I've been thinking about music a lot lately. It's not particularly unusual for me, but I don't talk about music much because I'm pretty turned off by the way some people get judgmental and shitty when they find out that you actually sort of like Justin Timberlake or that ohmigod you've got an autographed photo of Billy Ocean on your wall or whatever.
I got into a reflective mood today while Best Friend and I were having a couple of beers and making up dirty lyrics to "Heal the World" (there was a line about lubricant followed by the phrase "let the healing begin"). After about twenty minutes, our meteoric careers as lyricists came to an end and we decided to just watch Michael Jackson videos on YouTube.
The day he died, I posted a video of "Will You Be There" and made some comment that, looking back, was kind of silly because honestly, I love that song and have since I was nine. Objectively speaking, I don't think it's his best work by a long shot, but it's a nice song and devoid of the crotch-grabbing that freaked me out fifteen years ago. The things you love as a kid often stay with you forever and it seems that this song qualifies.
As I remarked to Best Friend, that particular video makes me kind of sad and needles me with a hint of grief for him, partly for the song, but mostly for the imagery. In the last minute or so, the video cuts to a clip of a fan at a performance who had managed to scramble onstage and rush to Michael, not to attack him or rip at his costume, but to throw her arms around him and kiss him on the cheek. And instead of pushing her away and waiting for security to haul her off before resuming the concert, Michael hugged her back.
This stuck with me. We all think of musicians in terms of who we like, love, hate or don't care about, but we just mean music. When someone says "I love Peter Frampton, " they don't mean that they'd like to kiss Frampton on the cheek, they just mean that they wore out their vinyl copy of Frampton Comes Alive when it first came out. When people say "I love Michael Jackson," they mean it both ways. However, Frampton was just a good musician and Michael Jackson was a supernova, a complex cultural phenomenon that I'm sure I'll tell my kids about. I love the Beatles. But I don't love John Lennon.
When Jackson signed autographs, he would often write things like "I love you with all my heart" and I think that in a lot of ways, he meant it. I don't know if he was a happy person, but I think it's not unreasonable to conclude that regardless of his failings, he was a man who loved fiercely. A fan did something that could be construed as alarming and he reacted by giving her the same love back.
I chewed on it and I think that the fan represents a lot of us. When we jumped into his space, he could have turned away, could have shut us out, but he kept telling us how much he loved us.
Anyway, I don't like jumping on celebrity grief trains without a damn good reason, but I would be lying if I said I didn't miss Michael Jackson on some level.
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Monday, July 20, 2009
Liz & Me
Chapter 1: Polite Missives
Rarely indeed do any visitors to my blog take it upon themselves to send me any feedback and so when the odd reader e-mail trickles into my inbox, I always get a little excited. For all my opinionated bluster, I am, in fact, an adult, thus I make it a point to be civil to those who e-mail me to express their disagreements. For the most part.
I'm pro-choice, and rather adamantly so. I discuss this topic at great length here and anyone with the reading comprehension of a third-grader can probably conclude that I'm not about to change my mind. Engaging in any kind of debate about this does not interest me. At all. Anyway, immediately following the murder of Dr. George Tiller, I posted several items about it and one day in my inbox, I found this e-mail:
It's polite enough and even manages an interesting complexity as it blends bald condescension with half-assed thinking, which results in a heady brew of stupid thoughts dressed up in big words. It's not just kind of silly, it's almost boldly idiotic. Although this Liz character is a dipshit, I thought, she's a dipshit with some style. For instance, is feticide even a word? I've never heard it. Who on earth would think that anti-choice referred to anything except abortion rights? Would someone that oblivious really play any kind of role in this discussion? I think not. This was just a really entertaining piece of mental masturbation.
I fired off a quick response.
