denelian: (Default)
so, i went to a website called LibraryThing

you are supposed to be able to catelog your books.

here's how you do it. you go to search. you input search paramater - ISBN, title, or author. you hit the search button. you page through 10 item long list until you find the book you want. you click THAT ONE SPECIFIC BOOK. then you start over.

you can HALF-WAY cheat by going to, say, a page that purportedly lists all the author's books. then you can click on a book, which brings up that book's page, click on "add book" - and it takes you to that search page, where you STILL HAVE TO DO ALL THE SAME FUCKING STEPS

it would be faster if i went downstairs, loaded excel, and MANUALLY TYPED IN EVERY BOOK I OWN.

anyone else use this website and know a way to add lots of books at a time? say, a series - the Last Herald Mage series. i mean, even THAT would be ineffecient but i would be less pissed.

they offer a scanner, sorta like one of the check-out scanner guns. its $15. but then i would have to manually take my books off the shelf, scan, and then return.

i want to be able to type in "David Weber", have all his books appear, go down the list and hit a checkmark on the books i own, and input them all at once. which i think would be a MUCH better way than this "one at a time and then repeat the search" bullshit. the WHOLE POINT is to do it quicker and more easily.

i swear, i was tearing my hair out trying to figure this website out. i think its ridiculous the hoops i am having to jump through just to make a fucking list!. i WOULD go down and pull up excel, except it hurts me to stand up for too long, and same with sitting. i mean, like ten minutes, and it hurts.

help? is there a better site, even?
denelian: (Default)
http://www.courthousenews.com/2009/01/14/Woman_Says_Anti-Abortion_Nurse_Removed_IUD_Without_Permission_Then_Lectured_Her.htm

to translate:

a woman went to a PA Gynocologist in New Mexico. she wanted the strings on her IUD shortened. the PA/nurse (really, i'm confused as to whether this woman was a Physicians Assistant or a Nurse) shortened the strings and then against the patients wishes PULLED OUT THE IUD. she THEN said something along the lines of "oops! but, really, this is better because IUDs are abortion" and the REFUSED TO PUT THE IUD BACK IN.

the woman, patient, poor victim, whatever you want to call her - she is suing both the clinic and the PA/Nurse for medical battery and a host of other issues.

but... you know what, FUCK THAT. fucking seriously. this nurse WENT AGAINST WHAT THE PATIENT WANTED, MADE A MORALISTIC CHOICE FOR HER. she took away her patients rights, her agency, her person-hood, and then had the terminity to LECTURE this patient? and THEN testified that the people that she works with often "joke" that this nurse DELIBERATELY and FORCEABLY removes the IUDs of many patients! what the fuck? she makes a habit of this, and still has her job?! she makes a habit of FORCEABLY MAKING BIRTH CONTROL CHOICES FOR PATIENTS, AGAINST THEIR STATED WISHES, and HAS NOT BEEN FIRED OR PUNISHED IN ANY FUCKING WAY!!!

when i bitch about the patriarchy, THIS is what i am bitching about. the idea, perfectly exemplified in this news story, that women DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS ABOUT THEIR OWN BODIES. this nurse, or PA or whateverthehell she is, has bought into the Patriarchy with everything she has.

i don't generally wish ill of anyone, but i WANT THIS WOMAN PUNSIHED.

and with the new fucking "morality clause" handed down by King George II and HHS, the next time this nurse abuses another patient, she will NOT LEGALLY BE PUNISHABLE.

