Also, if I’m expected to have a trimmed or shaved puss, a guy can at [...]]]> As someone who rocks a beard, and has had bedroom-related insecurities about said beard, April Smear’s LAist anti-beard screed hit a soft spot. Until I realized the porn industry was the cause of my discomfort, then I just got mad:

Also, if I’m expected to have a trimmed or shaved puss, a guy can at least extend the same courtesy and have a shaved face. Truly, if a woman grew an Amazonian Forest below, most men these days would have a problem with it. And you know it. And before you lie, ask yourself when the last time you saw an Amazonian Forest on any of the women you gawk at in your men’s magazines and in your porn.

Horrible porn industry beauty standards: not just for women anymore! Clearly a hair double standard does exist, but it has nothing to do with beards (since sexual dimorphism should probably be discounted as a form of inequality). Sans-bush fashion made the leap from video to suburb among the female set some while ago (with what prevalence? I know of no study.), but men have thus far been spared; the male beauty standard remains less prescriptive than its sister. So the real argumet of the essay should be that what’s good for the chick, is good for the cock.

Of course, what we should be talking about how this whole hairless fetish is a creepy manifestation of body-hating (note: the fetish, not every individual instance of the practice), which is particularly visible in this passage:

If I wanted to smell that aroma, I wouldn’t be with a man.

That aroma being…your own body? The idea that “Great sex involves sweat, spit, and other bodily fluid,” but only on the part of the other person has problems. You’re denying your own body’s reality; requiring that it remain (or at least that you experience it as) a pristine, aroma-free object during sex. You’re saying the only reason you’re with a man is because you’re uncomfortable with your own body. That’s bad.

Of course, the exact same thinking is used in male rationalizations for demanding that women clearcut their “Amazon Forest” (which is a rather unfortunate metaphor, given the many creatures that call the forest home), with the added bonus of patriarchal power.

Really, we just all need to stop learning abut sex from porn. Especially dudes, seeing as you drive the mainstream pornography market. And nobody better come after my beard.

Update: An appropriately themed video by Rilo Kiley:

Comprehensive list of woman criticized by John Cain:

Comprehensive list of men criticized by John Cain:

Note that these lists are based on a very small sample [...]]]> The abortion-study blowup (with posts by Jill and Mike probably the last gasp), caused me to look into something.

Comprehensive list of woman criticized by John Cain:

• Zuzu
• Jessica Valenti
• Garance Franke-Ruta
• Dana Goldstein
• Kathryn Jean Lopez
• Amanda Marcotte
• Deborah Tornello (in comments)
• Tania Head

Comprehensive list of men criticized by John Cain:

• Gregg Easterbrook
• Judah

Note that these lists are based on a very small sample size (Soberish has two months of posts), and it it possible that this ridiculous skew will correct itself with time. Additionally, I merely point to a correlation, which in no way should be construed as definitive.

That said, I think John Cain dislikes women. Or maybe just smart women.

To those who may ask, “But wasn’t John right on the issues?” I reply: Maybe, sometimes — but that is irrelevant. One can choose to be ‘right’ against any number of online personalities; they’re hardly scarce. Who you choose to debate is a commentary on you. Exclusively correcting the follies of women is repulsive, irrespective of how wrong they may be.

A related observation: “liberal male pundit attacks feminist blog” is something of a cliche at this point, and needs to be abandoned as a goto posting strategy. Possibly it’s just that male pundits don’t understand feminism and need to be schooled. Maybe we attack feminists because they represent the most radical sector of the liberal blogosphere (the commies play in their own sandbox) and we all feel the need for a Sister Souljah moment from time to time to reinforce our seriousness/intellectual honesty. I don’t know, but it grates.

Update: I deleted Tegan and Sara from the list since they’re not actually a “person” and I didn’t intend to include groups or organizations.

Extensive climate changes…may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth’s [...]]]> Lorenloo builds up a solid rant around Gore’s award, and while I’m all for that, I want to point her to the Nobel PR on why climate change work justifies a peace prize.

Extensive climate changes…may induce large-scale migration and lead to greater competition for the earth’s resources. Such changes will place particularly heavy burdens on the world’s most vulnerable countries. There may be increased danger of violent conflicts and wars, within and between states.

So there is a link, even if it requires a “may” disclaimer.  In fact, it’s hard to imagine the world experiences massive climate upheaval without violent conflict; if we were evolved enough to deal with disasters rationally, then we’d be able to curtail our problematic behavior in advance of said disasters.

As far as the effectiveness of Gore’s global warming education: though the impacts are difficult to measure, the politics of GW has definitely changed.  Denial has decreased.  All the Democratic presidential candidates have global warming plans, including some good carbon tax schemes that would make a real difference.  Public opinion, as frivolous a thing as it may seem, creates the reality in which policy change is discussed.  Gore has been good for this reality.

I still don’t want the man to run for president.  I still feel just fine about protesting him in his last race.  But give him his due; he’s been doing important work.  And I like that he continues the trend where Democrats earn Nobel Prizes after they get elected president, while Republicans…do what exactly?  Disappear into the womb of their own wealth?  Does anyone know?

Now, Mike Meginnis used a period instead. Silly man. Now I [...]]]> See what I did there? By putting a question mark at the end of my post title, I make it clear I’m just a curious fellow, and in no way insulting the character of that lovable blogger “of no party or clique.”

Now, Mike Meginnis used a period instead. Silly man. Now I have to offer a qualified defense of Sullivan.

It is certainly is nonsense to, as Mike says, “draw a lesson about ‘Arab culture’ and (what Sully would call) its many shortcomings from the time we blew up their country without their consent and then stuck around to remake it in our own image.” However, in that it’s acceptable to make generalizations about Arab culture based on empirical data, arriving at bad conclusions based on outliers isn’t racist…it’s just wrong.

The bright line between acceptable cultural criticism and unacceptable racism is essentialism — you can condemn a social construct, but not the traits of a people. I think Mike too recognizes this distinction since he claims Andrew is trying to “prove some sort of congenital flaw in the so-called ‘Arab character.’” However, this is a leap, as Sullivan’s commentary never moves into a discussion of the nature of Arabs.

What Sullivan does is argue that (present-day, mainstream) Arab culture offers only pessimistic prospects for (western) democracy (and that this is a bad thing). The parenthetical statements being implicit in the piece, and me lacking sufficient exposure to the Sullivan oeuvre, it’s possible I’m misjudging his meaning and he means something worse than this. But on the surface, this statement’s fine, even if the Iraq experience is a lousy basis for it.

UPDATE: So, I’m not ready to throw around ‘racist,’ but after Meginnis’s response offering more examples of Sullivan’s ethnic criticism, I would suggest to Andrew that less time spent discussing the behavior of the brown & black brethren might be a good idea.

Chomsky, on the other hand, spent decades in the beloved Building 20, MIT’s ”Magical Incubator.” He would go back in a minute. In Chomsky’s eighth-floor office, the walls slant in. ”If you look in the corner, you get vertigo,” he says.

”The first time he came [...]]]> I know this is really old, but it just kills me:

Chomsky, on the other hand, spent decades in the beloved Building 20, MIT’s ”Magical Incubator.” He would go back in a minute. In Chomsky’s eighth-floor office, the walls slant in. ”If you look in the corner, you get vertigo,” he says.

”The first time he came in, he almost passed out,” says his assistant, Bev Stohl, who has loaded the office with plants to minimize the effect.

Chomsky finds the space not very usable. ”It is hard to get a blackboard up,” he says. Responds Brooks, the CSAIL director: ”He hates the US government, too. He hates this country. Have you ever read anything he has written?”

It’s just hard for me to imagine Gehry’s buildings put into the All-American, no criticism allowed pantheon beside apple pie, boy scouts, guns, and NASCAR. I mean, here’s the building in question:

Will it next be unpatriotic to dislike David Lynch movies?

(For the record, I think this building is awesome in facade and concept; Tell Brooks he doesn’t need to send his design gestapo after me. Also, City of Sound has a nice visual review/tour of the Stata Center from 2004.)

If you’re a woman who hates men, make sure to use a lot of odd misspellings, such as womyn and grrls to let men know that you hate them. Make lame comments about how all men are pigs in case [...]]]> While tooling around the intertubes, I happened upon this little bit of blog advice from 2002:

If you’re a woman who hates men, make sure to use a lot of odd misspellings, such as womyn and grrls to let men know that you hate them. Make lame comments about how all men are pigs in case they still don’t get it. Moan about your life and blame it on men. Reference your miserable high-school years. Name names.

Oh, snap! He really took it those femiwhathasits! I can’t believe that this piece is the first search result for “blog rules.” Wierd.

Anyway, I want to apologize on behalf of Mr. Dvorak to my neologist sastren out there. He was spurned a lot in high school, and is now projecting. “Grrrls” has an important place in Amerikkkan herstory — how else to referencing Bikini Kill? — and its use should not be mocked.

Seriously though, word-warping is enjoyable and sometimes useful, even if its effectiveness at subverting the patriarchy is questionable. Mary Daly’s Wickedary is fascinating, though I’m more a fan of her early stuff, before she sold out to the big labels.