I Will Never be Murdered Like Michael Brown

I will never be murdered by a cop the way Michael Brown was.  That is, unless I attempt suicide by cop, and even then this is not guaranteed.  I can say this confidently based on my own personal experiences, and those of many of my friends, as white people interacting with the police.

Between the ages of eleven and nineteen I had multiple run-ins with the cops for minor offenses. Fortunately, I do not have a criminal record.  I was never convicted of any major or minor crimes.  I was never even charged with any misdemeanors or violations.   

My history with the police began when my friends and I took up skateboarding.  I was a white kid from a working class family living in a working class town in upstate New York.  All of my friends were white and came from a similar background.  Some of my friends were a little more poor than me, others a little more well off, and a few very well off.  We were all white (well, the friends I got into trouble with were all white).

Those early episodes with the police revolved around our skateboarding.  Like many towns across America we did not have a skate park.  In fact, we had nowhere to skate.  So what did we do?  We skated in parking lots, abandoned properties, and on the streets and sidewalks.  We were not allowed to skate in any of those places.  We would find a good curb in a parking lot, spend a few minutes trying to grind it, and then a business owner or resident would call the police.  The cops would show up promptly and kick us out.  For the most part the police were intimidating, but that's because they were bigger than us and had guns.  They usually treated us pretty well.  Sometimes they were a bit gruff, but rarely mean and never abusive.  They would just tell us to leave the property and we'd be on our way.  Sometimes they would even bullshit with us for a few minutes.  One time a cop even tried to ride my skateboard (after asking my permission, of course).  Nonetheless, we fancied ourselves rebels and would give them the finger and call them pigs behind their backs.  The cops took that in stride and pretended not to notice.  This continued throughout my six year skating career.

As I got older I would get into slightly more trouble.  I started drinking and smoking pot in my early teens.  My friends and I would have wild house parties involving underage drinking, drug use, and occasional vandalism.  Those parties were often broken up by the cops.  Nonetheless, none of us were ever arrested or charged with anything, unless someone drove away drunk or did something particularly egregious, such as verbally or physically attacking the officer, being caught with drugs, or fighting.  Often times the parties weren't even broken up, we would just be asked to quiet down.  This was largely due to one individual in our crowd that actually enjoyed talking to cops.  He would often spend a few minutes chatting it up with the police that came to bust up the party, and then he'd come back to the party and announce that we could all stay as long as we kept the noise down and didn't try to drive.

When I was seventeen I was busted for possession of a small amount of marijuana.  This time I was actually handcuffed and detained in my local police station for about an hour while the arresting officer completed the paperwork.  I asked him while he was cuffing me if he thought someone like me (ie: innocent looking white kid) was going to get high then go out and rape and pillage.  He told me no, he didn't think that, that he was just doing his job.  He went on to add that he wished that people would just smoke pot in their homes so he didn't have to waste his time with petty offenders like me.  He gave me no grief for asking about this and treated me as an equal during our entire interaction (well, as equal as possible given that I was being detained by an agent of the state).  I had to go to court for this offense.  The real kicker in all of this is that my court date was the same date that I had to be in traffic court for a speeding ticket (unrelated to the possession offense).  I had to attend the same court for both offenses.  I first stood for the traffic ticket.  Since my father knew a state trooper my ticket was knocked down to a faulty tail light and I was ordered to pay a small fine with no points on my license.  I walked out to the back of the courthouse, paid my fine at the window, and then walked back into the courtroom to await my second hearing.  The judge seeing me walk back in looked up and shook his head.  When I stood for the possession charge I was given an ACD.  ACD stands for Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal.  When one gets an ACD the understanding is that as long as that individual does not get into any trouble over the following six months their case will be dismissed.  It is not a conviction or a form of probation.  It is a delayed dismissal. In other words, I got away with it.

My last run in with the police occurred on Halloween when I was nineteen.  I was in college and was headed to a party with a group of friends.  It was a pastime at my school for students to break the wooden parking gates at the entrances to the various campus parking lots.  On this particular Halloween I decided to get in on that tradition and I promptly ran my body through a wooden parking gate breaking it off.  It was good, old fashioned vandalism.  Unfortunately, since this happened so regularly, and since it was Halloween, the local police department had officers staking out the parking lots on campus just in case some jack ass like myself decided to take part in our college pastime.  I broke the gate, and before I knew it a cop was running up behind me.  I ran as fast as I could.  There were other officers positioned ahead of me, so I stopped running after only a hundred feet or so.  The cop pursuing me tripped and sprained his ankle.  I was detained by the police for the second time in my life.  And again, I was only detained for as long as it took for the arresting officer to complete the paperwork (still made it to the party, only an hour late).  I apologized to the officer for causing him to injure himself.  He told me it was all right.  He said he was mad at me and didn't like me very much at that point, but that he'd heal and get over it.  I think it is relevant to mention here that the arresting and injured officer was African American.  Think about that for a moment.  I resisted arrest by running, and the arresting officer was injured in pursuit.  I was only charged with vandalism.  How might that have played out if I were African American and the officer was white?