FUCK!!!!!!!!!

help

Jan. 18th, 2009 03:22 am
denelian: (Default)
a few months ago i started watching an LJ group called lkh_lashouts. it was a place for people to get together and bitch about some aspect of Laurell K Hamilton's writing.

i watched, i commented to posts. i never saw anyone get swarmed for phrasing something badly, or any attacked for having a divergent opinion.

so, i had been thinking about BDSM (because i just turned in the last of some stuff, for a study i had helped that is supposed to be published soon) and i wanted to get out some of my thoughts on LKH and her sad mistreatment of BDSM. in the course of this, i pointed out that there are many people who only do BDSM SOMETIMES, as an activity or hobby, and likened it to Goths who are only Goth at the club, or church goers who are sunday christians.

i've been attacked, and attacked... people really seem to think that i am say ALL church goers do not have any faith except when they go to church. and they also think (despite my explain how i had fucking WORKED in the scene for 4 years) that i have no involvment, and no experience, and was just judging people.

what. the. fuck.

i have restated multiple times that i was only referencing a certain PORTION of the Christian population that does do EXACTLY WHAT I WAS REFERENCING. jesus fucking christ. i have seen people just scream over and over on this forum that LKH has sex issues and uses her books as therapy, and everyone agrees, but i actually dig a little into reality and i am crucified?

i give up. every time i try to actually participate in anything, i am attacked. i am too fucking depressed to do this anymore. i don't even know why other people can say grossly offensice exagerations (if not full out fucking lies) and everyone goes along with it, but state something from my own experience and am villified.

seriously. i cannot do this anymore. its not someone disagreeing, thats fine. your opinions are your own. its the ATTACKING *ME*, telling me that i am being offensive or twisting what i say to make it mean something else that i can't take.

girl crush

Jan. 17th, 2009 09:19 pm
denelian: (Default)
i totally have a girl-crush on the blogger "personal failure"
(her blog is at http://foreverinhell.blogspot.com/)

with one exception (her athiesm as opposed to my paganism) she could be me if i were hit with the Cool Stick(tm). she writes what i would write if i weren't lazy. she hates what i hate, she snarks as i would snark but better. she even has PORPHYRIA, like i do! albeit a different form (she has hepatic, i have acute intermitent). it's kinda eeiry. in a good way. but i feel as if i am cyber-stalking her, because i read her blog ALL THE TIME. of course, she responds to my responses, we have weird little conversations (like the possibility of her becoming my step-mom, which had me CHOKING i was laughing so hard), she seems to be amused by me and not at all offended or weirded out or anything.
she's right at my age, she is already 32 and i will be 32 in less than a month.
she changed her "biography" to reflect the fact that i constantly tease her about her being a cookie-tease.
i mean... is this weird? i mean, i get that it's WEIRD, but is it FREAKY liz-needs-extra-therapy weird? i think that we are amusing each other, it's not all one-sided. but you all know me - nice to the point of pathology, and always worried i will offend someone. although she really seems like the type of person to TELL me if i over-step.

really, i am just kinda filled with glee. i have lots of friends... with whom i do not communicate. with most of my friends (all of you, essentially) this LJ is the biggest point of contact, and i go WEEKS at a time without posting or commenting. so i feel like i have found a new friend with whom i communicate more often. yes, she is "only an internet friend" - i don't know about her, but i tend to not try and meet people whom i only know from the internet, so i am pretty sure we will never meet face-to-face. but is that actually an issue? i mean, i don't see most of YOU face-to-face. is having an internet friend who is only ever going to be an internet friend bad? and does anyone else get the irony of me asking that, on a blog, to a group of people who include people i have NOT met face-to-face (not many, though. i'm strangly reality-based, if that makes sense. i have only a few friends on LJ who i DON'T know in real life)

also, really, her blog is AWESOME. she tears apart fundy rhetoric and newsletters and blogs and comments and conversion efforts - she writes some of the funniest shit i have read EVER. i really wish she were one of the writers at Pandagon, she is that great of a writer. so, ALL OF YOU, go to her blog. enjoy it. eat a cookie; gods know she has enough of them offered :D
denelian: (Default)
by which i mean CHILDREN. not TEENAGERS; the main girl followed is 8

http://tinyurl.com/7spau4

all i can say right now is: THIS is the Patriarchy. THIS is unreasonable beauty standards for women, starting at earlier and earlier ages. this is high heels, this is Rush Limbaugh roasting Caroline Kennedy for having the audacity to EAT in PUBLIC (yep. women are now not allowed to EAT IN PUBLIC). this is lipstick and diet fads and girdles vs thongs. this is photoshopped models and pop singers shaving their heads.

in short, this is what women are TOLD, constantly, they MUST DO.

don't believe, or don't understand? go look at a Cosmo. pick up a national enquirer - note how current Oprah is being called a heifer and other horrible names... while male celebrities are ALLOWED to age AND to gain weight. watch a movie, and notice how most roles for women are either young women who are fuckable, or old women who are either mothers or evil, an sometimes both. the instances of older women being NOT a mother are so low that they are actually COUNTABLE. hell, turn on the TV and notice how ALL of those women are like size 1's. they have no curves, all of them are essentially anorexic, but it's not an issue with ADULT women because when it's an adult, it's obvious she is being anorexic to control her weight so she can get a man - and the patriarchy APPROVES of women getting men. it's only when it's a child being anorexic that it's an issue, because children are supposed to be sexless and therefor the anorexia is inexplicable; they obviously aren't trying to lose weight to get a man, because they are not old enought to get a man. so anorexia in a child is dangerous, but in an adult is expected.

this is why i sometimes come off as a rad-feminist. i am afraid that the ONLY way to change anything is through radical movement. i mean, most people refuse to even see that there IS a fucking problem, let alone attempt to define it or fix it. when i bitch about unreal and impossible beauty standards, the typical reply back is something along the lines of "You're just bitching because you are fat and unattractive". even though i am not "fat" - i am only maybe 25 pounds overweight, which makes me PLUMP - and i am obviously not unattractive, at least going by the number of guys who try to get me into bed. of course, most of them wouldn't have dated me, so there is still that element of maybe i am only good for fucking, that maybe i am too fat for a guy to want a relationship with me.

but then again, i have Pete, and not only does he want to have sex with me, but he wants the relationship. we are living together, and we are going on 5 years...

fuck it. it's the Patriarchy, and it's wrong. look around and see it before jumping on me for being mad at it.
denelian: (Default)
they do not offer more than two or at best three options, and i usually am not really any of the options offered. on the other hand, this is the first of these tests that i feel actually kinda got *ME* at the end. but i wish it had "weaknessess" listed there after "strengths"


Your result for The Ultra Ultimate Personality Test...

The Giver

You scored 52 Extroversion, 87 Intuition, 72 Emotional, and 31 Spontaneity!

ENFJ


Outgoing and friendly. ENFJs cheif concern in life is other people, and fostering harmony and cooperation, between themselves and others. Warm personal interactions-strokes of approval and appreciation- keep them going in life. Sympathetic, cooperative and tactful, with high ideals, they make a consistent effort to say and do the right thing. They are patient and conscientious and make an effort to stick to a job until it's finished.


Relationships

ENFJs put a lot of effort and enthusiasm into their relationships. To some extent, the ENFJ defines themself by the closeness and authenticity of their personal relationships, and are therefore highly invested in the business of relationships. They have very good people skills, and are affectionate and considerate. They are warmly affirming and nurturing. The excel at bringing out the best in others, and warmly supporting them. They want responding affirmation from their relationships, although they have a problem asking for it. When a situation calls for it, the ENFJ will become very sharp and critical. After having made their point, they will return to their natural, warm selves. They may have a tendency to "smother" their loved ones, but are generally highly valued for their genuine warmth and caring natures.


Strengths

Good verbal communication skills

Very perceptive about people's thoughts and motives

Motivational, inspirational; bring out the best in others

Warmly affectionate and affirming

Fun to be with - lively sense of humor, dramatic, energetic, optimistic

Good money skills

Able to "move on" after a love relationship has failed (although they blame themselves)

Loyal and committed - they want lifelong relationships

Strive for "win-win" situations

Driven to meet other's needs













Take The Ultra Ultimate Personality Test
at HelloQuizzy

denelian: (Default)
this is a thing of sheer beauty!!!

denelian: (Default)
i don't read a LOT of UF, but some is quite good.

http://urbanfantasyland.wordpress.com/2009/01/12/urban-fantasy-land-readers-choice-awards/

there is also a contest for $25 from Amazon or BN
denelian: (Default)
really? has NO ONE posted since 6:30 today?

where are you people? where is my random senseless entertainment?

back to work!
denelian: (Default)
this made me cry.
actualy tears running down my cheeks.
i am not gay - does that mean i have to deny the HUMANITY of those who are?

i am ashamed that i am from California. ya know?

if this goes on... (and ha! for a random extra dose of irony and sarcasm, that is the title of a Heinlein novella, which dealt with the US having been taken over by a Theocracy and the civil war fought to free the country FROM that theocracy...) if this goes on... in a few years, my future marriage to Pete will be illegal(again) because we are "interracial". if this goes on, it will be outright illegal to not be straight, and we will see "fag hunts", the modern day version of witch hunts. if this goes on... it will be REQUIRED that everyone conform to christianity, and the jews, muslims, buddhists, pagans, will be hunted and prosecuted. if this goes on... eventually all forms of christianity that are non-evangelical will follow...

If This Goes On. If This Continues, We will turn into just another theocratic tyranny, ruled by the masses, with everything either outlawed or required - it's there, all the warning signs are there. women, people of color, and anyone who doesn't fit "societal norms" will be marginalized, persecuted, prosected... and disappeared.

are you listening, Congress? Supreme Court? Might-As-Well-Be-Already-President Obama?

DON'T TREAD ON ME*



*re-appropriated, and used by me, as a rallying cry to reclaim our Civil Rights
denelian: (Default)
I took the 43 Things Personality Quiz and found out I'm an
Extroverted Reinventing Lifelong Learner
denelian: (Default)
So, I have a new blog I am following - foreverinhell.blogspot.com/2009/01/me-im-not.html - written by an atheist who spends a lot of time (and seems to get a lot of rage-induced enjoyment out of) ripping apart various fundy publications and position. The particular post I linked to is her shredding a fundy who claims that atheist secretly are NOT atheists, that it is apparently impossible to not believe in god, and that atheism (and Catholicism and Mormonism and Jehovah witness-ism and probably every-fucking-church under the sun that is not his church) is secretly Satanism.

First of all, I am not any flavor of Christian. I am pagan (specifically bad-draoi), and never have been, so I often think I am missing something about Christianity (some thing that makes it make more sense, if that makes any sense).

Second... by definition, atheism is not believing in god. It is the exact opposite of religion. Atheists DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD. Or Satan. Or Santa, for that matter. That is what they are. It feels like circular logic, but... the thing is, the definition of atheism is either "lack of belief in god" or "believing there is no god". And while those are not quite the same thing, they both mean that atheists do NOT secretly believe that there IS a god. Atheists are not rebelling against god, or the church, or their parents by professing that there is no god when they do, in fact, believe in god but are just trying to get back at whomever by claiming they don't. THOSE people are a different word (lots of different words, actually, depending on the person).

Third. BY DEFINITION ATHEISTS DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD OR SATAN. So they canNOT be Satan-worshippers, because they DO NOT BELIEVE IN SATAN. This is one of those things that drives me FUCKING BATTY. I have been accused I do not know how many times of being a Satan worshipper, because I am pagan. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN SATAN. Therefore I cannot be worshipping Satan. Fucking get a clue.

Fourth. Satanism is NOT the same thing as devil-worshipping. Devil-worship, to the best of my researching abilities, is either a perversion of Christian rites and rituals, or an inversion of Christian rites and rituals (both are essentially the same thing and the difference seems to be the person who is writing, not any difference in what is done), either with the belief that Satan is more powerful than god and so is the appropriate one to worship, or that while Satan may not be more powerful than god he is somehow or someway more accessible and worshipping Satan has more obvious or material or just plain better perks than worshipping god. Satanism is an atheist-type religion like Buddhism. I would call it the opposite of Buddhism - where Buddhism glorifies spirituality, generosity, charity, and being good in general, Satanism glorifies all things materialistic, being selfish and bad in general. Satanists are supposed to be atheists, yes, but just as all Golden Retrievers are dogs but not all dogs are Golden Retrievers, so are all Satanists atheists but not all atheists are Satanists. (I hope that this analogy is neither confusing nor insulting, it’s just the clearest one I can come up with at the moment. I DO NOT think that atheists are dogs or dog-like).

I just don’t understand how people can believe and behave this way. Jesus was Jewish, he never converted, because he couldn’t convert because there was no Christianity until he died, yes – but he wasn’t trying to start a new religion, he was trying to reform the old one. Pretty much every form of Christianity around today (including Orthodox brands, which date from the “in nominae Christus” issue around 550AD,) is descended from Catholicism – and yet these guys run around screaming that Catholics aren’t Christian. Jesus said for everyone to love everyone else as they love him; these people are most known for how they hate everyone who isn’t just like them. Jesus said “remove the mote in thine own eye before removing the plank from thy brother’s”, meaning correct your own flaws before correcting others. He said “let he who is without sin cast the first stone”, meaning that ONLY those who have no sin can punish other’s for committing sin, and NO ONE is without sin. These people deliberately corrupt and degrade their own holy book, they cannot live up to their own standards (or WILL not) but expect and demand that the US government intercede and FORCE those standards on everyone else, and punish anyone who doesn’t abide by them. Except themselves, of course.

In short, people like this guy are unChristian, but demand everyone else be. And refuse to believe that there is any other option, aside from being THEIR flavor and brand of Christianity – Catholicism, Mormonism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism – anything and everything not in lock-step with they call lies and evil, and then they claim that EVERY already KNOWS that the bible and Jesus and etc are all completely true and anyone who thinks otherwise is the lying…

First Amendment, fucker. … there shall be no laws establishing a religion or prohibiting the free exercise of a religion. And I guess the First Amendment also means that this moron can babble on all day about how all atheists are somehow simultaneously Christians in denial and practicing Satanists. But it also means that I can call him retarded, illogical, mouth-breathing, ignorant, bigoted evil asshole.
denelian: (Default)
Watchmen Exclusive


jake kept trying to post this... i think he was trying in rich text format, so it wasn't working for him - he needs to post in HTML. i do that ALL THE TIME, so i know its a pain in the ass :)
denelian: (Default)

go here please: www.lost.eu/7ad96

denelian: (Default)
seriously. i cannot even snark about this
there are a couple of places where i cringed, due to current events (mostly the Israel/Gaza bloodbath going on) but... i really did shed a couple of tears. if more people did this, the world really would be a better place sadly... this type of movie/show isn't popular, people would rather see misogyny and violence than people being nice to each other. (not that i don't like movies with random movie violence, but i can do without the rape and chauvinism and bigotry and patronising and...) it's long. it's won lots of awards. it has actual acting, and the song... i like the song. i COULD turn this into another rant, about 10 or 12 things, but i think i just want to stay in my happy place.
denelian: (Default)
so, whenever i bring this is, i am invariably fed a line along the notes of "we circumcise boys here, what's the difference"

first. BABIES. they don't remember. it happens right at birth.
second. function. show me the guy who can't orgasm because of circumcision.
third. infection. boys are circumcised AND TREATED. girls are circumcised and covered in ashed.

i could go on and on. no, i do not even think that male circumcision is right. but... male circumcision removes the forskin. female circumcision, GENERALLY, removes the clitoris. it's only supposed to remove the hood, a practise analgolous to male circumcision, but most of the time the ENTIRE clit is removed. often, the labia minor (inner lips) as well, and also often, the whole thing is then FUCKING SOWN SHUT SO THAT THERE IS FURTHER PROOF THE GIRL IS A VIRGIN AT MARRIAGE. sometimes the groom has to use a fucking KNIFE before he can have sex with his lucky bride.

it's horrible. it's cultural. it is NOT religious (Muhummad spoke AGAINST it in the Quo'ran!). it's barbaric. it's inexcusable.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/gallery/2008/12/28/GA2008122801468.html
denelian: (Default)
ok, i stole the last one from Eddie Izzard, of course.

but the others...

i feel like i'm swimming in circles. i really like being a feminist. i like knowing that i am smarter than most people. i like knowing i can slack off in a class and still get an A (unless it's geometry, for some reason). i like being a girl. i like feeling sexy, and i like having sex. i like having my opinions, and i like reading about things to form those opinions, and i like the fact that i CAN read to form those opinions, and that i think about what i read and weigh it against other things that i read. i like the fact that i have a huge width of knowledge, even if much of what i know is relatively shallow (for instance, i KNOW that e=mcsquared. i don't totally understand how it works, but i have the basics).

i don't like the fact that Terrell Owens (do i have the name right? football player, Cowboys now i believe) who seems to only know football, is A)paid fifty-seven-fucking-million dollars a year to play it and then B) is considered a "valid source of politcal discourse" when any major newspaper would ignore me, who is a political science major. the Dixie Chicks. Madonna. Bono from U2. these people are entertainers who open their mouths and spout ignorance - sometimes not even related to what they are asked - and the media fall all over themselves to get these opinions recorded, and then TREAT CELEBRITY OPINION AS FACT

argh!

but that is not where this is going. nono, that's an aside. i want to talk about the celebrities who SHOULD be interview by the media, and perhaps taken a bit more seriously on, say Iraq, than, say, Jennifer Aniston.

i am, of course, speaking of writers. specifically sci-fi writers because they are the ones i know. in my experience (yes, anecdote. but an awful lot of it) most writers of sci-fi, Left or Right, Liberal or Conservative do one very very very important thing when it comes to forming opinions.

they find out the fucking facts first

so if one were to call Anne McCaffrey on the phone and ask her what she thought of what's going on in Darfur, she would either say something like "I was just reading about that i think X" or she would say "I don't know let me go read up on it" (well, ok, i cannot REALLY say that that's what she would say. but i had a conversation with her over a decade ago at DragonCon and i heard her do both things on various topics. what i NEVER heard her do was spout off about something she knew nothing about. she might do that everywhere but at DragonCon, but i doubt it)

and now i want to bitch about writers. who get the facts first, so they are awesome. but they are still human, so they are sometimes wrong, which is not what i am bitching about.

i think i really started to have a noticable problem when i read "Empire" by Orson Scott Card. i've meet Card 5 or 6 times, and while he seems likable i've always hated his politics but i could ignore it and read his stuff... until this book. it was.......... pure propaganda

i guess that overall, i am considered a liberal. because by current definition in the political discourse, conservatives want to CONTROL PEOPLE, and keep everyone being exactly alike, and keep change from happening. i am not saying that liberals don't want to control people, but that there is at least that patina of letting people be different. i KNOW that my politcal views are VERYVERYVERYVERYFUCKINGVERY Heinleinian. i would be a "rational anarchist" if people didn't freak at the word "anarchy". i really, truely, fanatically believe that so long as you are not hurting someone (who doesn't want to be hurt) and so long as the kids are ok you CAN AND SHOULD do WHATEVER you want. well, also so long as you DO NOT KEEP OTHER PEOPLE FROM DOING THE SAME.

my big problem with the Christian Coalition? they are trying to make everyone do what they want, act as they decree, follow their morals (when they often do not do this themselves). we ARE in a war, and i don't mean the Sandbox. we are in a war for Thought, for the ABILITY to think, and act, and believe. i have ranted before about how i can't be republican because i believe in birth control and the right to abortion, but can't be a democrat because i believe people should be allowed weapons (such as guns damnit) to protect themselves and that the death penalty may not act as a DETERENT but we need it for the same reason we kill rabid dogs - at least THAT fucker won't be commiting atrocites anymore.

and i know that the job of sci-fi writers is to envision what the world will be if such-and-such thing happened. Wells talking about the moon, orwell describing "truth" in 1984.

but why the hell are all my favorite sci-fi writers conservative? not really, most of them are quite radical in what they think society should be... but almost all of them are anti-liberal and vote Republican.

this is summed up best, i think, in a book by Michael Z Williamson. it's entitled "The Weapon" and both it, and the book it is a sorta-sequal to, presuppose an earth which is ruled by the UN and is a liberal Hell. the military has quotas with the non-discrimination taken to suicidal levels (people in wheelchairs in SpecOps). Ringo has very similar imagry (esp. in "The Last Centurion") and Card... "Empire" postulates some grand conspiracy of the Left, making mecha and taking over New York City and shooting all the police (and anyone else in a uniform), hiring terrorists to kill the prez and VP, spinning and spinning untl a civil war of blue vs. red is almost unavoidable.

but the far right fears? absent. the possibility of a theocracy? ignored.

am i wrong (politcally)? should i be leaning Right instead of Left?

i don't think so. it just confuses the holy hell out of me. the wingnuts on the right are scarier to me than the wingnuts on the left. it looks, to me, that a theocracy is lot easier to achieve than a socialist state. and a lot worse. part of that may be because i don't see (some) socialism as bad - i think universal health care is a great thing, i BELIEVE in civil rights and civil equality and civil marriage. yes, catering to the lowest common denominator in education lowers the education level (the left-hand vice in education) but making education something only for the elite is worse (the right hand vice). the lowest-common-denominator allows everyone a CHANCE, anyway. the elitism model means only those who are lucky get any chance.

i believe that we are All Created Equal. i believe everyone has the right to say whatever they want. i believe that i am both as GOOD and as IMPORTANT as a person with a penis and "y" instead of a second "x". i believe that the government should stay out of religion, and that religion should stay out of goverment. i believe that i am MORE important than a bundle of cells that only has a 1-in-4 chance of becoming more (and has zero chance in me, because i will die if i try to stay pregnant. presuming any fetus doesn't miscarry before then because i am not in remission). i should be allowed to smoke, others should be allowed to avoid that smoke. i BELIEVE in most of what the Left (is supposed to) Stands for. yes, i admit that a future, such as the above writers postulate, based on radical far-left fringe is just as bad as a future based on the radical far-right fringe. both are bad - the lunatic fringe always is.

i just wish i knew an alive, and still working, writer who leans to the left like i do and who is trying to warn us of the perils of the right, like the writers above try to warn us of the perils of the left. (Eric Flint is a lefty like me, but he mostly writes alternate history and so it's not quite the same. and everything that i have read of him that isn't history based in co-written with someone who is very right leaning, so it STILL isn't what i want, except Boundry, and the sequal isnt out yet and.... sigh). these writers (except Card, obviously) generally are people i would get along with (i correspond with several), generally people who do think that gay people should be allowed to marry other gay people because its no one else business, generally people who support "pro-choice" ideas and ideals because a woman is more important than a parasite, generally are very pro-science, generally egalitarian, generally... everything that i am. except they vote republican.

is it the lack of uterus? they aren't threatened, DAILY, with being forced to become nothing more than incubators, they aren't threatened with rape and other gendered violence on a hugely regular basis, they don't suffer the "second shift" or societal expectations of beauty and "motherhood", they aren't forced to have EVERY FREAKING FUCKING ISSUE ABOUT THEM be in the "FASHION" section, for fucks sake!  they are judged on what they say and how they act, not how big their tits are and if they are menstrating.


is that all it is? is that one little privilege (that is bigger than the sun) enough to get them to vote republican? these are SMART guys. these are successful guys. these are guys who think. and yet they vote for, and support, and defend, the Right. it's not that i think the Left Is All, that i think the Left Is Perfect - i KNOW that both sides are equally corrupt, and that we have to pick a side, the side that matches most closely with what we want. it's that these are guys who, in general, think and want what i think and want, yet they bat for the side that is in general the opposite of that.
denelian: (Default)
http://whitewomensuck.blogspot.com/

i... i don't know what to say about this.

on the one hand, ANYTHING i say about this can be used as an attack against me, solely due to the fact that, as someone perceived as a white woman, anything i say MUST be coming from a position of privilege, etc. on the other hand - i have seen women of every stripe and creed act in unconscionable manner. yep, there are things that white women are *more* guilty of than other types of women - girls gone wild, i suppose. there are other negative stereotypes attached to ALL women, either by group or as a whole. same as with men. i can't help but think that the problem this guy actually has is that white women, as a group, have more power and agency than other women because we only labor under a SINGLE handicap, that of being a woman. not a "colored woman" (which i think he means to be ANY non-white woman, which is why i used it) it's not that *white women* are over-represented in the media, it's that white *people* are. and women are portrayed in only a few, stereotypical cliches. they can be
a) the shrewish wife/mother
b) the abused victim/princess
c) the smart girl who is still option B but isn't stupid
or d) a slut.

these are often mixed and matched, and more and more you are seeing non-white-women as something BESIDES D. but it is still more common for white women to have a greater depth of shallow stereotype (if that makes sense... maybe a larger width of shallow stereotype) but where there are 20 white women to every 1 non-white woman, it skews what is percieved. add to that the fact that, in the US and Europe and Australia, where most media is created, the majority of women are white, and it is quite easy to see how someone can develpe the impression that white women are catered to. take, for instance, the idea that men prefer blondes. (please! take it away). add to that the fact, at least in the societal mind (not individual minds!) women are supposed to prefer *dumb* women, and the fact that blondes are supposed to be dumb, and what do you get?

i dunno. i mean, i don't self-identify as white. i have dated everything - from mexicans to mormons (a mistake i won't repeat, mormon ideals about sex are, well... lets just say *magic underwear*, kay?). i've never dated a guy *because* of his race, and have (often) dumped guys for their racism. except for the one guy who found out after about a month that i was Cherokee and not white, *he* dumped *me* but i never regretted that one. guys are pretty much guys. for some reason, women only get to be stereotypes.

and i'm having trouble NOT believing that this guy resents white women only because they are more likely to leave him or report him for abuse (which, btw, is NOT true - statistically, *black* women are much more likely to not put up with it). its just too over-the-top, too pat, too STEREOTYPICAL and only looking at ONE CLASS of white women, too wrapped up in white women having sex with lots of guys, too obsessed with interracial relationships (but only when one person is white). and mostly, too STUPID.

WHY???

Dec. 24th, 2008 10:39 pm
denelian: (Default)
" She loves him and wants to make a gift to him of her physical body"

fucking seriously? this quote is from a review of "Twiligh" (and why can't i stop reading these fucking reviews?). listen, lady, i read those books to. and no, Bella did NOT want to "make a gift of her body" - she WANT TO GET LAID! it is NOT THE SAME FUCKING THING. the first says that girls, women, don't want sex, that they only want to "gift themselves", have sex with a boy, to keep that by around. the second means that they DO want sex, FOR SEX, because women get horny too! we want to have to sex and orgasms! i do NOT "give pete sex" - if anything, Pete gives me sex! really, we HAVE SEX WITH EACH OTHER.

fuck and of diediediediediedieDIE you stupid person! seriously. i think this is why sex is still used as a weapon against women - because, STILL, society says that women SO NOT WANT SEX. if  a woman DOES want sex, then OBVIOUSLY there is something wrong with her and she is a slut. that is what we are told, constantly. that, even if we want sex, we don't really because its just a tool for us to use to control the men in our lives. that we only get "horny" in response to unconscious cues that are telling us if we don't put out our guy is going to leave us.
BUT I DO WANT SEX. not just to keep pete around - if i HAD to have sex to keep pete around, pretty sure i WOULDN'T want to keep pete around, if you know what i mean. i want sex because it is a thing that *I* desire.

argh. no ARGH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Page generated Jul. 23rd, 2017 02:36 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios