Archive | Retards RSS feed for this section

A list of things that annoyed me today

25 Sep

For those of you that follow me on Twitter, you may have seen a note my son’s second grade teacher sent home with him. He was asked to draw a pattern, so he drew bone-DNA-bone-DNA-bone-DNA.  Little bones and tiny helixes to represent DNA.  It is pretty cool, for a tiny little urchin.  The teacher thought so, too.

note

Oh, I’m so glad she’s in charge of teaching contractions to the little ones.  I hope she gets her union negotiated pay raise completely unrelated to how she does her job.

The next day, LittleDude brought home a spelling test.  He spelled egg EEG and still got perfect.

note 2

Why am I not homeschooling my kids again?  Actually, Pinkie did not attend formal school until she was 9 years old.  She was afraid of being away from me, and I didn’t feel she was going to learn anything particularly useful in the first few years anyways, so I taught her to read and do what I thought was pretty basic math at home.  She had a good handle on multiplying and dividing fractions and was fascinated by prime numbers.

Oh, oops.  That’s the curriculum for the eighth grade around here.  Kids are capable of so much more than what they are mandated to learn in school.  It’s a bit of a joke.  LittleDude, like his father, is an intensely social person.  He loves the presence of other kids, especially other boys,  and he is bored out of his mind at home with just his sister and adults for company.

So I send him to school.  Where they give him perfect grades for doing it wrong.

Le sigh.  Well, his teacher is very kind.  I suppose that counts for something, no?  She didn’t like it when I sent her a note explaining that my son wouldn’t be doing any homework, because it has absolutely no impact on learning outcomes in the primary grades and only teaches him to hate pointless “busywork”.  He’s only seven!  He’s going to learn a whole more from this awesome book of maps than he will ever learn at school.

chuck

A moment of praise for authors who write books aimed at boys who enjoy being boys!  Enough with the huggy-kissy crap.  Bring on the adventure and survival challenges!

So begins this delightful illustrated novel and the thrilling adventures of Chuck Duganheroic, resourceful, a great swimmer, and master of disguise. In each cliffhanging chapter, Chuck must grapple with a new set of dangers, from sunken ships and buccaneers to survival on open water and a final race to the treasure ahead of the Admiral and his boys. Illuminated throughout with detailed maps of places, people, and things Chuck encounters along the way, and written with an electric sense of daring-do and whimsy, Eric Chase Anderson creates a totally original and captivating hero, and a swashbuckling adventure story for all ages.

http://www.amazon.com/Chuck-Dugan-Is-AWOL-Novel/dp/0811839206/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1380059149&sr=8-1&keywords=chuck+dugan+is+awol

I’m going to have cut short my post today for the second thing that really annoyed me.  I attempted to submit my first assignment containing an outline of the more detailed literature review I will be conducting as I prepare to gather the data for my PhD, and it turns out I can’t do that until I have completed the mandatory library tutorial.

angry

Are you fucking kidding me?  I have two degrees already, as does almost everybody enrolled in PhD programs, and you think I don’t know how to use the fucking library?  Is this kindergarten? A mandatory tutorial?  It’s going to take me three hours to complete it, and the biggest joke is that I just spent an afternoon teaching the actual reference librarian how to conduct searches where established models and terms are borrowed and applied in other disciplines.

Try searching for “big data”, “cluster analysis” and “mining”.  I want to see how Porter’s extension of agglomeration effects catalyzes the collection of big data with a mining cluster.  Unless you know that “big data” in this context means “business intelligence analytics” and you want to eliminate the phrase “data mining”, you are going to be awash in technical papers.  Yes, it’s total bullshit that in an effort to appear legitimate, business researchers borrow concepts like “agglomeration” and “cluster analysis” from more rigorous disciplines like computer science and biology and mathematics, but the point is, you can find what you’re looking for if you know how to sub-search the databases correctly.

But please, waste three hours of my life explaining to me what a “keyword” is, and how to use “Boolean” operators.

Assholes.

Here’s another thing that really annoyed me.  I read the column while waiting for the washer to complete the spin cycle and then emailed it to myself and then read it again, and it STILL irritates the shit out of me.

purse

Apparently, the NFL doesn’t like people bringing small bags into the stadiums, ostensibly because they present a “security threat” and it slows down admissions when bags have to be randomly searched.  The real reason is more likely that people like to avoid paying $12 for a pint of beer, so they use the bags to smuggle in their own beverages and food.

Men have been banned from bringing in knapsacks and courier bags for a long time.  Now that more and more women are attending games, the NFL has banned women’s large purses, which is obviously SEXIST because women NEED their purses.

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/24/the_nfls_ban_on_purses_is_sexist/

Note that small bags are allowed, so you can bring your wallet and phone and some extra tampons should Aunt Flo be visiting.  Cue the shrieking bitches who are entitled to bring their purses because all vaginas must carry purses and men don’t need purses because patriarchy and the only way for the NFL to be fair and treat their male and females fans equally is to let women carry bags but men can’t.

circular

Excellent logic.  The NFL should treat fans equally by having contradictory rules for men and women.

patrick

Two different stories about Patrick the Gorilla have also annoyed me.  Both Jezebel and Salon brand Patrick as sexist because he doesn’t have much love for the lady gorillas, completely ignoring the fact that Patrick is an asshole to the other male gorillas, too.

Patrick gets along well with humans but has problems with his bro gorillas — and flat-out conflicts with females.

http://www.salon.com/2013/09/24/what_a_gorilla_can_teach_us_about_fighting_sexism/

Patrick is just a dick, but of course this has to be spun into some sort of PUNISH THE MALE FOR BEING MEAN TO THE FEMALE bullshit.  What are we supposed to take away from the feminist media spin on Patrick?  It doesn’t matter that he behaves aggressively to other males.  Screw them.  Who gives a shit.  He was mean to the lady gorillas so PUNISH HIM, rah rah rah.

Mary Elizabeth Williams flat out calls male humans apes and wonders why we can’t punish them all in the same way.  You know Mary, darling, some of those commenters might actually be black people.  Black men!  Did you just call black men “apes”?

Yeah, if Glenn Beck said that he would totally get a pass, right?

If only all sexist, aggressive apes could be similarly dealt with. Is there room at that zoo for YouTube commenters?

So let this be a lesson, dudes who are not nice to females. You can be replaced, and by someone who knows how to execute a super-fresh spin. And while Patrick’s exile may just seem a fun bit of color from the wide world of animals, it’s also, sadly, one of the few concrete recent examples of a news story in which the abuse of females has any consequences for the perpetrator. A little more of that, please.

Right. Tell all the men wearing GPS monitors after being arrested for domestic violence, less than HALF of whom will be convicted of any crime at all, that there are no consequences accompanying even the allegation of abuse of women.

http://judgybitch.com/2013/07/16/this-report-on-the-use-of-gps-technology-in-domestic-violence-cases-funded-by-the-department-of-justice-will-blow-your-mind-even-when-women-are-enrolled-as-abusers-theyre-still-victims/

italian

And finally, even more rape hysteria idiocy.  Some reality TV star wrote a book about her marriage to a macho Italian guy whom she appears to love to bits.  I don’t know the whole story, I don’t watch commercial television at all.  But the following passage makes me feel like I might like both of them:

[A] woman needs to keep herself in shape. She has to be seductive. She must be willing to try new things for her husband’s pleasure and her own. And, most important, she has to be available for sex.

There’s real passionate sex and maintenance sex. You need them both for a healthy marriage. Maintenance sex keeps the wheels greased, the lines of communication open, and the fights to a minimum.

Men, I know you think your woman isn’t the type who wants to be taken. But trust me, she is. Every girl wants to get her hair pulled once in a while. If your wife says “no,” turn her around, and rip her clothes off. She wants to be dominated.

Okay, perhaps not the most eloquent or poetic description of how their relationship likely works in the day to day lived reality, but all more or less true, in my experience.

Jezebel’s response:

That is rape and it is insane that it got past the publisher.

http://jezebel.com/real-housewife-melissa-gorgas-new-book-advocates-mar-1371722729

Oh fuck off.  Passionate sex within a marriage is not rape.  Is there any kind of sex at all that DOESN’T qualify as rape for these ladies, or are we seeing the realization of Andrea Dworkin’s “all heterosexual sex is rape” coming to pass?

Just a few posts later, a huge discussion erupted around Jezebel’s policy of NOT posting trigger warnings.  The post is titled Powerful Satirical PSA Explains Why Rape Is Always Your Fault and the sidebar stories, in bold and pretty much impossible to miss are India Has a Gang Rape Problem and Brutal Gang Rape in Mumbai Reignites Outrage in India.  What further explanation do you require?  What do you think you are going to read about in a post with the words RAPE screaming from every second word?  Unicorns farting rainbows?

The problem, you see, is that the delicate flowers weren’t expecting there to be any depictions of violence in the PSA.  It was just supposed to be about rape.  Not rape-rape.

WeAreTheLadies

Maybe put up a trigger warning? The women in this video get brutally grabbed and get more bruised and bloodied throughout the video    Yesterday 9:35pm

http://jezebel.com/maybe-put-up-a-trigger-warning-the-women-in-this-video-1381033486

Could it possibly be more clear that North American women have no fucking clue what rape actually IS?  Rough sex between husbands and wives, sex while drunk, sex you regret, sex you went along with because you didn’t feel like informing your partner you changed your mind, sex you had because he was just so insistent, sex you felt insulted by, sex that wasn’t satisfying …. Rape, rape, rape.

http://judgybitch.com/2013/09/14/yale-confirms-it-when-it-comes-to-rape-no-really-does-mean-yes/

Let’s ask those ladies in India what rape actually looks like.  It’s VIOLENT, for one thing.  It’s a crime.  The post needed a trigger warning for depiction of reality, which ought to have sent most of the Jezebel readers screaming in the other direction pretty quickly.

Don’t forget your purses, ladies.  And watch out for sexist apes men on your way back to Delusionville.

Three hour library tutorial.

This better not be a group exercise.  I’ve had my fill of retards today.

cat

Lots of love,

JB

Yale confirms it: When it comes to rape, “No” really does mean “Yes”!

14 Sep

This absolutely made my day.  Completely hilarious.

bitter

A bunch of obviously confused women’s studies majors, where they basically train in contradiction, irrationality and hypocrisy, decided to explain to their kindergarten adult students exactly what consensual sex looks like and what the penalties will be for failing to grasp the Rules for Fucking at Yale.

Called the “Sexual Misconduct Scenarios”, the memo is designed to get students to understand that if they are having any kind of sex that is not robotic and not routinely peppered with super romantic legalese, they are doing it wrong and will get no cookies.  No.  Cookies.

http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2013/09/10/sexual-misconduct-scenarios-released/

And also that if she says “No” a whole bunch of times and then you have sex anyways, “No” actually means “Yes” and you get ALL THE COOKIES!  Hooray!

cookies

Let’s just dive right in.

Oh, and you can ignore all the bullshit androgynous names, since Team Fucking gave up by the last one, and just called the dude Tyler.

1. Ryo and Casey are dating. Casey is uncertain about whether they should have sex, but Ryo is persuasive and finally obtains Casey’s voluntary agreement. As they engage in sex, Casey says “wait – stop – that hurts.” Ryo nonetheless continues for several more minutes, restraining Casey. Afterwards, Casey is upset. Ryo apologizes, but says they were past the point of interruption.

 

While there was initial consent, that consent was withdrawn. The UWC penalty would be expulsion.

You can see the team high fiving each other for an unmistakable slam dunk!   Woo hoo! We nailed it!

“That hurts”?  What is “that”?  Is Casey referring to a particular angle or thrust or to the whole sexual encounter? Is the hurt something that can be remedied and then carry on, tally ho?

Basically, Yale is going to expel Ryo for forgetting to bring lube? And Casey reached a degree of trauma that can only be described as “upset”? Ryo is a clod, no doubt, but in order for that to be rape, Casey is gonna have to be a little more clear.

stop

“Dude, you’re hurting me.  You need to stop right now.”

Fail.  Scenario is totally ambiguous.

2. Jessie and Vic have been flirting all semester, and agree to meet at a party. After dancing closely together for a while, Vic proposes going to one of their rooms and Jessie agrees. On the walk to Jessie’s room, they send a few texts, letting Vic’s friends know not to worry and asking Jessie’s roommate to please sleep somewhere else. Once in the room, they begin touching. Each is interested in hearing what the other wants, and each is paying attention to the other’s signals. They reach and sustain clear agreement upon mutually desired sexual activities.

This is consensual sex: Vic and Jessie reached positive, voluntary, unambiguous agreement to engage in sexual conduct together.

Vic: Baby, do I have your sustained clear agreement?

Jessie: Oh yeah, this is mutually desired activity.

Vic: Ooh, is consent still in effect?

