People who prey on others are not confused about what they're doing.

Popular rhetoric these days is that people - well, typically "men" or even explicitly "all men" (expressio unius est exclusio alterius) - need to be "educated" about consent so they can comprehend what is and is not acceptable. Setting aside legitimate, honest miscommunication and philosophical disagreement for the moment, this is either wishful thinking or derogatory generalization or both.

The people who perpetrate deception, harassment, force, etc. know that they are perpetrating deception, harassment, force, etc. and are well aware that people consider it unacceptable. I've dealt with many of these people myself, both men and women (and even a transgender individual or two as well). Those same people will often complain about the same or similar things happening to them or somebody they care about, even to their victims, before, during, and/or after they do it themselves. The issue is not that they think their behavior is acceptable, or insignificant, but that they think it is acceptable or insignificant only when they do it. This is not a lack of comprehension or innocent misunderstanding of the subject, but a case of blatant self-entitlement. To give them the benefit of the doubt with rhetoric about how they "don't understand" is to basically just give them a bullshit excuse for their intentional transgression(s). To suggest they should be lumped in with other people who don't carry the same attitude is insulting to those other people.

It's not a nice simple quixotic theory like "teach men not to rape" or "men don't understand consent" or any of the other nonsensical rhetoric being thrown around, but the world we live in is not nice and simple just because we want it to be. "Men" are not "almost exclusively" or even "primarily" responsible for possessing or displaying this attitude and people who possess and display this attitude are not simply in need of "education" to be able to understand that what they are doing is unacceptable. What actually needs to be addressed in this case is that some people from any gender believe that they're above having to respect things like consent just because they don't want to, even though they know damn well what they're doing is unacceptable.

If you want to have educational and philosophical discussions to address some of the legitimate miscommunications and disagreements about consent as well, that's fine. Just don't suggest they're "gendered issues" or lump it in with people perpetrating deception, harassment, force, etc. or suggest people who perpetrate those things are "uninformed" about consent. By excusing, "gendering" or conflating those issues you're not doing any favors for anybody except the people who absolutely don't deserve it.

"Trans-Misogyny" Is A Misnomer And Bathroom Restrictions Unjustified

A lot of people seem to think the recent hatred and distrust of MTF transgender people is a new and unique thing. There's plenty of writings and speeches about how trans people are being uniquely singled out and persecuted regarding bathroom usage just for being trans.

What they don't seem to realize is that this is merely the extension of the same old chivalrous notion (as well as modern social justice rhetoric) that men are inherently a threat to women and women need to be protected from them.

There's the usual social justice scapegoating going around about how "misogyny" and "male homophobia" are the culprits, but at the same time we hear about how much more hostile people are toward somebody "not a real woman" trying to enter a "female space" than anybody (male, female, trans, straight, gay, etc.) trying to enter a "male space."



In fact, some people will plainly state that they have "never" experienced any significant issue in a men's bathroom as a homosexual and/or trans person, but are regularly treated in a very hostile manner and even threatened with violence by both men and women when attempting to use a women's bathroom.

If this were really "misogyny" and "male homophobia" one should expect to see the opposite - women, homosexuals and anybody else who was "not a real man" would be unwelcome in the men's bathroom, while women would be plenty welcoming within "their" space.

What we have here is not a fear, hatred and distrust of "not straight cis-male" people by men, but a fear, hatred and distrust of "not straight cis-female" people by and on behalf of women. That is why the problem presents the way it does. The women who balk at the idea of trans people using the women's bathrooms aren't displaying "misogyny and male homophobia" and the men who balk at the idea of trans people using the women's bathrooms while simultaneously not caring about a trans person, homosexual, or even genetic female using the men's bathroom aren't displaying "misogyny and male homophobia" either. What they are actually displaying is closer to "chivalrous misandry." They are displaying a fear, hatred, or distrust of "not female" people regarding their perceived "threat to women."

People need to wise up and start understanding that all prejudice is inherently interconnected and any promotion of hatred or distrust of any demographic will inherently impact all demographics negatively in one way or another. The same gender hatred the social justice warriors have been promoting all this time is now working against them. The fabricated "constant risk" of sexual assault and domestic violence, the fabricated "almost exclusively male perpetration" of sexual assault and domestic violence, and the rampant rationalization of the hate and distrust of all men as "inherently threatening to women" has created an environment where many people feel it is perfectly reasonable to bully, threaten, assault, or even legislate a "man in a dress" trying to enter a "female safe space."

This is not "trans-misogyny." If anything, it's closer to "trans-misandry."

Otherwise, you may as well label trans exclusionary radical feminists as "misogynists" - it's the same basic reasoning being used in both cases.




It turns out, though, that women perpetrate things like sexual assault and domestic violence at rates comparable to men.  Specifically when it comes to arguments like "men are going to use the opportunity to prey on women" and "I don't want a man in the bathroom with little girls" they just don't hold water, because women also prey on women.

http://www.curvemag.com/Curve-Magazine/Web-Articles-2010/Lesbian-on-Lesbian-Rape/

Because many people define rape at penetration by a penis, woman-to-woman rape is not acknowledged or taken seriously. But in fact, it is estimated that one out of three lesbians have been sexually assaulted by another woman.

In April 2009, Melissa Huckaby, a Sunday-school teacher, was arraigned for the rape and murder of Sandra Cantu, an eight-year-old playmate of Huckaby’s own daughter in Tracy, Calif.

And many studies actually suggest that, statistically speaking, women are more commonly the perpetrators of sexual assault and abuse of children.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/svjfry09.pdf

Sexual Victimization In Juvenile Facilities Reported By Youth, 2008-2009 Approximately 95% of all youth reporting staff sexual misconduct said they had been victimized by female staff. In 2008, 42% of staff in state juvenile facilities were female.

http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/cm06.pdf 

Child Maltreatment 2006 (Page 75)
For  FFY 2006, 57.9 percent of the perpetrators were women and 42.1 percent were men.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm11.pdf 

Child Maltreatment 2011 (Page 68)
More than one-half (53.6%) of perpetrators were women and 45.1 percent of perpetrators were men.

Now, it should go without saying, but I'm not suggesting there's no risk of anybody being victimized by a person of the opposite sex who took advantage of trans-inclusive bathrooms to facilitate predation.  What I am suggesting is that whatever risk does exist, not only has it been wildly exaggerated, but people should be equally concerned with same-sex predation, so bathroom gender exclusivity is simply not a practical solution.

Fighting the imaginary wage gap, one armpit at a time

Pandering

Have you seen these ads? How could you not, when they're dominating every single commercial break on TV lately?

"...for nearly two years Flint's water was poisoned..."

and now that I'm running for president I'm making a stink about it - not any time over the last two years before it was big in the news when it would have actually been helpful, but only now when I want to pretend I care about more than my own personal grab for power.  When my campaign is over you can rest assured I'll go right back to not caring the least bit about the Flint water crisis.

"...but there are so many examples..."

Really? Name some.

Why The Illegal NSA Data Collection Doesn't Actually Worry Me

I'm sure you've heard by now all about the illegal spying and data collection by the NSA.  A lot of people seem very concerned that their privacy has been violated and worried about being harassed, exposed, etc.

Here's why it's not a big concern of mine:

Yes, our information is being illegally mined, collected and stored somewhere for the NSA to access whenever they want.  Yes, as a matter of principal such illegal data mining should be halted and those responsible for breaking the law prosecuted.

However, with so much information to deal with how likely is it they're going to notice any specific one of us in the clutter?  Statistically, you probably have a better chance of randomly pointing to a spot in the picture and having your finger land on Waldo than the NSA actually taking enough interest in you to bother accessing any of their stored data about you specifically.  Personally, I'm not going to be losing sleep over my name being in some insurmountably massive NSA database where it's likely no human will ever lay eyes on it, even if it is an illegal invasion of my privacy.

Are We Equal?

While the message of "we should stop this" is good, the "are we equal" question is actually a wasteful and even offensively dismissive distraction.

Every culture where female genital mutilation is practiced, male genital mutilation is also practiced, so the answer there would be "yes, you are equal." In terms of number of victims worldwide, male genital mutilation has many more, though, so the answer there would be "no, not equal, you are less commonly mutilated."

Asking "are we equal?" makes zero argument for stopping female genital mutilation.

Where female genital mutilation is outlawed, male genital mutilation is still legal, so the answer there would be "no, not equal, you are more protected." In those cases, would they want to be equal?

Asking "are we equal?" makes zero argument for stopping female genital mutilation.

In addition, they use the same old "female genital mutilation is much worse than male circumcision" argument, which serves no purpose besides suggesting one should get attention and the other shouldn't.

Again, "are we equal?" is a pointless question, because not only does it not provide any argument against female genital mutilation, but they obviously don't want to be equal, or they wouldn't portray the issue as "horrible genital mutilation" for one sex and "just circumcision" for the other.

I am of course all for ending genital mutilation, but people need to think through things before they go making videos which don't provide intelligent arguments and attempt to trivialize the issue regarding anybody not within their pet demographic.

What I wish I had said...

I attended a lecture about infant male genital cutting yesterday and afterward I found myself being asked questions about my interest in the subject by somebody writing an article on it. One of the lines of questioning went something like this:

Interviewer: So, you oppose the practice based on how it violates the child's right to body integrity?

Me: Yes.

Interviewer: Are there any other reasons?

I didn't have a good answer for that one, because there was just too much to say in response. Everything covered throughout the entire lecture was another reason, from myths that clearly have no factual or rational basis forming the foundation of the pro-cutting position, to the attempted imposition of moral "pre-punishment" and sexual control the mutilation represents, to the procedure being in violation of every modern medical ethics measure, to the dishonest way it is marketed, to the shitty way the legal system handles the subject, to the fact that it can be viewed as violation of the child's religious freedom, etc.
However, this is what I wish I had said:

Other reasons?

Isn't that one enough?

A cosmetic surgery which drastically changed the function and appearance of my genitals was forced on me without my consent. The mutilation left me with virtually zero fine touch sensation and greatly, severely diminished erogenous sensation of any type, from what I gather, possibly much less even than many other mutilated men. The mutilation also left me with damage to vital subcutaneous structures resulting in consistent pain and ever-present risk of further, much more severe complications in the future. The only real option I have for resolving the most concerning damage and corresponding pain is additional surgery, which carries risks of its own and is probably as likely to make things worse as it is to improve anything.

I will spend my entire life not knowing what it is like to look down and see my genitals the way they were meant to appear. To feel the sensations I was meant to feel. To experience sex without at least as much pain involved as pleasure. To not have to put substantial effort into the sometimes futile attempt to acheive orgasm, not just within a specific timeframe, but at all.

I will spend my entire life "playing through" the discomfort, disfigurement, disfunction and dysmorphia that I was never given the option to refuse, simply because the people who were supposed to be looking out for my interests apparently thought their perverted aesthetic preferences about a helpless infant's genitals were more important than my right to not have normal, healthy parts of my body crushed, ripped and cut off without my consent.

And the real kicker is, mine was considered a "successful" mutilation, because I was lucky enough not to be one of the victims to bleed to death, or contract a fatal infection, or lose much more of my genitals to the procedure than was intended, or end up with any number of other more severe deformities than I did.

Isn't a person's right to decide for themself whether they want to be subjected to such an unnecessary violation of their body enough reason to oppose the practice, so somebody else has the opportunity to choose whether they risk going through the rest of their life dealing with the same things I do...or worse?

I guess it likely wouldn't have made much difference to say it.
Probably would have been a bit too long of a quote to make it into the article anyway.

"That other place has cheaper gas..."

I'm really sick of hearing this pointless monologue.  If you are too, here's some simple figures you can toss out the next time somebody goes off on a rant about "which place has cheaper gas."

Let's be generous and assume your car gets 20 MPG driving in the city.

Let's also assume a median estimate of 10 gallons you're putting in your tank.

And gas right now is around $3 per gallon, where different stations around town likely have about 5¢ total difference in price.  For the benefit of the doubt, we'll assume the highest price is the one closest to you.



Now, if you shop around and find the absolute lowest price in town, the difference in price will be a total of 50¢.

If you drive even just 2 miles out of your way to get there, you're already losing money just at the pump alone. Round trip = 4 miles, 4 miles being 1/5 of 20 miles, 1/5 of $3 is 60¢, 60¢ subtracted from 50¢ = -10¢.  For every mile out of your way beyond that, subtract another 30¢. (3 miles = -40¢, 4 miles = -70¢, 5 miles = -$1, etc.)

In addition, let's assume you make a menial wage of $9 per hour.

If you figure in time as well (for example if you have to clock out of work while doing this) you could easily spend 10 to 15 minutes driving that 2 miles out of your way to get gas, losing another $1.50 to $2.25.

So in total, you're looking at between $1.60 to $2.35 (or the equivalent of more than half a gallon of gas) that you're losing by seeking out a lower price, even with very conservative estimates.



When you go to put gasoline in your car, quit annoying people by incessantly nit-picking about where it's a little cheaper and just fill up at the closest place.  In the end, you're actually saving money by not worrying about it.

Men vs Women Re: "Gendered" Crime

I've written about "gendered crime" before, but it occurs to me that there's another angle to consider here.

For a moment, let's forget about the statistics, the estimates, the convoluted gender theory.  Let's pretend that the differences in figures that "gendered crime" proponents like to use can't be explained by simple reporting/measurement bias.  Let's just consider some basic, necessary conditions for "gendered crime" to be a real thing.

The claims:

Women commit these crimes at a significantly lower rate than men do.

Men don't have to worry about being raped/assaulted by women the way women have to worry about being raped/assaulted by men.

The conditions:
#1. Women are inherently not as capable as men - that is, women cannot commit these crimes on an equal level to men, because they lack the ability to do so.  Women are inferior to men.
-or-
#2. Women are inherently better people than men - that is, women have all the same ability to commit these crimes on the same level, but simply choose not to.  Women are superior to men.



If there is a "significant difference" in risk and perpetration of "gendered crime" then one of those two conditions must be true.  If they are both false, that inherently means there is no "significant difference" based on the popular "because gender" prejudice. (and suggests you should probably take a closer look at where those claims come from)  So, if you're one of the "gendered crime" proponents, please tell me which of those two conditions you think is responsible for the "significant difference" in "gendered crime."  In your mind, are women inferior to men, or are women superior to men?

Reporting a rape to the police is too traumatic for women.

You've probably seen this argument, right?

"The police don't take them seriously and end up re-victimizing them, so expecting them to be able to report the crime to the police is unrealistic!"

And that's why we need to expedite the process of punishing somebody accused of rape without having to go through that pesky "police report/evidence collection/trial" process, especially since women never just blow things out of proportion, right?






The answer to a system perceived to be dysfunctional isn't to make the system more dysfunctional by trying to remove the checks and balances which keep it from being abused, but to make it less dysfunctional by trying to get it to function more effectively with those checks and balances still in place.