The Lesser of Two Evils

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

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

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

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

Just something to think about.

Drugs

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

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

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

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

Just something to think about.

Pope Francis and Climate Change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just something to think about.

The Reagan Question

"Sometimes when I'm faced with an unbeliever, an atheist, I like to take him to the most delicious gourmet dinner I have ever served, and then when he's done, ask him if he believes there's a cook."

That's aQUOTE concerning God from president Ronald Reagan, or at least it's been attributed to him. Whether or not that is really the case remains to be seen. I don't want to spend too much time on who actually said this, though. Frankly, it's irrelevant to what I want to talk about right now. I'm far more interested in addressing the substance of the argument. Yes, trust me. There isn't a lot of substance to this, but it is there. Just squint and look real close, you'll find it.

This is essentially another way of wording the Argument from Design. That is to say, the world looks so complex, it must have a creator. Reagan uses a cooking metaphor to drive this pointHOME. Every meal has a cook, so every universe has to have a designer. God must exist, or the universe would not.

This is a fallacious assertion for a number of reasons. The first is that a meal and a universe are not one and the same. That's shocking, I know, but just bear with me for a moment. This will all make sense in time. See, the universe is essentially a series of naturalPROCESSES working in tandem with one another, whereas a meal is guided by a human hand. I am not aware of an natural processes that can create a gourmet dinner. If you are, let me know. That sounds tasty as fuck. Anyway, because there are no natural processes that are known to result in a meal, the only reasonable assumption one can make is that it was created by a human.

Conversely, we know of nothing that can create a universe other than the natural processes that science has observed. There is no evidence of an ethereal sky-daddy, whether you like it or not. Because there are natural processes in place, the existence of the universe just isn't enough to reliably say that a deity exists. If we could not observe evolution, for instance, then you might be able to say that there is a god. But we already know how the universe functions, for the most part. Therefore, the god claim holds no water.

The above refutation is not an endorsement of the God of the Gaps argument, however. That, too, isINCORRECT. The God of the Gaps assertion, for the uninitiated, goes something like this: "You cannot explain everything about how the universe works, so there must be a god." I have seen this defense used in almost every context imaginable, including the existence of hummingbirds. No, seriously. According to the theist in question, hummingbirds are too small to be able to fly under their own power, therefore God must have created them.

This is bullshit as well, and here's why. InORDER to make a positive claim about anything, you must be able to provide positive proof. Not knowing the cause of something doesn't mean you can just plug God into the equation and be done with it. That's not the way these things work. When you don't know something, you must work harder to find the answer. That's the only intellectually honest course of action.

Just something to think about.

What I Want to do Here

Hey, all. I've been thinking quite a lot recently about the intersectional nature of the feminist movement, and I've decide to take this blog in a new direction. It will still be primarily about feminism and feminist theory, but I've chosen to speak more broadly about progressive politics. Keep an eye out for that sort of contact.

Men's Rights Memes Episode Four: The Transitive Property of Bitchyness

Hello and welcome to Men's Rights Memes, the show where I rip apart memes created by people who mask their hatred of women by pretending to give a shit about equality.Their grasp on reality is almost as tenuous as their grasp on graphic design! Without further ado, here is this episode's offending image.

Perhaps I should have called it an offensive image, because like everything these people produce, it is just chock-full of misogyny. I found this meme on the prominent MRA site A Voice For Men, which I will not link to. I couldn't live with myself knowing that I willfully subjected anyone to that hellhole. You are welcome to go their yourself, although I can't stress enough that I advise against this. In fact, I think I'm legally required to put that warning in here, so that none of you can sue me for causing you psychological trauma. You have been warned.

With all that out of the way, let's get to the meme at hand. For those who are unaware, this meme references an incident involving a model, depicted above, dropping her infant. Notice that she was still able to hang onto her phone. She got a lot of shit for this, and rightly so. She's an awful mother and more than likely a despicable person. But that's not what I want to focus on today.

I'd like to focus on an argument that is fairly common within MRA circles. Basically, they assert that there is a bias in family courts, particularly as it relates to the custody of children. According to them, the judge is likely to award custody to the woman, even if her mothering skills are less than stellar, like in the picture above. Are the correct? Has misandry pervaded the family court system? Let's find out.

(NOTE: I live in America, so we're going to be focusing on that for the remainder of the article. Most data presented here will reflect the state of the US family court system. I can't speak for other countries).

Before we do that, however, I want to take a moment to comment on my biggest problem with this meme. Namely, that they are taking the actions of one woman, this model, and applying it to all women. These people honestly believe that because this one woman fucked up, it means that all women are terrible mothers who don't deserve custody of children. That seems to be a pretty sexist tactic to me, but whatever.

But anyway, back to the family court thing. The MRM argument that there is some systemic bias against fathers in family court is based in historical inadequacy. It was the case at one point that men were discriminated against in these courts, but even this was due to the fact that women were the primary caretakers, as per the strict patriarchal gender roles of the time. I'm sorry to keep harping on this, but most issues that men face for being men are caused directly by the patriarchy. This is obvious to anyone with enough intellectual honesty to loom at the data. Sadly, these people are few and far between in the Men's Rights Movement.

For whatever reason, most MRAs still believe that custody cases are biased against men, but here are a few statistics that prove otherwise:

It's worth point out that ninety-one percent of custody battles are resolved without ever seeing a court at all. And of the nine percent that do go to court, five percent are resolved in a custody evaluation hearing. That means that only four percent of custody battles ever actually 'go to trial,' so to speak. Further, only one point five percent of those battles are taken fully through to their conclusion.

Also, as the majority of judges serving in family court are male, it can hardly be held against women that there is some perceived bias in the situation. Even, though, again, there isn't any fucking bias. As the study linked below suggests, "Fathers are less involved with their children during a marriage, and are even less involved after a divorce. Most of the instances of women getting full custody occur because the father agreed to it."

So in other words, the problem with fatherlessness is down to deadbeat dads.

Further Reading:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cathy-meyer/dispelling-the-myth-of-ge_b_1617115.html

http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2012/01/30/systemic-bias-in-family-courtor-just-selective-fact-finding

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/1528240/Judge-seeks-to-end-myth-of-family-court-bias-against-fathers.html

A Bit About My Name

Or, rather, a bit about the name of this blog. Sniveling Mangina. Why did I choose this name? It's a little bit crass, what with the mention of female genitalia. Plus, the word 'sniveling' is just kind of gross. Well, I did it for a few reasons. Let's go over a few of them right now, because what the hell else are you going to do with your time? Get a job or contribute to society? Please.

The first is that this blog exists so that I can talk about feminist theory and add my voice to the ongoing discussion that surrounds the movement. But it's also a place for me to bitch about the sexist rhetoric put forth by the Men's Rights Movement and other such groups in the name of actually furthering equality. These people claim to want to level the playing field, but that stated goal is nothing more than a cover for their deep hatred of women and anyone who is different from them in any way. Nowhere is this more evident than in the insults employed by these mongoloids. I'm talking, of course, about the title of this blog. "Sniveling Mangina." This is an insult MRAs have thrown out, both in reference to me and other feminist thinkers. Because clearly, the worst thing in the world would be to have a vagina. But no, these people totally don't hate women, you guys.

Come to think of it, the second reason I chose the name ties into the first so much that it can barely be called a new point. Oh, well. I'm far too lazy to change it now. Basically, I'm doing to 'mangina' what the gay community did to the word 'queer." There's nothing wrong with being a woman or having a vagina. And no, MRAs, those two things are not one and the same. I refuse to let people assert that there is something wrong with those things, so I'm reclaiming the word for my own.

Now, please, would you stop inundating me with whining comments about the name?