“Dudes. Imagine life here in the US — or indeed, pretty much anywhere in the Western world — is a massive role playing game, like World of Warcraft except appallingly mundane, where most quests involve the acquisition of money, cell phones and donuts, although not always at the same time. Let’s call it The Real World. You have installed The Real World on your computer and are about to start playing, but first you go to the settings tab to bind your keys, fiddle with your defaults, and choose the difficulty setting for the game. Got it?
Okay: In the role playing game known as The Real World, “Straight White Male” is the lowest difficulty setting there is.
This means that the default behaviors for almost all the non-player characters in the game are easier on you than they would be otherwise. The default barriers for completions of quests are lower. Your leveling-up thresholds come more quickly. You automatically gain entry to some parts of the map that others have to work for. The game is easier to play, automatically, and when you need help, by default it’s easier to get.
Now, once you’ve selected the “Straight White Male” difficulty setting, you still have to create a character, and how many points you get to start — and how they are apportioned — will make a difference. Initially the computer will tell you how many points you get and how they are divided up. If you start with 25 points, and your dump stat is wealth, well, then you may be kind of screwed. If you start with 250 points and your dump stat is charisma, well, then you’re probably fine. Be aware the computer makes it difficult to start with more than 30 points; people on higher difficulty settings generally start with even fewer than that.
As the game progresses, your goal is to gain points, apportion them wisely, and level up. If you start with fewer points and fewer of them in critical stat categories, or choose poorly regarding the skills you decide to level up on, then the game will still be difficult for you. But because you’re playing on the “Straight White Male” setting, gaining points and leveling up will still by default be easier, all other things being equal, than for another player using a higher difficulty setting.
Likewise, it’s certainly possible someone playing at a higher difficulty setting is progressing more quickly than you are, because they had more points initially given to them by the computer and/or their highest stats are wealth, intelligence and constitution and/or simply because they play the game better than you do. It doesn’t change the fact you are still playing on the lowest difficulty setting.
You can lose playing on the lowest difficulty setting. The lowest difficulty setting is still the easiest setting to win on. The player who plays on the “Gay Minority Female” setting? Hardcore.”—John Scalzi tells it like it is. (via neil-gaiman)
Everyone’s heard of friendzoning – even if they don’t know the word, they sure as hell know the concept. It’s what happens time and again to unfortunate Nice Guys who, despite being nothing but sugar and spice to the girls they love, are nonetheless denied the sexual relationships they so obviously deserve and are instead treated like platonic equals – a terrible, unfair fate spawned by the dark side of feminism.
And if you thought even part of that statement was correct, Imma stop you right there.
Friendzoning is bullshit because girls are not machines that you put Kindness Coins into until sex falls out.
Dear Hypothetical Interlocutor whose hackles just bristled with the unfairness of that statement; who thinks that girls can be in the Friend Zone, too, and that therefore this point is both invalid and reverse-sexist into the bargain. For your edification, I would like to submit the following definitions of the term Friend Zone as supplied by Urban Dictionary:
1. “The ‘friend zone’ is like the penalty box of dating, only you can never get out. Once a girl decides you’re her ‘friend’, it’s game over. You’ve become a complete non-sexual entity in her eyes, like her brother, or a lamp.” – Ryan Reynolds in Just Friends.
‘I’ve been locked in the friend zone with her since high school!’
2. A state of being where a male inadvertently becomes a ‘platonic friend’ of an attractive female who he was trying to intiate a romantic relationship. Females have been rumored to arrive in the Friend Zone, but reports are unsubstantiated.
Girl: “I love you (Insert the poor bastard’s name here,) but I dont want to ruin a great friendship by dating you.” Guy: “Well why the fuck did I waste two months on you?”
There are differing explanations about what causes the friend zone. One report suggests that some women don’t see their male friends as potential love interests because they fear that deepening their relationship might cause a loss of the romance and mystery or lead to rejection later…
Dating adviser Ali Binazir described the friend zone as Justfriendistan, and wrote that it’s a “territory only to be rivaled in inhospitability by the western Sahara, the Atacama desert, and Dante’s Ninth Circle of Hell.”
