Skip to content

Today’s Assignment: Compare and Contrast

And:

Discuss.

Science Explains Why You Are SO DISGUSTING. (Hint: It Involves Food!)

Oh, Science, you rascal! I look away for one second, and there you are, dropping weirdly gendered knowledge on the populace like it’s your business. (SCIENCE ALERT OF THE FUTURE: Dropping Weirdly Gendered Knowledge on the Populace Its Business.) Today’s Science Alert concerns eating, and why it is very bad. Here are the actual findings, as far as I can tell: 
[Men and women] underwent brain scans while being presented with their favorite foods. In addition, they used a technique called cognitive inhibition, which they had been taught, to suppress thoughts of hunger and eating. 
While both men and women said the inhibition technique decreased their hunger, the brain scans showed that men’s brain activity actually decreased, while the part of women’s brains that responds to food remained active. 
Now, I could make some joke about men voluntarily turning off their brain centers, and it would be very three-camera-sitcom and sort-of-quasi-but-not-really-feminist of me. I will do no such thing! This conclusion does, in fact, sound very Scientific. When presented with the same stimuli, using the same learned technique to suppress reactions, men’s brains showed less activity in the targeted center than women’s did, although subjects of both genders reported fewer conscious urges to act on those stimuli. Intriguing! Also, impartial! I can’t really harp on that. What I can do is show you the headlines that various news outlets used to report it, which go like this:  
STUDY PROVES MEN MORE LIKELY TO RESIST FOOD THAN WOMEN (“A new study by American researchers has found men are more likely to resist food than women, as they have more will power” – I know, we’re just doing the headlines, but this was so delightful I had to share) – DBTechno.com
WHAT MAKES WOMEN FAT? BLAME THE BRAIN – The Chicago Sun-Times
And my personal favorite, which is notable in that it just bypasses the issue of food altogether and gets straight to the point, which is: 

MEN RESIST TEMPTATION BETTER THAN WOMEN – KARK 4 News, Little Rock, Arkansas

Now, as I was reading all of this legitimate journalistic coverage of the issue, I kept getting the feeling that I’d heard this story somewhere before. It was something about women, and eating, and our inherent weakness which leads us to do bad stuff, and…
…oh. Oh, right, there it is. 
So, my question to the Respected Legitimate Journalists of America is this: if you are going to deploy this incredibly ancient form of misogyny, as well as the more recent “women who like food are gross and we hate them” variety, why not go all the way? Here are my suggested headlines for Science News of the Future: 
WOMEN BASER THAN MEN, MORE PREY TO CARNAL URGES – Ye Medieval Tymes
WOMEN DETERMINED TO BE IDENTIFIED WITH NATURE, GROSS ANIMAL INSTINCTS; MEN, CULTURE AND THOUGHT – Weirdly Prevalent Binaries Determined to Be Pretty Much Bullshit Quarterly
ALL WITCHCRAFT STEMS FROM CARNAL LUST, LOVE OF BURRITOS, WHICH ARE IN WOMEN INSATIABLE – Malleus Maleficarum Sun-Dispatch
SCIENCE PROVES THAT IF YOU HADN’T LET YOURSELF GO, I WOULDN’T HAVE HAD TO SLEEP WITH HER, NOW WOULD I? – Journal of Blatant Rationalizations
WOMEN: DO YOU NOT KNOW THAT YOU ARE EACH AN EVE? THE SENTENCE OF GOD UPON THIS SEX OF YOURS LIVES IN THIS AGE: THE GUILT MUST OF NECESSITY LIVE TOO. YOU ARE THE DEVIL’S GATEWAY: YOU ARE THE UNSEALER OF THE FORBIDDEN TREE: YOU ARE THE FIRST DESERTER OF DIVINE LAW: YOU ARE SHE WHO PERSUADED HIM WHOM THE DEVIL WAS NOT VALIANT ENOUGH TO ATTACK. YOU DESTROYED SO EASILY GOD’S IMAGE, MAN. ON ACCOUNT OF YOUR DESERT EVEN THE SON OF GOD HAD TO DIE. ALSO, YOU ATE THE LAST OF THE OREOS, AND I WAS SAVING THEM. – The Daily Tertullian
There. Now, that’s news! 
*This is the headline on Google Reader; the site replaces “tougher” with “better.” I’m so glad they realized this might sound wee bit sexist! “MEN BETTER THAN WOMEN” is a far more sensitive way to lead off your post, don’t you think? 