I attended court for the vandalism charge, and again I was given an ACD and paid no fine.  This was my third ACD.  The first was for the possession charge, and the second I received for getting too many speeding tickets.  That second ACD had expired less than a month before I received the third.

Students across all races and socioeconomic strata are guilty of offenses similar to the ones I committed as a teenager.  Yet, students of color are disproportionately disciplined by school systems and the police for these types of offenses.  I have seen this first hand having worked both in poor, predominantly black schools, and wealthy, predominantly white schools.  In the wealthy, predominantly white schools students often don't even have to answer to the police for their transgressions.  These things are kept quiet and quickly forgotten.  In the poor, predominantly black schools such transgressions earn students suspensions, expulsions, probation, time in juvenile detention, and hefty fines.  

When I was twenty I was walking down the street late at night, drunk, and a police officer driving by gave me a lift home.  When Michael Brown was eighteen he was walking down the street in the middle of the afternoon, sober, and police officer drove by and shot him.

Vermillion Desterenephous

Source

I don't know how long ago the virus hijacked all of our neuros. A lot of people have been lost in an infinite dream as they waste away back in the primary thread of reality. Some of us have learned how to live with the virus though. We can jump from one thread (ie: a simulated universe) to the next at will. But we still need help from those on the outside, those that never had neuros in the first place, to bring us back to the primary thread from time to time. Most of us, those like myself that can jump from one thread to another, spend our time exploring the threads. I have a particular fascination with Vermillion Desterenophous.

* * * * *

In many threads Vermillion Desterenophous has no meaning whatsoever. I know it means nothing in the primary thread. I once found a world in which vermillion desterenophous is a type of plant/animal hybrid that secretes a sweet, reddish jam-like substance which attracts passing animals. After ingesting the fragrant substance the animal soon becomes lethargic and falls into a euphoric stupor. Once the prey is sufficiently disoriented and tired the vermillion desterenophous extends a broad and very soft leaf, usually about two meters long and a meter and a half across. The prey, upon noticing the leaf, will lie down on it and fall asleep. The vermillion desterenophous will then secrete more of its' jam-like substance to further incapacitate its' victim. The leaf then envelopes the prey and secretes a caustic acid which quickly dissolves and digests the slumbering animal.

In another thread I found that Vermillion Desterenophous was the name of a punk band that overthrew an oppressive government and took the reigns of power. Very quickly Vermillion Desterenophous became even more despotic and sadistic than the government they overthrew. They began a mass extermination of anyone who listened to or played country music. Those unfortunate souls that enjoyed country music were given a chance to convert by being locked in a plain white room with lights on twenty-four hours a day. Music from Black Flag was piped in constantly, and once they pledged allegiance to Vermillion Desterenophous and the Dead Kennedys they were freed. Those who did not convert were beheaded. The severed heads of the victims were then shout out of t-shirt cannons into the audiences at Vermillion Desterenophous concerts. The heads of these apostates quickly became collector's items and a speculative-bubble soon formed over the ever rising prices of these severed heads. Eventually over thirty million people were beheaded for being punk apostates. With the market saturated the price of severed heads eventually dropped dramatically, the bubble burst, and within a week the economy had come to a halt. Amid rising unemployment, hyper-inflation, and mass beheadings the people quickly grew weary of Vermillion Desterenophous. Vermillion Desterenophous was overthrown in a military coup lead by the renegade general and country singer Hart Headly. The Headly regime proved to be just as despotic.

Perhaps the best incarnation of Vermillion Desterenophous that I saw was in a thread where the whole world was at peace. Vermillion Desterenophous was a poet, playwright, and philosopher who came up with a philosophy of radical empathy towards all living creatures. He was given the title of Supreme Bard and Philosoph of a nation, Gondwanaland, already dedicated to charity and egalitarianism. His concept of radical empathy was quickly embraced and spread throughout the world via Gondwanalands' foreign policy. I think one of the reasons why radical empathy worked so well in this world was because the total population of sentient beings numbered only fifty million.

In one world vermillion desterenophous is a radical economic and political ideology that has caused centuries of despotism, violence, and war across the whole world.

There was one thread where vermillion desterenophous is just a weed.

In another it is a type of concrete.

This is what is so amazing about the virus. This is why I love jumping worlds. I've learned to control it perfectly. It's like an old time google search. I just think of a term or a concept and I'm there. It's fantastic! I can search anything, absolutely anything. Even something as meaningless as Vermillion Desterenephous. Who would of thought that something so absurd as Vermillion Desterenophous could actually mean something in so many worlds! In the primary thread it is utterly meaningless, but in so many others it's everything. I can come up with anything and I almost always find a thread in which my non-nonsensical babel actually means something. Take for example something totally ridiculous, even more so than vermillion desterenephous, like Henry Kissinger. Again, totally meaningless in the primary thread and many others. But I found one thread in which the United States engaged in a brutal and aggressive war in Vietnam. In this thread Henry Kissinger was Secretary of State to President Richard Nixon and one of the key architects of a secret war in the country bordering Vietnam, Cambodia. Not only did Henry Kissinger have meaning in this world, but he was also a war criminal. In that thread President Nixon was forced to resign amid a growing scandal over the release of a secret history of the wars in Vietnam and Cambodia. Henry Kissinger, along with many others, were never held to account for their crimes. It was very similar to what happened in the primary thread, but there the aggressive war was fought in Algeria instead, and the president who was disgraced and impeached over it was John F. Kennedy.

And of course there are many other worlds where Henry Kissinger means something. In most worlds Henry Kissinger is an invasive species of fungus that destroys whole ecosystems. Such similarities between threads is actually quite common. I have found that the words, names, and phrases I make up often have the same or similar meanings in different threads. It seems that there is a continuum of existence for all things. A certain essence which life maintains across realities. The closer one thread is to another the more subtle the differences between them. One can judge the distance between threads by the abruptness of a jump. The more radical the difference between one thread and another the further they are away from each other. So if you are reliving your childhood one moment and then orbiting a gaseous planet in a distant solar system the next then you just made a big jump. Conversely if the only difference between two threads is the existence or non-existence of a single leaf on a tree then your jump was minute and probably imperceptible. In fact most jumps are imperceptible with the differences between threads simply being the placement of a single atom.

Often the similarities are not to be found in a creatures physical manifestation but in its effects of the wider world. This is why Henry Kissinger is a war criminal in many threads and an invasive species of fungus in others.

The Gremlins Behind my Eyes

The gremlins behind my eyes spoke my dreams to a murder of crows.

Set shallow in my pupils the little beings watch the coursing, thriving, bio-electric mass of protein that is my mind.

That little glimmer in everyone’s eye, light reflected off of their metallic suits.

The little gremlins watch our thoughts.  They observe, analyze, model, and predict.

Benign, usually.  They just gather and absorb.  

But this time . . .

This time they found reason to tell those damned crows!

They told them about my dream of the camps.

The old crows and young heard of degradation and despair.

They learned of waste, carrion, and fear.

Old crows and young learned nothing new,

They cawed and cried for sorrow and joy.

And I asked the little gremlins behind my eyes “Why did you share my dreams with this murder of crows?  Why did you share that one dream?”

The gremlins starred from my shallow pupils, metallic suits glinting in the fluorescence.  They would not answer back.

“I would happily share my dreams, the good and the bad.  The limitless and the void.  The crows know of the void, we all know the void.  We are of it, the universe eats us.  The darkness of the void motivates urgency, passion,  and meaning in our being. Yet you only show them the void, and not the brilliance that illuminates it.”

But the gremlins only stare blankly, and get back to work.

Condescending Parents: I Don't Want Kids, and I am an Adult

Source

As a teenager I began to think that I might not want to have kids when I got older.  By the time I was in my
mid-twenties I was pretty certain that I wasn't going to have any kids.  Now, at the age of thirty, my thirty three year old life partner and I have decided, unequivocally, that we don't want to have kids.  We came to this decision for a variety of reasons including but not limited to our desire to travel, broader family issues, a desire to maintain and expand upon a lifestyle that is not necessarily amenable to raising children, and morally fraught proposition of bringing someone into this world that might not want to be here in the first place.  My partner and I had both been thinking about these things before we met, and have discussed them at length while examining and questioning our reasoning constantly.  In other words, we've put a lot of time and thought into this decision.

However, you would never know that if you saw how people react to us when we tell them that we don't have, nor do we want, kids.  The reactions are typically shocked, dismissive, and condescending, especially from those who have children.  Responses vary, but there are a few that are very common.  Among the most common are: "Oh you're still so young, you'll probably change your mind in a few years;" "But you'll never have a truly fulfilling life / be a true adult / know what love really is;" "Who will care for you when you're old?" and my favorite "But isn't that kind of selfish?"  Let's take these one at a time.

You're still so young, you'll probably change your mind
Yes, my partner and I at thirty and thirty three are so damn young.  Sort of.  Yes, we are biologically still of an age where we can easily reproduce, but that window will be closed in a decade or less without fertility treatment and all of the intended risks (to the parent and child) that come with that.  When I'm met with this response I find it to be very dismissive, invalidating, and condescending.  It was one thing when I was fifteen and I said I didn't want kids.  I was fifteen and wanted to sound cool and rebellious, and at that time I didn't know what the hell I wanted out of life.  Now, though, I've been thinking about these things for more than fifteen years.  I've put a lot of time and mental effort into this and my decision is based on intense moral reasoning and personal introspection.  When you say that due to my age I will probably change my mind what you are implicitly saying is that the decade and a half of thinking I've done on this issue is of little consequence; that all of the mental time and effort I put into this decision is not that important; that I'm the equivalent of a petulant child trying to piss off the elders.  So, thanks for telling me that my decision is naive and childish.

But you'll never have a truly fulfilling life / be a true adult / know what love really is
This line of thinking is summed up very well in a blog post by Sarah Larson entitled "I Think People Without Kids have Empty Lives and I'm Not Sorry About That."  Here is an excerpt that gets right to the meat of it:

I never thought of myself as the kind of person who judges other people’s choices. But after spending enough of my life with kids and without, I can’t deny what I really feel: It’s a perfectly fine choice to never become a parent, but there is absolutely no chance that your life will be as full or meaningful, or that you will learn as many essential truths about existence, as you would if you had kids. 

Because when it comes down to it, there are certain truths about life that you literally cannot know until you've become a parent. The list of those truths could go on forever (no, it really could), but the core truth behind all of it is about what human life is about, how we relate to each other, how to care for each other, and the tiny moments that, in the end, are what we do all this other shit to support.

This is so offensive that I don't even know where to begin.  Firstly, the author says she doesn't like to judge other people's choices, then jumps right into doing so.  It kind of reminds me of the old trope "I'm not racist, but . . ."  Yes Ms. Larson, you are judging my choices and telling me that I'm wrong.  Beyond that she writes about certain truths about life, such as how to care for and relate to others, that one "cannot"  know if they don't have kids (Interestingly, later in the post she says that people can learn these truths without kids, just that it will be more difficult and less meaningful).  Well, she's wrong.  Let's take her line about learning to "care for each other."  Having worked in education for several years, and specifically having spent time working in behavioral classrooms, along with having spent time caring for loved ones with mental illness, I have learned a lot about how to care for others.  I would argue that I am actually much more caring and compassionate, especially when it comes to children, than many, many parents that I know.  I've known kids with very 'loving' parents that beat them with coat hangers; that would say things like "Fuck you you little cunt!" to ten year old kids; that would leave their kids in daycare every night not because they had to work, but because the wanted to go out to happy hour.  When you argue that I can never truly care for others if I don't have kids you are invalidating all of the work I've done to care for others and to help make their lives a little better.  Try telling them that I don't know how to care, they'll disagree.

Another meme that comes along with this line of thinking is that one will never truly experience unconditional love without children.  When I write 'unconditional love,' I mean loving someone no matter what they may do to you or others.  For example, despite the fact that your spouse routinely beats your with a paddle and limits your autonomy you still love them and feel obligations towards them.  That's unconditional love.  I feel unconditional love for many people, and I'm working hard to stop doing that.  Unconditional love has led me into a toxic, enmeshed relationship (not with my life partner, but with another loved one) which I would have ended long ago had it not been for the 'unconditional love' that I feel for this person.  Because of that 'unconditional love' I'm spending large amounts of time and emotional energy to try and salvage a relationship that most sane, rational people would tell me to end ASAP if this person was not a loved one.  Instead I'm doing all I can to salvage a relationship that negatively impacts my life and damages my relationships with others.  Maybe if so many people didn't love their spouses/ parents/ children unconditionally then many fewer people would be the victims of domestic violence.  I've experienced unconditional love, and I want nothing to do with it.  Unfortunately many people take unconditional love as permission to verbally, emotionally, and physically abuse those giving the unconditional love.

Furthermore, I am a fully realized adult, and my life does have meaning.  I find meaning in every child that I finally understands multiplication after I help them with their homework.  I find meaning in the deep, loving, and trusting relationships that I have with my life partner, my friends, and my family.  I find meaning in the smile on my niece's face, and the grunts that come from her mouth, when I ask her if she wants to play monkey.  All of these experiences contribute to the person that I am and have helped me to mature into the adult that I am today.

Who will care for you when you're old?
Probably the same people who will care for you: the nurses, doctors, and orderlies in the nursing home that your children put you in.  Additionally, if one of the main reasons why you want to have kids is so that someone will care for you when you're old, then you're being incredibly selfish.  Additionally you are assuming that your child will actually love you enough to take care of you in your elder years.  You can be the greatest parent ever and still end up with adult children who hate you.  I wouldn't plan your retirement assuming that your kids will care for you.

But isn't that kind of selfish?
Admittedly, at least in my own experience, I am met with this reaction less and less these days.  But I still get it regularly enough.  I guess you could say that it's selfish of me to not want to give up going out of town on a moment's notice, or to give up sleeping in on the weekends and having a long lazy morning.  And I'm not sorry about that.  I don't want kids because I don't want to begrudge them or resent them because I had to give those things up.  Unfortunately, too many parents end up doing exactly that.  The truly selfish ones are those that have kids because "That's what people do," or because "Kids are so cute and I love playing with them."  Regarding the latter, if you want kids because they're fun and cute, get a job in a daycare center or a day camp.  Regarding the former, having kids because it's another milestone in life that everyone goes through is probably the worst reason to have a child.  You are bringing a human life into the world.  This is not like taking a shitty job or moving into an apartment in sketchy neighborhood when you're in college.  You can change those things, but you can't change the fact that you brought a human life into the world.  If you have kids because you think it might make you feel better, or that you'll seem like more of an adult in the eyes of others, then you are the selfish one.

*     *     *     *     *     *     *

In the end, the people hurt most by these types of responses are not people like myself and my partner, but parents and children.  The responses I go into detail about above are part of a larger juggernaut of social pressure  and obligation to reproduce.  Many, but not all, parents became parents not because they truly wanted to.  They became parents because it was expected of them.  They never questioned their desire to have children.  They never asked themselves "Is it me that wants to have children?  Or is it other people?" So many people bring children into this world without considering what it truly means to create a human life. I'll give a pass to those that have children at very young ages.  Often very young parents made a mistake, and they know it.  What I cannot every respect is those who have kids because that just what you do at a certain age.  Your child is not a new car.  Your child is not a college education.  Your child is a human being and you'd better be damn sure that you are ready and aware of what a monumental task this is.  If you haven't done that but you still had kids, then you are a selfish prick who is potentially going to create and subsequently destroy a life.  

Mike Adams and Natural News: There Will Be Blood on Your Hands

Source

Recently on NaturalNews.com noted anti-GMO activist and charlatan Mike Adams wrote a paranoid, rambling, and quite frankly dangerous screed against GMO proponents.  Adams takes the position that those who support and advocate GMO technologies are the same as Nazi collaborators and should be treated as such. This is not just wrong, it is highly offensive and dangerous.

In over 4000 words Mike Adams screams in bold print about how there is a "scientific regime" taking over akin to the Nazi regime which killed over eleven million people.  He compares Nazi bastardization and abuse of science to promote eugenics to the biotech industries use of science to promote GMO technology.  At one point Adams says:

The warning signs that "GMO science" is following "Nazi science" are difficult to ignore. There is already a kind of scientific dictatorship surrounding GMOs which routinely invokes mafia-style tactics to silence scientific opposition, blacklist GMO skeptics in scientific circles, and destroy the character and careers of any who oppose the biotech regime. Monsanto's suing of farmers whose fields are contaminated with GMO seeds is especially grievous, and the online activities and tactics of its supporters very closely resemble the criminal mindedness of Hitler's Brownshirts.

The sad thing about this quotation is the fact that this is not at all true.  There is no scientific dictatorship around the use of GMO technology, but there is a consensus as to it's efficacy and safety.  Scientists don't blacklist or silence anti-GMO activists, they ask them for evidence and ignore them when none is forthcoming.  That is what science does.  Science is not a democracy where all people vote on the truth.  Furthermore, the comparison of GMO supporters to the Brownshirts is just laughable and historically ignorant, and it belittles and trivializes the horrors that the Brownshirts wrought on target populations.

Worst of all though is that Adams actually calls for vigilante justice to be taken against GMO supporters (which he denies within the same sentence):

Interestingly, just yesterday German President Joachim Gauck celebrated the lives of those brave Nazi officers who attempted to assassinate Adolf Hitler in 1944. (1) Their attempted Wolf's Lair bombing failed, but it was an honorable attempt to rid the world of tremendous evil by killing one of the people responsible for it. 

This official ceremony sends a message to the world, and that official message from the nation of Germany to the rest of the world is that "it is the moral right -- and even the obligation -- of human beings everywhere to actively plan and carry out the killing of those engaged in heinous crimes against humanity." (UPDATE: Those are the paraphrased words of the German government, not my statement.)

So, since he quoted someone else means he is not condoning the killing of GMO technology supporters.  Except that he is.  He even goes on to suggesting that someone set up a website listing the names of "Monsanto Collaborators" along with helpful information to track them down.  Unfortunately, someone did just that: http://monsantocollaborators.org/ (fortunately it seems to have crashed).  Mike Adams has gone on to write that this website might actually be a false flag operation:

At first, I was pleased to see the list being published, but within a day, I decided the site was more likely another false flag trap set up by biotech operators who troll internet sites spamming message boards and intimidating bloggers and journalists. My best guess right now is that MonsantoCollaborators.org will be used to try to sucker in anti-GMO activists and then it will call for some sort of extremist violent action which can be blamed on activists. That's why I've warned the public about this up front in an effort to disarm that tactic. False flags will be used by biotech operators in precisely the same way Hitler used false flag operations to justify military invasions of his strategic enemies.

It is interesting to note that Adams cites absolutely no evidence whatsoever for this belief.  In fact, he cites no evidence whatsoever for his comparison of GMO proponents to Nazis.

In the end if you think Monsanto is pure evil and the GMOs are going to kill us all then fine, go on believing that.  You will soon be left behind by the rest of the humanity as we continue to progress and improve the human condition.  However, if you feel the need to use anti-science propaganda to justify your political ideology; if you feel that the scientific consensus around GMO technology does not fit your worldview and hence must be wrong; and most importantly, if you believe that those who support GMO technology need to be killed, then I care.  I care about the safety of good people trying to cut through the haze of anti-science misinformation so as to better inform public policy.  I care about the safety and well-being of small, unpaid bloggers like myself who try to promote science and skepticism.  Even if Adams does not seriously want people like myself to be killed his dangerous screed will contribute to it.  It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of when.  Mike Adams and Natural News should be held criminally negligent should any harm come to any person listed on Monsantocollaborators.org.

Why Women and Men Need Feminism

Source

Recently I've seen a meme going around on facebook that I find to be quite disturbing and misinformed.  This meme, published on IJRreview.com, features pictures of 15 women holding up signs explaining why they don't need feminism.  I don't deny that the women in the pictures are sincere in their beliefs, and they are of course entitled to hold those beliefs.  However, their beliefs are based on a complete misunderstanding and ignorance of what contemporary feminism is all about.  Most of the ideas expressed in these pictures have many common themes.  There are three themes in particular that appear in some or all of these signs. They are:

1. Women are not victims of anything
2. Feminists demonize men.
3. Men have issues too.

Each of these themes expresses the mainstream of the conservative understanding of feminism, and they bear little resemblance to reality.  Each idea listed above is based on a caricature of feminism, not the reality of feminism.  The caricature painted by these photos presents feminists as women who hate men and want to overthrow patriarchy and monopolize power for themselves.  Additionally these 'feminists' want all women to have indiscriminate sex all of the time, to revel in and enjoy having abortions, to eschew motherhood and femininity, and make sure that all women view themselves as helpless victims who are entitled to unearned government subsidies. Fortunately for all of us this is not actually what contemporary feminism is all about.  I can anticipate many readers saying "I know that this isn't how all feminists think, but there are some like that."  Okay, this may be true, but in all of my reading of feminist literature, in all of my time spent with feminists, I've never once encountered such attitudes.  Sure, maybe this mythic man hating, power hungry, abortion loving, man raping bull-dyke exists, but if she does then she has absolutely no influence over feminist thought and philosophy nor standing in feminists circles.  Period.  So, without further delay, let's address each of the themes above one by one so we can come to an understanding of what feminism actually is and is not, and how it benefits both women and men.

Women are not the victims of anything

This is just wrong and a denial of reality.  One in five adult women and one in seventy one adult men report having experienced rape at some point in their lives.  A national survey of high school students conducted in 2011 found that 11.8% of girls, and 4.5% of boys in grades 9-12 reported that they had been forced into sexual intercourse at least once in their lives.  Keep in mind, this is based on what people have reported. Given that many rapes and sexual assaults go unreported the numbers are surely higher.  Lest you worry that I'm getting these statistics from some sort of biased feminist organization I didn't.  These numbers come from the Centers for Disease Control.  Anecdotally I can report that no less than three women in my life whom I know very well have each experienced rape and sexual assault.  I was the perpetrator in at least one of those instances of sexual assault (see the twelfth point here).  Feminists do not seek to make all women believe that they are victims.  What feminists seek is for society to recognize both women and men who have been victimized by sexism and patriarchy.  Feminists want us all to recognize that there are victims of sexual violence and that they deserve justice just the same as anyone else who has been the victim of violence.  We want people to not fear coming out about their experience and working through the difficult and debilitating emotions that come along with having been victimized.  Feminists do not seek to create victims, we seek to recognize victims, bring their perpetrators to justice, and fight to keep others from being victimized.  

Feminists Demonize All Men

Again, this is just plainly wrong.  Feminists do not seek to demonize men, but they do seek to highlight and point out male privilege.  This is not demonizing men, it's recognizing reality.  Similarly, pointing out male privilege is not attack on the person with the privilege, it is a critique of the social system which confers certain privileges on some while denying them to others for purely arbitrary reasons.  The idea is not that women should take these privileges and deny them to men, it is that both men and women should have these privileges.  Furthermore it is actually the anti-feminists out there that demonize men and belittle women.  Anti-feminists would have you believe that women who are raped or sexually assaulted deserve it because they must have been dressed provocatively or behaved indecently.  Such an attitude implies 1) that men are beasts incapable of controlling their primal sexual urges to rape anything with a vulva; and 2) that women need to have their dress and demeanor policed lest they entice one of these beastly, uncontrollable men to rape them. Personally, as a man, I find this to be highly offensive.  I've been guilty of sexual assault and harassment.  I knew better.  The women involved were not necessarily dressed proactively nor 'acting slutty.'  They did nothing to cause me to do that.  What did cause me to do those things was a sense of entitlement that I felt to their bodies.  That's my problem to figure out, not theirs.  Golda Meir put it best when she was asked about the possibility of imposing curfews on women in Israel after a series of rapes had occurred.  She responded, "But it is the men who are attacking the women.  If there is to be a curfew, let the men stay at home."  

Men Have Issues Too

This is true.  Men do have issues as well, and many of these issues are tied up in sexism and patriarchy.  Men are oppressed by patriarchy as well, but in different ways.  Feminists do not deny this fact.  Feminist thought in the current moment is very cognizant of the issues that hurt men and recognizes the links between men's issues and women's issues.  They are in fact the same issues.  They are human issues.  Patriarchy hurts everyone involved. For example, the policing of sexuality is an issue that affects both men and women negatively.  Patriarchy dictates that women not to be sexual. We know how this oppresses women, but this same patriarchal view of sexuality dictates men should always be virile and horny. Any woman who is sexual, or any man who isn't, faces disapprobation.  Even the men who dominate society are too oppressed by patriarchy.  Men who digress from prescribed gender roles are marginalized, mocked, and ridiculed.   Unlike women though we at least have the ability to hide those aspects of ourselves, although this is still very damaging.  Take myself for example.  I break gender norms in that I love to cook, I do much of the cleaning in my home, I write poetry, I cry, and I have a rich emotional life.  I've taken a lot of shit for these things over the years.  My masculinity and sexuality are constantly questioned.  I've spent years of my life downplaying, hiding, or denying these aspects of myself.  Only now am I just beginning to understand myself as a person.  Only took THIRTY FUCKING YEARS!  Sexism and our society has repeatedly denied, invalidated, and belittled who I am as a man.  I am a man, and I cry, and fuck you if you can't take handle that.  The feminists in my life accept and respect me for who I am, not for who they think I should be.  My issues are not denied by women and feminists, they are embraced, highlighted, and recognized.  I would not have understood these issues without feminist thought.  

The goal of feminism is not to overthrow patriarchy and replace it with a matriarchy in which women monopolize power and oppress men.  The goal of feminism is to overthrow an inequitable, oppressive, and patriarchal system and replace it with an equitable, egalitarian, system in which all people share power and work collaboratively towards addressing and solving the problems facing humanity.  In other words, feminism is humanism.  

One last thing to note for all of the men out there reading this and saying to yourself "Y'know, this guy's got a good point," keep in mind that the women in your life have already told you these things.  You just didn't listen because, y'know . . .

Hobby Lobby Hypocrites

Source

Liberals, progressives, secularists, humanists, and many, many others are shocked and dismayed by yesterday's ruling from the Supreme Court allowing Hobby Lobby and other 'closely held' corporations to impose their religious beliefs on their employees (even if those employees do not belong to the employers religion, and even when the employers religious beliefs fly in the face of reality and good public health policy).

We are shocked because this sets a precedent that may allow for corporations, already considered 'persons' by the Supreme Court, to opt out of other laws, or parts of laws, that they don't like as long as they can prove their reasoning is motivated by religious belief.  The decision was limited specifically to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and contraception coverage, but it sends a signal to 'closely held' corporations that they may find a sympathetic ear at the Supreme Court when they decide that their 'religion' obligates them to seek exemption from other laws the impinge on their beliefs (labor laws? environmental regulation?).

We are dismayed by the fact that the Supreme Court seems to believe that the religious liberty of 'persons' such as corporations supersedes the human rights of women.  There is no war on religion in this country, but there is an assault on secularism, and this case is a perfect example.  From gay marriage and sectarian prayers at public meetings, to abortion and opposition to the ACA, the religious right in this country is fighting not for the right to practice their religion, but for the right to oppress and eliminate the rights of others based on religious belief.

And we are galled by the fact that the Supreme Court has said that religious conviction allows a 'person' or closely held corporation that employs others has the right to let their religious convictions supersede the personal medical decisions privately agreed to between a woman her doctor, and her partner (to all the men, this isn't just a 'women's' issue).  This is by far the most highly offensive part of this ruling.  Anyone who values personal autonomy, privacy, and basic human rights should be livid over this decision.

However, the most offensive thing about this whole decision is not the decision itself, but Hobby Lobby.  The family behind Hobby Lobby, the Greens, are devout Christians.  They seek to run their company based on Biblical principles.  They claim to be sincere in their beliefs and that's why they needed to seek redress of their grievances, and they took it all the way to the Supreme Group.  This is so galling, so heinous, and so abhorrent because not only are they seeking to impose their superstitions on their employees, but because they are outright hypocrites regarding this very grievance.  In April Molly Redden reported in Mother Jones that:

Documents filed with the Department of Labor and dated December 2012—three months after the company's owners filed their lawsuit—show that the Hobby Lobby 401(k) employee retirement plan held more than $73 million in mutual funds with investments in companies that produce emergency contraceptive pills, intrauterine devices, and drugs commonly used in abortions. Hobby Lobby makes large matching contributions to this company-sponsored 401(k).

You read that right.  Hobby Lobby invests in the companies that manufacture the very contraceptives that so offend their religious convictions.  The Greens are hypocrites in the truest sense of the word.  They are dissemblers seeking to deceive for their own ends.  Ben Domenech writing for the Federalist tried to defend the Green's hypocrisy by saying that "the investments and decisions with them [401[k] plans] are made by employees, not employers [emphasis in original].  The menu of choices is provided not by the employer but by the administrator of the plan, offering a wide range of mutual funds . . . "  According to Domenech these retirement plans are administered by the plan administrator, not Hobby Lobby, so their hands are clean. There are two problems with this argument.

First, Domenech makes it seem as if Hobby Lobby has no control over which companies money that they invest in a 401[k] will go to.  This is false.  Rick Ungar of Forbes debunked this claim in short order by noting:

[N]ot only does Hobby Lobby have an obligation to know what their sponsored 401[k] is investing in for the benefit of their employees, it turns out that there are ample opportunities for the retirement fund to invest in mutual funds that are specifically screened to avoid any religiously offensive products.  

He went on to name mutual funds such as The Timothy Plan and the Ave Maria Fund which filter out companies that manufacture contraceptives and or support Planned Parenthood.

Second, Domenech's argument that Hobby Lobby had no control over which companies a given mutual fund invested in is precisely the same control that they sought over the administration of the health insurance plans offered to their employees.  Apparently Hobby Lobby believes that it has a right to uphold its religious beliefs when it comes to restricting the human rights of its female employees, but that it isn't necessary to stick to their religious beliefs when it profits them.  Lying, greedy, self righteous, God damned hypocrites.