I therefore submit to you, Hypothetical Interlocutor, that the Friend Zone is not an equal opportunities habitat. It is where men go – or more accurately, where men perceive themselves to go – when women fail to reward their friendship with sex. Or, to quote the immortal wisdom of the internet:
Slut is how we vilify a woman for exercising her right to say yes.
Friendzone is how we vilify a woman for exercising her right to say no.
Here’s the thing, Hypothetical Interlocutor: if you truly are a self-professed Nice Guy (and I strongly suspect that you are), then you probably espouse the belief that women and men are equal. More than espouse – you believe! You know! Except that, somewhere along the line, you’ve got it into your head that if you’re romantically interested in a girl who sees you only as a friend, her failure to reciprocate your feelings is just that: a failing. That because you’re nice and treat her well, she therefore owes you at least one opportunity to present yourself as a viable sexual candidate, even if she’s already made it clear that this isn’t what she wants. That because she legitimately enjoys a friendship that you find painful (and which you’re under no obligation to continue), she is using you. That if a man wants more than friendship with a woman, then the friendship itself doesn’t even attain the status of a consolation prize, but is instead viewed as hell: a punishment to be endured because, so long as he thinks she owes him that golden opportunity, he is bound to persist in an association that hurts him – not because he cares about the friendship, but because he feels he’s invested too much kindness not to stick around for the (surely inevitable, albeit delayed) payoff.
And if she never sleeps with him? Then she’s a bitch.
I cannot state this clearly enough: if you really believe in equality, then you have to acknowledge the fact that women have a right to say no. That no matter how pure and true your feelings, your ladylove is under no obligation whatever to reciprocate them, because friendship is not a business transaction, and women are allowed to want male friends. Yes, it is difficult and sad and heartbreaking to love someone who doesn’t love you back, and doubly so when that person is a friend. Believe me; I speak from experience. This is not a fun thing to endure! But discounting the woman as a bitch, a user, a timewaster, a whore with no taste who only wants to sleep with arseholes instead of Nice Guys like you is not on. It is pure, unadulterated sexism: the attitude that friendship with a woman is only ever a stepping-stone to getting into her pants, such that if the pants-getting is off the table, then so too is the friendship.
Which, frankly, is bullshit. If you don’t care enough about someone to enjoy their company and respect their decisions when sex is off the table, then that person is right not to sleep with you, because enjoying someone’s company and respecting their decisions is pretty much how sex gets on the table to start with.
What we learned as kids is that we males are each owed, and will eventually be awarded, a beautiful woman. We were told this by every movie, TV show, novel, comic book, video game and song we encountered…
In each case, the woman has no say in this — compatibility doesn’t matter, prior relationships don’t matter, nothing else factors in. If the hero accomplishes his goals, he is awarded his favorite female. Yes, there will be dialogue that maybe makes it sound like the woman is having doubts, and she will make noises like she is making the decision on her own. But we, as the audience, know that in the end the hero will “get the girl,” just as we know that at the end of the month we’re going to “get our paycheck.” Failure to award either is breaking a societal contract. The girl can say what she wants, but we all know that at the end, she will wind up with the hero, whether she knows it or not.
And now you see the problem. From birth we’re taught that we’re owed a beautiful girl. We all think of ourselves as the hero of our own story, and we all (whether we admit it or not) think we’re heroes for just getting through our day.
So it’s very frustrating, and I mean frustrating to the point of violence, when we don’t get what we’re owed. A contract has been broken. These women, by exercising their own choices, are denying it to us. It’s why every Nice Guy is shocked to find that buying gifts for a girl and doing her favors won’t win him sex. It’s why we go to “slut” and “whore” as our default insults — we’re not mad that women enjoy sex. We’re mad that women are distributing to other people the sex that they owed us.
