Apropos of nothing, some short reactions to some newspaper articles I read this morning...

[akujunkan]

Another Western philosopher (re)discovers Buddhism without realising that's what he's doing.

And look, here's someone with a penis here to tell all the wimmins why they aren't happy.

Also: David Brooks compares the Obama administration to Nazi Germany, race baits with the specter of the Savage Black Man ravaging helpless Caucasians, automatically loses argument¹.

Also, fuck you, California.

¹David Brooks, if I ever see you walking down the street I will stop you and rip your balls off. I say this in the same spirit of "jest" as used in your vomitorious op ed above.

That will be all.

Comments

re: fuck you, California

[wombatdeamor.livejournal.com]

those assholes just passed the buck: we'll go with the voters but we won't take a stand on anything so the 18,000 marriages are still legal. There, everybody happy? :) No assholes.

But did you see this unbelievable gold! My opinion is that the ACLU needs to suck it up and stop the small fry strategy that they've been using. I like this. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/28marriage.html?pagewanted=1&sq=gay%20rights&st=cse&scp=4

Re: re: fuck you, California

[akujunkan.livejournal.com]

Absolutely. They're trying to please the rich, spoiled, frightened conservatives (e.g. my aunt and uncle) while not alienating the remainder of the population. No, assholes, indeed.

I saw that, and while the optimist in me thinks it's awesome, the conspiracy cynic thinks it's a ploy to take the fight to the Supreme Court in order to lose it, kinda like the radical religious right's concerted efforts to infiltrate pharmacies in order to deny women access to birth control.

Re: re: fuck you, California

[wombatdeamor.livejournal.com]

I doubt it's a conspiracy, but there is a side of me that hears the ACLU's arguements that this is not the right time for this, because if it goes to the Supreme Court, which is leaning to the right, and likely to stay that way thanks to Obama's gutless choice, it'll get shot down.

But, we may be suprised. If Iowa can pass gay rights legislation, the world's getting better.

[bran420-7.livejournal.com]

I like that he actually suggests why women might be unhappier and then uses rates given in the paper to unjustify them. But perhaps, the equal level of unhappiness has nothing at all to do with the fact we're "womyn" and everything to do with the widening income gap compared to rich, predominately white male, and selfish fuckers the Bush administration coddled. Maybe the fact they they can afford a private jet and three households, while not paying more taxes for them I might add (like the now in place Property Tax Cap in IN), cause us to be less happy. For me it's not just unhappy, since I can't afford healthcare and am at higher risk for cervical cancer knowing I can't afford the screenigs, but anger. Burning, blinding, mind-numbing, screaming, white-hot ANGER.

[akujunkan.livejournal.com]

Good points all. I also think it has to do with the fact that women in the 1950s and 60s felt obligated to say they were happy, because that's what society expected. (Plus, if you said you weren't you were considered sick, frigid, a failure as a woman, with all the social reprobation that entailed, which meant there was a big incentive to lie. As the author would know if he'd actually read The Feminine Mystique.) These days, society is all about airing out your problems to anyone in earshot--sometimes too much so, IMO.

And, like the author mentions (without realising it himself), women's place in society is stuck in a half-assed neither-here-nor-there state. So if you're a liberal, progressive woman, you're gonna be unhappy that the changes haven't gone far enough, but if you're an adherent of quiverfull, you're going to be unhappy precisely because society has liberalized somewhat. In other words, neither side can be entirely happy with the modern situation.

And just so you know, Bran. Anger is apparently very unfeminine. *er*

[bran420-7.livejournal.com]

I'm just wanting to lynch any man who can pretend to understand a fraction of the stereotyping and marginalization that women have to suffer. Remember the quote I found in high school? Something about how the physical, social, and emotional sterotyping begind when the doctor says "It's a girl."

[wombatdeamor.livejournal.com]

My problem is that happy is such a nonscientific terminalogy:

Women: "Do you feel like randomly giving blowjobs?" "No, you're unhappy."

Men: "Do you wish women gave random blowjobs" "yes? You're happy."

[akujunkan.livejournal.com]

Right, and there's a host of other factors involved too, like whether or not you even feel comfortable discussion your emotional state with a complete stranger...even if it is anonymous.

I mean, I liked my ass off on that sexual habits questionnaire they made us take at the Academy, just because I felt the truthful answers weren't "good enough." Not logical, but there you have it.