Liz-
I understand that the other side of this discussion might have difficulties with that particular descriptive term, but I think that the intent of my remarks were clear and I wasn't implying that the pro-life/anti-choice movement opposes all choice for all individuals regardless of the situation. I'm somewhat offended by the notion that I misunderstand this concept; because I do not. I am an educated and well-read person and I'm fully aware of the linguistic implications. However, within the context of the reproductive rights movement, its meaning is clear and frankly, I don't want to engage in that discussion with someone who misunderstands the basic terminology or is more preoccupied with semantics than the real issues.
While I acknowledge that some members of the pro-life movement only object to the abortion procedure and not contraception, I believe that the intent is the same; to systematically deny women the right to make decisions about their own bodies. I don't know anything about you or your life experiences, but I will tell you that as a woman whose life has been deeply affected by the reproductive rights movement, I feel the concept of choice is central to this discussion and consequently, I will continue using this term. I respect your point of view and yes, I did visit the link, however, I disagree that the phrase "anti-choice" is inappropriate to the situation.
Regardless of this disagreement, plaudits for stating your point clearly and in a civil fashion. People tend to become too angry to have a rational discussion on either side of this issue (this unfortunately includes me from time to time), and this is certainly no help to any of us. Thank you for taking the time to comment. I appreciate your feedback.
I hit send and quickly forgot about her, presumably forever.
Wrong.
Chapter 2: Obviously you are no match for my superior reasoning skills.
Liz seemed to fancy herself a really smart person, probably smarter than she really is. I wouldn't ordinarily judge someone so harshly, but this is the same woman who referenced a shitty web page as the basis for her entire bizarre complaint.
You would think that after my reply (summary: Thanks, you're wrong, thanks), she would just forget about me and move on to greener and more interested pastures. Liz appears to not be wired this way.
In case you got bored reading this e-mail (I did), let me summarize it for you:
(1) You're wrong because I said so
(2) Abortion is mean
(3) I know everything about writing
(4) Quick lecture about journalism ethics based upon a set of standards I just made up
(5) Ooze with condescension
(6) Other stupid shit
Chapter 3: My e-mails are smarter than your e-mails.
Liz had stepped out of the shadows. This wasn't just some weirdo looking for a conversation, this was a full-fledged butthead trying to pick a fight. I guess this was in order to save the babies, but since I didn't see any babies hanging around, it was a little unclear to me. Anyway, I was a little annoyed after this and like a damn fool, I snarled back.
You are tiresome. I was going to compose a response, but then I decided that it would be a poor use of my time. Since I don't want to deny you the fun of telling all your friends about the feminist blogger who was meeeeaaaan to you, I'll summarize what I would have said: You're unhinged. Stop reading my blog if it offends you. If common and accepted terminology continues to drive you batshit, I recommend you write your own blog wherein you can write as many anti-choice (yes, I said it) screeds as you like, utilizing only approved vocabulary. It will probably be fun for you.
This was clearly getting ridiculous and I accept my part it in. But in my defense, Liz started it. And I'll be damned if she didn't continue it.
I am sorry if my opinion makes you uncomfortable. Writers such as yourself usually strive to be as accurate as possible, even while displaying a particular and forceful opinion on the subject, and I would have thought you would be interested in discussing both sides of an issue or opinion. May I ask why you feel unwilling to discuss this? Is it just that my views differ from yours, or is there another reason why you do not want to describe a person who opposes abortion as anti-abortion or anti-feticide?
What the fuck? I couldn't just let this go. She'd asked me some stupid questions that begged to be answered, plus this had suddenly morphed into a really interesting game of Feed the Troll.
(1) Your opinion does not make me uncomfortable.
(2) I know that writers aim for factual accuracy. I have a degree in journalism, thus I'm reasonably capable of differentiating between facts and opinions. Your sole complaint is based upon your opinions, which you persist in framing as fact. I could make a metric shitload of arguments employing the same logic you're using to nitpick my word choice. To wit: Do you call yourself a Christian? If you do, then for the sake of accuracy, you should stop doing that and instead refer to yourself as pro-imaginary-friend or anti-logic. You should do this because there is no God. As a writer, you should always be accurate, which means you should include a footnote stating that God is probably bullshit. This is all true because I said so and I smell like cookies so there. You want to be accurate, right? Right?