In pop culture, girls who crush hopelessly on guys they can’t have are painted as just that – hopeless. Over and over again, we’re taught that girls who openly express sexual or romantic interest in guys who don’t want them are pitiable, stalkerish, desperate, crazy bitches. More often than not, they’re also portrayed as ugly – whether physically, emotionally or both – in order to further establish their undesirability as an objective fact. Both narratively and, as a consequence, in real life, men are given free reign to snub, abuse, mislead and talk down to such women: we’re raised to believe that female desire is unseemly, so that any consequent shaming is therefore deserved. There is no female-equivalent Friend Zone terminology because, in the language of our culture, a man’s romantic choices are considered sacrosanct and inviolable. If a girl has been told no, then she has only herself to blame for anything that happens next – but if a woman says no, then she must not really mean it. Or, if she does, she shouldn’t: the rejected man is a universally sympathetic figure, and everyone from moviegoers to platonic onlookers will scream at her to just give him a chance, as though her rejection must always be unfounded rather than based on the fact that he had a chance, and blew it. And even then, give him another one! The pathos of Single Nice Guys can only be eased by pity-sex with unwilling women that blossoms into romance!
Well, screw that. The Friend Zone is a fundamentally sexist construction based solely on the idea that women should be penalised for putting their own romantic happiness above that of an interested man. If a lady doesn’t want you, then either respect her decision and keep away to salve your heart, or respect her decision and stay because you still think she’s cool enough to be worth the effort of friendship. But if you don’t respect her decision, then you don’t respect her – and if you don’t respect her, then stay the fuck out of her life.
*Amendment, 11 April 2012: Originally, the first quote in this piece was attributed to Aeryn Walker. However, she has since informed me that the kindness/coins line originated with @hexjackal, and though I don’t have the exact reference for that first attribution, I’ve nonetheless changed it in the text.
“[A] person convicted of a crime today might lose his right to vote as well as the right to serve on a jury. He might become ineligible for health and welfare benefits, food stamps, public housing, student loans, and certain types of employment. These restrictions exact a terrible toll. Given that most offenders already come from backgrounds of tremendous disadvantage, we heap additional disabilities upon existing disadvantage. By barring the felon from public housing, we make it more likely that he will become homeless and lose custody of his children. Once he is homeless, he is less likely to find a job. Without a job he is, in turn, less likely to find housing on the private market—his only remaining option. Without student loans, he cannot go back to school to try to create a better life for himself and his family. Like a black person living under the Old Jim Crow, a convicted criminal today becomes a member of a stigmatized caste, condemned to a lifetime of second-class citizenship.”—
James Forman, Jr., Racial Critiques of Mass Incarceration: Beyond the New Jim Crow, 87 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 21, 28–31 (2012). (via letterstomycountry)
i don’t like the gendered language because i realize men face this more but, not only. however, this isn’t wrong at all.
Neurotypical syndrome is a neurobiological disorder characterized by preoccupation with social concerns, delusions of superiority, and obsession with conformity.
Neurotypical individuals often assume that their experience of the world is either the only one, or the only correct one. NTs find it difficult to be alone. NTs are often intolerant of seemingly minor differences in others. When in groups NTs are socially and behaviorally rigid, and frequently insist upon the performance of dysfunctional, destructive, and even impossible rituals as a way of maintaining group identity. NTs find it difficult to communicate directly, and have a much higher incidence of lying as compared to persons on the autistic spectrum.
NT is believed to be genetic in origin. Autopsies have shown the brain of the neurotypical is typically smaller than that of an autistic individual and may have overdeveloped areas related to social behavior.
About a year ago I learned I was on the autistic spectrum. Inspired by this discovery, I read everything I could get my hands on about the autistic spectrum. Much of it makes sense— for the first time in 41 years, I had a description, albiet an unexpected one, that fit me.
But a lot of what I’ve found out there, mostly written by “experts” and “professionals”, has been arrogant, insulting, and just plain wrong. My bête noire of the moment is finding my emotions described as “flat”. As someone with considerably greater expertise in my emotions than the “experts”, I can state unequivocally that my emotions are not “flat”. They are different, yes, but they are most certainly not “flat.”
Perhaps tomorrow I’ll be fired up over being described as “lacking empathy”. Or I’ll be outraged at an exceptionally clueless “training” method being inflicted upon autistic kids. Or maybe it will be some new paper written by some “expert” from the perspective that neurotypical perception is correct, and my brain is a genetic mistake.
My brain is a jewel. I am in awe of the mind that I have. I and my experience of life is not inferior, and may besuperior, to the NT experience of life.
Hence, this “Institute”. Persons on the autistic spectrum and NT supporters are invited to submit papers to the Institute, and to share your observations in “Current Research” (the guestbook).”
You know how white liberal people are so quick to support gay marriage, but then they completely ignore things like violence against GSM people of color, or higher rates of GSM youth incarceration, abuse, and homelessness, or there being no legal protections for being fired or evicted for being gay or non-binary?
TRICKLE DOWN JUSTICE
Like I believe marriage is important— especially the legal protections and privileges it comes with. But when people are regularly dying and being abused because they are not hetero or cisgender, and no one wants to talk about it…that’s Trickle Down Justice. Because the impression is that getting this one single goal will suddenly make things better, and that these are the only “rights” people need to fight for. We don’t want to be critical of our society and how things like race, gender, and class affect how a trans person of color is treated. Or how there are a ton of homeless Queer youth. Or how marriage in general is still very flawed and assimilationist.
We don’t want to admit that this “big step” we are fighting for is only really going to help a small subset of the actual LGBT population.
This is something to think about.
…Trickle Down Justice
and the comparison to urine doesn’t even miss a beat
A person selling gun range targets modeled after slain Florida teen Trayvon Martin says that their “main motivation was to make money off the controversy.”
WKMG’s Mike DeForest reported on Friday that the unidentified seller told him that the targets “sold out in 2 days.”
“The response is overwhelming,” the seller said.
While the item appears to have been removed from GunBroker.com, a cached version of the page was still available at the time of publication.
Photos of the item, which was titled “10 Pack Trayvon Martin Targets,” showed crosshairs over a hoodie similar to the one Trayvon Martin was wearing when he was shot by neighborhood watchman George Zimmerman in February. The figure has a bag of Skittle in his pocket and is holding what appears to be a can of iced tea, similar to what Martin had purchased before being gunned down. The pack of 10 targets was being sold for $8.
“Everyone knows the story of Zimmerman and Martin,” a description on the targets reads. “Obviously we support Zimmerman and believe he is innocent and that he shot a thug. Each target is printed on thick, high quality poster paper with a matte finish! The dimensions are 12″x18″ ( The same as Darkotic Zombie Targets) This is a Ten Pack of Targets.”
The seller’s ID was listed as “hillerarmco” from Virginia Beach, Virginia. A website by the same name is registered to Hiller Armament Company in Virginia Beach, but the associated phone number had been disconnected.
Zimmerman attorney Mark O’Mara told WKMG that this type of “hatred” just makes his client’s defense even more problematic.
And people wanna question his mom for wanting to trademark his name? Maybe so shit like this wouldn’t happen? Ok.
otherwise why did you go on the date? he didn’t do it to spend time with you, you’re a shrill dullard. he doesn’t give a shit about your AA hire career, he actually earned his position. he went on the date because he wants sex. you went on the date because you’re a conceited gold digger.
the revolution is coming ladies, less and less men are putting up with your intolerable behavior and hysterics. you brought this on yourselves, don’t blame me for pointing it out. you poisoned the waters, and men aren’t drinking from them anymore.
I’ve seen this getting reblogged, but not with the full text, so here it is in all of its ignorant misogynist glory.
Basically this is how rapists think. You believe a woman owes her body to you because you coughed up $30 for entrees and drinks. You believe there are any circumstances under which a woman is required to have sex with you.
This is why I hate and distrust all men’s right’s activists. Because this is their core belief: women are just dull conceited shrill hysterical banshees trying to manipulate hard-working honest men for their moniez and sperm.
Sometimes women go on dates to have sex too. But sometimes we want to get to know a guy (or girl, or other person) a bit more first. Sometimes people are looking for love. Or love AND sex. Sometimes you buy us dinner and YOU are dull and conceited and have heinously oppressive political views, and maybe we would have slept with you if you weren’t awful, but you are, and we don’t owe you sex EVER.
I managed to go on plenty of dates and get married, even with my feminazi bonerkiller man-eating ways. Ladies (and everyone else too): do NOT settle for an asshole like this. Under no circumstances do you owe anyone your body. There are worthy people out there who are capable of forming human relationships without demeaning all women and then pulling a “don’t blame me, I’m just sayin!!!” cop-out.
Reblogging for awesome commentary. Emphasis mine.
the OP is an utter piece of shit.
yes to everything else.
fuck ‘men’s right activists’, the entire lot of you
OP needs to be castrated and thrown into a lake to drown. Fucking rapist.
Is this the sort of thing MRAs say? :/
First I saw this and laughed because I thought it was sarcasm, then I read the comments and realized it was serious.
Then I made the mistake of going to the OP’s blog.
When they’re making a movie about men they make a movie about lifting a house into the sky with balloons and traveling across the world, or about a lonely garbage robot with a heart of gold (so to speak.) When they’re making a movie about girls they make a movie about the restrictions placed on girls, and how this one! special! girl! will fight the (other women) people enforcing these restrictions placed on her.
Pro-tip: when the only plot you’ll write for girls are about how they’re GIRLS! DID YOU NOTICE THEY’RE GIRLS!! LOOK IT’S A GIRL! (BUT NOT A ~~GIRLY-GIRL~~ DON’T WORRY) THE WORLD IS UNFAIR TO GIRLS BUT SOME OF THEM ARE PERFORMATIVELY MASCULINE AND THAT MAKES THEM COOL. as a priority dominating the story about them as people and it comes off as feet-draggingly second-wave and smacking of tokenism even though she’s the chief protagonist, which is almost impressive.
I woke up to this and you know, I did a little dance. Since this happened a few hours ago, in the middle of the night of most of Europe and the US, mainstream media hasn’t yet picked on it much. From San Jose Mercury News:
BUENOS AIRES, Argentina—Adults who want sex-change surgery or hormone therapy in Argentina will be able to get it as part of their public or private health care plans under a gender rights law approved Wednesday.
The measure also gives people the right to specify how their gender is listed at the civil registry when their physical characteristics don’t match how they see themselves.
Senators approved the Gender Identity law by a vote of 55-0, with one abstention and more than a dozen senators declaring themselves absent—the same margin that approved a “death with dignity” law earlier in the day.
President Cristina Fernandez threw her support behind the law and is expected to sign it. She has often said how proud she is that Argentina became Latin America’s first nation to legalize gay marriage two years ago, enabling thousands of same-sex couples to wed and enjoy the same legal rights as married heterosexual couples.
For many, gender rights were the next step.
Any adult will now be able to officially change his or her gender, image and birth name without having to get approval from doctors or judges—and without having to undergo physical changes beforehand, as many U.S. jurisdictions require.
“It’s saying you can change your gender legally without having to change your body at all. That’s unheard of,” said Katrina Karkazis, a Stanford University medical anthropologist and bioethicst who wrote a book, “Fixing Sex,” about the medical and legal treatment of people whose physical characteristics don’t fully match their gender identity.
The law, I should add, is the only one of its kind in the world in that it relays on a person’s lived experience rather than on the opinion of medical professionals.
unf. that bolded.
Holy shit. No gatekeeping on legal gender change? o_o what the fuuuuuck what amazing dream is this
“Some ask “Why can’t you people just all be Hispanic?” Same reason that all white people can’t just be called English. Just because you speak English or Spanish does not mean that you are one group. Hispanic is a census term that some dildo in a government office made up to include all Spanish-speaking brown people. It is especially annoying to Chicanos because it is a catch-all term that includes the Spanish conqueror. By definition, it favors European cultural invasion, not indigenous roots. It also includes all Latino groups, which brings us together because Hispanic annoys all Latino groups.”—Cheech Marin: What Is A Chicano? (via themaykazine)
The notion that it doesn’t matter who the President is is a big square on the privilege bingo card. For white men, no, it really doesn’t matter who the President is, because they’ll be fine regardless, but for those of us whose lives are on the line based on the decisions the President makes, or the policies the President pushes for, it fucking matters who’s in office.
You can whine all you want about Obama and Romney getting the same amount of money from JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Dopey, Sneezy, and Sleepy. Fact is, one of them is way more likely to help me out with my soon-to-be crippling student loan debt. One is more likely to continue to support welfare programs. One is more likely to continue to throw shade on every state that bans gay marriage.
And the other is Mitt Romney.
And before you even ask me to throw my vote away on some cracker in a third party, no. I like Obama. I almost trust him. This election is a battle and he’s got my support. Period.