It's No Wonder, Woman!

It's No Wonder, Woman!

Oh my goddess! It's hard to believe DC thought they could get away with re-imagining Wonder Woman by a man?!? Besides, what's the revolutionary 2010 new look of Wonder Woman? Pants. We'll throw the Third wavers a bone by giving her pants, but them bomb ass titties stay!



The new writer J. Michael Straczynski, explains the addition of pants to the costume as such.

“Considering how superheroes operate, you want freedom to move and move quickly,” Gunn said. “Capes and cloaks can be easily removed if they get caught on something. Gowns and dresses, not so much. The more form-fitting, the better. So tight pants or skinny jeans, sure. I think Wonder Woman could work a pant.”

I trust the man to write women well. I trust him more than I trust Joss Whedon, and I trust Joss Whedon quite a bit. You know, creator of such deep characters as "Hot country engineer chick", "classy romantically complicated prostitute babe", and "Sardonic, bitchy femme fatale who hides secret vulnerability" Which is literally five or six separate characters.

HI EVERYONE, I'M JOSS WHEDON! I want my female characters to be empowering so I literally give them superpowers and occasionally make them robots. Why does nobody watch my showssss?!??! As a man I feel very qualified to decide what is and isn't feminist.



But back tot he costume here. I'm not entirely sure that's really all that's going on here. I mean, what about the iconic costume and all that history now thrown away? Well, Let's see what my favorite feminist website has to say about this situation

It's the end of an era. At 69 years old, Wonder Woman has decided to put on some pants. But actually, the new duds are not an act of self-determination by the woman (formerly) in red, white and blue.

According to the New York Times, the new head writer of the series, J. Michael Straczynski, wanted to "toughen her up and give her a modern sensibility."

This is modernity? Where are her red boots? What about modernization requires her trademark "W" emblem to fade into the background? How is covering her once rippling, now wimpy, muscles a nod to evolved images of womanhood?

I know what you're thinking: Shouldn't feminists be happy that Wonder Woman now looks more like a young woman freshly off a college campus, at once ready to go fight some bad guys in an alley or in a pay discrimination lawsuit? Haven't we been fighting for women role models with more clothing as well as more substance? She couldn't really fight evil in a bustier-is this not a feminist win?

No, not by a long shot. In fact, it feels like the sad loss of America's first truly feminist comic book heroine.

This isn't the first time DC Comics has tried to "modernize" the Wonder Woman character, which debuted in 1930 as the creation of psychologist William Marston. Marston, with the encouragement of his wife Elizabeth, designed her as a "new kind of superhero, one who would triumph not with fists or firepower, but with love." Wonder Woman, her creator said, was "psychological propaganda for the new type of woman who should, I believe, rule the world."

Feminist outrage at the devolution of their heroine was quick. A group of activists, led by Gloria Steinem, leaned on DC Comics to scrap the "new" Wonder Woman in favor of the more powerful original-and they won, convincing the company to restore Wonder Woman's powers and history during the next version of the series. They understood that along with equal pay and childcare and the right to hold credit in their own name, young women need to be able to see themselves in strong pop culture role models in order to fashion themselves into the real life versions.

If the folks at DC Comics weren't aware, 2010 America is far from a mythical Amazonian paradise. Take for example new statistics from the Geena Davis Institute on Gender and Media pertaining to female role models for young girls. In G rated movies, just one in three speaking roles is female and in PG and R rated films, about 73 percent of the characters are male. While there are notable exceptions, like Dora the Explorer and the girl superheroes in The Invincibles, young women are still hard pressed to find pop culture role models that look and sound like themselves. If, as it seems, Wonder Woman is truly losing some of her characteristic fierceness, that's one fewer strong female role model for girls to aspire to be.

Jim Lee, the artist responsible for Wonder Woman's new design, claims he wanted her to look strong "without screaming, ‘I'm a superhero.' " Even today, in this "modern era," it's still hard not to wonder, what's so wrong with screaming that?

So... um.. the article says she doesn't look hot enough in the re-visioning. That's what it says, man. I just don't know. The feminist in me feels very confused at this sudden change. Though really, it's not sudden at all.



JMS has a long history of writing powerful, well rounded female characters. The man helped create She-Ra, rebelling against the toy company's insistence that she be nicer and laughing at a man who told the writers that as a female heroine, She-Ra shouldn't ever hit anybody because little girls wouldn't like that.

To be honest, her new look makes her look pretty much how JMS always remakes characters. Seriously, she now looks like every character in Rising Stars. Take a look at how he made over Thor when he jumped on that. Frankly, if you know JMS is writing your favorite character, expect there to be a costume change. I could almost hear him say the following;

I wanna make her look strong but not superhero strong. So I covered up everything but her tit muscles with skintight clothing and put a dog collar around her neck.

The real problem with Wonder Woman isn't her look. It's her personality. She has never been a warm, appealing character. She comes from an island populated only by immortal Amazons who hate men. And men aren't allowed to set foot on the island. This island of super-women scantily clad women send her to "the man's world" where she brings the baggage of this sexist world view.

See, here's problem number 1. Most comic readers are male. So you start off telling them their gender sucks. Great sales pitch to keep buying her books, right? Let's deal with some reality for a second. I know the PC crowd and leftists in general love the concept of "protected classes" and the idea that, say, woman could do things better than men if they had the chance. But aside from the chauvinistic mentality of this argument it ignores a simple axiom. Women are human beings. Human beings are flawed creatures.



The idea that someone's gender makes them wiser or better is the kind of elitist nonsense that every tyrant has used to justify their atrocities. Ask yourself this question: Has everyone you've come across in life who is a member of your gender, race or religion been wonderful to you? Can you honestly say that every member of your race, religion or gender has an impeccably perfect history of treatment of others?

The idea that a race, gender, sexual orientation, whatever sets a group apart from others is complete nonsense. We're all human. And any story that sells the idea that one gender is bad and another good is nothing more than classist porn.

Secondly, while Diana Prince (Wonder Woman's real name) does change her attitude somewhat when she comes ashore, the "whole men are evil" mentality continues. It's misandry, plain and simple and that's unappealing. She does undergo some growth as a character from her early days, but writers continue to revert to this lame argument, which is going to limit your audience to the self-loathing types. More on that in a second.


Oh look, costume changes...

Third, she lacks personality. That will happen when you're made out of clay. Any protagonist needs to be appealing in some way for the reader to identify with them or care about them. Every writer of that character failed to give us enough reason to invest ourselves in that storyline. Being good looking isn't enough, especially in a world where 99% of the women are babes. Being able to do heroic deeds isn't enough since that's standard operating procedure for super-heroes and most comic writers don't even seem to know what heroism means.

Fourth, her back story isn't very well thought out. It's a hodgepodge of slap dash Greek Mythology badly research and poorly executed by most who've handled her. The man (gasp!) who created her, Dr. William Moulton Marston, was a bit of a perv who was into bondage. This is why she got tied up a lot back in the 40's when he worked on the comic The story was supposed to be about feminism, but this is coming from some bondage loving guy who lived with two women. One of his views was that there is "a male notion of freedom that is inherently anarchic and violent, and an opposing female notion based on 'Love Allure' that leads to an ideal state of submission to loving authority. Yes, that was creepy.



So, the characters origins come from a somewhat warped dude. And then, through the years DC has tried to make her some kind of ersatz feminist icon, spouting the usual cliched bromides, basically saying "you can look but don't touch!" Hostile, icy women may appeal to some, but are generally not going to win people over unless we're given a good understanding of them as people. And writers over the years have failed to do that.

Until Wonder Woman gets handled by someone who understands the problems with this character and knows how to really fix them, this reboot is going to be yet another in a long line of failures. As for the costume, it's shrug inducing. The whole point of a super-hero costume is to make them stand apart from everyone else in some way. Classic super-heroes are suppose to be bright spots in a dark world. Making them more muted and ordinary looking just makes them yet another face in the crowd.



Then again, Wonder Woman and every comic character have changed costumes like a trillion times and the news media always has a weird thing with reporting comic books as if it was always the 1950's and nothing has happened in the 60 years since.

Again, Wonder Woman was created as an outlet for some really weak sauce bondage fetish and spanking fantasies. She's never been a feminist anything. So this entire "debate" over feminist views of her is pretty hilarious. Don't believe me? I wonder what the hidden message of the following images is.





How about actually sticking to the guns here. You know, the Amazons were rumored to cut off their left breasts in order to fire a bow more efficient but nooooo, we gotta give them pants instead.

At least this is far better than the recent costume change that Wonder Woman went through during the DC crossover event of Blackest Night. In it, she attained the power ring of the Star Sapphires, which are equivalent to the Green Lantern Corps in that they are space cops, only Star Sapphires specialize in love. But if you want to talk about trashy looking costumes that do nothing to empower anyone, just take a look at this..



Now what the hell was up with that? That was just a new low. I like Geoff Johns and all, but the costume was awful on all regards and did nothing to disprove that women in comics are treated pretty badly. Don't even get me started on the Women in Refrigerators comic syndrome.

Not to mention they even made a toy of her in that outfit, just so that the little kiddies could always reenact their favorite scenes of female empowering. I have to wonder how cold it gets in space and if this costume is really fit to see space travel.



At least there's some hope. I have to admit that I really did enjoy the new animated movie that went direct to DVD/BluRay. It was pretty badass and avoided the typical misgivings that Wonder Woman writers usually do that turn me off so much. The character design was the classic look, but it worked well and was simplified.



I haven't even touched on the whole Linda Carter stuff. Mainly because I always liked the TV show as it really stayed away from the Amazon princess bullshit and was at least campy as fuck. I mean, if you don't believe me, you could take a look at these two clips right here and see for yourself. Besides that, Linda Carter was amazingly beautiful.

I really just wonder why they don't have actual fashion designers working on this stuff? Aside from not being any less sexist, her boobs have inflated from B's to D's, her boots are high heeled, etc and the costume looks like it's time warped from 1989, and not in a hipster sort of way either. It's an anachronism, and a dumb one, right out of the gate.



So what did Fashion expert Tim Gunn have to say about this costume change?

“I believe in the semiotics of fashion and this new look says, ‘I’m confident, I’m powerful, I’m sexy, and don’t mess with me.’ Furthermore, she looks like a citizen of the real world rather than a creature from another land.”

Tim also pointed out that this is no longer a costume. I think the jacket is more decoration than anything else, it doesn’t look like it can really zip up in front. The shoulder pads aren’t bad, the more I look at them. They give her a military touch. The belt, I rather like, but I wish it didn’t have that star on the back because when I showed this issue to a few girls, several of them asked “is that a tramp stamp?” That’s an easy fix, though. I’m honestly not sure how I feel about the choker

The shirt looks good, but I don’t like the excess lines and I’d prefer if the WW was a bit larger. I realize part of this is that Diana isn’t supposed to stand out as much, but let’s face it, a woman wearing this is going to stand out so at that point why not just embrace it and have a larger symbol or chest guard? Also, Diana is an inspirational figure and this look strongly says “cynicism.”

You know what though, people talk about the outfits that female characters in comic books wear being revealing and demeaning to women. Presenting an ideal that is impossible for girls to live up to. But what often gets ignored is the hyper-masculine portrayal of males. 90% of male heroes in comic books wear outfits so tight you can see every rippling bulging muscle.

How is Superman's thin veneer of spandex any less revealing than Wonder Woman's weird corsety-swimsuit thing? Also, as far as revealing outfits go, Hercules has everyone else trumped. The dude wears a skirt and some thigh-high sandals.


Put on some pants! You're encouraging your boys to wear skirts and drink heavily!

We have to remember that it's the nature of the medium to do this. Superheroes are hyped up, over-sexualized characters in a visual melodrama. You aren't suppose to aspire to be the character. You're suppose to admire the traits that character is meant to represent.

We walk this line of never being able to please anyone, really. Women must constantly be depicted in the most sexually neutral way possible because to ascribe them any sort of existence as a sexual being is sexist somehow to someone somewhere. If that's the case, I guess Islam really is the most feminist after all.

To be perfectly honest, the portrayal of how they treat female superheroes isn't really the biggest issue at all. My biggest problem is just how flippant the comic industry treats death in the big picture. There's nobody that stays dead in the comic book for any amount of time before being magically resurrected because fans demand it or sales are slumping.



There's always some sort of excuse or loophole that allows the person to cheat death. Some scheme pulled out of their asses to validate the reasons that they're now alive again. The most recent Green Lantern mega event was a perfect example of that and it's a huge turn off because comic writers seem to deal out deaths as plot points like it's candy on Halloween.

Instead of actually treating death as a finality, most children might grow up getting the idea that death is pretty fungible and it loses any and all meaning that it originally had. That and the idea that comic books are somehow not comic books. That you need to adult them up by calling them Graphic Novels also pisses me off. But that's a story for another day.

Fox News - All Over Pussy News

Fox News - All Over Pussy

As a conservative station I'm constantly confused as to what Fox news is actually trying to "report" on. In this weeks situation, it's Pussy Glitter.

Jennifer Love Hewitt recently decorated her nether regions with Swarovski crystals, turning her naughty bits into -- her words -- a "pink disco ball."

It’s called Vajazzling. Like Bedazzling, you know? That infomercial about putting rhinestones on your clothes? Only this is no denim vest enhanced by a handheld machine that you can get for just $19.95 if you call right now. With vajazzling, you go into a high-end salon, get waxed bare, and are bejewled below the belt.

The procedure goes something like this: You choose your design and they wax you bare as the day you were born. Then the design is hand-glued, crystal by crystal, or a crystal "tattoo" is applied. Generally, the vajazzling is done just above the, well, key player, as it were. Having it done any further down is not recommended, though from Hewitt’s description, it sounds like she went all out. Some women have a very small, simple design done high enough that low-slung jeans will reveal a glimmer. But the real thing is as low as you dare to go. Basically, where the hair was, now there are crystals.

So, in the name of journalism, I decided I had to get vajazzled myself.

I’ve been vajazzled for a few days now and the adhesive is still going strong (although the instructions say you should leave the decals on for only eight hours. Yikes). Completely Bare says its version lasts at least five days. My next trip to New York City, I am definitely paying them a visit.

Most of the day, I completely forget I’m vajazzled. But when I do remember, it makes me smile. Having those clandestine crystals makes me kind of feel like a rock star. Only I get to decide who can see it, and I feel – don’t laugh – a little bit like my naughty bits have super powers.

My first reaction;



I put some of the more shocking shit in bold. This reporter has had it on for a few days even though they suggest to just keep it on for 8 hours. SAY WHAT?! Woah, fucking gross! That implies that she hasn't washed down there well enough to get glitter off.

Oh man, this reporter always has the best shit stories ever. Not to mention that this is old as fuck. So that means me writing a blog about it, even though I've already mentioned it a long time ago seems like a cop out of a topic. But then again, this is about a female private party - So I'm sure it will get a pass for those of you who just can't help but read about Clitter.

I mean, regardless of this being a tool of the patriarchy, it at least shows that something is wrong with the person. At the very least this is all a symptom of loneliness and depression. A well adjusted human has no reason to modify their pubic region in such a manner. Due to her extreme mental stress she turned her frustrations inwards and mutilated a part of her body.



I don't think I ever was bored enough to suggest that I wanted rhinestones on my penis. Even if it did mean I could say that I want to fuck while "Like a rhinestone cowboy" played. Maybe I should just get my testicles vajazzled and call them my disco balls. You don't see guys wanting truck nutz for their nuts. Why would someone want some glitter for their clit?

Is the idea to make it pretty? It's not like I'm thinking to myself that I always wanted to make love to a barnacle encrusted chunk of driftwood. But this isn't all that uncommon in the history of man. The Yakuza implant pearls in their dicks for their woman's pleasure. Which reminds me that I need to go to Japan sometime to get that done.




as a man, i do find the general look and presentation of the vagina to be sorely lacking. in fact, they sometimes tend towards the outright grotesque. im glad someone has finally adorned them with some of the things i love: sparkly rhinestones. im gay. It's not like every time I'm "down there" I'm thinking to myself, "why can't this silly little thing look more like Elton John's glasses?". Intelligent design my hot toned botoxed ass!

But this really makes you wonder about Fox's real stance. I mean, their culture stuff is really all over the place, no where near as straight conservative as you or I would think it would be. Actually paying attention on woman's bits instead of mans' is conservative. It's really all about the patriarchal, but I'd think just never mentioning genitals would be more conservative.



Either way, Fox turned into a hardcore sex channel so gradually I didn't even notice. Maybe they wanted to report on this in an effort to encourage their viewers to vajazzle their hooch with a star spangle image on their vagina. A little red, white and blue all in vajazzles - These cunts don't run.

But just think about every stupid trend like this in the past. There has always been a cheap dangerous equivalent that the poor get. I'm willing to put money down that there's going to be an article about some woman that mutilated her vag because he vajazzled with a hot glue gun and pieces of a broken mirror.

Maybe I just don't get it. Is the mentality here "What could make vagina more fun? Oh yeah, gluing sharp rocks to it!"? To me they look like sparkly herpes blisters and their only function will be used for strategic covering up of actual herpes blisters. I mean, this was a joke just a few years ago....



I guess I did always wonder why clams didn't wear pearls on the outside. Now when some hot vajazzled hot chick goes skinny dipping in the sea, they'll be able to hear submarine maracas as they slap their shells like the foreheads they wish had the forethought to evolve. I guess this is better than a hairy pussy, I reckon. We're not in the 70's anymore. Try to get that trimmed FYI.

Maybe it is all about feeling empowered. You get to control how your junk looks and how it's appealing to the opposite sex or something. But.. it seems pretty pointless. I'm a guy, I can tell you up front that I love me some titties and vag. I will do anything for them. How is that not empowering in itself, women?! Maybe you should realize that a females success doesn't just lie between her legs. But please don't start putting sparkle shit on your boobs.



While I'm sure I can rant on for a long time about genital sparkles, but how about I close this out with various puns for this little craze?

Pussy Grillz
Pud Diamond
Pubic Zirconia
Hymenique
Diamonds on the muff
2-carat cooch curtains
DeBeered Clam
blood diamonds
Shine on you crazy Vagina
The Diamond Cuntel
Lucy has a pie with diamonds
Once a month you get Blood Diamonds

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack clits on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched sparkly vagina glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain... Time to die.

In the end the Vajazzler is like the Henna of the Tattoo world. It's for pussies that don't have the balls to pierce. All I know is that for virgins who finally get the chance to have sex with someone and it's with someone who Vajazzled themselves they can really say

"MY GOD... IT'S FULL OF STARS!

We Got Some Health Care Now!

We Got Some Health Care Now!

Sure, it's the most regressive UHC in the world, but it's UHC god dammit. Though I hate to be the bearer of bad news but we're all gonna die regardless of whether we have UHC or not. On the flip side, I'm just happy republicans are furious. I mean, they're steamed! I think the real plan behind all this is to freak out conservatives so much that they die of heart attacks, thus making real health care reform possible. Think about it for a second.

The only way you could possibly piss them off more is by going up to a rich person and say that you're going to break your leg just so they have to pay for it. I mean, there's not actually anything in this guaranteeing people health care, right? It's essentially just a tax on people who couldn't afford it in the first place given that you now have to have health insurance.



You folks do realize that this bill just made getting insurance cost a lot more, right? I guess it's a small price we're willing to pay for republican tears. I can hear those republicans talking now. Trying to find a way to know if black people will not just hang out in ER rooms all day because it's better than their houses. Easy solution for that is to make conditions in emergency rooms worse than in their homes. Maybe it'll get to the level of public schools.

I also wonder how many people are going to think this is in effect and will visit a hospital tomorrow for badly needed medical care. I guess we're also going to be paying for the healthcare of that one chick whose goal it is to be 1000 pounds. Ha!

I mean, when do we officially start the clock on our socialist society? Isn't that what the republicans want you to believe? That socialism is going into effect soon. When do I get to live on commune and elect a soviet. I mean, what next? Do you want me to pay for a FIRE DEPARTMENT?!? But my house is CLEARLY not on fire right now. How dare we live in a socialist inspired dream!



Glenn beck is going to flip the fuck out today and I can't wait to see Fox News all but gloss over any mention of this Health Care.. or, at best rage so hard against its. And not even the good "Well, what did we get into?" sort of introspective sort of look at it, but the "ARRGH, THESE SOCIALIST FUCKS, YARRRRG!"

While I'm democratic, this is America, so I'm obviously not very optimistic we actually got anything that will improve the piss poor system we pass as health care. And from skimming through articles online, here's what I found;

From the Christian Science Monitor

The $940 billion bill will cover 32 million uninsured Americans and ban the denial of coverage for preexisting conditions, phasing in taxes on the rich to pay for this expansion of coverage.

Taxes on the rich, coverage, hmmmm, this has potential.. Thanks a lot shitty news article, but how exactly do you define "cover" and what are the details on these rich taxes? Let's dig deeper before we start dancing on Reagan's grave. From CSM

Most people will be required to buy health coverage under the healthcare bill now before the House. About 20 million American households will qualify for subsidized insurance, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

And there's the kicker. Do we see the problem here? Requiring everybody to buy a piece of shit health care plan isn't much reform. Yeah, that's going to cover 32 million uninsured Americans. It's not like they're currently uninsured for...you know... maybe not being able to afford any sort of health insurance to begin with. Let's get more details before I rage too much against said machine.

Beginning in 2014 (that’s right, this is four years away), these people would be able to shop for coverage in new “health exchanges,” a sort of online bazaar in which insurers would hawk different kinds of plans.

Sweet! Now we're treating peoples' lives like they're a fucking shopping mall. At least the term "Uniquely American" has legitimacy when applied to Health Care. While I'm grateful for the win, the next sentence just makes me feel like this was a bittersweet victory.

The federal subsidy would go straight to the insurer. It would look like a discount on the policy to the customer.

We're paying taxes to keep these worthless middlemen "insurance companies" in business. Why not just get rid of these fuckers entirely?

we're paying taxes to keep these worthless middlemen "insurance companies" in business... why not just get rid of these fuckers entirely? oh wait, that would make too much sense. That alone just means the pockets of these insurance companies are getting lined no matter what.



So the bill has an individual mandate without a public option, which is the most evil thing I can imagine. While I'm all for something actually happening in our elected government, I'm sure a lot of people stopped following this health care bill for the sake of their own sanity. Yeah, there's still good things in the bill and it's nice that the blue team won this time, I think to jump for joy on all this is a little premature.

You young healthy adults out there who are just out of college and not in a full time gig.. You'll be effected by this most. Even though you're healthy and all that jazz, you now face penalties up to $700 a year for not getting health insurance that you don't want and you probably think you don't need. I mean, you're indestructible after all, right?

While I have health insurance through a very old system of paying dues and fighting "da man" with my union, it's not really a "great" one. So at least I don't have to pay that $700 amount, but I'm sure those without health care had literally nothing changed for them with this passing. If they were smart, though, they would jump into the field of playing the stock market. Anyone who wants to learn about the wonderful world of stock buying, you should get yourself introduced with this bill.



One could wonder at this point on how bad will insurance rates skyrocket, since there are no price controls or mechanisms to keep them in line? Or you could look at this bottle half full and ask how much of your portfolio should you dump into insurance companies as soon as the market was open today. If you did.. way to go, champ. You're ahead of the curb.

The health bill, if I understand this correctly:

Pre-existing conditions and children blah blah blah, can no longer be denied insurance by writ of the government. So the government is forcing a new group of people (because of moral reasons) into the insurance pool, which will costs the insurance companies a lot of money.

Obama's logic in response to this is to have a universal federal mandate to have SOME type of insurance coverage, thereby getting in the pre-existing conditions folk and keeping premiums at a reasonable level. However, if you "can't afford to buy it", the government is going to subsidize it, correct? But the government doesn't control the prices... the market does. And the insurance companies do.


Are you my mommy?

So isn't this just going to cause the insurance companies to go, "Why look, new customers with lots of money, Let's raise prices, cause we know you can afford it now." And there's no reason why to lower the prices because you have a vast larger group now that HAS to buy it.

I'm not interested in the "Amerikkka values" or unconstitutionality of a federal mandate, but artifically driving up cost of insurance, like they did with education, isn't exactly a great idea or that much of a progressive thing to do regardless of whatever Glenn Beck says. This bill, on some respects, seems like a 900 billion dollar handout to the insurance industry, and in the end doesn't really solve the real problems that lie in Health Care reform.



This was the political capital Obama was saving up for all year. Now that it's getting passed he's gonna pull out all the breaks and promote a homo-fascist atheist police state where you're required to smoke weed all day. Just you wait and see! JUST YOU WAIT AND SEE! YOU MADE YOUR BED, NOW SLEEP IN IT... WITH A BLACK MAN!!!!!

Have to say though, as shitty as this is, republican tears make this bill so much better than what the reality of it is.

Besides, any small, incremental change is better than none at all. It is a logical and pragmatic stance, also reasonable. Change takes time. Look at the long term and rid yourself of the desire for instant gratification, right? Take the victories you can but continue to fight the war. Like when woman and black people got the right to vote. It took time. First we had to give them the right to leave their homes, and then to think for themselves, and then after they proved they were worthy, we decided they could vote...



I have to say that I'm simply amazed that in this post-feminist world that comes down hard on harassment in the work place, that we're still having the discussion on who has a right to someone's own body and this health care reform is proof of that. In the form of no federal funds for abortion so the bill greatly restricts abortion coverage. It's a tiny step forward to getting people insured, made in the most backward way possible.

As anyone taking out an insurance plan that covers abortion needs to have a separate fund for any subsidies they receive so there's no mixing of taxpayer money with abortion money. Insurance companies not required to cover abortions and States can pass legislation forbidding insurance companies from offering plans that fund abortion via their state exchanges.



68,000 women die annually as a result of having an unsafe abortion, mostly in developing countries. 220,000 children are left without a mother every year because she received an unsafe abortion. 2 to 8 million women each year suffer horrendous consequences after receiving an unsafe abortion, ranging from sepsis to uterine perforation. Many of these women go on to become permanently infertile.

Maternal mortality in the 52 countries that permit abortion is a median of 2 per 1,000 women of reproductive age. In the 82 countries that restrict or ban abortion, maternal mortality averages 23 per 1,000 women of the same age. For every 100,000 live births there are 34 deaths due to unsafe abortion in those 82 countries. In the 52 civilized countries, there's less than one death per 100,000 live births.



Ceausescu's Romania provides a natural history of the effect of restricting abortion: abortion mortality was 20 per 100,000 live births prior to his rule in 1960. By 1989 this had risen to 148 deaths per 100,000, with unsafe abortion accounting for 87% of those deaths. Within one year of the law being reversed to permit free access to safe abortion, the mortality ration fell to 68 per 100,000. In South Africa maternal mortality fell 91% within 4 years thanks to a reduction in the number of unsafe abortions.

Restricting access to abortion will not change abortion rates in any way. The Netherlands has the lowest abortion rate in the world but also has the most liberalized and freest access to abortion in the world. When Barbados, Canada, South Africa, Tunisia, Turkey and others liberalized their abortion laws, there was no concomitant increase in the number of abortions.

What's more, providing free and safe access to abortion lowers health care costs. Tanzania spends 7 times more per woman treating post-abortion complications than their annual budget per head of population. In North Carolina they found that post-abortion care costs 10 times as much as the cost of a safe abortion.

How dare we try to fund something that all private health insurance covers and is legal! That's not the America I KNOW! So really, you real Feminist out there should be up in arms that you still don't have the right for your own bodies to do so what you wish with them.



And that's the many reasons why this bill sucks but I'm still happy it passed. As we all know, nothing gets done in America without corporations getting theirs. And here I thought organized crime was illegal.

Women Just Have It Bad All Around...

Women Just Have It Bad All Around...

I'm not going to sugar coat it and even though I don't have a pair of boobs, I can say it with ease that being a women in our society sucks. But hey, at least you have a day, right? Today, as you may have known by the circle marked around your calendar is International Women's Day.



This day is celebrated internationally.. duh. Take Russia for example. On March 8th it is their day to get the women in your life flowers and I'm pretty sure the police doesn't give any female a ticket today. Pretty sweet deal. But as you may know, women in our country earn less at the same level of employment than men. This is a fact in developed countries. The fact that we need to have a day for women kind of shows that shit is unequal. As a proud feminist I can say this is wrong. Yes, there may not be any rape in the congo today, but what about the other days?

Women daily endure sexism, harassment in the workplace and inequiality. In many parts of the world women are still treated as second class citizens. Women's day attempts to raise awareness by celebrating the economic, political and social achievements of women past, present and future. Even though it's already the end of the day, perhaps you took part in some of the events and activities happening in your area.



In my field of work, Women's day is particularly important. The field of entertainment and film making have typically been considered as a male-oriented profession. While it is clear that this should not be the case as no physical or psychological impediments exist between the sexes, it is often noted that many more men take to working on a set.

Yes, there's a few popular names that break the mold. Just yesterday at the Oscars the best director award went to Hurt Locker's Kathryn Bigelow. It is a big award mainly because she wasn't just up against men directors, she was up against her ex husband James Cameron who was nominated for Avatar. But even with that victory the field is still dominated 81-1 in terms of men to women in those high powered positions.



Then you get into the field of looks.. Or the pressures of society to look a certain way. Take this girl in China who, I guess because of the patriarchy feels like she is not beautiful unless she has a Hollywood demanded look.

SHANGHAI (Reuters) - A Chinese woman is seeking extensive plastic surgery to look like U.S. actress Jessica Alba, mainly because she hopes to win back her boyfriend who she said always wished she looked more like the Hollywood star.

Though let's face the facts, she's doing all this because her boyfriend liked Jessica Alba, or at least thought she was hot and she is going to go under major surgery to please her man.. Yeah, she's a fucking idiot. I don't care if society has pushed this idea on her.



I may like red hair but I'm not going to tell my girlfriend that she has to dye her hair or I'm dumping her. That's just fucking moronic. Besides, I like the way she looks already. I wouldn't be with her if I wasn't attracted to her. I don't get the mentality here - "He loves very attractive female actress, I must turn into that!" doesn't make sense. It's not like he's settling for you while hoping he lands that hollywood hottie.

And if someone is with you but isn't into what you look like, then why are you with them to begin with? Come on now, where's this Girl power? Self esteem powers activate!.... oh no. Somethings wrong. My powers... they are gone! Seriously, even though Audrey Hepburn is beautiful, it doesn't make you any less beautiful because you don't look like a carbon copy of her.



Though let's be honest here. If all the men on Earth were killed, you'll still see "Patriarchy" very much alive and well. Too often people associate patriarchy with "male", when it's the system specifically that should be targeted. The shortcomings of our civilization are a reflection of the shortcomings of people in general, not one particular gender.

While we are on the subject of being real here, let's talk about that glass ceiling. I used to think that the gender pay gap statistics were a useful measure of discrimination, but then I read a study about how women who run their own business pay themselves 2/3rds what men running businesses in identical stages of development do. From that moment on I had to really reconsider what I was believing and I started seriously considering evidence that most of the gender pay gap is due to men and women putting different weight on earning more money and it became convincing pretty quickly.



One study looked at people in the financial sector who were offered, as a promotion, either a 3% pay bump and a title change or a 5% pay bump. Then men overwhelmingly took the 5% raise and the women were split 50-50 on it.

It's obviously very difficult to say how much of the pay gap is caused by discrimination against women and how much is caused by a combination of women caring about money less and other factors. What are those other factors? How about women entering less lucrative fields like teaching and social working where the supply of people trying to get into said field means the demand for good pay is pretty low. The point I think is clear is that it's pretty ridiculous for people to yell out things like "79 cents on the dollar! Damn you patriarchy!!!" because most of it is ones person choice.


Would you look at that, 18 and unengaged! Well, let me tell you.. I'd engage her. Bazinga!

But even with taking that away, it doesn't mean that women and men at the work place are equal. The personal choices may be different but it shouldn't cause women to be treated as lesser people. I knew someone who told me that in the 70's at a job interview, she was asked to unbutton her shirt a little. She said she eagerly complied and was hired on the spot. During some Christmas shopping last year I saw some guy smacking female co-workers in the butt with wrapping paper.

While I wouldn't work at a library with an all-female staff, save for the small Chinese man tucked away on the 3rd floor in the Anime section, I can say I understand why that career choice is picked for those who do.



It's tough to be a female in our society over all. Even if I dispelled and disagree with the equal pay idea. Even in America, the land that should be full of equality and freedom, women endure a lot of hardships.

SCHOOL:

4 out of 5 students (81%) have experienced some form of sexual harassment during their school lives. (Hostile Hallways, American Association of University Women 1993).

In a study of 2,000 female students, 89% reported experiencing inappropriate sexual comments, gestures and looks; 83% were touched, grabbed or pinched; 40% reported these incidents occurred daily at school. (Secrets in Public: Sexual Harassment in Our Schools, Nan Stein, et al., Center for Research on Women, Wellesley College and NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund, 1993).

A survey conducted by the AAUW (2002) on 2064 students in 8th through 11th grade:

* 83% of girls have been sexually harassed
* 79% of boys have been sexually harassed
* 38% of the students were harassed by teachers or school employees
* 36% of school employees or teachers were harassed by students
* 42% of school employees or teachers had been harassed by each other

In their recent study (2006) on sexual harassment at colleges and universities, the AAUW reported:

* 62% and of female college students and 61% of male college students report having been sexually harassed at their university.
* 66% of college students know someone who was harassed.
* 80% of reported sexual harassment is peer-to-peer
* 51% of male college students admit to sexually harassing someone in college, with 22% admitting to harassing someone often or occasionally.
* 31% of female college students admit to harassing someone in college.

Physical and emotional:

* 68% of female students felt very or somewhat upset by sexual harassment they experienced;
only 6% were not upset.
* 57% of female students who have been sexually harassed reported feeling self-conscious or
embarrassed.
* 55% of female students who have been sexually harassed reported feeling angry.
* 32% female students who have been sexually harassed reported feeling afraid or scared.


51% of male college students admit to sexually harassing someone in college, with 22% admitting to harassing someone often or occasionally. (WHAT THE FRAKK)

Academics and achievement:

* 16% of female students who have been sexually harassed found it hard to study or pay attention
in class.
* 9% of female students dropped a course or skipped a class in response to sexual harassment.
* 27% of female students stay away from particular buildings or places on campus as a result of
sexual harassment.

A survey on stalking conducted by the National Institute of Justice on 223 colleges and universities:

* 13% of college women had been stalked and average of two months
* 3 out of 10 reported being injured physically or emotionally
* In 10.3% of incidents, the victim reported that the stalker forced or attempted sexual contact

This is suppose to be the time for education and it's pretty clear that you can't really focus when someone's giving you THE MALE GAZE! But you have to agree, girls are pretty.. isn't that right random article picture found online from the past

WORK:


Nearly half of the 832 working women in researcher Barbara Guteck's 1985 study said they had been harassed. None took any legal action. Only 22% told anybody about the harassment. (The 9to5 Guide to Combating Sexual Harassment, Ellen Bravo and Ellen Cassedy. New York : John Wiley and Sons, 1992).

A telephone poll by Louis Harris and Associates revealed:

* 31% of the female workers reported they had been harassed at
work
* 7% of the male workers reported they had been harassed at work
* 62% of targets took no action
* 100% of women reported the harasser was a man
* 59% of men reported the harasser was a woman
* 41% of men reported the harasser was another man

Of the women who had been harassed:

* 43% were harassed by a supervisor
* 27% were harassed by an employee senior to them
* 19% were harassed by a coworker at their level
* 8% were harassed by a junior employee

Women supervisors were 137% more likely to be harassed than females in non-supervisory positions.

Women are nine times more likely than men to quit jobs because of sexual harassment, five times more likely to transfer and three times more likely to lose jobs. (“Impact of Work Experiences Toward Sexual Harassment”, Allison M. Konrad and Barbara A. Gutek, in Administrative Science Quarterly, Vol. 31, September 1986).

Even factoring the big baby syndrome where even dirty jokes within earshot of women may count as sexual harassment to some people, it's till way too much in terms of numbers.


This just in: dames. theyre screwy

EVERYWHERE ELSE:

In a content analysis of 48 hours of prime time television programs, findings suggest that sexual harassment is prevalent within this medium. Overall, 84% of the shows studied contained at least one incident of sexual harassment or sexually offensive behavior, with an average of 3.4 incidents. In none of these programs was the behavior specifically labeled as sexual harassment. (“Prime Time Sexual Harassment”, Elizabeth Grauerholz and Amy King, in Violence Against Women, Vol 3, No 2, April 1997, Sage Periodicals Press).

100% of women report sexually harassed in public, on the street. (In one of the first street harassment studies, sociology professor Carol Gardner Brooks interviewed 293 women in Indianapolis, Indiana, in the late 1980s through early 1990s. The women were representative of the race, age, class, and sexual orientation of the general population in Indiana and the United States.)

Over 80 percent of the women had experienced male stranger harassment in public and those experiences had a large and detrimental impact on their perceived safety in public. (using a national sample of 12,300 Canadian women ages 18 and older from 1994, Ross Macmillan, Annette Nierobisz (2000))

She found that 90 percent of the 63 women she studied had been the target of offensive or sexually-suggestive remarks at least sometimes: 19 percent said every day, 43 percent said often, and 28 percent said sometimes. (Nielsen, 2000)

25 percent of women had experienced sexual harassment or “an indecent act” on public transportation. (A 2002 survey by the Authority for the Advancement of the Status of Women in Israel)

During the summer of 2003, members of the Rogers Park Young Women’s Action Team in Chicago surveyed 168 neighborhood girls ages 13 to 19 about street harassment and interviewed 134 more in focus groups. They published their findings in a report titled “Hey Cutie, Can I Get Your Digits?” Of their respondents, 86 percent had been catcalled on the street, 36 percent said men harassed them daily, and 60 percent said they felt unsafe walking in their neighborhoods.

In 2007, the Manhattan Borough President’s Office conducted an online questionnaire about sexual harassment on the New York City subway system with a total of 1,790 participants. Nearly two-thirds of the respondents identified as women. Of these women, 63 percent reported being sexually harassed and one-tenth said men had sexually assaulted them on the subway or at a subway station.

And no "She wore dat short skirt" is NOT an excuse or justification for this shit. It's pretty clear that people aren't on equal playing ground. Though, I'm not sure how I would feel if I was constantly told I looked cute or something. I mean, when I'm told I have a nice ass, it's actually an ego booster, but if I was told that day in and day out, I suppose it would get old and start to make me feel like I'm just some piece of meat. Let's face it.. you can objectify me all you want, ladies. And if it will get me a free drink at a bar in West Hollywood, you to, guys.



The ironic thing to all this is that any progress made in today's International Women's awareness is all for naught considering next weekend every white male in America will demean his girlfriend by demanding that she do something for "Steak and BJ day", on March 14th.. Though that's not really sexist. Other than the fact that it explicitly defines rituals to be undertaken, it's no different than a day for flowers and cunnilingus that's called by a different name.

Besides that, does anyone take Steak and BJ day seriously? I know it was a response to Valentine's day, which is in itself pretty patriarchal as it enforces gender roles, but I have never celebrated Steak and Blow Job day even though I love both Steaks and Blow Jobs. Maybe it's just that Steaks and Blow jobs should be an every day tradition. Wait, no. Not everyday. You don't want to suffer from high cholesterol and heart disease. So perhaps you should limit your red meat consumption to three times a week at most. The Blow Jobs, on the other hand (or mouth) should be practiced daily.

Curling Gender Roles

Curling Gender Roles

While I don't give a flying fuck about the Olympics and I really don't care about national pride, I did flip through the channels of my television the other night and I some how landed on Curling. The first thing that one would try to comprehend is what exactly is the rules, or the point of this event, but I was fixated on the larger issues -namely why they have to separate this by gender.

Why is there a men's and women's events for this? Is it because of the Patriarchy being terrified of being bested by a woman? It's not like strength or agility has any real baring with curling. I also realized I haven't really said much in terms of misogynistic lately.. Okay, that Valentine's stuff doesn't count cause, it's Valentine's and well, that's massively unfavorably for women to begin with. Besides, this message is actually about equality and leveled playing field.

Could it possibly be that boobs make the big puck thing go 14% faster? And that's for the pair. It's roughly 7% per tit. Gynecomastia does help, but not as much as original girl tits. Tranny tits do a little better. The highest boost recorded was a Swede with 38E's who managed a full 17% faster than the amount of kinetic energy she put into her push. No one really knows why this works but the Soviets suspected magnets.



Maybe it's because women would lose every single goddamn time like in any other pursuit of human excellence and "feminist" would find it embarrassing and hard to explain when they can't claim hormonal disadvantage like in the more physical sports. Hmm, fuck. This paragraph seems to contradict the last one, but maybe you should take what I say as sarcasm.

Perhaps it just comes down to a separation of events so that it means more gold medals the US can win unfairly. But it's actually an interesting question when related to other sports and games. shooting, Chess, Archery, Motor racing, Horse riding.. well, motor racing isn't separated by genders there's just no good female drivers because women can't drive patriarchy

I could have gone the easy route in poking fun of this and saying that they're separated because it's actually an unfair advantage for women. I mean, yeah, it's 50-80 pound stone being tossed, but the real challenge in curly seems to be the sweeping to slow the stone down before the target.. and let's face it, women have a far bigger advantage when it comes to rapid sweeping...



Then again women even fail at the stuff they're expected and encouraged by society to be good at when men enter the field. My example: Culinary arts. How many Iron Chef's are women? And even the one they do have seems to lose every time I see her get called up for a challenge

From what I could gather, the only difference between the two genders in Curly is that men get much more curl on the stone due to greater arm strength. I guess that rules out my other theory that it's to prevent dudes from looking up the skirts of those Danish curling ladies. But still, I'm sure if only the non-physical sports weren't separate by gender we'd surely see that women can be just as good.

Here's a fun fact: Shooting events in the summer Olympics were mixed until fairly recently. There appears to be a trend where mixed competition lasted until a woman won a medal. Then either women were barred from competing in that particular event, or they were given their own event that was "easier" and had different scoring so that men's butts wouldn't be hurt as much.


damn, stylin

What I'm trying to say is that most men are sensitive babies who can't stand the shame of losing to a more skilled competitor (who happens to be a woman) so they try to make it as hard as possible to compare the two accurately while framing ladies sports as gentler or easier.

So see, to my female readership, I may have started with a little bit of snarky comments towards women, but in the end I show that men and women can compete with each other on equal playing fields, and as a feminist myself, I'm all about making sure that the playing field is as equal as possible. That's why I make fun so much. Because I would openly mock anyone the same way. Equality.

Feminism In Action: Mystery Woman Kicking Random Men In The Balls

Feminism In Action: Mystery Woman Kicking Random Men In The Balls

What a very odd story to bring to you, but as a big feminist, I'm all about reporting what the other feminist are doing out in the world.

B.C. police seek serial groin-kicker after series of attacks

LANGLEY, B.C. -- Police in Langley are investigating after a woman kicked a man in the groin so hard he lost a testicle -- the latest in a series of similar assaults.

"I just want to know what her problem is," victim Anthony Clark, 22, said this week. "People like her shouldn't be on the streets."

Mr. Clark was walking in the Brookswood area of Langley in early September when he passed his assailant on the sidewalk.

"I was looking down and then I took a passing glance and saw her walk up to me," he said.

That's when the young woman inexplicably kicked him in the groin hard enough to send one of his testicles into his abdomen.

Mr. Clark said he wasn't aware of the severity of his injury until later that night when he "noticed something was missing."

He consulted his doctor and a specialist, both of whom believed his testicle could be brought down again with surgery.

It wasn't until he woke up afterwards that he discovered the doctors were wrong - the force of the assault had caused his testicle to rupture. It had to be removed and will be replaced by a prosthetic before Christmas.

"My doctors say I will still be able to have children," Mr. Clark said. "But at 22 that's not something I want a stranger, this woman, to decide."

Embarrassed by the situation, Mr. Clark didn't go to the police until nearly four weeks after the attack.

Constables have told him there have been three or four similar assaults on other men, Mr. Clark said.

Langley RCMP said they would like to speak to other victims, although there have been no official reported incidents, spokeswoman Const. Holly Marks said.

The suspect is described as a Caucasian woman, in her late teens or early 20s. She was between five-foot-five and five-foot-seven and 130 pounds with a slim build and brown hair.

Ha! I see literally hundreds of women a day who fit that description; I don't think they could have got any more generic description. But let's be honest, those men had it coming. Like, seriously. What were they thinking walking around, in that part of the city, dressed like that. Why weren't thsoe men wearing cups? And at that time of night as well? They should have known the risk.

But what about the equality in this, I bet if this was a dude going around kicking women in the box, when they catch up with him eventually, there would be a huge story on how women who didn't want to bone him turned him into this crazed snatch-kicking maniac. But if they catch this woman it will be a lot of "THIS IS SEXISM OF THE WORST KIND."



I know getting booted in the testicles so hard that one explodes seems funny on the surface. Hell, I've even laughed at the situation when it was on America's funniest home video all the time. But the idea of being able to just stroll up to someone and obliterate a small but important part of their body forever gives me the willies in the worse possible way.

It does make me question my feelings towards gun ownership. It's quite obviously necessary in a world where one's testicles can be destroyed in the blink of an eye. There is a strange part of me that wonders about the way to go about healing that wound. A prosthetic testicle, really? is that strictly necessary? And do you think I could buy a third ball just to be different an toss a curve ball (pun intended) to my girlfriend.

Then again, if my balls were destroyed I'd just get them replaced with trucknutz. Maybe some blue ones. That'll add some comedy to any dull dinner party conversation.



Then there's this quote that cracks me up;

"My doctors say I will still be able to have children," Mr. Clark said. "But at 22 that's not something I want a stranger, this woman, to decide."

Ha. that's a pretty funny comment. That dude sure seems to be handling losing a testicle pretty well. Much better than I would be. If that women destroyed one of my nuts I'd probably be pretty upset at her. Upset enough to say she shouldn't have the power over my reproductive capacity. I know, how much more of a misogynist can I be with that mentality.

But what are you going to do about it? If kicking in the balls was banned, only crminals would kick in the balls. It's a tough world like that. How come women get anti-rape deivices but men don't get anti-ball kick devices? Looks like a classic case of reverse sexism going on up in here.



I know I'm a huge feminist and all, and since I'm already balls deep into this conversation I figure that I would ask this question that I, a huge feminist, don't even know. I don't know how feminist feel towards sluts. I mean, do they respect them for their sexual freedom or are they opposed to their slangin it around because it undercuts female power?

I'm thinking that feminist actually don't like sluts. A slut is a women who derives her power from her sexual appeal. The only "power" these women posses is that which is granted to them by men who want to fuck them. Sluts behave like women were biologically hardwired to behave; to be having sex with many men and have all their needs provided by men. That is not empowering to women because it is still the men who control everything.



I do believe that Feminist are more enlightened females (and me) who understand that if women want to be empowered they have to do it without depending on men. This is why Meghan Fox is not a positive role model for women. Her power depends on her making money based one guys coming to see her run around in little amounts of clothing. Without that male fan base, her power is null. It's like with the absence of good, you can't tell what exactly evil is.

Then again, "Slut" is right up there with "white trash" as a term that should never be legitimized by anyone who considers him- or herself remotely progressive but still gets thrown around. Both have pretty similar implications and always implicate the user as a bigot. Then again, progressives are ineffectual losers who go all aspergers about language because the only thing they're good at is talking.



But since we're talking about it, the word slut needs to be reclaimed like 'queer' or it needs to stop being used. I normally smash the Patriarchy by referring to promiscuous men as sluts as well. Then we get to the whole virginity thing. Seriously, who cares? If you care about sexual purity, you should die alone. Seriously. Practice makes perfect, guys. What the hell are people complaining about if a female has a lot of practice?

"She's such a whore! She's slept with several guys!", is just dumb and shortsighted. Sure, sex gets better, or at least it should, the more you get to know each other, but that's another thing that has nothing to do with the knowledge you go into the relationship with.



So yes, this feminist in action blog was all over the place. But if you feel I portrayed women in the wrong light, always remember the female privilege checklist;

The Female Privilege Checklist

1) Due to anti-discrimination laws, if I compete against a man for a job, all other things equal, I'll get the job because it'll look good on paper.

2) I can use sex appeal to get practically anything I want from any male at any time.

3) If somebody says something derogatory towards my partner, I will not be expected to fight that person.

4) If I hit a man and he hits me back - he'll get the jail time.

5) I can sexually harass men as much as I want, and if they complain they're gay.

6) If I ever rape a man, he won't say anything for fear of being labeled a pussy. If he does say something, he'll probably just be laughed at.

7) If I ever beat up a man, he won't say anything for fear of being labeled a pussy. If he does say something, he'll probably just be laughed at.

8) If he doesn't orgasm when we have sex, it's his fault.

9) If I don't orgasm when we have sex, it's his fault.

10) I'm in charge in the relationship regardless of what any book says.

11) If I have kids and split from the father, I'll get the kids.

12) ...and he'll have to pay me.

13) If I pursue a career I'm commended as being an empowered female.

14) Anytime I do well in business, the media will look at me as some messiah because I'm a woman. Everyone will be impressed.

15) My parents were more loving to me and harder on my brothers.

16) As a child I was taught necessary skills to survive in the world on my own, such as better communication skills and the ability to make food.

17) If I cry everyone huddles around and hugs me, telling me to feel better.

18) If I get angry or sad, I can blame it on it being "that time of the month." Everyone will understand.

19) Worst case scenario I need to lose some weight and use makeup to be attractive, unlike guys who are either attractive or they aren't.

20) If I like to spend money, it's expected.

21) If I have sex with a lot of people, I maybe labeled a slut, but that just means more people will try to have sex with me.

22) There is a wide variety of different styles and types of clothing available to me. Same goes for jewelery and perfumes.

23) I'm taught the skills necessary to make it on my own, but that it's okay to rely on others - unlike a males who generally aren't taught to even cook and that they must compete over every last little thing. If they lose, they're lesser men.

24) If a crime is commited against me, the punishment will always be worse than it would be for commiting it against a man.

25) Regardless of how much or how little I do around the house, I can nag my boyfriend/husband for not doing enough and he'll put up with it.

26) If I get pregnant, regardless of what the father wants, I can choose to abort the child or not abort the child.

27) If I make more money than my husband, people will think more of me and less of him.

28) If I look down I can expect everyone, even complete strangers, to care and tell me to cheer up or smile. The'll do little extra things to try and make me feel better.

29) If I don't want to have sex early on, people don't wonder if I'm gay.

30) I have the privilege of being fully aware of these advantages, and I use them in excess.