Jessie: Mmmm, but check back in twenty seconds, honey, in case ambiguity arises.

Vic: Oh no, baby, no ambiguity.  I can get expelled for that.  Did you bring the lube?

Very. Sexy.

Fail.

Who has sex like this?  Who wants to?

3. Sidney and Harper are dating. On several occasions they are physically intimate, but within limits set by Sidney, who is opposed to having sex at this stage of their relationship. One night, when they are being intimate within their mutually agreed upon boundaries, Harper begins to cross them. Sidney expresses concern, but Harper is encouraging, saying “it will be okay just this once.” Sidney replies “we shouldn’t do this,” but continues to touch Harper in an intimate way. As Harper initiates sex, Sidney says “this is a bad idea” and begins to cry, but embraces Harper and the two proceed to have sex.

 

Initial consent was followed by ambiguity. Sidney’s acquiescence to sex was accompanied by too much dismay to constitute unambiguous agreement, especially given Sidney’s longstanding prior refusal to engage in sex. The UWC penalty would likely fall in the range of probation to suspension.

no

And BOOM!

“No” really does mean “Yes”.

Sure, Harper is probably going to face a suspension of some sort, but that’s a small price to pay for the knowledge that no matter how many times she said no, you can turn that into a yes by fucking a crying girl.

WTF?

I still wouldn’t call this rape, not by a long shot, but what kind of douchebag has sex with a woman who is crying?  If her kitten just died, or she failed an important exam or her highlights turned out just terrible, I can see the sex and tears scenario, but this is what passes for acceptable by the #rapeculture brigade?

And what is the initial consent, might I ask?  That Sidney expressed reservations but continued to touch him?  So the act of touching implies consent?

Really?

Good to know.

4. Jamie and Cameron are at a party. It is crowded on the dance floor and they are briefly pressed together. Later, Jamie encounters Cameron in the hallway and smiles. Cameron, who is now very drunk, follows Jamie into the bathroom and forces Jamie to have sex.

There was no consent to have sex. The UWC penalty would be expulsion.

Finally.  An actual rape. The appropriate reaction is a criminal conviction.  Who gives a fuck what UWC thinks?

5. Devin and Ansley are engaging in a consensual sexual encounter, which Devin begins to intensify. Ansley responds by pulling away slightly, moving Devin’s hands and saying “not so fast; I’m not sure.” Devin cooperates briefly but then intensifies the contact once more. Ansley inches backwards and then becomes still. Nonetheless, Devin has sex with Ansley.

While the initial sexual activity was consensual, that consent was not sustained. The UWC penalty would likely range from multi-semester suspension to expulsion.

 

Oh, she inches backwards and becomes still?

Yeah, no.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

If you no longer consent to sexual activity then you need to let the other person KNOW that.  Devin CANNOT read Ashley’s fucking mind.  And don’t give me this “if she goes still” it’s rape bullshit.

legs

Ever hear of the mannequin?

http://www.steadyhealth.com/I_flex_my_legs_when_I_masturbate__t133309.html

http://www.lpsg.com/109876-who-else-has-to-tense.html

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/80936

http://dartmouthsexperts.blogspot.ca/2008/03/i-can-only-have-orgasm-with-my-legs_06.html

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20121027223802AAFHqTx

http://www.cosmopolitan.co.uk/community/forums/thread/1519683

http://www.healthboards.com/boards/sexual-health-women/272498-can-only-orgasm-my-legs-closed-tight.html

Lots of women stiffen with pleasure.  If you’re stiffening because you are no longer down with sex, then SAY so.

Fail.

100% fail.

6. Alexis and Riley are studying together in Riley’s room. During a break in their studying, they rub each other’s shoulders. Alexis then introduces some intimate touching. Riley moves closer and says “Okay, but I don’t want to go too far – we still have a lot of work to do.” Alexis continues to touch Riley in an intimate way. Riley willingly agrees to some contact, but mostly sets boundaries. Alexis jokes that they deserve to have sex as a reward for their hard work studying; Riley laughs. After their studying is done, Alexis suggests again that they should have sex. Riley responds they should probably get some sleep but continues to touch Alexis. After a few more minutes, Alexis asks once more. Riley pauses, then says okay and pulls Alexis closer. They have sex.

 

This is consensual sex. Despite initial hesitation, the ultimate agreement to have sex was voluntary and unambiguous. There is no violation of the sexual misconduct policy. The UWC would likely counsel Alexis about the inappropriateness of sexual pressure, and recommend SHARE’s sensitivity training program.

Aaaand BOOM!

“No” means “Yes”.  Again.  And this time the price is just a little sensitivity training.

Really, Yale, what exactly are you trying to teach?

Personally, I think no means yes a whole lot of time, but this seems rather….inconsistent, shall we say with the whole No Means No argument.

I think you’re gonna have to pick one, or just throw your hands up and let individual women take responsibility for their own sexual choices.

Oh, wait.

How can you punish men if women are actually responsible for their own choices?

Such a conundrum.

7. Morgan and Kai are friends who begin dancing and kissing at a party. They are both drunk, although not to the point of incapacitation. Together they decide to go to Kai’s room. They undress each other and begin touching each other. Morgan moves as if to engage in oral sex and looks up at Kai questioningly. Kai nods in agreement and Morgan proceeds. Subsequently, without pausing to check for further agreement, Kai begins to perform oral sex on Morgan. Morgan lies still for a few minutes, then moves away, saying it is late and they should sleep.

There was initial agreement, but the bounds of that agreement were not clear. Kai may have thought that Morgan had consented to reciprocal oral sex, but took no steps to obtain unambiguous agreement. The UWC penalty would likely be a reprimand.

Seriously?  This makes approximately zero sense, no matter how you spin it.

If Morgan is the woman, then she gives a Kai a blowjob, which he has agreed to with a nod.  Then when Kai turns around and goes down on Morgan, she lies still (see mannequin, above) and then moves away.

If Kai is the woman, then Morgan kneels in front to her and performs cunnilingus, and then when Kai returns the favor and starts giving Morgan a blowjob, he lies still and then moves away.

I guess they could both be men, or both be women, but it comes down to something fairly obvious, no?

shark

Someone sucks at oral sex.

Ladies, nail down that deep throat technique, or you could face reprimand.  Gents, perfect that muff dive or your record will be permanently amended.

And I’m almost speechless…

8. Tyler and Jordan are both drinking heavily at an off-campus event. Tyler becomes extremely drunk. Jordan offers to take Tyler home. On the way, Tyler has trouble walking, and makes several wrong turns. Once in Tyler’s room, Jordan initiates sexual activity. Tyler looks confused and tries to go to sleep. Jordan has sex with Tyler.

There was no consent to have sex. A person who is incapacitated—lacking the ability to make or act on considered decisions to engage in sexual activity—cannot give consent. The UWC penalty would be expulsion.

Wow.  A case of male rape.  And Jordan gets expelled.

I’ll just hold my breath waiting for that to happen in real life.

Call me a cynical bitch, but isn’t it rather touching that the single case where gender is unambiguous, and the man is the one raped, is the very case in which drunk women are excused for their behaviour by proxy?

…lacking the ability to make or act on considered decisions to engage in sexual activity  is rape.

And who will the accused be in most of these scenarios?

Men.

Why?

Because women never get drunk and take advantage of men?

Bullshit.

It’s because men aren’t self-pathologizing, perpetual victims weeping  while constantly seeking someone else to blame for banging that fat chick while drunk.

http://judgybitch.com/2013/04/09/four-fat-chicks-walk-into-a-bar-looking-for-a-good-time/

yale

So, we can summarize the Yale Fucking Rules as follows:

  1. Being an inconsiderate sexual partner IS rape
  2. Having robotic, tedious, constantly assessing legal consent sex is NOT rape.  Or fun.
  3. Having sex with a crying woman who has continuously said no is NOT rape.
  4. Dragging someone in the bathroom and forcibly fucking them IS rape.
  5. Being unable to read someone’s mind IS rape.
  6. Pressuring someone to have sex when they would rather study is NOT rape.
  7. Being bad at oral sex IS rape.
  8. Having sex with drunk women IS rape.

Holy hell, Batman.

I think Yale is gonna have to change their motto:

Lux et veritas

Light and truth?

More like

Erratus et inconditus.

Lost and confused.

Then again, on the bright side, at least Yale has cleared up that “No” does indeed mean “Yes”.  Now they can get to work figuring out if “Yes” really does mean “Anal”.

http://bigthink.com/focal-point/no-means-yes-yes-means-anal-frat-banned-from-yale

lube

In which case, definitely do not forget the lube.

Lots of love,

JB

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,615 other followers

%d bloggers like this: