feminism is still necessary.

My first reaction is that editing ten hours down to two minutes is so overtly manipulative of the viewer that I had a bad reaction to it. I understand why they had to edit; no one watches ten hour videos. But while the video clearly states it is edited, the human brain still processes it as if it is in real time. My emotional reaction to the video is a reaction to a woman being harassed every five seconds, and that is not what happened.

I don’t understand why this is a problem. The focus of the video was on how men harass women on the street. The video showed examples of this. You don’t need to see all 10 hours of the video to understand this. Does he think there’s some wider context that he needs to better understand the problem? Or does he think that some greater context will explain the actions of the men and make them acceptable? If so, he is quite mistaken. There’s no context that makes sexism acceptable.

My emotional reaction to the video was not dissimilar to Adams. While I didn’t literally think “a woman is being harassed every 5 seconds”, I did come away thinking “this is shit women deal with every day, everywhere”.  Adams didn’t get this message.

Here’s my actual reaction: “MOVE SOMEWHERE BETTER, YOU IDIOT!”

Here we see how blind he is to the extent of sexism. He thinks there is somewhere that women can move to that they wouldn’t have to deal with street harassment.

Apparently Mr. Adams did not get the memo that Wonder Woman’s birthplace is fictional.

In addition, he thinks that women can just up and move somewhere to avoid street harassment. He gives no thought to how difficult it is to just “up n move” somewhere. He gives no thought to trying to find a job or a home. He gives no thought to women who are in relationships that they don’t want to give up. He gives no thought to women who are married or have children who they would have to consider when trying to move. He seems to think women have the ability to just uproot themselves and go elsewhere (to a place that is magically free of street harassment). Then there’s the biggest problem with his proposed solution:  it shouldn’t be on the shoulders of women to move. They aren’t doing anything wrong. The men who are harassing women? They are the ones doing something wrong. They are the ones who need to stop. They are the ones who need to alter their behavior. But Adams doesn’t think so. At no point does he criticize the men. At no point does he ask men to quit being sexist shitspigots. He never criticizes men.  That’s glaring.

If you can’t see how problematic it is to tell victims of sexism to move, how about if the video documented racism? Would Adams then tell African-American or Hispanic-Americans that they should move to avoid being called racial slurs? What about LGBT people? We face a lot of street harassment too. Where can we move to that street harassment won’t be a problem for us?  Why should we move? Why can’t our harassers stops being assholes and amend their behavior? Why can’t they become better people?

Adams ends his “Feedback for Feminists” with further calls for the victims of street harassment to “Move! Move! Move!” showing that he really doesn’t understand how pervasive the problem is, that he doesn’t think men are doing anything wrong (or that they need to change their behavior), and that women are the ones who should change their lives to avoid being harassed (and he offers no place where they could go or any proof that their harassment would end).

My response to that bullshit?

Hey Scott Adams:

The creator of Dilbert is an oblivious d00d

All the single ladies of 1938, put your hands up

Tony Thompson

Hearken back dear reader, to those days of yesteryear.  Before the iWatch. Before the beeper. Before the Internet (was there such a time?). Take a journey with me, back through the decades to the year of Superman’s birth:  1938.  Btw, male readers, this one is not for you. In fact, you may want to avert thy eyes. For this article is about…

 Dating tips for the single women of 1938

Some of this advice is sensible.  It is common courtesy to be ready at the agreed upon time for a date. It’s rather rude (barring some reasonable explanation) to keep a date waiting. Oh, and unless you’re planning on having dinner in bed (no sexual innuendo there, nosiree), you probably should be dressed by the time your date arrives.  It’s probably a nice idea to try to greet your date with a smile, but I don’t know that it’s essential (if for no other reason than “shit happens” and can put you in a bad mood before a date; I’d rather the person I’m going out with be honest than try to fake being in a great mood). The big problem with this advice is that it’s very female centric. Let’s nip that in the bud.  This is reasonable advice (with a few tweaks) for everyone.  Moving on…

Whoa. Hold up. Before we move on, isn’t this the era of “this is how men and women are supposed to act”? Why the heck is the guy in the image trying to sneak a peek of his date?

I’m sorry, is there one universal awkward position that we’re all supposed to be aware of? I never got that memo. I wonder if anyone else missed out on it? I say sit however the hell you’re comfortable. How a person sits on a date is infinitely less important to me than what kind of person they are.

As for never looking bored, and especially if you are…I don’t think this is a useful tip. What if you are bored? You’re just supposed to sit there and feign interest? That’s not terribly honest.  Granted, I’m not saying it would be a good idea to say “God this shit is boring, can you talk about something else?”, but if you’re interested in the date, but just aren’t into the conversation, speak up. Change the topic.  Use something your date said to springboard onto a different subject.  But to sit there and ‘fake it’? No.

Then there’s the silliness of chewing gum. I guess it has to do with the perception that women are flighty and not serious, but that’s just gender essentialist bullshit. If you want to chew gum, chew the damn gum. If your date has a problem with you chewing gum, that’s a problem they have. And if it’s that big a problem, they can get up and go.

Questions:  Can the guy chew gum?  What if the guy is bored with the conversation?

Why don’t men like that? What else is the darn handkerchief for, anyways (yeah, I know, digging snot out of your nose or wiping sweat from your brow)? In any case, if a man gets that bothered by a woman wiping her lipstick on his handkerchief, then he’s the one who has problems. Not her.  And I don’t think there should be rules on where you can put on makeup. People are going to do it where they feel most comfortable doing it.

I’m starting to think these rules are how “proper ladies” are supposed to act.

Questions:  If a woman didn’t follow these tips, was she not a “proper lady”?  What about women who don’t wear makeup-is that permissible?

Define careless. Then show me the evidence that carelessness affects how a man perceives a woman. Then tell me why a woman should care.

Don’t talk? What if you’re continuing a conversation from dinner? What if it’s a slow dance and the guy is trying to strike up a conversation with you? Are you supposed to sit there and say “I’m going to briefly break the rule on page 30 of the dating guidebook to tell you that I’m not supposed to talk and dance at the same time. I’m not sure why, perhaps the Internet will break in half in 2014 if I do so, but no one has explained the harm in me talking right now, but I’m going to do it anyways. So please don’t be mad if I don’t respond to you until after our dance is completed.”

Gah. I’m going to pull out my hair with this gender role bullshit.

I can understand the rule about wearing a bra. If you feel you need to wear one, wear one. Your choice. Likewise, if you don’t want to, then don’t.

Girdle? What’s that? Just kidding. I know what they are. This just sounds like body shaming and rigid gender rules though. “A woman’s purpose is to find and marry a man. Thus, they need to look their best. To that end, they should wear a constricting girdle so that they maintain that perfect hourglass look. Nevermind dressing for comfort or taste. Dress as you’re told to dammit and don’t stress your pretty pink fluffy ladybrains!”

And oh noez! Wrinkled stockings! He’s not going to marry you now. No man in his right mind would marry a woman with wrinkled stockings!

Questions:  Too damn many! Although I’m really curious why the guy is averting his eyes in the second panel…is he scared of her hair?  A minute ago he was trying to sneak a peek of his date adjusting her stockings. Now he’s shy about seeing her adjust her hair?  Sheesh.

We continue our trip down “Women should concern themselves solely with the needs and desires of the man” lane. I do have to wonder how many times women need to be reminded how to deal with their makeup though. You’d think women would have figured that out, even by 1938. Why, it’s almost like they don’t need not stinkin’ directions on where, when, or how to apply makeup! Heeeey, you don’t think women were able to think for themselves even in the bygone days of the late 30s, do you?

More rigid rules for relationships. Written as if they’re supposed to apply to everyone.  Written as if they’re sensible or reasonable.  Look, if a woman wants to kiss you or caress your hand, she ought to check with you first to see if you’re cool with it. Some people will be. Other’s won’t.  Pretty simple. The rule should be “do I have their consent”, not “what did that Depression era guidebook on dating tell me to do”.

It’s considered bad form (in some circles) to discuss past relationships on a first date, but again, I’m not a fan of hard and fast rules when it comes to dating. I’ve talked about past relationships on first dates. If the subject comes up, why not discuss it? All of that is meant to apply to the people on the date, rather than one member of the date and their waiter/server.  I tend to think it might be rude to discuss past relationships or the good fuck you had last night with your waiter.  But is that something that women really needed to be told? Or is this just another case of policing women’s behavior?

Oh, and while men may desire your attention, no man deserves it. Thinking that way leads to a culture of entitlement where men think they deserve the affections of a woman. That way leads to Rape Culture.

I was going to say it’s all downhill from here, but really, after the first image, it was so far down, I think we’ve reached the bottom of the Marianas Trench by this point (and there are more images to go).

Don’t talk about clothes? You knooooow, guys shop too. Guys buy clothes too. I bet they did it back in 1938 too. If a guy is interested in your clothes, or shopping, or talking about clothes–talk about fucking clothes.

And can we ditch this bullshit about “the man is more important than the woman is”?  I daresay a date is usually about two (or more) people spending time together, and learning about themselves. That means a two way conversation. That means both people talking about their interests. It’s not all about one person or the other.

Also, pleasing and flattering your date just sounds so NOT genuine.  Yes, I think telling your date you find them attractive is a nice thing. Who doesn’t want to hear that? But let it come naturally…genuinely. I think overdoing it can get annoying, but that’s my personal take.  And a lot of things I would do on a date are things other people wouldn’t. I’m glad there are no dating rules (well there have been books written that laid down rules, but I don’t follow those bc interpersonal relationships can’t be broken down into simple rules for all people to follow; we’re too individualistic for that to work).

Whaddaya mean ‘men don’t like tears’?  I know, I know. It’s 1938, and men were strong, righteous, logical, and unemotional.  Any show of emotion in public is a sign that a man is not a man. He’s a woman! And that’s a bad thing. Or some such gender role bullshit. Again!  Heeeeeey! This is a great time to remember that Patriarchy Hurts Men Too (in this case, we see the rigid gender rules in play that state women are emotional and men are not).

I’m shocked!

Shocked I tells ya!

I thought for sure the advice would be “Don’t drink ladies. It’s not proper for a woman to be under the influence of anything but a man.”

As for ‘dignity’, is this something only women have to maintain? Why? Do men have to maintain it too? Is there a whole other advice column for men that’s every bit as sexist as this drivel?

Questions: Since when does drinking make anyone seem clever?  Did the author of this piece of sexist advice ever meet any drunk men? Some of them get pretty damn silly, and I don’t think that’s something unique to 21st century men.

But it’s ok to inconspicuously talk to other men 🙂

How about this:  if you flirt with other men on your date, your date may get annoyed and may not call you again. They may even choose to end the date early.  But you are a grown person, and you are free to do as you like.

All of this “advice” serves nothing more than maintaining social gender roles between men and women. It reinforces the perceived role of women in society: to seek a man, marry him, and father his children. Everything you do should be centered around that. You are to subsume yourself…your dreams…wishes…goals…hopes…desires…to a man.  Ultimately, that prevents the full expression of women. Look, if you want to pursue a man, have at it. That’s up to you.  But equally, if you don’t want to pursue a man–don’t.  You can even pursue a man and a career.  You could pursue a woman and a career. There’s a wealth of opportunity out there available to people when you ditch these rules that say “this is appropriate behavior for men and women”.  Which really needs to happen. Like, now.

All the single ladies of 1938, put your hands up

The new Air Umbrella. Available in HIS and HERS. Because one size does NOT fit all.

Tony Thompson

Do you get tired of carrying around an umbrella?

Is it a hassle to close it up after entering a restaurant?

Do you find it annoying trying to find a spot to put a wet umbrella?

Are you afraid of your umbrella flying away due to a huge gust of wind?

If you have any of these concerns, then I have found the answer for you. Introducing the Air Umbrella:

Just think, no more worrying about where to put that wet umbrella!

No more fiddling to get your umbrella open as you exit the car.

No more worrying about how those little metal prongs on the umbrella always come off.  You too can be protected from the rain with the revolutionary new Air Umbrella! Contribute to the Kickstarter for this awesome new piece of technology designed to make our lives less moist, and you can get the Air Umbrella-a for the low, low price of $88 plus shipping.  Which means you’ll spend a lot more money on the air umbrella than you would on a normal umbrella bought at CVS or Wal-Greens.  If you act now and click on the link to the Kickstarter page, you’ll get treated to this wonderful information:

Air is everywhere on the earth. The flowing air can change the moving path of the object. The faster the air moves, the greater the energy is. The jet airflow can isolate some objects. So when we make use of the airflow, we can protect ourselves from the rain drops. Then the airflow forms an umbrella without a visible cover.

Based on this idea, we designed various types of air umbrella with postgraduates from Nanjing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics from July in 2012 to August in 2013.We also tested the air umbrellas on rainy days.

Luckily, one of our samples achieved the goal of protecting one or even more persons from the rain in the test in November 2012. But the product still needed more improvement. As the sample was designed to take a large amount of airflow, the top was big, which didn’t achieve the portable characteristic.

To design a better looking product, we cooperated with a few PhD graduates from  Beijing University of Aeronautics andAstronautics to improve the design. After a year’s hard work, we finally improved the appearance of the umbrella which may influence the effect. But at least, we could really use it outdoor on rainy days.

Yeah, all of that is good, but here’s the good stuff:

Air umbrella-a is available for female,It is about 30  centimeters  in  length and 500 grams in weight,It is not scalable.The battery life is about 15 minutes.

This is Air Umbrella-a:

The female Air Umbrella. Why is it called that? I have not one fucking clue.

But wait, there’s more:

Air umbrella-b:it is the basic style.The umbrella is 50 centimeters in length and 800 grams in weight.The battery life is about 30 minutes.

That’s right ladies. You apparently cannot handle an additional 20 centimeters in length and we all know the wimmenz cannot carry 800 grams.  Gotta have something shorter and not so heavy for women, eh? Don’t worry about rushing to look up grams to pounds.  800 grams is roughly…1.76 pounds. Yeah, that’s really heavy.

Here’s a picture of the more manly Air Umbrella-b:

Disclaimer:  No sexist attitudes were involved in the creation of this device.

The new Air Umbrella. Available in HIS and HERS. Because one size does NOT fit all.

Pop Culture Link Round Up 10.9.14

Tony Thompson, , , 5 Comments

Any Star Trek fans out there?

Any fans of Star Trek bling?

Thanks to The Mary Sue, I give you: Star Trek jewelry from indie jewelry designers RockLove!

    

* * * *

Archie (yes, that Archie) meets the Predator (yes, that Predator)

 That has to be one of the oddest oddball ideas ever.  I mean, it might be workable, but still…seriously?

* * * *

Fake documentary shows terrifying war against the Martians in 1913

I feel the need to copy Seriously Cat from above.

On its 100th anniversary, The Great Martian War tells the story of the catastrophic events and unimaginable horrors of 1913-17, when Humankind was pitted against a savage Alien invasion.

With powerful and detailed First World War parallels, The Great Martian War fuses sci-fi fantasy with specialist factual history to explore the real-world tragedies and unique horror of World War One.

* * * *

What does your skeleton look like when you’re doing yoga? Watch this video and find out!

* * * *

Read This Teen Girl’s Perfect Response to Rape-Promoting Sex Ed Class

Agatha Tan is a Singaporean teenager who was recently subjected to a sexual education workshop. While sex ed workshops can often be informative and educational, this one was nothing of the sort. It reinforced sexist stereotypes, promoted Rape Culture, and failed to acknowledge the existence of LGBT people.  Tan decided to give her principal a piece of her mind in a lengthy letter posted on Facebook.  Among the many things Tan had to say:

“While I do have many concerns with regards to this workshop and its content which I consider to be pressing, the most pressing is perhaps that the workshop and booklet actively serve to promote rape culture in school.” On the cover page of the booklet itself, it is written, ‘no means yes?’ and ‘yes means no?’ The facilitators from FotF neglected to mention that thinking a girl means ‘yes’ when she says ‘no’ is actually completely wrong. Rather, they spent their four hours with us discussing things such as what a girl ‘really means’ when she says something else, as opposed to guys who are ‘direct’ and “always mean what they say.’ By telling the student population this, FotF sends a dangerous message: that you should always assume that a girl means something else (like ‘yes’) when really she just means ‘no’.”

Incidentally, that FotF that she’s referring to is Focus on the Family, an extremely socially conservative organization that has no place offering sexual education workshops:

Focus on the Family’s stated mission is “nurturing and defending the God-ordained institution of the family and promoting biblical truths worldwide.” It promotes abstinence-only sexual education; adoption by married, opposite-sex parents; creationism; school prayer; and traditional gender roles. It opposes abortion; divorce; gambling; LGBT rights, particularly LGBT adoption and same-sex marriage;pornography; pre-marital sex; and substance abuse.Psychologists, psychiatrists, and social scientists have criticized Focus on the Family for misrepresenting their research to bolster FOTF’s political agenda and ideology.

Thankfully, the workshop will stop by the end of the year. Oh, and just to provide the icing on top of the cake:

However the best actual worst part of this story is that Focus on the Family, the group who conducted this workshop, plagiarized quite a lot of the content. Not just from any old equally terrible sex ed booklet, though — from a humor site. Rape and homophobia, LOL! This makes that birthing video I had to watch in 8th grade look like a cinematic masterpiece.

Pop Culture Link Round Up 10.9.14

Women in Food: Nyesha Arrington

Tony Thompson, 1 Comment

There are not a lot of women who hold head chef positions at independent restaurants in the United States. In fact, only 10 out of 160 positions are held by women (6.3%).  Just like every other industry, as you near the top, you see fewer and fewer women.  That’s not due to a lack of talent-nor desire-on the part of women (there’s a mild degree of irony in the fact that women aren’t present in great numbers as head chefs, yet the classic gender essentialist roles of women have them raising children, cleaning, and…cooking).  Perhaps it’s because restaurant owners aren’t aware of the existence of female chefs. I hear they are very difficult to find.  I had to scour the internet for all of 20 seconds before I found one:  Top Chef alum Nyesha Arrington:

Continue reading “Women in Food: Nyesha Arrington” →

Women in Food: Nyesha Arrington