Daily Blend: 05/08/13

Sylvia Browne

In case you needed more evidence that “psychics” ^[pictured] are bullshit-peddling vultures.

Vox Day says the whole idea of “warrior women” is totes ridiculous ’cause what woman would stand a chance against a dude, anyway? (Pay absolutely no attention to all these real-life warrior women who became legends for kicking [mostly dude] ass.)

Here’s a collection of 154 common global warming denialist claims and their easy refutations.
(via Pharyngula)

Oh, noes! The awesome Eugenie Scott, scourge of Creationists everywhere as the head of the National Center for Science Education, retires.

And finally, here’s a dog who tries so hard to make that branch into his stick:
(via @radleybalko)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Vox Day: Women should rely on daddy to choose their husbands

Our ol’ pal Theodore “Vox Day” Beale, who’s never encountered a form of misogyny he didn’t take to and spin as a means of preserving (his grotesque ideal of) society, has a suggestion for stripping women of their most basic autonomy:

Who Nose asks a pertinent question:

"If you want to understand why women are not permitted serve in Church leadership, and why human societies do not survive more than a few generations of young women being permitted to choose their own spouses"

It begs the question: Who ought to choose their spouses?

The Church?
The Father?
The Mother?
The State?

The question is further begged: What kind of law would need to be passed to enforce the choosing of a spouse.

Finally, another question is begged: What would you do with the 99% of women who responded to the suggestion or the law with, "F*ck Off"?

1. The Father, with the advice of the Mother.
2. No law is necessary. Simply informing their daughter that a woman who is capable of choosing her own spouse is clearly also capable of paying for her own college education and supporting her own lifestyle decisions will suffice for most parents. If a woman is independent enough to insist on paying her own way in order to pursue a career, she's probably not wife-and-mother material anyhow and would likely end up a reproductive dead end regardless the options she is afforded. We can always hope that instead of children, such a woman will contribute some revolutionary Powerpoint slideshows to society, produce a cure for cancer, or introduce some truly ground-breaking HR policies that will change the world for the better.
3. I would simply wish them the best of fortune in their future endeavors. But the number won't be anywhere nearly that high because women are, first and foremost, the practical sex.

Daily Blend: 04/15/13

Gitmo

My thoughts and hopes go to Boston, MA today. How utterly senseless.

Alternate lede: “Sure, Gitmo detainees ^[pictured] were captured without charges and illegally imprisoned far away from home for many years with zero due process … but hey, they get to enjoy books and videogames (in between all that sleep deprivation and waterboarding)!”
(via @ggreenwald)

In response to UK’s current measles epidemic, The Independent gives platform to discredited quack responsible for modern anti-vaccination movement. (They later retracted the article.)

Canadian feminist becomes latest target of those compassionate, “human rights”-oriented Men’s Rights Activists.

And finally, here’s what religion has done for us this month:

Transcript: (click the [+/-] to open/close →)

[−]

Massive Islamic protests in Bangladesh calling for the hanging of “blasphemous” bloggers;

The New Zealand Herald: “Beheadings in Papua New Guinea for sorcery”;

Five Jerusalem women arrested for violating Israeli law by praying out loud in public, which ultra-orthodox men find “provocative”;

The Guardian: “Muslim Brotherhood backlash against UN declaration on women rights”;

Hamas in Gaza Strip orders genderal segregation in all schools;

BBC News: “Kenya condom advert pulled after religious complaints”;

French man Wilfred de Bruijn assaulted and beaten for walking with his boyfriend in public;

Large anti-gay protests in Paris, France against pending same-sex marriage legislation;

Gay Star News: “Gay man ‘stoned to death’ in Somalia”;

Senior pastor Bertheophilus M. Bailey Sr. at Claremore, OK’s Mount Zion Baptist Church charged with punching his son in the face;

WHNT.com: “Former Franklin County Pastor Charged With Sexual Torture, Abuse”;

Teacher at Pleasanton, CA’s Centerpointe Christian Preschool ties up two-year-old girl for refusing to nap;

The Times: “Priest accused of sexual abuse at West Sussex children’s home”;

Indiana megachurch pastor Jack Schapp fired and jailed for molesting troubled 16-year-old girl across state lines;

BBC News: “Ex-priest Patrick McCabe sentenced for child abuse”;

Pastor Artelino Vallada at Toronto, CA’s Jesus Christ the Open Door Church charged with sexually assaulting four girls and women;

Irish Central: “Irish Priest accused of sexual abuse pleads with Pope Francis not to be dismissed from Church”;

Police confiscate computers from priest’s home after tracing downloads of child porn to his parish offices;

RTE News: “South African cardinal says paedophilia 'not a criminal condition'” [Which it isn’t. Child molestation is. Get it right, people. —JM]

Priest Angel Perez of Woodburn, OR’s Saint Luke Catholic Church accused of molesting 12-year-old boy;

al.com: “Former Wetumpka youth pastor sentenced to 10 years in prison in sexual abuse of child”;

Rev. David Kramer jailed for molesting young boys in US and Australia;

PostBulletin.com: “Oregon priest gets 6 years for child sex abuse”;

Associate pastor Darin Evans at Elmhurst, IL’s West Suburban Community Church imprisoned for having sex with an underaged girl in public spaces;

PressTV: “Austrian former priest charged with sexual abuse of minors”;

Rev. James Burnett of Mokena, IL’s Saint Mary’s Parish accused of molesting several young boys in his care; diocese accused of knowingly sheltering crooked priests;

Pink News: “Cardinal O’Brien alleged to have been in long-standing physical relationship with male priest”;

North Carolina Republican lawmakers propose bill to establish state religion (bill has since failed);

Oneindia: “Rajasthan: Video reveals family commits suicide to meet god”; and

Woman at church asks worshipers give “$100”, “$1,000” or “$150,000” if they can.

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Vox Day vs. “squee”

Vox Day

Little is more amusing than watching some wannabe armchair psychologist try to analyze a given person or phenomenon, particularly through the prism of the Internet, and wind up so far off the mark they need a search & rescue team to find them. That’s probably why I find such enjoyment in reading this lecture by everyone’s favorite übermensch-in-his-own-mind, Theodore “Vox Day” Beale, about how Real Men^TM wouldn’t be caught dead using such a girly term as “squee” in any context, no way, no how:

The binding is not ideological, but socio-sexual. Now, I don't happen to know what "one of Correia's Alphas" might be, but I find it very hard to conceive that Perlhaqr is either a sexual ALPHA as per Roissy or an Alpha Male according to the socio-sexual hierarchy. He might as convincingly attempt to defend his predilection for hair-braiding or high heels. Alphas do not menstruate, they do not use their iPhones to self-shoot in bathrooms, (they seldom have iPhones in the first place), and they most assuredly do not "squee" over anything.

I see we have a newbie, here. Hi, Vox! Welcome to the Internet. TV Tropes shall be your guide.

One can be excited. One can be pumped, jacked, or psyched. One can rejoice, one can enthuse, and one can celebrate. But one can no more be an alpha male and "squee" than one can queef, lactate, or get pregnant. Only gamma males like McRapey, who revel in their perverse delusions, consider it not only fitting, but downright cool, to express themselves in terms that are popularized and primarily utilized by junior high school girls.

Wow, Mean Girls was, like, totes right about how complicated – and very, very bitchy – all this social stuff is. But please, tell me more about how to conform with the the MRA-Approved Manly Vocabulary for Socially Insecure Males:

Should he wish to lower the probability of attractive adult women recoiling in disappointment, disgust and outright horror, Perlhaqr may also wish to consider excising "OMG", "ZOMG", "soooooooo", and "One Direction" from his vocabulary.

You may take our ‘OMG’s and our ‘Biebz Foreverz’s, but you will never take our smileys! =(

Today’s moment of funny was brought to you by the Society for the Preservation of Rigidly Narrow Social Roles and Antiquated Norms. (You’re welcome.)

Daily Blend: 04/05/13

Joe Rogan

PZ Myers voices my exact thoughts concerning Sam Harris vs. Glenn Greenwald on “New Atheism” and Islamophobia.

Benevolent sexism in a nutshell: Compliments are nice; applying them to stereotype an entire category of people is less so. (See: “Asians are good at math”, “Blacks are good at sports”, etc.)
(via Pharyngula)

Phil Plait (the Bad Astronomer) isn’t happy with all this anti-vaccination, anti-global warming, anti-Constitution bullshit going around.

Today’s proudly bigoted “comedian”: Joe Rogan. ^[pictured] He’s since continued on Twitter, naturally.

And finally: “Give me a napkin quick. There's a turd floating through the air.” “I didn’t do it. It ain’t one of mine.” — actual astronauts aboard Apollo 10.

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Daily Blend: 04/02/13

Dr. Deandre Poole

So, I guess that should read “exemplary teacher ^[pictured] threatened by student after asking class to step on piece of paper with Jesus’s name in harmless exercise on cultural sensitivity”. And he’s been receiving death threats from those ever-lovin’ Christians, of course.

I was in kinda-sorta-loose agreement with Sam Harris right until he says “[t]here is no such thing as Islamophobia” and that “[it] is a term of propaganda”. Now that’s how you shipwreck an argument, folks. (If he wants to contest the conflation of genuine criticism with bigotry, he should stress that ‘Islamophobia’ only applies to the latter, not that it isn’t actually a thing.)

Reality: Hoaxer dude calls domestic violence counseling line with phony abuse story, repeatedly refuses offered assistance to find free shelter or contact authorities. MRAs: “Abused man ‘denied help’”!

Public Policy Polling does conspiracy theories, reveals an average 10–15% of Americans are effin’ nuts. Not sure why “Bush lied about Iraqi WMDs” is counted as a myth, though.
(via @BuzzFeedAndrew)

And finally, it’s getting almost impossible to tell when Vox Day is being either seriously or facetiously stupid.

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Vox Day asks some (dumb) questions about feminism

Vox Day

Amidst reiterating his usual claim that feminists are literally worse than Nazis (because most of them promote abortion rights, and terminating pre-viability fetuses that can’t feel or think is obviously worse than murdering millions of mature adults), Theodore “Vox Day” Beale then presents one of his critics with the following query:

[T]he statement [that feminists demand that women be immune from any legal repercussions for any breaches of contract, theft, and murder] not only is true, but it can be easily defended. There is no reconciliation necessary to defend it because it is based on straightforward observation. I direct the following questions to A. Man.

1. Did American women not demand, and do they not presently possess, the right to break marital contracts at will?
2. Have feminists not defended the right of women to kill men who abuse them?
3. Does the feminist definition of abuse include non-physical abuse?
4. Have feminists called for ban on actions that make a woman feel uncomfortable?

And so, partly to break the tedium of spending all day coaxing recalcitrant audio mixing software into working properly, here I go:

1. Wait – that’s a bad thing? Forget for a moment about Vox’s apparent wish of stripping women of the right to extract themselves from abusive or loveless unions; the ideals of personal liberty and bodily autonomy alone – which, as a self-professed libertarian, Vox should take particularly to heart – require that people have the right to enter or leave any relationship as they see fit. (Or are women so inferior to the Great Purveyors of XY Chromosomes^TM that some fundamental freedoms are just too good for them?)

   Furthermore, how does giving women the right to file for divorce somehow equate to allowing them to break any other contract at will? And when has any feminist ever demanded such a thing? That’s an impressive hybrid of strawman and non-sequitur right there.

2. What a ridiculously loaded and overbroad statement. It would certainly help to know what the hell he’s on about; but ravings from fringe-dwelling nuts on street corners aside, no, feminists most certainly do not request the right to murder anyone they see fit, except in extreme cases of self-defense (an exception that applies to anyone, not just abused women).

3. No, Vox, that’s the standard definition of abuse, as employed by anyone, anywhere, ever. Look, it’s in the dictionary and everything:

Nostalgia Critic examines popular dislike of “princess” archetype

One of my favorite web series is the Nostalgia Critic, wherein Doug Walker of That Guy With The Glasses plays a cynical, often histrionic reviewer of old-timey flicks and assorted media. Lately, the series has added a recurring, bi-weekly opinion segment where the NC talks about some aspect or other of pop culture and its effects on society in general.

Today, he put forth a rather thoughtful look at the much-bemoaned “princess” archetype (especially as popularized by Disney) and the lackluster role model it generally provides to young girls. While I don’t agree with every argument he makes and I think he misses a few logical connections, it’s still an interesting and insightful perspective to consider:

Transcript: (click the [+/-] to open/close →)

[−]

NOSTALGIA CRITIC: Hello! I’m the Nostalgia Critic. I remember it so you don’t have to.

Hey, what’s with the “princess” hate?

Yes, most little girls fantasize about being a princess at some point. With their elegant beauty, kind heart and enchanted surroundings, the princess, for many, is the epitome of femininity. But there’s been a bit of a backlash in the past several years, saying that the “princess” stereotype is a more damaging fantasy than an encouraging one. Even I’ve had my rants on the overuse of it in media.

NC: (to a movie character) You’re not really a princess! You just took the title ’cause it sounds cute!

NC: So, is it just innocent make-believe, or is there really something to get angry about? Well, in order to answer this, we should probably look at what the majority of people take the most offense at. And I guess it’s only the most logical, albeit clichéd, to look at the most famous lineup of princesses: Disney.

Disney has practically reinvented the fairy tale. And seeing how their Princess line is the best-selling licensed entertainment character merchandise, it’s safe to say they have a clear understanding of what makes princesses so popular.

What do they have in common? Well, they’re all pretty; they’re all kind; they all have various clothes and accessories you can buy for them. But naturally, the intrigue in owning one has to come from their personalities formed in the movies, which many consider, from an ethical point of view, not the best role models. “They don’t do anything,” many complain, “they’re just damsels waiting to be rescued and never take responsibility in getting things done for themselves, instead relying on their status and/or beauty to get them what they want. Which, in most cases, is just a man.”

Aaand … sometimes that’s true.

Sleeping Beauty, for example, I still stand by as one of the most forgettable characters in Disney history. Yeah, we all know the iconic image, but her fantasy extends to her doing absolutely nothing while her true love comes to save the day. And what, of course, happens? She does absolutely nothing while her true love comes to save the day. And on top of that, she has nothing else to make her stand out, be unique, or have any specific characteristics. So, yeah, the argument is pretty valid there.

But fuck it, I’m gonna defend the other ladies a little bit. Not that they’re always the best, but there’s^[sic] still good virtues that we can learn from them. Snow White kindness and helpful nature, for example, serves as a second mother for the dwarfs. And anyone that says being a mother doesn’t make a hard-working, responsible woman clearly has never been one. It’s work, and worst about it is that you don’t even get paid for it. So the fact that she can still be pleasant while also teaching the dwarfs responsibility may not be major, but it’s still something.

But, many would argue, it’s one thing for one of them to fall in that category. What about three?

We mentioned Sleeping Beauty before, but Cinderella is often the biggest offender to the “sit back, do nothing and let someone else save the day” routine. Again, to her defense, she’s working her ass off. I mean, like, every second she’s on-screen, she’s doing something. And in the end, she’s rewarded for her hard work and kindness, even in the face of such nastiness.

And if your argument is this is still not a good role model, that it wouldn’t inspire people to go out there and achieve, guess who’s favorite fairy tale this was? Yup – the “D-man” himself who supposedly started this whole controversy: Disney. He said Cinderella was his favorite because he often felt like her: Working as hard as he could every day until destiny finally gave him a chance, and that hard work and kindness can result in a virtuous reward.

But what does that arguably-greatest-businessman-creative-genius-and-heartwarming-icon know? Pfft. Slacker.

Now, granted, while I don’t think these characters are that bad, it’s clear to acknowledge that these women were limited to the roles that women were expected to have at the time. In the following years, the princess would be a little more proactive, taking more chances and forming more definitive personalities. But even that can take some flak, too, particularly Arial, the Little Mermaid, who many complain is just a whiny teenager who needs a man to save the day. And while she can at times certainly be her own teenage drama queen, people forget, at the time, she was praised as being much more independent than the past Disney princesses. She traveled, she explored, she broke the rules, she left the house, she had a distinct personality, she was curious.

ROGER EBERT: The character is active. She’s not just a little girl that things happen to. She’s up there, she’s gonna go to the surface, she’s gonna find her prince, she’s gonna take care of business, and so, you can really identify with her.

NC: And on top of that, while the prince does save the day in the end, she saves his life not once, but twice in this movie. Hell, if we wanna get technical about it, I’m surprised more people weren’t pissed off at Jasmine. I mean, yeah, she fights for her independence once and even takes a chance at living her own life, but she quickly returns to the world she said she hated, stays in it, and constantly lets her boyfriend save her.

But nevertheless, the complaints were heard, and the Princess brand over the years has made an effort to try and make their lady more and more independent, having them save the male just as many times as the male saves them, while still keeping true to the kind and moral virtues that – let’s face it, people – are enforced in every Disney character, not just the princesses: Be nice, be kind, be true to your heart. When has that not been a major part of the lesson in a Disney film?

So, after looking them all over, I’m not sure if it’s entirely Disney’s fault for the negative stereotype. Okay, it didn’t always help, but in many respects, it did help. They’re still trying to teach the importance of patience and kindness, which are great virtues for any gender. And Disney is even pushing harder to make their most marketable icons be a symbol of strength and honor, as see in these recent ads:

GIRL: I am a princess. I am brave even when I am scared. I believe compassion makes me strong. Kindness is power.

NC: So, if the virtues that the massive Disney’s promoting isn’t the problem with the princess icon, what is? I’ll admit, something was rubbing me the wrong way for years about girls wanting to be princesses. I just couldn’t put my finger on it. But then, the answer came to me when I saw Bridge to Terabithia, which is a godawful flick, by the way. (Right, note to self: Review Bridge to Terabithia.)

When our main lead brings his little sister into his fantasy world.

SISTER: Is there a king? Are you the king, Jess?

BROTHER: Only if you’re princess.

NC: Wait a minute. Why is he King, and her Princess? Shouldn’t it more logically be King and Queen? In fact, even more recently, in Wreck-It Ralph, why is it when the king is destroyed, again, it’s a princess who rules the land, and not a queen?

In fact, how come in a lot of nostalgic shows and movies I’ve reviewed, even if the original ruler is gone, they still hold the title “Princess”? Yeah, Princess Sally, Princess Lana; hell, even Princess Leia. All their parents are out of commission, and yet, they still hold onto the title of Princess and not Queen. Why does that seem more marketable for some reason?

And that’s when it suddenly hit me. It’s not necessarily the virtues of the princess that piss people off. Maybe it’s the title. Why do so many boys want to be King? Because they want the power and responsibility to control and change things.

DUKE NUKEM: Hail to the King, baby.

NC: Well, then, why do so many girls not want to be Queen, then? In fact, we’re almost anti-Queen, aren’t we? The more research I did, the more I found there aren’t that many fictional queens that are kind, heroic women. They’re usually the villains.

Which brings us back to the question: Why do so many girls prefer Princess to Queen? Well, maybe because being a princess not only indicates you’re younger, which often translates to prettier, but also that you have a position of power with responsibility, but not too much responsibility. “Oh, I’m just holding the spot for the King until he returns. I still have the title of youthful innocent who has power, but not all the power, thus projecting an image of daintiness and elegance who makes everybody cookies instead of an image of strength and determination who makes powerful changes.”

It’s the same thing as calling a grown man a “boy” and a grown woman a “girl”. If you call a grown man a “boy”, they’ll usually be pissed off. Why? Because they want to be seen for strength and responsibility over youthfulness and innocence. Whereas sadly, many women who prefer it the other way around, valuing the youthfulness and innocence over strength and responsibility. Oh, don’t get me wrong; there’s many who don’t, but you all know out there, there’s plenty that do.

Now, why this is is a whole other argument. Is it society over nature, nature over society, a combination of both; it’s a whole other issue. And I’m also not forgetting that prince and princess are not made-up titles; they really exist. It’s not titles we created to keep people in certain roles; they’re actual royal positions.

But what is obvious is that a reinforcement seems to be that princesses are young, beautiful and try to live in an innocent world free from conflict. And if one does arrive, it’s somebody else’s job to take care of it. With that said, no matter how tough, action-packed or honorable you make your heroine, by keeping your “princess” title a very popular title, it’s still reinforcing that youth and the need not to take responsibility are the best virtues.

And don’t get me wrong; I know men and women are different. I know, instinctually, we’re gonna have a different emphasis on different values; men are from Mars, women from Venus; etc., etc. But the world is changing more and more every day, and we’re seeing much more variety in our female characters than we have in the past. So, maybe it’s time to really look at the changes happening around us and see which virtues we really want to enforce. And, at least, making it very clear that there’s a definite option that any female can be as powerful as she wants to be. And that second place, or being under somebody else’s wing, is not the furthest you can go.

Because, let’s face it, guys: With so many female characters that are good, strong, interesting, funny, entertaining, intelligent, responsible and just as compelling as male characters, perhaps it’s time for the princess in so many people to stop living in fairy tales and look at the reality that is unfolding around us.

I’m the Nostalgia Critic. I remember it so you don’t have to.

(I have got to start writing shorter summaries …)

I would personally take it a few steps further than he dared to and posit that one reason for the historical popularity of the “princess” role model, particularly instead of the much more logical role of “queen”, is that it’s essentially another subtle manifestation of that ol’ bugaboo, the patriarchy. It only makes sense for a society that’s long been geared towards emphasizing male dominance in most fields (especially leadership) to depreciate the value and contributions of women in society at large. This would also help explain the long-running trope of the “evil queen”, given the precious few good queen characters that exist in our culture. (I can’t even think of any off the top of my head, though that may well just be my own ignorance showing.)

Daily Blend: 03/22/13

Richard Littlejohn

Today in “there ought to be a hell”: Fuckbrained bigot Richard Littlejohn ^[pictured] and trash-rag extraordinaire Daily Mail succeed in blithely bullying a transgender schoolteacher into killing herself.
(via Pharyngula)

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) officially signs civil unions bill.
(via @breakingpol; RT: @BreakingNews)

Kentucky Gov. Steve Beshear (D) vetoes “Religious Freedom Act” that would’ve permitted anti-gay discrimination based on bigots’ “sincerely held religious beliefs”. Expect wingnut heads to commence exploding shortly.
(via Joe. My. God.)

PZ Myers is dead on: Adria Richards did everything exactly right. It’s amazing how many men can’t stomach the idea of being called out publicly for misbehaving in public.

Pope Francis comes out swinging against Catholic Church’s track record with covering up clerical child abuse. Now to see if his actions match up with his words.
(via @BuzzFeedAndrew)

And finally, why is it still such a shock (to some) that women can be science aficionados, too?

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Woman fired for denouncing misbehavior at tech conference

Adria Richards, a technology “evangelist” for email marketing firm SendGrid, was attending a developer conference when two men seated behind her began reportedly began making crude sexual jokes. Eventually having enough of this, Richards saw fit to snap their picture and call them out on Twitter:

After someone made a comment about forking a software repository, the two allegedly began making jokes about forking in a sexual manner and “big dongles.” After listening for some time, Richards got fed up, took a picture of the two, and posted it to Twitter:

Not cool.Jokes about forking repo's in a sexual way and "big" dongles.Right behind me #pycon twitter.com/adriarichards/…

— Adria Richards (@adriarichards) March 17, 2013

The result: Playhaven “conducted a thorough investigation”, which led to one of the men being fired.

Vox Day: Indian rapes the fault of feminism and too many men

Vox Day

Here’s Theodore “Vox Day” Beale’s predictably charming take on reports that sexual crime appears to be getting worse in India. Guess who gets the blame (if not the actual criminals, of course):

Note that the problem in India is actually getting considerably worse despite the advance of sexual equality in Indian society that the feminists believe will solve everything. As we've learned to expect, feminism wreaks societal devastation even in the process of supposedly offering a means of improvement. In this case, it is the pro-abortion position that is leading to more rapes in India.

"According to the decennial Indian census, the sex ratio in the 0-6 age group in India went from 104.0 males per 100 females in 1981, to 105.8 in 1991, to 107.8 in 2001, to 109.4 in 2011. The ratio is significantly higher in certain states such as Punjab and Haryana (126.1 and 122.0, as of 2001)."

Damn those evil Westerners and their pro-women, abortion-promulgating ways!

I am curious to know, though, if Vox has any mechanism to propose – any at all – that would explain how or why a barely perceptible increase in men over the last few decades should excuse, justify, or even explain coherently, the sudden spike in sexual violence against women. Do they all just release excess testosterone into the air, which combines with greenhouse gases to drive male libidos upwards whilst ratcheting down their moral standards?

Or better yet, why do some people insist on twisting all sense and reason in order to blame biology for what is inherently a behavioral problem caused by a culture wrought with regressive sexual attitudes resulting from lacking education and insufficient law enforcement?

But leave it to Vox to find the silver lining:

The world is quite fortunate that India's excess male population appears to be inclined to occupy itself in pursuit of gang rape, considering that the more customary outlet is foreign invasion.

Yes, a (presumably, if not always evidently) thinking and feeling human being actually wrote that. The mind boggles.

You know, I have a hypothesis for why so few of Vox’s critics bother to refute him anymore – they’re just too goddamned embarrassed to share the same taxonomic classification as this glorified neanderthal to be able to stomach his revolting spiel for any amount of time. (Lucky for SIWOTI-afflicted masochists like yours truly, I suppose.)

Daily Blend: 03/13/2013

TJ Kincaid

Heads Up: Later today/tomorrow is when Disqus is slated to force its “upgraded” platform upon users (like me) who still cling to the old, customizable version. Might take a little while for changes to take effect. Stay tuned.

I’m also trying out a new title style for this Daily Blend (rather than the usual long-form date). We’ll see if it sticks. That is all.

Oh, look, it’s another bone-chilling climate study for pseudoscientists and ideologues to deny and lie about!

New Zealand votes to guarantee passage of same-sex marriage. Yay!
(via Joe. My. God.)

Some more gay (in both senses) news: Floundering “ex-gay” group National Association for the Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) loses tax exempt status, forced to slice their Rentboy budget.
(via Joe. My. God.)

This just in: TJ Kincaid ^[pictured] is still an embarrassment to the atheist community and humanity in general. (Also: Go, Anita Sarkeesian!)
(via @SallyStrange; RT: @jennifurret)

Virginia steps a little further into the 21^st Century by overturning law against “consensual sodomy”. (Wingnut outrage in 3 … 2 …)
(via Joe. My. God.)

And finally, here’s an interactive infographic of global Internet porn habits. (East Europe is amazingly perverted.)
(via Joe. My. God.)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Daily Blend: Sunday, February 10, 2013

Chris Hayes

Strong monologue by MSNBC’s Chris Hayes ^[pictured] about depressingly rampant liberal/progressive hypocrisy over the Obama administration’s escalated drone war.
(via @ggreenwald)

The easy solution to anti-gay bullying in schools: Just tell kids that they can pray the gay away!

FBI continues to heroically foil its own fake terrorist plots.

Bigot-tank Family Research Council rehashes the exact same arguments against allowing gays in the Boy Scouts that it used against repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. Because their predictions were so obviously correct the last time. (And the time before that, and …)

And finally, #INeedMasculismBecause it’s a comedic draw between watching MRAs try to explain their bigotry while the rest of the world laughs at them.

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Daily Blend: Sunday, February 03, 2013

Jenny McCarthy

Canada’s Ottawa Regional Cancer Foundation: “We invited Jenny McCarthy ^[pictured] to headline our fundraiser!” Internet: “WTF?” ORCF: “Um, whoops, sorry, never mind.”

President Obama: LGBT folk should be allowed in the Boy Scouts. Absolutely schadenfreudelicious Right-wing freak-out in 3 … 2 …

John Scalzi has a beautiful plan for dealing with Vox “Racist Sexist Homophobic Dipshit” Day’s endearing little obsession with him.
(via @BadAstronomer)

And finally, please, Slymepitters, do tell me all about how your wretched hive of scum and bigotry is actually a venue for enlightened discourse?
(via Pharyngula)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Chart: The MRA worldview revealed

What’s the one thing better than watching bigoted jackholes shoot themselves in the foot? Watching them do it without even realizing it – and bonus points if there’s a clear and revealing little graphic involved:

David Futrelle dubs it a “terrible chart”. Here, I must honestly disagree; this is a terrific chart in how it plainly (and quite accurately) lays out just where these sickly little creatures’ priorities lie. I recommending sharing this far and wide, if only to further disillusion any remaining fence-sitters about the real, modern-day connotations of the so-called Men’s Rights Movement.

Leak: U.S. Military to remove remaining gender segregation

SecDef Leon Panetta

Just about a year since the Pentagon opened up more Military positions for female soldiers, a surprise announcement leaves yet another level of government segregation undone:

Senior defense officials say Pentagon chief Leon Panetta is removing the military's ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war.

The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule prohibiting women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Panetta's decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women.

A senior military official says the services will develop plans for allowing women to seek the combat positions. Some jobs may open as soon as this year. Assessments for others, such as special operations forces, including Navy SEALS and the Army's Delta Force, may take longer.

[…]

Panetta's move expands the Pentagon's action nearly a year ago to open about 14,500 combat positions to women, nearly all of them in the Army. This decision could open more than 230,000 jobs, many in Army and Marine infantry units, to women.

Almost as satisfying as watching one of the last remaining barriers collapse is hearing the wonderful apoplectic spluttering from the usual cranks. Oh, the fun of being on the right side of history.

(via @BreakingNews)

Daily Blend: Tuesday, January 15, 2013

Stephen Colbert

I think we’ve officially reached the point where the NRA is doing to gun rights what PETA does to animal rights.

New York police get even creepier, now fighting war on prescription painkillers by hiding GPS trackers in fake pill bottles for unsuspecting pain patients druggies.
(via Joe. My. God.)

California judge blocks overbroad law that would destroy sex offenders’ free speech rights to anonymity online.

Good gawd are MRAs/PUAs pathetic. How grimly amusing that these silly little boys presume to call themselves “men”.
(via @jennifurret)

Oh, and Wonkette also has some fun with the sex-obsessed little toad.

And finally, following Jon Stewart’s lead, it’s Stephen Colbert’s ^[pictured] turn to shine on gun control [no time for a transcript, sorry]:

Non-U.S. readers: Click here to learn how to enable Comedy Central videos (Firefox only)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

Daily Blend: Monday, January 14, 2013

Julie Burchill

Carnival of insanity: Wyoming Republicans push blatantly illegal bill to hypothetically imprison federal agents who try to enforce gun control laws.
(via Joe. My. God.)

Oldie but goody: Economist thoroughly debunks several myths about Canada’s socialized healthcare system. (No, doctors and Canadians don’t think the U.S. system is better.)

Professional asshat Julie Burchill ^[pictured] flames out spectacularly against “vociferous transexual lobby” – aka “bunch of dicks in chicks' clothing” – for criticizing her friend’s transphobic rhetoric. What is it with this pervasive hatred of MtF folk amongst some feminist ranks?
(via @ggreenwald; original Observer article since retracted)

Another debunking of the brazen lie about there supposedly being no global warming for 16 years.

Meanwhile, Vox Day still loves flogging the necrotic equine of confirmation bias and blatant bullshit.

But then, what else to expect from a guy who actually thinks the Canadian government is “preemptively ban[ning] sexbots” – because of feminists’ “pursuit for gender equality”?

Canadian parents are apparently quite fond of quackery.

And finally, church signs are so useful for revealing exactly which attitudes are encouraged:
(via Joe. My. God.)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.

A petition for equality in the atheism/skepticism community

I don’t often plug petitions, given the general futility of these things (good intentions are no substitute for effectiveness), but there’s one floating around that I think absolutely merits signing and sharing as widely as possible in the hopes of focusing our push-back against all the sexist assholery that’s been dividing the once-concerted atheo-skeptic movement:

We, the undersigned, are atheists, skeptics and nonbelievers who value free speech and rational thought and who seek to build a strong, thriving movement that can advocate effectively for these values. We've chosen to put our names to this petition because we want to respond to a video created by a blogger calling himself Thunderfoot. In this video, Thunderfoot attacks named individuals who've been active in promoting diversity and fighting sexism and harassment in our movement. He describes these people as "whiners" and "ultra-PC professional victims" who are "dripp[ing] poison" into the secular community, and urges conference organizers to shun and ignore them.

We hold this and similar complaints from other individuals to be seriously misguided, false in their particulars and harmful to the atheist community as a whole, and we want to set the record straight. We wish to clarify that Thunderfoot and those like him don't speak for us or represent us, and to state our unequivocal support for the following goals:

We support making the atheist movement more diverse and inclusive. […]

We support strong, sensible anti-harassment policies at our gatherings. […]

We support the people in our community who've been the target of bullying, harassment and threats. […]

To put a stop to this bad behavior once and for all, we need to change the culture of the atheist movement so that sexism isn't condoned or defended, just as racism and homophobia aren't condoned or defended. We're grateful to the leaders of the movement who've spoken out against harassment, and we encourage all atheists and skeptics, regardless of their influence or prominence, to do likewise.

See? This is how mature, reasonable adults carry a discussion about sensitive issues: No demands that opponents be banned or censored; no hatred or vitriol towards people with differing opinions; no blatant dishonesty and misrepresentations of anyone’s arguments or attempts to rewrite the record; and no thinly veiled threats against their livelihoods or persons. Just a community coming together in the spirit of reason, fairness and equality in order to accomplish what is obviously and undeniably the right thing to do.

There’s already some impressive names in the list of signatories, and 308 people (and climbing fast) have added theirs as of this posting. I don’t think it’ll be difficult to bump that number up past the required 730 minimum before day’s end, do you? This is an international effort, so there’s really no reason not to add your mark right now.

(via @jennifurret)

Daily Blend: Wednesday, January 09, 2013

Vox Day

Quick notes: I made a few minor changes to the commenting rules and revamped the Dungeon. That is all.

Another ACLU win: Federal judge rules key part of NYPD’s “stop and frisk” unconstitutional, orders them to stop immediately.
(via @ACLU_NorCal; RT: @radleybalko)

Ohio’s Jackson Middle School administrators are willing to waste a whole lot of money losing in court rather than comply with the law.

Vox Day ^[pictured]: Sloppy thinker, lazy photoshopper, and all-around terrible person. (Originally planned to devote a full post, but then I realized I just don’t care anymore.)

Public Policy Polling: “While the Democrats in Congress aren't popular (-12 at 38/50) their approval rating is a net 48 points better than their Republican counterparts (-60 at 15/75).”
(via @BuzzFeedAndrews)

And finally, just in case you thought the Freethought Blogs/A+ haters couldn’t get any more pathetic.
(via @DaylightAtheism; RT: @pzmyers)

If you have any story suggestions, feel free to leave them in the comments or send them in.