(3) I have no problem discussing issues. If you have an actual issue to discuss, you are welcome to attempt to initiate a conversation with me. At present, you are simply expressing your opinion as fact and insinuating that by disagreeing with you, I'm intellectually dishonest and/or afraid of things I don't understand or agree with.
(4) While you've been so busy listing the reasons why I need to change my word choices, you probably failed to notice that I never told you to amend yours. This is because I feel you are entitled to an opinion, though you clearly don't feel I'm entitled to mine. Allow me to summarize this situation:
That being said, I understand what it means to be very opinionated and so I do have some insight into what you're attempting to do. However, I'm highly skeptical of the idea that either side of this issue can gleefully share their opinions and coexist in perfect harmony, so this is why I rarely indulge in casual discussion about it with people whose viewpoints clash with my own. I think it's a pointless waste of time and no one really benefits. People don't often change their minds about shit like this. I don't shut down this discussion because it makes me uncomfortable, I shut it down because nobody gets anything out of it. I hope you consider that in the future before making presumptuous insinuations about someone's intelligence or character.
Right? Of course right.
Chapter 4: Oh, so you quit? I guess that means I won.
By this point, Liz had really given me something fun to do in the evenings, so I was disappointed when she didn't respond with another silly shriekmail. I decided that something had to be done.
Well, Liz, it appears my opinion made you uncomfortable. Sorry about that.
Short, smug, oozing with satisfaction over my verbal victory. I had the upper hand. Liz could never top that. Of course, I forgot that Liz wasn't bound by normal rules of logic.
Goddammit, Liz, are you hearing yourself? You might as well have responded with "I know you are, but what am I?" This activity was losing its appeal, mostly because Liz refused to respond to any of the things that I said and just continued to insist that she knew everything because why not. As I understood it, Liz thought that anyone who wrote about their opinions was bad and dishonest. She told me this without a trace of irony. I had no idea how to respond. So I wrote this:
I really don't care what you think.
I needed new ammunition. I knew just where to look.
Chapter 5: Google it.
As I found in a quick Google search, Liz wasn't an anonymous asshat who just thought I wrote mean things. She was a decidedly un-anonymous asshat who wrote the same thing to a lot of people. The initial letter she sent me was a form letter. I found no less than four other bloggers who wrote about some freak named Liz Wheeler, and they all posted the same letter I had received with just the first phrase changed to fit the post topic. Moreover, when they posted follow-up letters, they all contained bits and pieces from other letters I'd received from her.
So not only did Liz have an opening form letter, she had response letters for when the blogger politely (and then less politely) told her to piss off. Wow.
On one hand, this was kind of hilarious because it conjured up images of some schoolmarmishly stern lunatic who spends all her time e-mailing her hare-brained lectures to pro-choice bloggers. On the other hand, I wanted to be special.
I sent an e-mail.
Well, Liz, I finally made time for a little research of my own about you. I did a brief Google search and, as I suspected, you've really racked up quite a reputation as a troll on pro-choice blogs. In fact, you just cut and paste the same e-mail over and over again. That's so clever. It also explains why your initial e-mail was oddly devoid of any specific mentions of my blog. In fact, I'd venture to say that you haven't really read my blog at all; you just saw the phrase "anti-choice" and went for it. And when I viewed some of the responses you've sent in the past to other bloggers, it appears that vacuously stupid ideas dressed up with your own special brand of pretentious assholery are pretty much your trademark.
Here's a tip, Liz: Cut it out. You're just some condescending schoolmarm/doofus spammer trying to cloak your fetus worship in a thin veneer of big words, at least one of which you made up yourself. And that website? Bullshit. Just because you or your friend David Schmidt or whoever posted some information on the internet doesn't mean it's actually true. Beyond your ridiculous vocabulary screed, I highly doubt that you know all that much about the reproductive rights movement, or else you might have responded in an intelligent manner instead of trotting out the same logically fallacious crap you'd already been spewing all over the internet. This stupid argument makes you look stupid by extension. Period.
