"Blame-Blindness"

*nothing to do with the Optic Nerve  =D

I'm a fan of protecting my property. (Putting up fences and posting "No Trespassing" signs are the just the shallow end of the pool when it comes to what I consider my right to defend) But even when I've failed to deadbolt my shed closed and some thief steals my hedge clippers (because, like, hedge clippers are totally this year's Tickle-Me-Elmo? ...Anyhow!), the law will still punish that offender. Despite not having a lock, the criminal is still the one at fault.

This concept does not apply to women. Well, haa, let us be honest, a woman's body is not her own in the first place! ;D

A lot of Americans will immediately assert that they believe women in Saudi Arabia should not have to wear obfuscating clothing (the visual being the burqa); But mention that a rape/sexual assault victim was wearing a mini when the attack took place -suddenly, "Well, she's asking for it if she dressed like that!"

A woman does not need a deadbolt or burqa for a man to know not to mess with her body without her permission.  I could cover my yard in signs promising I have stashed long-lost Spanish treasure in my basement, and guess what? If someone goes ahead and takes that booty, it is still ILLEGAL.

So no, particular make-up and clothes do not equate to "asking" for anything.  What does?  Well -for starters- asking or saying, "Yes".

And because this is a body we're talking about, permission is free to be withdrawn at any time.  Kind of like how a boxer can throw a flag and that over-eager opponent in the blue corner has to stop those damn knees to the gut already.

 Yes, yes, I get it - there is such a thing as precaution.  And there's also such a thing as being held responsible for CRIMINAL acts when one messes around with stuff they have NO RIGHT over.  And being married, as we are now comfortably into the twenty-first century, is no longer a contract of ownership, so you're out of luck there too, rapists.

Unless you are in Norway, apparently.

The "Personhood Amendment" FAIL.

Just enough people are smart enough to have turned down the Personhood Amendment in Mississippi.

This proposal would have criminalized birth control -and here's a shocker!- possibly even miscarriages. Thankfully, its ridiculous nature was obvious.


Here's the thing - ONLY a woman can die from complications with a pregnancy. She has every right to say "no" to a pregnancy, especially within the first trimester. It should be her decision to carry or not to carry a child to term, not the state's.  Republicans who support the personhood amendment and similar demeaning, limiting government actions are going against the fabric of their party.  It is shameful.

Some will argue that a child can also die from complications in a pregnancy - but the only human being with the mental capacity to make decisions, who has lived and defined (his or) her own existence, is the mother. Not the child.  The power should be with the mother.  Stop disregarding her life and personhood.

Criminally Negligent

As much as I insist that being pro-choice is actually a very republican idea in that it maintains one's freedom to pursue happiness without the invasion or unjust limitation of government, I can see the faults of our GOP very clearly.

Even more clearly - I can see how their current extremist measures can take us in the future.

Miscarriage as man-slaughter.

Seriously, what is to stop them? Who is to say some over-eager person will not go for criminal negligence because "this woman exercised too much and therefore killed her baby! The intent to exercise demonstrates her clear lack of concern for the well-being of the child!"

I know it is absurd to think this is possible, but that's how little faith I have in my party right now. I do not trust them to not try and do something as ridiculous as this. The content of bills repeatedly being introduced into our legislatures says to me that there is a definite undertone of wanting to punish women for their freedom of sexuality and life.

Thinking further on it, I'm sure this has already happened.  In some capacity, somewhere - I would not be surprised.

Women and War

Or
"Why Having a Vagina Did Not and Should Not Keep Women from Kicking Ass"


I spend too much time on eboards and forums arguing why women should be drafted and allowed to serve in offensive military missions - typically dealing with one very pervasive lie that my opponents all cling to:  in general, women have never been warriors.

The "in general" clause allows my opponents to recognise rare exceptions while still enforcing that combat is a male thing.   I always reply, and happily so because I never tire of this, "Joan of Arc is not the only female to ever lead military campaigns."

Now, Reader, hopefully you know as well as I do that Joan of Arc absolutely wiped the floor with a good number of British forces.  She fought alongside her men, continued to successfully command their movements even after being impaled by an arrow (at the time when shallow cuts killed men from infections), and remains one of the only French heroes that is globally celebrated.  Yes, sadly she was French, but the fact that she was a fifteen year old peasant prior to outsmarting military men three times her age, I will forgive her this one blight.

Bad ass.  We all acknowledge it.  Except, get this, some people remain so fascinated with the fact a girl could lead the French to victory, that they've actually attempted to gather "evidence" that she was indeed a man.  Yes.  That's actually a thing.  Kind of like how some people think Hitler was a cat.

I laugh when people say that only women who are really men, or who desire to be men, get involved in battle.  I probably should not laugh at them, because it's wrong to make fun of stupid people or something - but to think my opponents have this idea that they are knowledgeable historians and that only US history is relevant to the US military... it's just funny.

Margaret Corbin and Deborah Samson were just pretend women who actually had male chromosomes, like dear little John of Arc!  For crying out loud, Margaret smoked and Deborah wore men's clothing!  Men.

Or here's another popular argument: women cannot fight reliably because they bleed everywhere all the time and, like, get pregnant.  But it's actually cheaper to provide birth control than it is to get corrective eye surgery for a soldier (which the army does cover).  There's also the swell point that male birth control is being developed and near commercial release.

Not that pregnancy kept women from fighting in the past.  For instance, when Vietnam rebelled against the Han dynasty (of China, yes) in the first century, it was two female queens (about fifteen and thirteen) who rode into battle on elephants and triumphantly led an army primarily consisting of women.  One of the generals, the noblewoman Phung Thi Chinh, gave birth during battle and promptly continued fighting.  Bad ass.

But women are too weak for the modern army!  That was two thousand years ago, when times were easier!  There's no way a woman could survive in the conditions of modern battle.  A female soldier is too weak, does not have endurance, and is always physically inferior to a man!

I will respectfully acknowledge a few points made by my opponents:  Women do not produce muscle as readily as men, trends show they have different hormonal reactions to stress, they are more sensitive to pain and have higher reported instances of mental health complications.  But these are general trends in the population, where other studies say women deal with sleep deprivation better than men, and that men are more negatively affected by competency issues and relationships.

Everything should be taken with a grain of salt.

For the women attending West Point, or for those in ROTC, or flat out enlisting, there should be an opportunity for official, active combat duty.  For all those average women who could not be great soldiers (just like all the average men who do not make great soldiers), there will always be women who are exceptional.  It is only economical to let them fully serve their country.

Well, once men take it upon themselves to stop assaulting their fellow soldiers.  Army higher ups protest women in the service because it causes trouble for COs who then have to deal with sexual harassment and assault instances.  Meaning, simply for being women, female soldiers are the ones being held back even though the trouble comes from sexism and violence on behalf of the men.

OK.  I understand it costs money and involves a lot of legal work to prove a man guilty of assaulting a woman, but make a big, public deal out of a select number of clear-cut cases and dishonourably discharge the offenders.  Guess what, assaults will decrease.  Men who assault women in the army do it because they can get away with it.  Well, make it so they know they can not.  BIG DEAL.

As for separate training facilities needed for women and how costly that would be -another opposing argument - how about reopening one of the United States' many closed bases and using some of the already built and functioning facilities for women?  I repeat, BFD.  Having the base reopened will also help the economy of towns around it, democrats.

Any how, the facts are thus: women are serving their country on the front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those in combat support encounter all of the daily war grind the men do - except do not have the chance to fight, and subsequently get promoted, because of their official status.  Doing the same work but without equal ability to ascend in ranking.  Sound familiar, post WWII United States?

If only Fu Hao and her one hundred, expertly trained female soldiers could travel through time and space to slap some sense into my stupid stubborn opponents.

Those Sacred Contracts

Marriage between two consenting adults is a conservative ideal.

Marriage typically encourages property investment (owning a house), employment (according to the recent census), and social stability.  By social stability, I mean the well-being of offspring; two parental figures help balance the tasks and funds of raising a child (or children).

Not to mention it is a complete infringement upon a person's right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness to deny him or her a marriage license when the only deciding factor is sexual orientation.

Republicans in office (or running for office) are merely pandering to potential voters.  It's pathetic.  They are too afraid to touch the typical "democratic" voting demographic, and instead pigeon-hole themselves into pleasing reactionary, social conservatives

Those who oppose equal marriage rights have mere "hunches" that gay couples somehow rear inferior children (who will for some reason subsequently not want children of their own), despite reputable, dissenting opinions.  Dr. Ellen Perrin, of Tufts-New England Medical Center, happens to have found that children raised by gay parents are just as average as every other snowflake out there.

Ugh.  Politicians.  Shameful.

(And I do not even want to mention how sacred marriage evolved from ownership of women.  Of course, I just did, but I was compelled beyond my will!)

Dress Shoes

I really like dress shoes.  They are sleek, sometimes a little glamorous, and they make me feel especially assertive with the sharp click, click, click of my stride.  There’s something uplifting about swaying my hips over a pair of satin stilettos.

Of course, I didn‘t always have these sentiments.  As a child, I was an absolute sneaker fan -with a closet empty of anything else.  On the rare occasion I did encounter dress shoes, usually for adult events like cocktail parties or weddings, they weren’t the real thing, but just a safe imitation.  There were times I wondered about the real ones out of curiosity, and I would secretly stumble a few steps in some pumps even though they never fit.

Dress shoes eluded me until high school, when I got my first pair of heels.  They were modestly attractive: dark grey leather and lined with blue silk.  I slipped them on over stockings and enjoyed them for short trips here and there.  There was something very exciting and mature about wearing those shoes for the quick walk to class or to the dining hall for Formal Dinner.

Until something unplanned happened.

At that time I went to boarding school, and one day I decided to walk from my campus to the nearby town.  My heels hadn’t bothered me during class, so I thought nothing of them when I started my little excursion.  Three miles later, standing on the bridge between my dormitory and the town, I had to peel the shoes from my swollen, bloody feet.

That’s thing with dress shoes -sometimes, unexpectedly, they give you blisters.

I did not know better at that age.  I did not think to wear moleskin instead of stockings, did not think to avoid heels altogether.  So I got blisters.  Minor ones, initially, so I rinsed them out, went to bed with bare feet, and then continued my daily grind.

There was some trouble with the fact that my feet could not tolerate any of my shoes.  A bandage and some Neosporin did little to relieve the worsening sores, and eventually the pain was so bad I couldn’t even pull on jeans without hissing through clenched teeth.  I went to see the school physician.

A stranger in a white coat told me that my blisters had developed little inside blisters and that I would need to have the skin cut open to allow the infected area to drain.  I would also need some antibiotics.  A simple, same-day procedure that was as unsurprisingly expensive as any other medical treatment.

My medical insurance, oddly enough, would not cover my blister problem.  Even though I could barely get to class and had to take leave from work (as I could no longer adhere to certain requirements), I would have to pay for everything out of pocket.  Frustratingly enough, as a student without a job, I did not have the money.

Since I thought the store was partly responsible for my blisters, as they had sold me the dress shoes, I looked for help on their part.  The sales associate informed me the surgery was my business and that he only felt obligated to offer store credit.  Maybe I could survive for the time being in some tennis shoes, he suggested.  But I did not want to hobble around in tennis shoes and wait for the blisters to scar over, I wanted the blisters gone.  I wanted to get back to class comfortably, I wanted to go back to my job.

How could my insurance cover seasonal allergy medication, a mild annoyance, but not something so completely debilitating?

I called my mother for some support.  She was only partially sympathetic.  As a woman who was equally prone to blisters as myself, she had some experience with the same troubles.  In her day, however, she had chosen to enjoy the time off required to let the blisters heal naturally, nursing the wounds with careful attention day after day.  She had been able to see something rewarding in the situation.  But my mother was a different person from myself, and I could not discern anything suitable for me in this situation.

My feet got worse.  They became so swollen and unfamiliar to me that I had to sacrifice more daily activities.  I said goodbye to my swim team and the winter production of Pippin.  I felt a bit blue, then a little ill, and finally pretty sick.  Just a little desperate, I called the doctor’s office in town and asked for an appointment.  It was a free clinic and I needed their help.

Another white coat examined my enlarged and tender feet.  We talked a little.

“Must be exciting to have an excuse to miss class, right?” the doctor prompted, a little amused but trying to reassure me.

“No,” I answered honestly.  Missing class only seemed alright until I tried to jump back into the material and did not understand any of it.  The reply was an unconvincing, congratulatory, “We’ve got a smart one here!” 
I wanted to ask, if I was so smart, then why didn’t anyone seem inclined to help me pay for the treatment?  It was medically uncomplicated and could prevent a lot of hassle and future expenses, so why was it so difficult to finance?

The clinic doctor finished with my feet and quietly informed me that the blisters were past a simple repair.  They had grown so infected that the blisters on my blisters now had blisters and that I was risking blood poisoning without serious attention.  Blood poisoning would not stop at my feet, but rather affect my entire body.  It was a life-threatening condition, so I had to confront it.

A large bill was unavoidable and I was out of options, so I turned to my parents for help.  There was a lot of fuss and questioning: why didn’t I protect my feet better? Why wear those heels at all?
Well, I thought my protection was enough, and how was avoiding dress heels completely, realistically valid any way?

I wanted someone to answer my questions.  Why wasn’t I able to get financial help for my emergency?  My blisters did not start as fully developed blood poisoning, why couldn’t I get the simple treatment for them when they were still solitary, elementary things?  How was I, a cerebral and fully functioning being, manipulated into submitting to mindlessly infected blisters?

My education, my work, my body, my finances all changed and I hadn’t been able to get any help to prevent such from happening.

Thankfully, I was born into a privileged life, and so this little episode did not derail my life.  I was able to recover and advance as I had always hoped.  The thing is, not every girl is so lucky, though every one should be.

"Blond" is a Politically Correct Insult

For the current, “cultured” American society, there are quite a few words that are considered inappropriate; ranging from the innocuous “fart”, to “sugar tits”, to “dickbreath”, to...yeah, this list could actually become my entire blog... You get my point, Reader. 

There are also words that are not used –and rightly so– because they target specific groups of people for uncontrollable characteristics, like skin colour or “ethnic” features. If these words are vocalised, then it is in a negative light and, in a fictional setting, usually by the detestable character or antagonist. (In the case of the anti-hero, using these terms is one of his/her less than favourable traits.)

Perfectly understandable.

Some could make the argument that politeness is censorship, sure, but in general, I am of the opinion that it is beneficial for society to acknowledge derogatory terms and as such to use them carefully. Words used as labels can foster detrimental stigmas, and those stigmas can inhibit society's growth by limiting perfectly capable groups of people. Within my life time, there has been a sweeping movement to curtail the “acceptable” prevalence of these terms. What was once widely said with little regard is now publicly shamed; for the ablest there's “retarded”, “spazz” (from spastic), or “lame”. And gendered terms like “bitch” or the C-word have received similar argument against usage. “Gay” has probably the most publicised debate against its usage as a derogatory term. So savvy parents are now encouraging kids to say “asshole” and “shithead” instead, because these apply to the population at large and do not single out – oh wait...sorry, children are not supposed to name call. I forget that we only want them to be like adults in some ways.

Anyhow, aside from children (for some reason), it is commonly expected that in certain situations, from time to time, people will use insults. “Good guys” do call names – just as long as the “bad guy” really deserves it. Even elitists have their high-brow insults, like “asinine”, “biased”, and "public school".  Like I said, “asshole”, too, though not for polite conversation, also remains a free-for-all term. It does not offend any particular group, therefore it's insulting, but universally so. Everyone wins!

Except for the person being insulted (like Sauron or Hitler. Assholes!).

Bad guys deserve to be insulted. For instance, this UCLA student deserves to be confronted for being a condescending, ignorant, hateful person. Wallace complains that Asian students (somewhat specifically those who speak Chinese, given her terrible imitation) are incredibly rude and disruptive because, unbelievably, they keep company in groups and use cell phones. Rather crassly, she also spews the disclaimer that she is “not racist” and does not mean to “offend” anyone, especially her apparently 'dignified' Asian friends. I will say that Wallace has a right to her opinion, because she is a citizen of the United States, and this country (at least superficially) still allows individuals to think for themselves. However, by recording her opinion on a public forum, she has inherently invited an audience to either applaud or (vehemently) pan her statements. She opened herself up for criticism, and shockingly, some of it is rather harsh. She qualifies as a total buttwart. She is a xenophobic, inarticulate, egotistical, blond windbag!

Ah. Hold up. One of those things is not like the other... Blond. I get that she does have blond hair, but how is this fitting with the insults? I will mention she also receives an outstanding amount of hatred directed towards her as a woman, because she is clearly -read not a legitimately substantiated fact at all- a slut, but there's already a substantive movement against sexism. Blond though, remains popularly uncontested.

Blond is a naturally occurring hair colour. It has no correlation between IQ, skills, habits, or opinions.... but somehow, there is a widely accepted, unfavourable relationship with blond. There has been some attribution to Marilyn Monroe as the matron of the quintessential “dumb blond”, but how has this term survived the political correctness movement when so many others have not?

Stop right there, Reader! If you are thinking only bleached blond hair qualifies a person as a frowned-upon-blond because it represents something “fake” and effectively shallow or materialistic about said person, then...how? How does bleached blond hair somehow signify vanity more than cosmetics, acne-treatment, trendy gadgets, luxury brands, zip codes, dog breeds! Ah, another unending list.... What makes being blond so distinct and worthy of vilification? (Should I cite Hitler again?? That asshole.)

Blonds are targeted for a purely physical trait, but I am not aware of any popular movement against the stereotype. To be fair (pun intended), there are plenty of examples that refute (Hillary Clinton, Beatrix Kiddo) or subvert (Luna Lovegood) the “dumb blond” image, so it is not like Blonds are without hope. It's just that the media seems quite comfortable with reiterating the negative (see Play Boy, Legally Blond, or post-Fox News Gretchen Carlson) and no one is bothered enough to demand an end to this unjust practice. Blonds have feelings ok, they do. Deep inside – under the dried out scalp and shrivelled brain.

My Introduction as a Mythical Creature

There really are too many labels and stereotypes crowding today's political and social discourse.  To bridge the gap between these groups is often thought impossible.  (A Republican feminist?! Nay, I say! Nay!)

I am eager to defy this overwhelming tendency to categorize and restrict beliefs to some spot on an identity spectrum.  By having read the title of my blog alone, Reader, I am sure this comes as no surprise to you.  And I like to think that right now you are following my words with sincere curiosity as to how I plan on defining myself.   Getting it out of the way:

•  21 year old, female university student
• Middle-class, Christian, Army brat of two veterans
• Born and raised in New York

 These little facts all say "something" of me -maybe that I am not so sure about comma usage, or that my religious and military backgrounds color me conservative.  For the moment, I am choosing to focus on the latter.

Now it could be true that I am moderately conservative because of those things, but there is a problem with this common assumption.  The institutions that propagate the belief that "military" and "Christian" go along with conservative would also have you -a general "you" in this sense, Reader- think that I am also certainly pro-this and anti-that.

Even more defining than religion or background is my sex: a young woman.  That says a lot about me.  Beyond the gendered things (such as being addicted to a cell phone, apparently mandatory), being a woman says that I have a strict biological purpose, and that all of my actions inherently revolve around that impetus.  Any noticeable accomplishment -whether applauded or abhorred- to go against this goal is picked at and analyzed and questioned to the nth degree.

When I say "questioned" here, I am referring to the reporting done on any given topic.  How the media, from news to marketing, presents and responds to events and trends, and what existing presumptions are used as contrast.

It is not just the media that draws lines so readily.  Politicians do the same and, even more egregiously, use the lines as a sort of unifying banner.  The Republican Party is the patriotic party!  The Democratic Party fights for women!

Well, they are not, and they -shhhhh- don't actually care that much.  

My blog as my digital soapbox, I will explain my own label and confront those already established for me. Occasionally I will prove to be extremely typical, I am unsurprisingly young and progressive, I suppose, but there are a few I would like to dispute.  The point of argument might fall under political, economic, social, and religious spheres, or touch upon all and more.

--Wait, nah. Just kidding.  I'm too busy texting for this sh*t.

:)