SCIENCE FACT: Chicks More Likely to Admit Having Emotions

Happy Historic Event of the Inauguration of Barack Obama Day! I hope you enjoyed it! I certainly have. Yet, while we do things like “hope” and “cry” and “pat ourselves on the back for ending racism in America because we are FOX News correspondents and therefore terrible and wrong all the time,” Science labors on!

For example, did you know that women are emotional? They are sooo emotional, you guys. More emotional than men, even! Women are so emotional that, even in their sleep, they keep having emotions and stuff! This is what Science, through its earthly vessel Jennifer Parker of the University of the West of England in Bristol, has discovered.

Well, actually, what Science has discovered through Jennifer Parker of UWE is that women have more nightmares than men do, and report having more intense emotional experiences of those nightmares, in their dream journals. This could be due to any number of factors – like, say, the fact that women are socialized to express emotion more freely than men, or the fact that it is not culturally acceptable for men to admit they are afraid of anything, or the fact that, generally speaking, dudes are discouraged from keeping dream journals in the first place and might therefore be less comfortable with whipping out the glitter pens and unicorn notebooks in order to share their deepest darkest secrets with a research team. This is not what Science and/or Jennifer Parker have determined to be true, however! Here, Parker explains:

“From our results it appears that men and women differ in the frequency of nightmares – women have more – and women perceive those nightmares to be more emotionally intense.

“I think that women use their dreams as a subconscious coping strategy.

“I believe these results show that women carry over their waking concerns into their dream life more so than men do, and they appear to have more difficulty with ‘switching off’ their concerns.”

For the record, while explaining her various crazypantsed generalizations, er, SCIENTIFIC CONCLUSIONS, Parker does not say that she actually did any research into what her test subjects experienced in waking life, so she’s apparently assuming that women are failing to “switch off” concerns (so emotional!) without really investigating said concerns in the first place.

Which makes no sense, because there are a ton of more or less non-gender-related things you can do to give yourself a nightmare: terrible, horrible, traumatic things, like reading The Lover before bedtime (young chicks and old dudes – I find this gross! IT’S A GOOD BOOK, I’M JUST SAYING) or watching Southland Tales, ever, or quitting smoking, which, for the record, is actually scientifically proven to give you screamingly vivid and weird dreams even when you use that gum that tastes like Satan’s asscrack. Like, last night, due to I think all three of these things, I had this terrible terrible dream about being forced (somehow!) into an arranged marriage with Wallace Shawn, and he was telling me about how many times per week I would be expected to, um, have dinner with Andre, and I had just reached the part where he was like, “I would like you to slap me around,” and then I woke up, hyperventilating, and my gentleman caller was there, and I was like “OH HOLY CRAP THANK GOD YOU’RE TALL, I mean, HERE.” This happens to dudes, too, I am thinking! Or, at least, it happens to someone else. Oh, God, please tell me it happens to someone else. It was so horrible.

Anyway. I have no problem with believing that women might be more able to access their emotional lives than men. I might even be willing to believe that they are under more emotional strain or experiencing more psychological conflict than men are, because, whatever, it’s a man’s man’s man’s man’s world and all of that. Yet conducting a study that is basically just you reading dream journals and then being like, “chicks have soooo many feelings?” Jennifer Parker, you had better be grateful that I am a person who resists puns in my daily life, because otherwise, I would be mighty tempted to conclude this post with some version of the phrase “wake up.”

UPDATE: Oh, snap! It appears that I did just that, and it was lame! Oh, well. Here is something to haunt your dreams. 

To Choose Our Better History.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things. The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.” – OFFICIALLY NOW PRESIDENT of the ENTIRE UNITED STATES Barack H. Obama, in the twenty-nine seconds of his speech I was actually able to view while the Internet freaked out from everyone logging on to it at once and I contented myself with viewing the high-water pants of change.

Yes. Let’s do that. That sounds like a plan.

First, Do No Harm. Unless You Feel Like It!

Hey! Who wants to hear some good news? Like, for example, Obama officially becomes President tomorrow, and it’s going to be really super inspirational, and when I was at the airport today they were playing one of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s speeches on a TV, and this man of color, I think he was in his mid-twenties, sort of left his post at the coffee stand, where he was working, and sidled up to the TV, and turned it alllll the way up, so that King’s voice was ringing throughout the terminal and the man stood there, quietly, very solemn, and I was like, this is history, this is what this particular moment in our history looks like, and I almost cried and vowed to be kinder and more self-vigilant and to expand, consciously, on the amount of work I do to make the world better day to day and… awwww, screw it. I knew I shouldn’t have read the news today! What is this crap? 
So, a lady went to the doctor to get the strings on her IUD shortened. The nurse practitioner, AKA Sylvia Olona, AKA Defendant Olona, AKA Nurse Judgington, pulled the damn thing right out. Now, I don’t personally know how much it hurts to have a surgically implanted device yanked out of your tender ladyflower, but on the scale of 1 to Like a Motherfucker, I am imagining it rates fairly high. So, that’s one strike against Nurse J. 
It gets better! While the defendant was no doubt swearing and clutching her abdomen, Defendant Olona explained, chipperly enough, that “I personally do not like IUDs. I feel they are a type of abortion. I don’t know how you feel about abortion, but I am against them.” 
“Gee, I’m so happy we’ve gotten to know each other better, Sylvia. Now, PUT THAT BACK IN MY CROTCH BEFORE I STAB YOU TO DEATH WITH IT,” the patient (AKA plaintiff) probably did not say, but should have. Then, Defendant Olona patiently explained that, since her patient’s choice of birth control conflicted with her own personal beliefs about what should and should not go in a vagina, she would not be inserting a new IUD. 
Say, guess who can’t get fired? Yes, thanks to President “My Name’s Ironic, If You’re In Third Grade” Bush and his farewell fuck-you to the becervixed population, Plaintiff X can sue Olona and the Rio Rancho Family Health Center all she likes, but the people who (bewilderingly) hired her cannot simply get rid of her because she is a bad nurse and a terrifying person, or the center will risk losing its funding. Want another quote from Defendant Olona? Here you go: 

Defendant Olona stated, ‘Everyone in the office always laughs and tells me I pull these out on purpose because I am against them, but it’s not true, they accidentally come out when I tug.’ 

Ha! Ha! Olona might be intentionally and consciously causing her patients physical and emotional pain due to her unwarranted and reprehensible attempts to control their bodies and deprive them of reproductive choice! Oh, the quirks of modern medical life! Oh, it’s just like an episode of Scrubs! Ha! Ha!
Anyway, I have decided that I must be a part of the solution, not simply a person who reports on the problem. Therefore, I have decided upon a course of action that I believe to be one hundred percent effective: I am going to become a surgeon. I only hope that this does not interfere with my religious beliefs of Amputology! 
Yes, it’s true, I’m an Amputologist. You see, I believe that long ago, when we were all souls trapped in the Spirit Volcanos of Scalpulon, we were chosen to incarnate upon this earth in order to become wiser and learn to use very sharp knives. Our adversary, Regenerato, believed that our human shells were not fit for this great and terrible knowledge. Therefore, he sends his emissaries, the Starfish People, to deceive us and keep us from using the very sharp knives that are our birthright. The Starfish People look just like us, with one exception: if you cut their limbs off, they will grow right back! It is important to unmask these Starfish People. Therefore, if you ever encounter someone in a very deep, drug-induced state of passivity – like, say, anesthesia induced for the purposes of surgery – you should cut off something of theirs, maybe a finger or a hand, or (if you are really in doubt) a leg or two. If it grows back, you’ve found a Starfish, which must be destroyed; if not, a sister or brother human, who can sport their human limblessness with deep spiritual pride. 
Now, I know what you are saying: would my Amputologist morals not conflict with my duties as a surgeon? To you, I say: they would not! Oh, there might be some giggles in the break room about my tendency to lop the limbs off my patients, but really, these are my personal morals, which are beyond question, and are also not at all grounds for me to be fired. Anyway, it’s not as if I’m taking all of these calves and forearms off on purpose – they just come off when I happen to hack through them with a bone saw! It’s all very innocent and religious, as you can plainly see. 
Anyway: me. Medical school. Surgery. It’s going to happen. I can’t wait to get my first patient! And, Sylvia? If you ever need treatment? I think we can manage to take you on pro bono. 
[UPDATE: Oh, OK, the clinic is not publicly funded, apparently, so they can totally fire her. So I found their phone number and called to see if anyone would tell me how keeping her around fit in with their – totally noble! – mission of providing family planning services to women in their community! I got me a voicemail. So, while you should NOT HARASS FAMILY PLANNING CLINICS BECAUSE THAT WOULD MAKE YOU A TERRIBLE PERSON, doing a little citizen journalism can be quite enlightening. I guess they just keep her around for laughs! Good to know!]
[Via.]

Any criticism of the discourse is absorbed into the discourse, or: Martha, mon amour.

There is something truly ominous about women who make their livings talking to other women about domesticity. Rachel, Oprah, Julia, Martha: there are others, of course, but these are the ones that everyone knows. Somewhere inside everybody’s head, there is a kitchen, and a nice lady who lives there, and she tells you what to do, and says that you are a good helper if you do it right. She is your mother, this woman, even if your mother was nothing like her. She’s the mother we’re all told we should have had. The women of whom I speak are millionaires (or were; Julia’s dead) because they make those kitchens, and those women, seem real.

My mother has been subscribing to Martha Stewart Living since the early nineties. She has been videotaping the shows. She has been buying the tie-in products. It is a very real relationship that she has with Martha, and one which has not always been easy. She is not an uncritical or a gullible viewer: oh, her assistant did that, she’ll say, while watching the shows, or, do you really think she has time to do that by hand? I suspect most of her viewers do the same. Yet the expertise of Martha is, ultimately, unquestionable. Martha may not actually dip fruits in egg white and sugar to create seasonal holiday decorations, but we do, and we do it our own damn selves. We live up to the standards which she imposes – grumbling, perhaps, but nevertheless willing. We want that kitchen, that mastery of the domestic: Martha, more than anyone else, seems to imply that perfection is attainable on this Earth, if we will only do as she says.

The draw of, say, Oprah, or Rachel Ray, is that of a good mother: expertise that verges on omnipotence, within their limited spheres, combined with a beaming just-us-gals good nature. If I can do this, so can you, they say, and they make it seem true – by complaining about their weight, telling intimate, not entirely flattering stories about their home lives, or laughing when they “screw up” their demonstrations. One thing they never do is talk about feminism. Acknowledging that the domestic sphere may be problematic for women is not in their best interests; they’d have to talk about glass ceilings and double shifts and the distribution of labor within the home, all of those things that can cause women to cook or wash dishes or decorate their homes out of obligation, without pleasure. These women have jobs, but their jobs are to make it seem like they don’t have jobs. They sit on cozy couches or stand behind counters and smile and chat about girl stuff, just like we’d all be doing if those darn women’s libbers hadn’t come in to make everything so complicated.

This is precisely what Martha does not do, and this is why she is more fascinating than any other woman of professional leisure. She’s a wire mother, delivering the goods, but not the warmth that is supposed to go with them. If I can do this, so can you is not Martha’s credo. Instead it’s I can do this; can you? She never lets you forget that she has this gig because she is very, very good at doing this specific, traditionally unpaid kind of work. You can rail against Martha, make jokes about Martha, or throw Martha in the slammer, but one thing you cannot do is make Martha give you approval you haven’t earned.

It is some measure of how unmotherly Martha is, as a personality, that I was surprised and a little alarmed to find out that Martha had at one point given birth to an actual child. This child’s name is Alexis, and she is the star of Whatever, Martha, one of the newest additions to the Stewart television empire, which my mother tapes, and which I, while at my mother’s house, am watching.

Whatever, Martha was born (my mom says) due to Martha Stewart’s great love of Mystery Science Theater 3000. I choose to believe this, in the absence of anything to back it up, because I like the idea of Martha getting baked and watching Laserblast while thinking of new ways to add to her millions. The conceit is as such: Alexis watches old tapes of Martha’s many shows, and yells angrily at the screen in a way that should be, and sometimes is, funny. Then she tries to do one of the actual crafts or recipes Martha has demonstrated on a show, while watching the tape and continuing to yell.

Alexis, who is a blonde, slender, WASPily boned young lady, does all this with the help of her “friend” Jennifer, who shares none of the above-listed qualities. I put “friend” in quotation marks, because I get the sense that the patient, generous-minded Jennifer likes Alexis about as much as I do which is: not very much. You guys, Alexis is terrible. She is like every young white woman with inherited money that you ever met and wished harm unto. In the most recent episode of Whatever, Martha, great fun is had at the expense of a segment about making “corn jewelry,” which is what happens when you make holes in individual kernels of corn using an apparently industrial-grade drill and then string them onto bits of a Slinky. The word “maize” is used in this segment, which means that it is time for Alexis to whip out her various cutting jokes about the Native American population.

She sits cross-legged (“Indian style,” she reminds the camera) and puts her palms together, as if meditating.

“Who am I?”

Jennifer draws a blank.

“I’m the guy on the Land O’ Lakes package,” she says.

She looks nothing like the person on the Land O’Lakes package, who is a lady. Later, Jennifer pipes up, saying, “if you’re going to make jewelry…”

“Buy it,” Alexis says WASPily.

“Or, you know, make it using something beautiful,” Jennifer says, hopefully.

“Or just BUY IT,” snaps Alexis, apparently intent on making some depressing point about class.

The cooking segment, which is about making Baked Alaska, is even more fun. Alexis makes great sport of Jennifer’s penchant for sneaking tastes of the meringue, and at her amateurish use of the meringue piping equipment. Alexis has been required to pipe frosting and meringue onto stuff since she was two years old, of course, and is a pro. “Yours looks just like your mom’s,” Jennifer says, after Alexis has told her how hideous her own (totally adequate) Baked Alaska looks about twenty times. Alexis responds by making the most amazing face. Her lip curls and her eyes roll up into the back of her head and she looks as if someone opened the Ark of the Covenant in her direction, that’s how much her face is melting.

“You’re just like YOUR MOM,” Jennifer responds, having at last – at last! – identified some point of weakness in her tormentor.

“Ohhhh, GAWWWWWD,” Alexis says, and it is at this moment that I actually begin to feel for her, and it is at this moment that I know madness. For Alexis is all of us; her tragedy is our own.

We will never be loved, Alexis; we will never be good enough for Mother. It will never matter how many of her various complicated projects we take on: she has more, and they are much harder, and require hot glue guns. You realized this long ago, Alexis. You rage against the (industrial corn-drilling) machine, but can you win? Can you change it? You cannot! You can only turn Mother another buck or two! At least you’re on the payroll – the rest of us, who yell and bitch and joke along with you, are similarly damned to feed the Martha Stewart empire, creating word of mouth and buzz marketing, comprising new target demographics for the anti-Martha media controlled and profited upon by Martha, feeding the beast that will not die. Your impotence is our impotence, Alexis, and it is eternal. Also, I think you might be subconsciously programmed to assassinate Rachel Ray. Or something, you’re screwed up, I don’t know.

“They call me Dark Martha,” Alexis drawls, but she is wrong. There is no darkness greater than Martha. It is total, and utter, and absolute.

In Which I Will Always Love Her More than Anyone and This Is Why

[So, she sent this to me with a note that was like, “I know I am not to e-mail him any more but admit it THIS IS GOOD,” and I was like, “no! You should not e-mail it to him! You should e-mail it to the world! For it is vulnerable and true and funny and assy/cynical/mean in ways that I think things about bad dates should always be, and also contains jokes about girls who study dance at Tisch, which are always welcome in my own life!” And she was like, “if only there were some forum in which to make it public without my own personal name attached.” And I was like, “hmmmmmmmm…”]

[UPDATE: Also I made some tiny changes because I thought they didn’t reflect her intent, so I should take accountability for that and let you know that it’s happened. Which means basically that any critique of the piece as made public here should be aimed at me, and is welcome and I’ll provide a space for it.]

The Women I’ve Slept With

You have steered me down some utterly unserious road of bisexuality that I am certain I don’t belong on. I don’t really fancy the idea of a woman sexually, nor would I ever date a woman. But with their gigantic scarves and peacoats in this New York City winter, I see them everywhere: women you’d rather be with. I am nothing short of a tornado, you said to your friend about me once. Of course you don’t know that I know you said this, but if the lesson we learned with each other had a title, it would undoubtedly be, “Things Get Found Out”.

And with me like a tornado, spilling out on every corner I stop at to gather my thoughts and the contents of my purse that have fallen, I see a beautiful woman. I stare hard at the pores on her face, as hard as I can without seeming as creepy as I probably am. She appears to be wearing no makeup at all and yet looks like a Maybelline model. Is this a cruel joke? I’m not laughing. Maybe she’s just better at makeup than I am. And of course I praise the concept of looking flawless naturally, but I feel weak and resentful that I can’t pull it off and I’m angry with all of these models prancing around Union Square, totally unaffected by the cold. What the fuck is that about? Even the squirrel that sat next to me earlier on the bench wasn’t so arrogant as to pretend to be warm.

A blond beauty. A red-headed beauty. A brunette beauty. They must all be NYU students, what with their fully-rested skin. I bet they complain over drinks to their friends about how busy and difficult their lives are. Well, they can just wait. Wait ’til they’re at my ripe age of 24 and suddenly they’ll be wondering how such morose despair could have stricken them before they’ve reached even a quarter of a century in life. And do these girls eat nothing? I would consider myself thin. Not average, but thin. And yet these girls here make me feel as though the whole 3 eggs and goat cheese/mushroom sandwich I had today were too much.

You can take these girls. I hope you find clever ways to approach them on the street. I imagine you intentionally bumping into the girl with the French braid. You know, the 19 year old who is, I guarantee, studying dance at Tisch. You’ll bump into her and make it seem like an accident and turn that into a conversation about the stars and 2012, I guarantee it. What makes me sick is that the next month or two of this girl’s life, lets call her Ally, will be plagued by you. It’s only Ally’s first or second year of school, after all. She will email her sister and drop tons of undeserving adjectives around your name and you will impress her with the same nonsense you impress every girl with. Home cooked meals will seem like such grandeur to Ally since there is no stove in her dorm. Your massages will be warmly welcomed because she has only had coked up post-Lit sex thus far in New York, probably in a bathroom.

And I suppose this is precisely how you go about finding them. (Girls like me.) Right? You know which section of the pond to hang your bait in. The dark section where the fish constantly get caught and thrown back. No one wants these girls but you, and all you want is to perform an exaggerated extended version of cruelty unto them which has already been performed by said coked up bathroom fucking hipsters. And in light of your absence, which has not even been moderately light, I now see every woman on the street as a prospect for you. A woman with whom you’ll intentionally lock eyes just so that you can notice what she is reading just so that you can post it tomorrow morning in your post on the Missed Connections section of Craigslist and wait for a response that you’ll invariably deem fateful should it ever come.

And while this may all seem so intensely passionate and fair in a city this large to you, it seems mercilessly unfair to me and that is not only because I am the victim of your jokelove here. It is because it is unfair. Serial monogamy isn’t too far off from serial killing, and no, I’m not being dramatic. I never invested enough in you to show real drama. What difference should it make if we’re talking about lovers or we’re talking about victims? Either way you are picking out people one after another, to, in time, break. It’s fucked up and I want to tell the blond across the subway car sitting with the Whole Foods grocery bags about you. I want to nudge her and say, “Ya know, just in case he ever hits on you, you should know, he uses that vegetarian line with everyone.”

I suppose if I employed tactics like these, about half of the girls I approached would think I was crazy and not listen to me and I suppose that the other half would probably think I was crazy and still listen to me because they too have met guys like you. And really, they’re everywhere. Who doesn’t want everyone? You aren’t special. This is about having an inkling of a spine, a taste for tact.

I would guess that the blond with the Whole Foods bags would tell me that she’s an ex of yours already. Or currently dating you. Either way, I will suddenly look at her as a person I have had sex with and I find that grossly disturbing. I should be able to pick my own sex partners, but with you and your persuasive condomlessness (and yes, I know I am the only one to blame here. I have been down this path before twice and the feeling of sickening remorse and vaginal invasion seems to only worsen with time) I have been forced to not have that choice. All of NYC is an orgy to you and forgive me, but that makes me want to puke every memory of you out into this coffeeshop toilet.

I’ve heard you talk about your exes before, in the most patronizing light, which a new girlfriend can only write off as “understanding” because she is hanging at the hand of hope.

“She called me unstable once, but she wasn’t thinking clearly.”
“She was an alcoholic and took her emotions out on me.”
“She was insecure and afraid to be alone.”

“She was only actually mad because her ego was bruised.”

And just for one second, I wish you’d evaluate the incredible sums of both time and money you would save yourself if you looked to discover the cement common denominator here between yourself and all of these ’emotionally unstable’ women. The common denominator is you. So either every girl you date is fucking nuts or you are. I will play this one objectively in regards to myself. I am possibly fucking nuts. To think of the time I’ve wasted already writing this about you when you are, invariably, chatting with an art student on Facebook and making her laugh. It’s good you make girls laugh in the beginning because if there is any sort of karma exchange program in the universe, at least we might be able to balance your jokes out with your ruthless heart wrenching on some celestial scale.

But I’m not sold on being a part of the big picture, so for now, fuck you. Go fuck every girl I’ve seen in the last 3 hours with flowing locks and gleaming eyes. I hope one of them kills you one day.

You Know What I Love? Responsible Journalism.

Like this charming lede in the New York Times, which does not at all trivialize date rape:

In the new issue of Nature, the neuroscientist Larry Young offers a grand unified theory of love. After analyzing the brain chemistry of mammalian pair bonding — and, not incidentally, explaining humans’ peculiar erotic fascination with breasts — Dr. Young predicts that it won’t be long before an unscrupulous suitor could sneak a pharmaceutical love potion into your drink.

Ah, the power of language: with a single adjective, you can remove “drugging a woman in order to have sex with her” from the realm of vicious crime intended to enforce male domination, police women’s sexuality, and keep women scared with the constant, unspoken threat of random, devastating violation at the hands of men and therefore less likely to live full lives or to confront men directly, and turn it into something that might happen on an episode of Jeeves & Wooster. “Why Bertie, I do believe you’ve date raped me! You unscrupulous cad!”


I say, it was a dashed good scheme, eh wot?

Anyway:

That’s the bad news.

Ha ha, I would say so!

The not-so-bad news is that you may enjoy this potion if you took it knowingly with the right person. But the really good news, as I see it, is that we might reverse-engineer an anti-love potion, a vaccine preventing you from making an infatuated ass of yourself. Although this love vaccine isn’t mentioned in Dr. Young’s essay, when I raised the prospect he agreed it could also be in the offing.

Oh, Science! Is there anything it can’t do? It can even inspire this particular dude to write, seemingly from the depths of bummedness, that love is “a dangerous disease” and “a potentially fatal chemical imbalance.” JEEZ.

Actually, there are plenty of things Science can’t do, or can’t do yet, anyway, but this development does at least offer some hope. For example, there might, at some point in the future, be an “actually being friends with your ex, rather than writing each other nice e-mails about Battlestar and then fighting like wolverines every time you are in the same room” potion. Or a “being civil and generous to your boyfriend’s ex/your ex’s girlfriend because, heck, they didn’t do anything you haven’t done” drug. Or maybe – just maybe – there could be some sort of very specific medication to keep a man from reciting the lyrics to Ice Cube’s gender-theory masterpiece “A Bitch Is A Bitch” in several different conversations just to see you react! (“Now, the title ‘bitch’ don’t apply to all women, but all women got a little bitch in ’em.” “OH MY GOD.” “But he says it doesn’t apply to all women! You’re being very unfair! Now: it’s like a disease that plagues their character, taking the women of America.” “OH SO IT’S A DISEASE NOW IS IT HOW INSIGHTFUL.” “It starts with the letter B; it makes a girl like that think she’s better than me.”) There might even, at some far-distant point in the future, be a “don’t put this on the Internet because you can never take it back and also it’s kind of stupid” drug. Until then, however, we will all just have to rely on our own finer instincts and act like grown-ups.

So, you know, we’re fucked.

CHICKS AGAINST DUDES: A Responsible Post

Lest we forget, amid the various personal anecdotes and YouTube clips that are spreading like pinkeye, this is, and will always be, a BLOG ABOUT GENDER. The sexes, they are at war! Yet, as said war wages on, turning bro against bro(ad), too rarely do we stop to reflect: who’s winning?

Yeah, yeah, patriarchy hurts everyone, intersectionality of oppressions, blah blah blah, got it. I have a Google alert for the phrase “women than men,” people! Time to tally up some scores!

ISSUE ONE: BEING TOTALLY BROKE


Google Alert Says:The drop in the number of women working so far in this recession is smaller than the decline for men — even when measured in percentage terms — as has been the case in previous recessions.”

Who Is Winning: CHICKS. Yay, chicks have jobs! To the broke living in our midst, who are (I have concluded) all dudes, I say: just worry about having dinner on the table and making sure the house is clean, kittens. We’ll take care of the rest. Although we may need to rack up some Don-Draper-esque man-mistresses (masters? EW) because you are SUFFOCATING US with your petty domestic concerns.

ISSUE TWO: KEELING OVER STONE DEAD


Google Alert Says: “Women calling 911 with cardiac symptoms took longer than men to get to the hospital after an emergency medical services team had arrived in response to the call, a new study found.

Who Is Winning: DUDES. It’s pretty clear-cut: EMTs are watching us die on the floor instead of rushing us to the hospital like our manly counterparts! Oh, there’s some bullshit about “symptoms presenting differently,” but we all know what’s at play here – envy over our BIG FANCY JOBS, WHICH DUDES NO LONGER HAVE. Come on, cupcakes, don’t be jealous. What you do is very important. If you define “cleaning bathtubs” as “important,” which no-one does.

ISSUE THREE: BEING BASICALLY TORTURED TO DEATH FOR ADULTERY IN A NIGHTMARISHLY OPPRESSIVE REGIME

Google Alert Says:Men Stoned to Death for Adultery, Murder in Iran.”

Who Is Winning: DUDES. It turns out (well, it doesn’t “turn out” so much as “confirm what many people, especially feminists, already knew and have been protesting”) that “the majority of those sentenced to death by stoning are women. Women are not treated equally with men under the law and by courts, and they are also particularly vulnerable to unfair trials because their higher illiteracy rate makes them more likely to sign confessions to crimes they did not commit.” Also, people who are sentenced to death by stoning can be spared if they dig their way out of the holes in which they are buried? And men are buried up to their waists, whereas women are buried up to their necks? And, for women, “adultery” is sometimes defined to include being raped? In related news, HOLY FUCKING SHIT THIS IS AWFUL. No picture here.

ISSUE FOUR: THE DREADED CROTCH ROT


Google Alert Says: Rates of the sexually transmitted disease chlamydia are climbing in the U.S., and rates of syphilis — once on the verge of elimination — rose for the seventh consecutive year… Women bear the brunt of both chlamydia and gonorrhea, especially their long-term consequences, CDC officials said. Untreated, both can lead to pelvic inflammatory disease — an infection of the uterus and fallopian tubes that can cause chronic pain, infertility and life-threatening ectopic pregnancy, or pregnancy outside the uterus.”

Who Is Winning: INCONCLUSIVE. When it comes to the Dreaded Crotch Rot, no one wins.

Hipster Versus Classic Douchebag: January Douche-Offs

DOUCHE MOVE #1: People like this, so I don’t any more!

If you aspire to be cool and relevant, you really have to control the products you incorporate into your daily life, because you are of course defined by your tastes in media and/or clothing, and liking something that is popular puts you on the same level as the common rabble. Oh, and also the media on your ‘approved’ list will tend to be male-dominated and extremely white, and this has nothing to do with you because you voted for Obama? So, basically, listening to Santogold now that her music has shown up on the teevee is like having condomless sex with a hobo. No reason to dispute that!

In the above-linked post, Carles meditates on all of the above issues and also whether a band is “overrated,” and is kind of right about some things, I think. I also think he is wayyyyyyyyy more interested in whether people might listen to the wrong band for the wrong reasons than he is in whether all the topless chicks of whom he posts photos on his blog are ‘2 young and drunk 2 realize the consequences of their actions’ or ‘being xploited by photographerbros who r older/more sober/male’ or ‘being mocked by blggrs without rlly acknowledging the role of photographerbros in the scenario, which contributes 2/is due 2 a cultural context of misogyny/shaming chicks 4 being “sluts”.’ IS CARLES KINDA LIKE JOE FRANCIS, YALL? Or is he just acknowledging that ‘nothing has meaning’/’we r defined by our personal brands and anyone who doesn’t believe this is creating a personal brand that opposes this reality there4 he wins’/’how weary, flat, stale + unprofitable seem 2 him all the uses of this world’/’bands r the most important things in the universe’?

DOUCHE MOVE #2: People don’t like this any more, so I do!

Actually, tons of people like Tucker Max – we refer to them as “assholes” – but he has been made fun of enough, apparently, that the AV Club felt the need to write a thoughtful defense of his work:

Max isn’t in the league of great storytellers who can make even mundane events entertaining, his prose is spare and usually witty. (He attended Duke Law School on scholarship, so he’s no moron.) His eye for detail is limited to what interests him—what he was drinking, a woman’s breast size, and which friends were there.

Ah, literature! His work, for the record, is found to be “refreshingly low on homophobia” (yes, a low content of the morally indefensible hatred which is responsible for many rapes and murders, and for the widespread denial of basic civil rights to American citizens – I, for one, am wildly refreshed) although he is “much less respectful” of “most women, whom he says he only treats like hos if they deserve it. The logic is flawed, and yet it’s difficult to feel sympathy for a woman who contacts Max via his website.” I’m so glad the AV Club is here to tell me which women deserve sympathy for being, say, videotaped during sex without their knowledge or permission. Aren’t you? Ultimately, the writer (who is not even Scott Tobias, but some heretofore undiscovered ass named “Brett Singer” – WHAT IS THE WORLD AND/OR A.V. CLUB COMING TO?) concludes the following:

Max may be destroying his liver and the egos of many insecure women, but as long as he stays out of politics, his damage to the rest of the world will be limited to anyone who tries to emulate his bad behavior.

Say, speaking of flawed logic, here’s a puzzler: if Tucker Max promotes shaming women, coercing women into sex, and also the emotional abuse and sexual degradation of women, and people emulate Tucker Max, which emulation of course includes doing all of the above, then Tucker Max damages… WHO? Yes, that’s right, the answer is “dudes!” At least, it is if you write for the A.V. Club.