France considers banning the burqua

NBC says France claims burquas are a sign of Islamic radicalism; CNN says that France claims "the issue is one of a woman's freedom and dignity" and has nothing to do with religion.

Either way, I say France is wrong. The idea should be that no woman is forced to wear a burqua or an abaya or any other form of covering unless they want to. France's idea is that there are no burquas, period. That's just as wrong in my mind as some Middle Eastern country forcing a woman to wear one.

NBC's news report did include, to France's credit, that any man found forcing his wife to wear a burqua would be fined. If they just keep that part, I'll be happy with them.

CNN's report

A contest entry

For Espanolbot's Where is Cass Cain? contest.



Where is Cass Cain?
Saving Sin.
(Since that douchebag Green Arrow stuck her in that monastery without telling Black Canary.)



Return of the Forgotten Asian Characters!

They will both show up in the new Birds of Prey run and we shall have a touching reunion scene.





Incidentally: TheFBomb. A teenage feminist blogger. I believe I love this.

The Ghost Nation

My last post was a compilation of some of the posts from this website.
Now to my response.

Anti-Feminist Definition
From this we can infer that:

If you are a feminist, you do not believe in God, you endorse Zionism, sodomists, violence, police brutality, are two-faced, a liar, treacherous, a prospective adulterer, swear a lot, disorganized, vulgar, angry, a hacker and cybercriminal, untrustworthy, unfair, you share private information, you are a misogynist, you commit blackmail and extortion, you are unpatriotic, you do not support the Constitution, are not humble, have an erratic temperament, raise your voice to get a point across, fake friendships, are manipulative, associate with criminals, Zionists, and psychopaths, cheat, are worthless and nonconstructive, are anti-homosexual, atheist, do not respect other's privacy, and do not believe that sodomites are homosexuals.

Anti-Feminists are not these things.
For those who don't know, Zionists believe in a "sovereign, national Jewish homeland". In other words: Israel.

-

I'll let this one speak for itself:

Hate Crimes Against This Website
"Most people that have attacked this website have been male homosexual mobs, PAMs, sodomites, atheists, agnostics, whitey haters, gang stalkers and pro-Israel zealots."

Remember: these people are bad!

-

To rehash:
Feminists are selfish, angry, deluded, psychotic, worthless, resentful, greedy, mindless, and vain.

Top Ten Reasons Feminists Suck

-

Women are immoral, asocial, have no conscience, and are naturally destructive.

"The people responsible for orchestrating this situation want it precisely as it is. Step one: disenfranchise fathers and men. Women naturally return to their asocial, destructive behavior because - unlike men - they have no consistent internal monologue, hence no moral basis to govern their actions. They might be taught to behave at a young age, but as newer generations are increasingly raised by women only, over time they lose what values the last decent male bestowed upon the family line. The end result: complete social destruction as all values are lost and people become amoral, asocial loners."
Unknown

"No Fault-Divorce" is no divorce at all

-

The Bible says you are a bad person if you work outside the home!
Go read "The Feminist Mystique".
Some Hard Questions Working Women Must Ask Themselves Regarding Being A Good Wife

-

The Catalog of Anti-Male Shaming Tactics
I find it amusing how many of these are really turned around insults against women.
A feminist version:

"Shaming tactics." This phrase is familiar to many Women's Rights Activists. It conjures up the histrionic behavior of male detractors who refuse to argue their points with logic... Shaming tactics are emotional devices meant to play on a woman's insecurities and shut down debate...
Most, if not all, shaming tactics are basically ad hominem (against a person's character) attacks. Anyway, it might be helpful to categorize the major shaming tactics that are used against women whenever a discussion arises about feminism, women's issues, romance, etc. The following list contains descriptions of shaming tactics, some examples of quotes employing the tactics, and even color-coded aliases for mnemonic purposes. Enjoy.
-
Charge of Irascibility (Code Red)
Discussion: The target is accused of having anger management issues. Whatever negative emotions she has are assumed to be unjustifiable.

Examples:
"You're bitter!"
"You need to get over your anger at men."
"You are so negative!"

