Men's Rights Memes Episode 16: Chivalry Is For Losers!

Hello and welcome to episode sixteen of Men's Rights Memes, the show where I correct the misinformation about feminism spread by the pathetic failures that make up the majority of the Men's Rights Movement. Without further ado, here is this episode's offending image.

Welcome to what is debatably the most common MRArgument. Heh. Do you like that pun? I do.

Anyway, the degenerate fucks in the MRM have a tendency to run their mouths off about how lady feminists call differential treatment of the sexes chivalry when it suits them and sexism when it doesn't. There are a couple of reasons as to why this is fucking stupid, and I'm going to tell you a few of them now. Down the rabbit hole we go!

Firstly, I'd like to tackle the most common example that MRAs bring up to support their assumption that chivalry is a female privilege. Namely, that of the Titanic, and more broadly the idea of 'women and children first.' It is true that women and children on the Titanic survived disproportionately to men, it is also the case that that people in the first class had a better survival rate than those in the third class. Thus, this issue probably relates to class more so than gender. Nobody's talking about that, though. It doesn't fit the MRA narrative!

But even in the context of gender, the MRAs are still incorrect. The study linked here suggests that the Titanic was the exception rather than the rule in maritime history.

Also, doesn't the very idea of 'women and children first,' and indeed chivalry in general, stem from the fact that women are regarded as the weaker sex? The only reason that men are expected to pay for dinner and do things of that nature is because of the outdated perception that women cannot take care of themselves. If feminists had their way, women would be on equal footing to men, and this idea would go away.

As for why women expect men to pay for dinner, well, I think it stems from the fact that the patriarchy has hammered the whole 'women are weak,' thing into our heads from birth. The idea is so culturally pervasive that it's difficult to escape or even notice it. The goals of feminism are to break down oppressive power structures, which would allow women to make more money and generally have more control over their own lives. How radical!

What I'm trying to say with all of this is simple: "Hey MRAs! If you want women to be less dependent on you, GET THE FUCK OUT OF THE WAY!"

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.

Men's Rights Meme Episode 15: Do You Feel A Draft?

Hello and welcome to episode fifteen of Men's Rights Memes, the show where I take a sledgehammer to the arguments made by so-called 'Men's Rights Activists', or MRAs, where 'sledgehammer' is logic and 'arguments' are incoherent, paranoid ramblings. Without further ado, here is this episode's offending image.

Ah, yes. The draft argument. This archaic bit of tripe will be brought up by any MRA who is in a tight spot. Someone will have boxed them into an intellectual corner, and they will realize that they've got no way out. Then, given that most of them have about the same mental capacity as apes, they'll do what they do best: start flinging shit. This particular ball of verbal feces will often go something like this:

"ONLY MEN ARE ELIGIBLE FOR THE DRAFT. WOMEN AREN'T ELIGIBLE FOR THE DRAFT, THEREFORE FEMINISM IS EVIL. MEEH!"

The MRA will often scream his points, as if the volume of his voice is directly proportional to the veracity of his claims. This, unfortunately for simpletons everywhere, is not the case.

In order to argue this point seriously, you have to ignore an absolute mountain of evidence to the contrary. Luckily, MRAs aren't all too concerned with such trivial things as 'fact,' or 'historical data.'

But there's always the off chance that I'll get through to one of these fucktards someday, so let's go down the list of reasons why the existence of the draft isn't a valid argument against feminism.

First of all virtually every instance of any all-male draft in the history of the world has been voted on by a mainly or entirely male legislature, and has been enforced by a mainly or entirely male police force. It has also been conducted by a mainly or entirely male military hierarchy.

Yet somehow it's feminism's fault. Just try to wrap your head around that one!

Further, you'd have to just conveniently forget that it was feminists who argued against the draft on both sides of the Atlantic, and that feminists have argued against the barring of open homosexuals from serving in the military. This, too, has occurred in both America and Britain.

The implicit assertion made by the MRA is that only men die in wars, and that's why the draft is a bad thing. This is patently untrue. Many women also perished, especially after the industrial revolution flipped the ratio of military to civilian deaths. Even still, rape has been used as a weapon of war, largely by men against women.

But yeah, you crazy brave keyboard warriors keep clunking away.

Further reading:
http://male-feminist.tumblr.com/post/32522679726/why-using-the-draft-as-a-weapon-against-a
http://www.taphilo.com/history/war-deaths.shtml

Men's Rights Memes Episode 14: No Call For Equality

Hello and welcome to episode fourteen of Men's Rights Memes, the show where I expose the Men's Rights Movement for what it is. That is, a hate group made up of a bunch of whining assholes who will do just about anything to turn themselves into victims. How fun! Without further ado, here is this episode's offending image.

Oh, boy. Here we go with the old 'feminists are weak,' straw-man argument. This one is rather popular among some of the slower MRAs, by which I mean all of them. They claim that the feminist movement isn't really about equality, because they only call for change in the diversity of quote-unquote comfortable fields, such as politics, business, and STEM. According to these simpletons, this means that the feminist movement isn't really concerned with equality, just power. After all, if those dirty feminazis were really interested in furthering equality, they would encourage women to become garbage men or construction workers. Not only are they evil, conniving harpies, they're also too weak to perform the difficult, labor-intensive jobs! Checkmate, mangina!

In a world devoid of facts, history, or logic, that argument might actually make some sense. But we live in this little place known as reality, so this is not the case. Look, feminists do want power. The whole point of the movement is to empower women, for fuck's sake. That's why there's a call for more female CEOs, and more female politicians. The people who work in these fields have real clout. They can actually advocate for policies that elevate the standing of the female gender.

And, also, it's not particularly inspiring to see someone who looks exactly like you picking through trash all day. That's sad, and I'd very much like to have conversations about the relative powerlessness of the working class as opposed to the elite. But as it stands, there aren't enough women in  roles that people actually respect. The way to elevate the standing of a particular group is to put them in positions of power. That way, members of that group see that they, too, can succeed. Thus begins a self-sustaining cycle of equal opportunity.

That's what feminism is really about. It's about choice, and it's about opportunity.

It's got nothing to do with taking your fucking porn magazines away, you insufferable douchebags.

Men's Rights Memes Episode 13: Back to the Patriarchy

Hello and welcome to episode 13 of Men’s Rights Memes, the show where I sink my teeth into the twisted rhetoric of the reactionary children who make up the Men’s Rights Movement. I do that, so you don’t have to! Without further ado, here’s this episode’s offending image.

Now, this is one area where I actually find myself sympathizing with the Men’s Rights Movement. The suicide rate among men is substantially higher than that of women. That’s not something that the majority of people know, and I think it does need to be talked about more often.

The MRAs lose my support when they assert that feminism is somehow to blame for that being the case. Women are not evil harpies whose only goal is to make your life a living hell. I know this might shock the MRAs, but women are just people. In fact, that’s yet another problem that is caused directly by the patriarchy. I’ve written about this ad nauseum on this blog before, but I think it bares repeating here.

Almost from birth, men are taught that they must be these strong, stoic robots. Showing emotion is often considered a sign of weakness, and God forbid you cry. Then, you’ll be told to ‘man up.’ Repressing emotion is almost a prerequisite for being considered manly.

This, of course, results in a huge problem. When men or boys do have problems, they can’t talk about them. This results in them feeling as though they are trapped, and the only way out becomes suicide.

So if the Men’s Rights Movement really cared about helping men, they would advocate for a more open society in which discussing feelings is normal and accepted. But that’s the thing, they don’t care about men’s issues. Their ‘activism,’ and I use the term loosely, is nothing more than an excuse for them to harass women on the internet. It’s time we start treating them that way.

Men's Rights Memes Episode 12: Third Degree Burn

Hello and welcome to episode twelve of Men's Rights Memes, the show where I refute the paper-thin arguments made by misogynists on the internet, because I have a lot of time on my hands. Without further ado, here is this episode's offending image.

Okay, I've finished puking all over my floor, so I'm ready to take this thing on. This is a fairly common idea that I hear MRAs bring up. According to them, gender studies degrees are useless because there are no jobs that directly require you to have one in order to apply. That might be true, but I think the assertion that they are useless presents something of a falsehood. Even if there are no jobs specifically for gender studies majors, a degree in that subject does indicate to a prospective employer that you are less likely to make off-color jokes or sexually harass your female coworkers. It also signals that you have a good standard of English, given all of the reports required for classes. Those reports, by the way, necessitate a hell of a lot of research, and the interviewer will likely know that. Having a degree in gender studies shows work ethic on top of everything else.

All of those things sound like uses for a gender studies degree to me. Isn't that just so weird?

Also, there are plenty of people who go into fields completely unrelated to their university background. Education helps to deepen our understanding of the world, and there's nothing wrong with education for its own sake. Broadening our horizons is the most important thing we can do, and gender studies courses help in that regard. Frankly, it's not at all surprising that the MRAs haven't thought about this. They're not exactly known for caring about depth or, if we're being honest, reality in general.

Men's Rights Memes Episode 11: Slurring Your Words

Hello and welcome to episode eleven of Men's Rights Memes, the show where I subject myself to the insane bullshit spewed forth by the barely-human members of the Men's Rights hate group. Why do I do it? Well, my teachers always told me I could be anything I wanted, so I became a masochist. Without further ado, here is this episode's offending image.

That's right. In a first for the series, I'm featuring the same meme twice in a row. Last time, I used it to disprove the existence of a secret feminist cabal that runs the US government. But there's just so much more that's wrong with this, I can't let it go just yet.

There's a lot of misinformation about feminism contained within this meme, but I think the most insidious claim it makes is that feminists want to remove consequences from intoxicated women. No bullshitting here, reading that made me physically ill.

Feminists are not advocating that women have the right to drive drunk with no legal repercussions. What we do champion is the right for women to have fun at parties and not be sexually assaulted when passed out. Is that really too much to ask? That women not be raped?

So if you're ever looking for a way to judge the general character of the Men's Rights Movement, look no further than A Voice For Men literally blaming women for being raped. But remember, it's totally not a hate group.

For the slower members of my audience, who are more than likely MRAs themselves, that last bit was sarcasm.

Men's Rights Memes Episode 10: More Straw Than a Scarecrow

Hello and welcome to episode ten of Men's Rights Memes, the show where I introduce MRAs to the real world, as opposed to the paranoid delusions they've concocted for themselves out of red bull and cum-stained socks. Without further ado, here's this episode's offending image.

Wow, somebody's got an active imagination. If he turned his talents to writing, he'd fit right in with John C. Wright and the rest of the Sad Puppies.

This goes back to the long-held MRA talking-point that there's some secret organization of powerful females that run the world, and their only goal is to take power away from men. Apparently, this guy got hold of their clandestine agenda, and now he's releasing it to the world. What a hero! He's exactly like Edward Snowden! He's blown the lid off this whole crazy conspiracy!

Except, wait, no he fucking hasn't, because no such cabal actually exists. Let me prove that to you right now.

Here's the Supreme Court of the United States:

Notice how there are only two women currently sitting. That hardly screams massive conspiracy to me. But maybe the MRAS have a different definition. Let's keep going. Surely we'll uncover some evidence soon!

Let's look at the current roster of GOP congressmen. I have a picture of them right here, and somehow I doubt that it proves the MRAs point.

Nope, nope. I was right. There's only one lady in that picture. Damn. This really isn't going well for the MRAs, is it?

Well, maybe if we look even higher up, the trend will change. How about we examine the highest available office in the United States. If there were actually a secret female Illuminati controlling everything, every US President would be female, right?

See, no. They're all dudes, mostly white dues. It's almost as if women are an oppressed class, kept out of power, whether consciously or not, by the male ruling class. But even if that isn't the case, and everything is just a construct of the choices made by women, my point still stands. There is no anti-male conspiracy, or feminist infiltration of the government. Shocking, right?

Men's Rights Memes Episode Nine: Trials and Regulations

Hello and welcome to episode nine of Men’s Rights Memes, the show where I subject myself to the rhetoric of the Men’s Rights Movement, a group of people with moral compasses so skewed that they always point South. Since I can’t legally beat their heads in with a baseball bat, I’ve settled for eviscerating them with cold, hard logic. Without further ado, here’s this episode’s offending image.

Ha, ha, get it? Because women are gross! But no, we totally don’t hate women, you guys. It’s about equality! I know it might seem odd for me to harp on what was clearly meant to be a joke, and that the MRAs are just going to use this as ammo to reinforce their bullshit idea that political correctness is destroying comedy, but I can’t let this go.

First of all, the joke is shit. It doesn’t have anything interesting or insightful to say, it’s just spewing hate under the guise of humor. But also, I think it showcases a tactic that the MRAs are all too fond of employing when it suits them, and decrying when it doesn’t. Namely, the use of humor to undermine or invalidate the problems that women face in day-to-day life. Reproductive rights are under fire, but the creator of this meme doesn’t give a shit about that. He’s using an actual, negative experience as an excuse to be a dick to women.

Where else could this have come from but Paul Elam’s hate site, www.avoiceformen.com?

Wait, hold on. It occurs to me that this might not even be in jest. It probably is, but knowing how obtuse MRAs have been in the past, it’s entirely possible that this smug, entitled man-child doesn’t believe that there’s a war on women concerning reproductive rights. Stranger things have happened, after all.

There are a variety of tactics that anti-choicers have employed to stop women from having abortions, and none of them have been effective. After all, banning things doesn’t stop people from wanting or even obtaining them. If you believe otherwise, might I suggest that you research a little thing called the War on Drugs.

As an aside, I detest the term ‘pro-life’ even more than I hate the MRAs. Well, okay, that’s not quite true, but it’s close. If these people were really pro-life, they would vote to aid the impoverished and help fight racism. There are any number of things they could be doing to help people who are already living, ideally things that do not involve robbing women of bodily autonomy.

But back to the topic at hand. It seems fairly obvious to me that there is an ongoing attack on women's reproductive rights, particularly in America. The most recent example of this phenomenon is the effort by conservative politicians to defund Planned Parenthood, in the wake of a video that has since been labeled a hoax. That's not all, though. There are also these things called TRAP laws, which stands for "Target Regulation of Abortion Procedure." Basically, TRAPS are a collection of regulations that are imposed upon abortion clinics with the intent to have them closed down. More often than not, the laws have nothing to do with the actual safety of anyone involved. Mostly, it's about shit like the height of ceilings.

In light of all that, I think it's almost impossible to claim that sexism no longer exists in the Western world. There's an entire movement dedicated to taking basic healthcare away from women, for Christ's sake! 

See, what really burns me up about MRAs and antifeminists in general is that they always portray feminists as whiny, as if us talking about sexism is the problem, rather than, you know, the actual sexism itself. If they wanted as to stop ‘whining,’ as they put it, they could easily help advocate for reproductive rights and whatnot. If sexism were gone, we wouldn’t have to bring it up all the time. Everybody wins.

But no, by all means, continue to make sexist jokes.

Further Reading:
http://www.reproductiverights.org/project/targeted-regulation-of-abortion-providers-trap

Men's Rights Memes Episode Eight: The Wizard of What the Fuck

Hello and welcome to Men's Rights Memes, the show where I examine the mad ramblings of people with the intellectual capacity of pond scum. Okay, okay, I'm sorry. Perhaps that was over the line. I apologize to pond scum for the unflattering comparison.

Without further ado, here's this episode's offending image.

Oh, boy. I knew that the Men's Rights Movement had a soft spot for idiotic conspiracy theories, but this is a new low, even for them. Yes, apparently the Wizard of Oz is an insidious piece of evil feminist propaganda because...shut up. I don't even know where the hell to begin with this thing. It's just so goddamned baffling.

 I suppose it's best to start by pointing out the fact that no one at A Voice for Men, the site I found this meme on, has even even seen the movie. There is no possible way that you could watch the Wizard of Oz and come away thinking that Dorothy's companions are actually heartless, stupid, and cowardly. The entire fucking point of the film (and the book it's based on, but we all know that most MRAs think reading is for faggots,) is that the characters had already overcome their flaws. The titular Wizard, who is not actually a magical man, could only offer them tokens that reinforce that fact. (a diploma, a clock in the shape of a heart, and the Medal of Honor, respectively). The objects were symbols, meant to point out that the men were already the best versions of themselves. The gifts the Wizard gave them were never actually necessary. It's all about finding your inner self esteem and externalizing it to accomplish great feats.

Maybe do your research before you cook up yet another example of the feminist cabal secretly running the world. This from the same people who use bullshit 'evolutionary psychology to prove that women are naturally weaker than men. Can somebody please tell me how those two ideas are even remotely compatible? I'm just dying to know.

Men's Rights Memes Episode Seven: Ignorance is Sexist

Hello and welcome to episode seven of Men's Rights Memes, the show where I sink my teeth into the juicy misogyny present in nearly every facet of the thinly-veiled hate group known as the Men's Rights Movement. Without further ado, here's this episode's offending image.

Okay, this is yet another variation on that ever-popular MRA talking point that anti-rape campaigns don't work because people already know that rape is wrong, and you cannot educate people out of their sexuality. I've heard some people try to illustrate that last point by comparing the abysmal success rate of gay conversion therapy. "You clearly can't educate homosexual people into being straight, so why should we assume that anti-rape initiatives will change anything?" This is a flawed idea for an innumerable number of reasons, the largest few of which I'll go over today.

I would first like to tackle the comparison of rapists to gay people. As a gay person myself, this is incredibly homophobic. It assumes that the two things are one and the same, which, intentionally or not, casts actual gay people in a negative light. But MRAs aren't really known for seeing people with differing opinions as human beings, so I'll let my appeal to emotion go. The comparison is also idiotic for factual reasons. What do I mean by that? Well, maybe if you'd shut the fuck up and let me finish this thing, I'd be able to tell you. I mean that rape is not about uncontrollable sexual desire. Indeed, it isn't about sex at all. Think about it. When that twelve-year-old on Call of Duty claims that he raped you at the end of a match, he doesn't mean that he forced a sexual act upon you. He means that he dominated you, that he made you feel small. That's also what rapists mean. It's about taking power away from women and transferring it to the rapist himself. Honestly, I'm surprised the MRAs have so much trouble understanding this point. After all, they have the same mental capacity as the twelve-year-old boy who is unwittingly making the comparison.

Now, you could argue that painting rape in as a dominance issue doesn't actually prove my point, because the rapist is still a power-mad psychopath, he just isn't necessarily channeling it into a sexual context. Given that we know that curing psychopaths takes decades of personal therapy, and that a broad anti-rape initiative isn't going to fix anything. That actually makes a degree of sense, but we'll get back to that.

First, I'd like to talk about the implications of the narrative described above. If you can't fix the rapists, what do you do? Do you force women to take precautions? Do you legally mandate that they put shrouds over their heads before they go out at night? I don't know about you, but that sounds a whole hell of a lot like fascism or a dictatorship to me.

After that short detour, let's get back to the factual argument in favor of feminist anti-rape campaigns. The MRA above, and indeed every one of those zombified assholes, like to argue that they don't work. Again, people already know rape is wrong, and that hasn't actually changed anything. Except, oh wait, yes it fucking has.

This chart is based on data from the National Crime Victimization Survey, which tracks the incidence of rape over the past thirty years. And, hey, look, it's on the downswing! Who'd'a thunk it? Well, anyone with more than one brain cell, of course. Then again, I suppose that immediately discounts the majority of MRAs, so there you go. Some have criticized the methodology of the study in that it undercuts the incidence of rape. But even if that is true, the trend is clear. And I think it's painfully obvious that this is all due to an increased understanding and awareness of what rape actually means. Hey, guess who started all those discussions about rape and sexism. Feminists!

Chew on that, you dumb neckbeard fucks.

Men's Rights Memes Episode Six: Crash and Burn

Hello and welcome to episode six of Men's Rights Memes, the show where I inflict hard logic upon the warped version of reality perpetuated by the modern-day Neanderthals in the Men's Rights Movement. It's a dirty job, but somebody's gotta do it! Without further ado, here is this episode's offending image.

Here we go. The Men's Rights Movement is on its last legs, and this meme proves it. "But Chris," you shout in disbelief, "how does the meme prove that? Regale us with your infinite wisdom, oh mighty mangina!" Well okay. If the lowly peons insist, that's what I'll do. But before I get to that, I'd like to point out that the preceding two sentences were all in service of a joke. I don't actually think that I am a god, or that my audience is made up of simple-minded sheep. I mean, come on. I'm not Vox Day.

Anyway, back to the actual substance of the meme. You need a microscope and tweezers to find it, but it is there, I promise. Basically, this thing is an MRA's final attempt at relevance. The entire movement has essentially backed itself into a corner. They can't actually refute any of the arguments made by feminists, so they try to shut us down by claiming that bashing them only makes them stronger. Since they can't compete with us on an intellectual level, so they attempt to silence us by convincing us that we're just helping them. This is because they can't help themselves. It strikes me as something that a toddler would say, and that doesn't surprise me.

Now, here's the thing. The meme in itself is not incorrect. Our criticism of the Men's Rights Movement does in fact increase traffic to MRA sites and spreads information about their ideology. It's part of why I never link to the sites I get these memes from. But the creator of this meme is incorrect in assuming that the attention attracted by feminists is of a positive nature. In my view, the attention we draw to the MRA cause is like the attention given to a particularly gruesome car accident. It's grisly and horrible, but you just can't look away. It's negative attention, is what I'm getting at.

Now, I've said jokingly that bad publicity is part of A Voice For Men's marketing strategy, and that may be true. I'm not entirely sure, but perhaps I really am just giving the MRAs what they want. What I know for certain, however, is that their teachings harm society, so I'm going to keep fighting the good fight. I hope you'll join me.

Men's Rights Memes Episode Five: In the Zone

Hello and welcome to episode five of Men's Rights Memes, the show where I rip apart sexist arguments made by assholes with a persecution complex on the internet! Without further ado, here's this episode's offending image.

Oh, boy. I knew it was only a matter of time before we got to the most frequently cited example of female privilege, the friendzone. In case you're new to the internet, the friendzone is yet another MRA talking point that does not actually exist. That doesn't stop these entitled man-babies from whining about it, though. No sir!

Anyway, the friendzone is this thing where men are nice to women, and they then expect the women to repay them for their kindness with sex acts. I'm not sure how this exchange works, exactly. Is there a scale? Like, listening to her talk about her hard day at work equates to one blowjob? One viewing of The Notebook is good for a night of 69ing?

Regardless, the friendzone is predicated on the idea that men should be rewarded for the tiniest thing. But somehow the MRAs have tricked themselves and others into believing that it puts women on a pedestal, rather than the other way around. Because clearly, having sex with a greasy, fedora-wearing slob is a wonderful opportunity. You should feel honored that some random neckbeard wants to jam his meatstick inside you repeatedly.

Here's the thing, though. I've heard one person claim that they were "friendzoned" because a woman refused to sleep with him after he took her out to dinner. And therein lies the problem. Some men assume that because they acted like a descent human being, they are somehow entitled to a reward. This is bullshit. If the only reason you act courteous to people is because you expect something in return, you're a prick. If you can't be nice to someone just because it's the right thing to do, you have some deep physiological issues. That's probably why women won't sleep with you. Also, you're gross.

My Thoughts On Family

I am a human, and like most humans, I have a family. Unlike most humans, I have a very, very large family. I often describe myself as having a ‘small army of cousins,’ and that’s true. When you’re dealing with numbers as big as I am, it’s statistically inevitable that there will be people in my family whom I dislike. There aren’t many, of course, but they do exist. (You can read about my experience with one of them here.) In any case, the environment I was raised in greatly influenced the way I think about the modern family unit, and my opinions on said unit. So...here those are, I guess.

Family doesn’t mean shit. By that, I mean the bond of family is not inherently meaningful. It only becomes important when all parties work to make it so. Family is like any other relationship, in that it requires effort. You gotta earn it.

Again, I believe that this is true of any relationship, and most people would agree with me, up to a point. They usually draw the line at family, though. They say things like, ‘they’re your family, you have to love them,’ or ‘he’s your family, he means well.’ 

I disagree, but I understand where these people are coming from. After all, our family stays with us forever. They’re the first people we interact with, the first relationships we cultivate, and they permeate every aspect of our lives. For better or worse, the things they say stick with us for all eternity. Their compliments carry more weight, sure, but so do their insults. That’s why the people who say things like ‘blood is thicker than water’ are wrong. Since family is not a matter of choice, there’s no telling who you might end up with. What if a gay person grew up in a conservative christian household, and his entire family considered him immoral. That person should be able to leave that environment, because it’s toxic. He didn’t choose his family. If it is not to his liking, he should absolutely have the freedom to leave.

So those are my views on family. I’ve gotten a lot of flack for them over the years, but I believe they are correct, so I’m sticking with them. And, as those ‘blood is thicker than water’ people are loathe to tell you, I’m not alone in these convictions.

‘Blood is thicker than water’ isn’t even the full phrase. It’s actually, ‘The blood of the covenant is thicker than the water of the womb,’ meaning that the bonds formed by choice are stronger than those formed by birth. Isn’t it funny how these things work out?

Just something to think about.

My Rant About Conservative Talk Radio

He’s angry again. I don’t know why, but I’m almost positive it’s misguided. None of his rants make any sense these days, and he fumbles the facts like a quarterback with anxiety. It’s a mystery. Last week he was pissed about somebody on TV taking the Lord’s name in vain. Before that it was the EPA, then the Department of Education. He stands up there on his podium, screaming his ass off about big government interfering with hard working job creators. He talks about limiting their power, then votes against gay marriage. I guess he wants the government to stay out of your way, but only if you’re exactly like him.

I don’t think he really believes in any of the stuff he says. I think he just likes to hear himself talk. This whole thing is just an excuse for him to get his ego stroked. Well, who can blame him? We all want to feel important, we all want to be remembered. But what he doesn’t realize is that history only smiles upon the intelligent ones. He’s already out of luck.

Why I Do Capitalize God

Here’s another short one. Again, this isn’t some huge, pressing issue I’m tackling today. I’m not sticking it to the man this time, just ranting about a minor pet peeve of mine. The object of my ire right now is the atheist community. This might appear odd to some of you, given that I myself am a nonbeliever. But I’ve called out the atheists numerous times, both on this blog and in the real world, and I’m doing it again today. Buckle up, everyone. It’s gonna be a bumpy ride.

Okay. Why the fuck do some atheists not capitalize the word God? I’ve heard some people say that it’s because he’s fictional, and that’s the argument I’m addressing here today. Most atheist, particularly the outspoken variety found on the internet, say that they don’t capitalize God because they believe he’s fictional. Not capitalizing his name is a way of rejecting the mass delusion their culture has bought into.

There are a couple of things wrong with that line of thinking. Firstly, Having a capitalized name and being fictional are not mutually exclusive. Nobody believes in Harry Potter, and yet we all capitalize his name. Fictional characters are still proper nouns, so the rules of correct grammar still apply. This includes God, at least according to atheists.

Now let’s look at that bit about shattering the mass delusion or whatever. To that end, I say, “REALLY?” Do you honestly believe that by not capitalizing the name God, you will break down the hold that religion has over society? Are you really that fucking dense, guys? If you really want to separate church and state, or encourage empiricism, then I’d agree with you. We all go by the same label, we have the same goals. But you cannot further those goals by just choosing not to capitalize a word. In the grand scheme of things, that’s inconsequential. Maybe instead of whining about trivial bullshit, you would work to improve science education or fight for social justice. Do that, please, and stop acting like such petulant children. Do it for me, so we can actually improve the world. Please?

And maybe obey the rules of proper grammar while you’re at it.

Just something to think about.

Fuck The Libertarians Episode Five: The Slippery Slope of Religious Freedom

In the wake of many recent events, the American public has initiated a discussion about religious freedom, particularly as the concept relates to business owners and the conduct thereof. That's what I'd like to talk about today.

In Indiana, there was a bill proposed called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which would make it legal for business owners  to refuse service to anyone if serving them violated their 'sincerely held religious beliefs." Proponents of the bill stated that the bill was a response to religious liberty. It was about affording theistic business owners the right to practice their faiths, even during business transactions.

I call bullshit. Let's not kid ourselves here, the RFRA and other bills like it are not about liberty or freedom. It isn't about making Christian business owners feel comfortable. It's a thinly-veiled attempt to push discrimination against the LGBT community, pure and simple. This is a form of modern segregation, and nothing more.

And yet, many people, including those on the left, are in favor of such bills being made into laws. They support the right of private business to choose how they conduct said business, even if it means enforcing discriminatory policy. To them, it isn't a matter of bigotry. It's about workers' rights, apparently.

These people go on to claim that it's okay for bakeries to not serve gay couples, so long as there is a separate bakery where the couple can go to be served. That way, both the bigot and the couple can remain comfortable, having never crossed paths with one another in the first place. That would be fine, except for one small problem. Separate but equal is inherently unequal. We have already had this discussion. We ruled that, under the fourteenth amendment, segregation is unconstitutional. There. This discussion is over.

Wait, no it isn't. So-called pro-freedom individuals will say that we have to empathize with Christian business owners. After all, if you believe that serving a gay couple will result in you burning in Hell for eternity, then isn't it wise to not serve that couple? Again, it's about the feelings of the business owners.

But that's a slippery slope. The irony of me invoking this argument is not lost on me, but I feel it makes sense in this context. If Christian bakers can refuse service to business owners based on their feelings about Hell, what's stopping Christian landlords from doing so? There are many states where it is completely legal to fire someone for being gay. This is again based on the feeling of the business owner. The point is, should laws like these become the norm, you will eventually see gay people being turned away from vital services, such as, again, housing. The RFRA sets a very dangerous precedent.

If the goal of the RFRA is to prevent the eternal torture of a significant subset of the population, then by all means, sign it into law immediately. I might disagree with your views, but I certainly don't condone torture. But here's the problem with that line of reasoning. Nobody fucking knows what happens after we die. Many of us like to pretend we do, but at the end of the day, we have no clue. At a certain point, we're going to have to be pragmatic and make decisions based on the here and now, instead of some hypothetical scenario that, in all likelihood, will probably never come to pass.

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.

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.

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.