Response:
Anger is a legitimate emotion in the face of injustice. It is important to remember that passive acceptance of evil is not a virtue.
-
Charge of Cowardice (Code Yellow)
Discussion: The target is accused of having an unjustifiable fear of interaction with men.

Examples:
"You need to get over your fear."
"Step up and take a chance!"
"You're afraid of a strong man!"

Response:
It is important to remember that there is a difference between bravery and &%^&*&^%. The only risks that reasonable people dare to take are calculated risks. One weighs the likely costs and benefits of said risks. As it is, some women are finding out that many men fail a cost-benefit analysis.
-
Charge of Hypersensitivity (Code Blue) - The Crybaby Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being hysterical or exaggerating the problems of women .

Examples:
"Stop whining!"
"Get over it!"
"Suck it up!"
"You girls don't have it as nearly as bad as us men!"
"Your fragile female ego ..."
"Wow! You girls need to get a grip!"

Response: One who uses the Code Blue shaming tactic reveals a callous indifference to the humanity of women. It may be constructive to confront such an accuser and ask if a certain problem women face needs to be addressed or not ("yes" or "no"), however small it may be seem to be. If the accuser answers in the negative, it may constructive to ask why any woman should care about the accuser's welfare since the favor will obviously not be returned. If the accuser claims to be unable to do anything about the said problem, one can ask the accuser why an attack is necessary against those who are doing something about it.
-
Charge of Puerility (Code Green) - The Peter Pan Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being immature and/or irresponsible in some manner that reflects badly on her status as an adult female.

Examples:"Grow up!"
"You are so immature!"
"Do you live with your mother?"
"I'm not interested in girls. I'm interested in real women."
"Women are shirking their God-given responsibility to marry and bear children."

Response: It should be remembered that one's sexual history, marital status, parental status, etc. are not reliable indicators of maturity and accountability. If they were, then we would not hear of white collar crime, divorce, teen sex, unplanned pregnancies, extramarital affairs, etc.
-
Charge of Endangerment (Code Orange) -The Elevated Threat Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being a menace in some undefined manner. This charge may be coupled with some attempt to censor the target.

Examples:
"You butches are scary."
"You make me feel afraid."

Response:
It may be constructive to point out that only bigots and tyrants are afraid of having the truth expressed to them. One may also ask why some men think they can handle leadership roles if they are so threatened by a woman's legitimate freedom of expression.
-
Charge of Rationalization (Code Purple) -The Sour Grapes Charge

Discussion: The target is accused of explaining away her own failures and/or dissatisfaction by blaming men for her problems.

Example:
"You are just bitter because you can't get laid."

Response:
In this case, it must be asked if it really matters how one arrives at the truth. In other words, one may submit to the accuser, "What if the grapes really are sour?" At any rate, the Code Purple shaming tactic is an example of what is called "circumstantial ad hominem."
-
Charge of Fanaticism (Code Brown) -The Brown Shirts Charge

Discussion: The target is accused of subscribing to an intolerant, extremist ideology or of being devoted to an ignorant viewpoint.

Examples:
"You're one of those right-wing wackos."
"You're an extremist"
"You sound like the Nazis."
"... more anti-masculine zaniness"

Response:
One should remember that the truth is not decided by the number of people subscribing to it. Whether or not certain ideas are "out of the mainstream" is besides the point. A correct conclusion is also not necessarily reached by embracing some middle ground between two opposing viewpoints (i.e., the logical fallacy of "False Compromise").
-
Charge of Being Unfeminine (Code Lavender)
Discussion: The target's sexual orientation or femininity is called into question.

Examples:
"Are you a lesbian?"
"I need a real woman, not a girl."
"You're such a child."

Response:
Unless one is working for religious conservatives, it is usually of little consequence if a straight woman leaves her accusers guessing about her sexual orientation.
-
Charge of Overgeneralization (Code Gray)
Discussion: The target is accused of making generalizations or supporting unwarranted stereotypes about men.

Examples:
"I'm not like that!"
"Stop generalizing!"
"That's a sexist stereotype!"

Response: One may point out that anti-feminist and many other men make generalizations about women. Quotations from anti-feminists, for example, can be easily obtained to prove this point. Also, one should note that pointing to a trend is not the same as overgeneralizing. Although not all men may have a certain characteristic, a significant amount of them might.
-
Charge of Emasculation(Code Black)
Discussion: The target is accused of displaying some form of unwarranted malice to a particular man or to men in general.

Examples:
"You emasculating creep!"
"Why do you hate men?"
"Do you love your father?"
"You are insensitive to the plight of men."
"You are mean-spirited."
"You view men as doormats."
"You want to roll back the rights of men!!"

Response:
One may ask the accuser how does a pro-female agenda become inherently anti-male (especially since feminists often claim that gains for men and women are "not a zero-sum game"). One may also ask the accuser how do they account for men who agree with the target's viewpoints. The Code Black shaming tactic often integrates the logical fallacies of arousing fear about what the target wants to do to men.
-
Charge of Instability (Code White) -The White Padded Room Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of being emotionally or mentally unstable.

Examples:
"You're unstable."
"You have issues."
"You need therapy."
"Weirdo!"

Response: In response to this attack, one may point to peer-reviewed literature and then ask the accuser if the target's mental and/or emotional condition can explain the existence of valid research on the matter.
-
Charge of Selfishness (Code Silver)
Discussion: This attack is self-explanatory. It is a common charge hurled at women who do not want to be bothered with romantic pursuits or mothers who want to work outside the home.

Examples:
"You are so materialistic."
"You are so greedy."
"You are so selfish."
"You will hurt your children."
"You are a horrible mother."

Response: It may be beneficial to turn the accusation back on the one pressing the charge. For instance, one may retort, "So you are saying I shouldn't spend my money or time on myself, but should instead spend it on a man like you ---and you accuse me of being selfish?? Just what were you planning to do for me anyway?"
-
Charge of Unattractiveness (Code Tan)-The Ugly Tan Charge
Discussion: The target is accused of having no romantic potential as far as men are concerned.

Examples:
"I bet you are fat and ugly."
"You can't get laid!"
"I bet you don't shave your legs!"
"Loser!"
"Have you thought about the problem being you?"

Response:
This is another example of "circumstantial ad hominem." The target's romantic potential ultimately does not reflect on the merit of her arguments.
-
Charge of Defeatism (Code Maroon)
Discussion: This shaming tactic is akin to the Charge of Irascibility and the Charge of Cowardice in that the accuser attacks the target's negative or guarded attitude about a situation. However, the focus is not so much on the target's anger or fear, but on the target's supposed attitude of resignation.

Examples:
"Stop being so negative."
"You are so cynical."
"If you refuse to have relationships with men, then you are admitting defeat."

Response:
The charge of defeatism can be diffused by explaining that one is merely being realistic about a situation. Also, one can point out that asking women to just accept their mistreatment at the hands of men and society is the real attitude that is defeatist. Many women have not lost their resolve; many have lost their patience.
-
Threat of Withheld Affection (Code Pink) -The Whip
Discussion: The target is admonished that her viewpoints or behavior will cause men to reject her as a mate.

Examples:
"No man will marry you with that attitude."
"Feminists like you will never get laid!"

Response:
This is an example of the logical fallacy "argumentum ad baculum" (the "appeal to force"). The accuser attempts to negate the validity of a position by pointing to some undesirable circumstance that will befall anyone who takes said position. Really, the only way to deal with the "Whip" is to realize that a woman's happiness and worth is not based on her romantic conquests (including marriage).

It's amazing what little I had to change on this to make it work! Read the original and compare. The only thing I couldn't alter was the "Charge of Superficiality (Code Gold) -The All-That-Glitters Charge".
Some I didn't even have to change at all, excpet the pronouns.
If men and women's viewpoints are so similar, why can't we all get along?

My inspired rules. Feel free to follow them if you so choose.

Explanation for this last post.

1. If you have to think about it twice, don't do it.



2. Be mindful about your body language.



3. Act mature and exercise self-restraint.



4. Don't talk bad about people.



5. Think of others first.



6. Share Knoweldge.



7. Think of consequences.



8. Use titles, like "Sir", "Mr", "Mrs.", "Ms." and "Ma'am".



9. Never assume a "Mrs." title.



10. Success comes at a price. Remember it.



11. Attempt not to assume; first appearences aren't everything but they are useful.



12. Cultivate an image you can live with.



13. At the end of the day, all you are is all you made of yourself.



14. Play impartiality



15. Practice integrity, and to maintain it, admit when your views change and why.



16. Make sure there is good reason behind a change in thought.



17. Keep perspective.



18. Set an example.



19. Goals are little wishes. Know what you want.



20. Live by your standards.



21. Step down if you cannot do the job. Admit you cannot do it; and delegate the tasks.



22. Be flexible in changing your plans.



23. Research and admit when you do not know what you are talking about.



24. Be conscious of what you are saying.



25. Think ahead.



26. Do not say "uh", "um", or "like" excessively when speaking.



27. You can take a second to pause when you speak.



28. Connect information.



29. Do not use words you do not know the meaning of.



30. Remember your duties.



31. Keep responsibility and cupability with your actions and words.



32. Act and behave with honor.


33. Public personae can be different from private personae; but do not make them radically different.


34. Stay honest about your past.


35. Be careful with your lies.


36. Power is a means to an end of doing your duty; an ends in and of itself.


37. Know your bounds.


38. Try again.No matter how far you go, you can come back. It may just be much harder than it could have been earlier.


39. Violence can be a solution, but it is an unfavorable one.


40. "I respectfully disagree."


41. Be able to argue and anticipate the other parts of a debate.


42. Read Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" and keep it to heart.


43. Stay polite in your arguements.


44. If you must answer a question you are unprepaired for, say "No Comment" or "I polietly decline to answer your question".


45. If you cannot decide, say polite drivel.


46. Go where the smart people are going.


47. Keep intelligent people around you.


48. Keep good company.


49. Stay true to yourself.


50. Keep working.


51. Collect business cards.


52. Ask


53. Say Thank You.


54. Work on it.


55. Speak your mind.


56. Don't use social networking sites; or use sparingly.


57. Be mindful of what you say and do in public.


58. Err on the side of apology and ettiqute; as well as politeness.

Healthcare Amendment: Abortion

Senate rejects abortion amendment in health care bill

Quotes pulled:

• "Senate Republicans unanimously oppose the bill"
• "'Why are women being singled out here? It's so unfair,' said Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-California."
• "there is no medical procedure for men that cannot be purchased with private funds."
• "Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Michigan, said the real goal of the amendment is to deny women covered by government-funded health care the right to get an abortion."
• "Maine's two Republican senators -- Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins -- both joined Democrats in voting to table the amendment."

Is anyone else really sick of Healthcare Reform and increasingly all politics becoming "We are Republicans" and "We are Democrats"? That is not the point of politics. The point of politics and government is to provide protection to it's citizens in various ways, shapes, and forms. Democracy is "rule of the people". The thing here is that "rule of the people" tends to turn into "rule of those who scream loudest".

This can be a good thing. We wouldn't have gotten the Civil Rights movement or the Women's Rights movement without people "screaming". The problem is that the people who scream the loudest can be those who we really don't want anything to do with, or that we disagree with, or who are only out for themselves.

Abortion: If they have to keep federally funded abortion coverage out of the amendment to get it to pass, okay. I don't like that, but I can live with it until someone is able to pass another amendment to make federally funded abortion coverage legal. Civil reform doesn't stick until society is ready (read: the majority is ready) for it. There was a Civil Rights bill in the 1800s that said pretty much the exact same things as the one in the 60s, but it was completely ignored because no one wanted to follow it (at least, no one where it mattered). But it shouldn't prevent people from paying for abortion coverage with their own money.

Also, yay for Maine Senators for not being afraid (yet again) to vote how they feel and not just with the Republicans because they're Republicans.

Back to that again

Another post on the articles I found on science-fiction and feminism. If you haven't read them yet, refer to the last three articles first, please. The most recent comments there have clarified the issue quite a bit for me. Many thanks go to Arbitrary for his or her comments; and kudos on the ability to not rage about innacuracies in thinking.

From The War on Science Fiction and Marvin Minsky (fourth to last and the two last posts as of today)

Vicky Thorne November 26, 2009 at 8:21 pm
This is almost as bad as ’superheroes/comics are for boys! Since boys are the ones that want power! They are the ones that are agressive!’
Seriously, Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech; get over yourself. Please. Remind me again how women have killed science-fiction? Science-fiction has a very loyal fanbase, as I’m sure you know, and I fail to see how because you are female you simply cannot like technology or science. Or that you must like romance. Romance is sappy. Science fiction is where all the good stuff comes out. Dystopias, social issues, how societies function, the possiblities of intellect…Tell me how it is impossible for me to like science-fiction, or be an intelligent human being with likes and dislikes and things I will not stand to hear.Perhaps there are more boys and men who read science-fiction and/or comics, but did you ever think it was because we actually enjoy it but people like you just love to kick us around and then say that we won’t stand for abuse that you aren’t taking because we have very slight genetic differences?

Arbitrary November 26, 2009 at 9:26 pm
Vicky, I am afraid you have completely missed the point; you seem to think that the thesis of this article is entirely reversed from its actual intent. The author (and I) have no inherent problem with women reading or writing science fiction. The problem is that science fiction, as a genre, has been warped to target women as an audience; no one here is claiming that all girls are purely interested in romance, or that girls are biologically incapable of expressing interest in male-targeted entertainment. The point of the article is that, in an effort to “be more inclusive of girls” (that is, to target them, being a more valuable audience), male-targeted science fiction has been crowded out of the marketplace.
It is because of these differences in targeting that the symptoms of these problems arise; shows focused on relationship drama and on advancing a social agenda (surreptitiously, not to be confused with confronting social issues) rather than the themes of man conquering nature (both his own and that which surrounds him) and allegories of philosophical and social problems.
I will not defend the claim that these targeting assessments accurately reflect viewer interests; I don’t have to. Regardless of whether they do, or do not (and I would assume that they do, given the amount of money riding on the issue), they are the assessments made by the industry. We are here expressing an interest that their desire to grab a female market (misguided or not) not crowd out the entertainment we are looking for.

Vicky Thorne December 3, 2009 at 1:55 pm
Thank you for clarifying the point, Arbitrary, the problem here is that the way the argument is presented seems to be saying that you and the author do not want women in science fiction in any way. I think your post should be added on the end as a edit to the article. It could very well stop the flaming that seems to be going on all through this comment thread.Anyhow, I completely agree with all your points, but it might perhaps be better to address these concerns to the industry instead of (perhaps seemingly)to feminists and women to prevent further misunderstandings.

From We Are All Misogynists Now

Vicky Thorne November 26, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Completely agreeing with you here that rampant feminism in which all people do is insult eachother is completly besides the point and unhelpful. However, what I’m seeing in this article is circular reasoning. The women/feminists have a knee-jerk reaction of shaming language to apparent misogyny and you are comparing them to ‘bleating sheep’ and Klansmen and Nazis. That is also shaming language. So shaming language is invalid… yet both sides are using it. Therefore that brings about the conclusion that neither side’s arguments are valid; so everyone needs to shut up and go home and not come out until they can think of something comstructive to say which does not involve insulting people.

Arbitrary November 26, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Vicky, you’ve again not accurately read the article presented.
The article is not comparing feminists to Klansmen or Nazis. It’s saying that feminists use the label “misogynists” on men to try to make them seem equivalent to Klansmen and Nazis.
The article did, however, call the people bleating knee-jerk reactions sheeple. If you feel that this is an unwarranted insult, I suggest that you consider carefully the way in which this claim was introduced.

Vicky Thorne December 3, 2009 at 1:44 pm
I went back and looked, you’re right, Arbitrary, it does say in the article that “feminists use the label “misogynists” on men to try to make them seem equivalent to Klansmen and Nazis” as you put it. Thank you for pointing this out.Sheeple? Sheep-people or she-people? I’ve never heard that term before.Also, which claim? My claim about circular reasoning or the article’s claim about misogyny?
“Instead, we look to you and say, if we are Misogynists…SO WHAT?!”“SO WHAT?!” It offends a lot of women, that’s what. That is why so many people are complaining here.
“If we are what you call “Misogynist,” it is only so because we are reacting to a society and culture that has embraced Misandry as an acceptable cultural value.” If it is”an acceptable cultural value”, why are so many people objecting? It is because they do not feel it is acceptable, so it is a change in society. Therefore it is becoming not acceptable and you should realize that. If you want to decry the notion and file objections, go ahead; but keep in mind that many people will reply to this sort of thing as they have.

Arbitrary December 3, 2009 at 2:03 pm
Sheeple is a portmanteau combining sheep and people, and I was referring to the original article’s claim.
And I’m afraid that I honestly don’t care if telling the truth offends people; better to tell the truth and offend someone than to lie and hurt people in order to make a select few feel better about themselves, or to stand silently by as others do the same.
If telling the truth makes me a misogynist, I’m prepared to accept that label.

Vicky Thorne December 3, 2009 at 2:48 pm
Perfectly admirable viewpoint, and really that’s what this whole thing is about, right? Telling the truth as you see it? Cultural movements like femisim get started because the collective truth of a majority is changed.

Still unhappy about that

You remember those people in the last two posts, the one guy who had the 'shaming language' thing going on and the other guy with circular logic?
Their arguments have just been entirely deflated.
How?
The writer of the original Star Treck, the classic, the one with William Shatner as James Kirk and Spock and Uhura the communications operator and Doctor McCoy and Scottie from the "Beam me up, Scotty" fame, was DC Fontana.
Full name: Dorothy Catherine Fontana.
The writer of Star Trek was a woman. Tell me again how women are ruining science fiction?

Also: Ursuala K Le Guin. Andre Norton. Madeleine L'Engle.

More responses to other's writings

The article today? The War on Science Fiction and Marvin Minsky.
Read it and return

Response:
So I cannot possibly like science or technology and must like romance because I am female? I must be more attracted to relationships than real-world issues? I am not allowed to dream or think of the future becuase I am female? I am not allowed to be intelligent because I have a slight genetic difference?
The reason there are less visible female readers, fans, and writers in science-fiction and comics is because of people like you, Pro-male/Anti-feminist Tech. We take abuse dealt out by people like you and some leave when they refuse to take it anymore, and then obviously it is because we are female and not because you feel somehow threatend by us; and you don't even bother to acknoweledge that you are not taking the same kind of critisim and flame and abuse back.
There are less women working in science-oriented fields for the same reason. Cultural conceptions have held it as common knoweldge for centuries that men were superior to women, and obviously you still hold this belief.
Also: "whiny men who were genrally unable to find their way out of a wet paper bag"? Guess what women and girls in nearly all and any media since time immemorable have been? That. Those uncomfortable feelings you've got after seeing these men so characterized? Those are the same ones that many females have had for quite a long time now. Perhaps it is time to find your misplaced sense of empathy which, I am told, is essential to the survival of the human race.
SciFi changed its name to Syfy to escape B-list movie associations and to try and draw in more veiwers who would otherwise not want to set foot in the genre for fear of being called a geek or a nerd. If you feel the need to blame someone for the "more drama" focus of science-fiction now (if there is any, I'm not sure at this point), blame the people who made melodramas and reality TV shows popular.
Those three gay characters you were complaining about? Diversity in action. Do you also complain about racial diveristy? Diversity in general has been a touchstone and defining point in science-fiction for almost the entire history of the genre, understandable and even nessecary when you are writing about many and varied disparate cultures and races dispersed around the universe. Also known as aliens. If aliens are not diveristy, then what is?
Please get over your apparent obsession with "manly men". Those are the worst sort of men.
I would also like to address all these concerns to Sean_MacCloud.
Please, why don't you fall back on the time-honored tradition in science-fiction of inclusion no matter what the differences (that was almost the whole premise of Star Trek: explore to discover new cultures and how to work with them) and apply it to your lives.

PM/AFT; consider yourself Bingoed by virtue of There aren’t many women working in mainstream comics(science fiction, in this case) because they’re just not good enough.