You are a typical anti-choice wingnut, covering up your total lack of knowledge about politics, science, the Constitution and history with pretension and poorly reasoned arguments. Have a nice day.
I know it's sort of shitty, but in my defense, I was (and remain) only about 40% sure that Liz Wheeler is a real person and I was getting pretty curious about what was going on. After all, her responses were, well, bad. And the next one, with absolutely no specific rebuttal of anything I'd said or any actual facts to back up her points, was no exception.
For someone who, as you said, “really doesn’t care what [I] think,” you certainly seem to have gone out of your way in attempting to discredit me – possibly because you then feel that my challenge to the validity, bias, and credibility of your writing carries less significance…
So after all of that discussion, I felt like we were back at the beginning with "You secretly know I'm right and you know it."
I decided to break it off with her. Liz and I can never get along. I'm a person, she's probably a few wingnuts with nothing better to do. I have a journalism degree, she makes up words like "feticide."
It can't work. I'm sorry, Liz.
It's over.
Rarely indeed do any visitors to my blog take it upon themselves to send me any feedback and so when the odd reader e-mail trickles into my inbox, I always get a little excited. For all my opinionated bluster, I am, in fact, an adult, thus I make it a point to be civil to those who e-mail me to express their disagreements. For the most part.
I'm pro-choice, and rather adamantly so. I discuss this topic at great length here and anyone with the reading comprehension of a third-grader can probably conclude that I'm not about to change my mind. Engaging in any kind of debate about this does not interest me. At all. Anyway, immediately following the murder of Dr. George Tiller, I posted several items about it and one day in my inbox, I found this e-mail:
Upon reading your article “George Tiller Murdered,” I wanted to bring a particular point to your attention.
Your use of the term “anti-choice” is very misleading, and shows a significant misunderstanding of the term.
The term anti-choice by definition means “one who opposes ALL choices”, no matter what the topic of choice be. The opposition to abortion does not stem from the opposition of choices in general (as the term anti-choice would lead one to believe). Those who oppose abortion are against feticide and embryocide, thus making them anti-feticide, anti-embryocide, or anti-abortion. Just as someone who opposes the choice of a man to hit his wife is not anti-choice, but anti-domestic-violence, the correct label for a person who opposes abortion would be anti-abortion (or anti-feticide, anti-embryocide, etc.)
I would invite you to visit the website www.notantichoice.com to review and read more information on this subject and on the use of the term anti-choice.
Thank you,
Liz Wheeler
It's polite enough and even manages an interesting complexity as it blends bald condescension with half-assed thinking, which results in a heady brew of stupid thoughts dressed up in big words. It's not just kind of silly, it's almost boldly idiotic. Although this Liz character is a dipshit, I thought, she's a dipshit with some style. For instance, is feticide even a word? I've never heard it. Who on earth would think that anti-choice referred to anything except abortion rights? Would someone that oblivious really play any kind of role in this discussion? I think not. This was just a really entertaining piece of mental masturbation.
I fired off a quick response.
Liz-
I understand that the other side of this discussion might have difficulties with that particular descriptive term, but I think that the intent of my remarks were clear and I wasn't implying that the pro-life/anti-choice movement opposes all choice for all individuals regardless of the situation. I'm somewhat offended by the notion that I misunderstand this concept; because I do not. I am an educated and well-read person and I'm fully aware of the linguistic implications. However, within the context of the reproductive rights movement, its meaning is clear and frankly, I don't want to engage in that discussion with someone who misunderstands the basic terminology or is more preoccupied with semantics than the real issues.
While I acknowledge that some members of the pro-life movement only object to the abortion procedure and not contraception, I believe that the intent is the same; to systematically deny women the right to make decisions about their own bodies. I don't know anything about you or your life experiences, but I will tell you that as a woman whose life has been deeply affected by the reproductive rights movement, I feel the concept of choice is central to this discussion and consequently, I will continue using this term. I respect your point of view and yes, I did visit the link, however, I disagree that the phrase "anti-choice" is inappropriate to the situation.
Regardless of this disagreement, plaudits for stating your point clearly and in a civil fashion. People tend to become too angry to have a rational discussion on either side of this issue (this unfortunately includes me from time to time), and this is certainly no help to any of us. Thank you for taking the time to comment. I appreciate your feedback.
I hit send and quickly forgot about her, presumably forever.
Wrong.
Chapter 2: Obviously you are no match for my superior reasoning skills.
Liz seemed to fancy herself a really smart person, probably smarter than she really is. I wouldn't ordinarily judge someone so harshly, but this is the same woman who referenced a shitty web page as the basis for her entire bizarre complaint.
You would think that after my reply (summary: Thanks, you're wrong, thanks), she would just forget about me and move on to greener and more interested pastures. Liz appears to not be wired this way.
You have provided a perfect example of my point. You stated "…the intent [of abortion] is […] to systematically deny women the right to make decisions about their own bodies."
In fact, people opposed to abortion are opposed to aborting a developing human embryo or fetus (feticide). The essence of opposition to feticide is not an opposition to choices or an attempt to deny a woman her rights, but an opposition to feticide (ie. anti-feticide, anti-embryocide, anti-abortion).
The same application of terms goes for those who support abortion. They are not "pro-choice." By definition, the term pro-choice refers to EVERY choice, whether it be abortion, stealing, or just taking a walk. The correct label for people who support abortion then, would be pro-abortion. Or, instead of “women having the right to choose”, the correct phrasing would be “in favor of a women being legally permitted to abort a developing embryo or fetus.”
Also, while most people may realize that the term “anti-choice” is referring to a person who opposes the legality of abortion, it is not only the technicality that makes the term so imprecise and inaccurate.
It softens the reality of abortion – purposely. The term “choice” dehumanizes the human embryo, fetus, or baby that is being aborted. Whether a person supports or opposes abortion, that is the hard fact of the matter. Replacing anti-abortion, anti-embryocide, or anti-feticide with anti-choice is a blatant avoidance of this harsh reality.
The journalistic credibility of writers (even opinion writers) suffer greatly by the use of a term that is so deliberately biased. Writers usually strive to be as factually accurate as possible, and the use of imprecise, slanted terms (and disingenuous phrasing of facts) will always have a direct influence on the validity and significance of your work.
...what?
In case you got bored reading this e-mail (I did), let me summarize it for you:
(1) You're wrong because I said so
(2) Abortion is mean
(3) I know everything about writing
(4) Quick lecture about journalism ethics based upon a set of standards I just made up
(5) Ooze with condescension
(6) Other stupid shit
Chapter 3: My e-mails are smarter than your e-mails.
Liz had stepped out of the shadows. This wasn't just some weirdo looking for a conversation, this was a full-fledged butthead trying to pick a fight. I guess this was in order to save the babies, but since I didn't see any babies hanging around, it was a little unclear to me. Anyway, I was a little annoyed after this and like a damn fool, I snarled back.
You are tiresome. I was going to compose a response, but then I decided that it would be a poor use of my time. Since I don't want to deny you the fun of telling all your friends about the feminist blogger who was meeeeaaaan to you, I'll summarize what I would have said: You're unhinged. Stop reading my blog if it offends you. If common and accepted terminology continues to drive you batshit, I recommend you write your own blog wherein you can write as many anti-choice (yes, I said it) screeds as you like, utilizing only approved vocabulary. It will probably be fun for you.
This was clearly getting ridiculous and I accept my part it in. But in my defense, Liz started it. And I'll be damned if she didn't continue it.
I am sorry if my opinion makes you uncomfortable. Writers such as yourself usually strive to be as accurate as possible, even while displaying a particular and forceful opinion on the subject, and I would have thought you would be interested in discussing both sides of an issue or opinion. May I ask why you feel unwilling to discuss this? Is it just that my views differ from yours, or is there another reason why you do not want to describe a person who opposes abortion as anti-abortion or anti-feticide?
What the fuck? I couldn't just let this go. She'd asked me some stupid questions that begged to be answered, plus this had suddenly morphed into a really interesting game of Feed the Troll.
(1) Your opinion does not make me uncomfortable.
(2) I know that writers aim for factual accuracy. I have a degree in journalism, thus I'm reasonably capable of differentiating between facts and opinions. Your sole complaint is based upon your opinions, which you persist in framing as fact. I could make a metric shitload of arguments employing the same logic you're using to nitpick my word choice. To wit: Do you call yourself a Christian? If you do, then for the sake of accuracy, you should stop doing that and instead refer to yourself as pro-imaginary-friend or anti-logic. You should do this because there is no God. As a writer, you should always be accurate, which means you should include a footnote stating that God is probably bullshit. This is all true because I said so and I smell like cookies so there. You want to be accurate, right? Right?
(3) I have no problem discussing issues. If you have an actual issue to discuss, you are welcome to attempt to initiate a conversation with me. At present, you are simply expressing your opinion as fact and insinuating that by disagreeing with you, I'm intellectually dishonest and/or afraid of things I don't understand or agree with.
(4) While you've been so busy listing the reasons why I need to change my word choices, you probably failed to notice that I never told you to amend yours. This is because I feel you are entitled to an opinion, though you clearly don't feel I'm entitled to mine. Allow me to summarize this situation:
- You contact me to correct me about my word choice.
- I politely disagree but compliment you on civil discourse. I assume that I will never hear from you again. I am incorrect.
- You respond by telling me I've proven your point exactly, list the reasons why I'm wrong and continue to insist that I change terminology to suit your particular perception of this issue.
- I disagree again, this time rather forcefully, and attempt to end the conversation. I still
haven't corrected you. - You respond again with an e-mail in which you assert that your opinions make me uncomfortable and imply that I'm not smart enough to engage in an actual discussion/that I'm just a big mean ignorant bitch.
- You conclude by asking me why I don't want to have a discussion about this with you and if there's "another reason" why I use the phrase "anti-choice." This strikes me as an exceedingly personal question.
That being said, I understand what it means to be very opinionated and so I do have some insight into what you're attempting to do. However, I'm highly skeptical of the idea that either side of this issue can gleefully share their opinions and coexist in perfect harmony, so this is why I rarely indulge in casual discussion about it with people whose viewpoints clash with my own. I think it's a pointless waste of time and no one really benefits. People don't often change their minds about shit like this. I don't shut down this discussion because it makes me uncomfortable, I shut it down because nobody gets anything out of it. I hope you consider that in the future before making presumptuous insinuations about someone's intelligence or character.
Right? Of course right.
Chapter 4: Oh, so you quit? I guess that means I won.
By this point, Liz had really given me something fun to do in the evenings, so I was disappointed when she didn't respond with another silly shriekmail. I decided that something had to be done.
Well, Liz, it appears my opinion made you uncomfortable. Sorry about that.
Short, smug, oozing with satisfaction over my verbal victory. I had the upper hand. Liz could never top that. Of course, I forgot that Liz wasn't bound by normal rules of logic.
So basically, as I understand your comments, you are saying that you would prefer to have your readers infer your meaning than to specifically describe what you actually mean? That is a true insult to your readers’ intelligence, for if you believed that they would (or could) make decisions on their own, you would feel no need to slant your writing towards your own views.
Again, I would have thought that you would be interested in defending your position with a factual or logical rebuttal, or even just be willing to participate in a discussion of both sides of the issue, but I have yet to hear from you any reasons or true defense as to why my point is or is not perfectly valid.
Goddammit, Liz, are you hearing yourself? You might as well have responded with "I know you are, but what am I?" This activity was losing its appeal, mostly because Liz refused to respond to any of the things that I said and just continued to insist that she knew everything because why not. As I understood it, Liz thought that anyone who wrote about their opinions was bad and dishonest. She told me this without a trace of irony. I had no idea how to respond. So I wrote this:
I really don't care what you think.
I needed new ammunition. I knew just where to look.
Chapter 5: Google it.
As I found in a quick Google search, Liz wasn't an anonymous asshat who just thought I wrote mean things. She was a decidedly un-anonymous asshat who wrote the same thing to a lot of people. The initial letter she sent me was a form letter. I found no less than four other bloggers who wrote about some freak named Liz Wheeler, and they all posted the same letter I had received with just the first phrase changed to fit the post topic. Moreover, when they posted follow-up letters, they all contained bits and pieces from other letters I'd received from her.
So not only did Liz have an opening form letter, she had response letters for when the blogger politely (and then less politely) told her to piss off. Wow.
On one hand, this was kind of hilarious because it conjured up images of some schoolmarmishly stern lunatic who spends all her time e-mailing her hare-brained lectures to pro-choice bloggers. On the other hand, I wanted to be special.
I sent an e-mail.
Well, Liz, I finally made time for a little research of my own about you. I did a brief Google search and, as I suspected, you've really racked up quite a reputation as a troll on pro-choice blogs. In fact, you just cut and paste the same e-mail over and over again. That's so clever. It also explains why your initial e-mail was oddly devoid of any specific mentions of my blog. In fact, I'd venture to say that you haven't really read my blog at all; you just saw the phrase "anti-choice" and went for it. And when I viewed some of the responses you've sent in the past to other bloggers, it appears that vacuously stupid ideas dressed up with your own special brand of pretentious assholery are pretty much your trademark.
Here's a tip, Liz: Cut it out. You're just some condescending schoolmarm/doofus spammer trying to cloak your fetus worship in a thin veneer of big words, at least one of which you made up yourself. And that website? Bullshit. Just because you or your friend David Schmidt or whoever posted some information on the internet doesn't mean it's actually true. Beyond your ridiculous vocabulary screed, I highly doubt that you know all that much about the reproductive rights movement, or else you might have responded in an intelligent manner instead of trotting out the same logically fallacious crap you'd already been spewing all over the internet. This stupid argument makes you look stupid by extension. Period.
You are a typical anti-choice wingnut, covering up your total lack of knowledge about politics, science, the Constitution and history with pretension and poorly reasoned arguments. Have a nice day.
I know it's sort of shitty, but in my defense, I was (and remain) only about 40% sure that Liz Wheeler is a real person and I was getting pretty curious about what was going on. After all, her responses were, well, bad. And the next one, with absolutely no specific rebuttal of anything I'd said or any actual facts to back up her points, was no exception.
For someone who, as you said, “really doesn’t care what [I] think,” you certainly seem to have gone out of your way in attempting to discredit me – possibly because you then feel that my challenge to the validity, bias, and credibility of your writing carries less significance…
So after all of that discussion, I felt like we were back at the beginning with "You secretly know I'm right and you know it."
I decided to break it off with her. Liz and I can never get along. I'm a person, she's probably a few wingnuts with nothing better to do. I have a journalism degree, she makes up words like "feticide."
It can't work. I'm sorry, Liz.
It's over.
I'm just not that into most romantic comedies
So I bought a copy of the movie He's Just Not That Into You for a get-together last week. We didn't watch it that night, but I watched it this weekend while recovering from bridesmaid duty and a sciatica flare-up.
I want my $15 back.
In principle I guess it was kind of entertaining (I might watch it again if I'm not in the mood to think very hard), but I have this really big problem with that whole "he's just not that into you" thing because I feel like it cedes all control over any romantic and sexual interaction to the dude while simultaneously assuming that all men are simplistic horndogs and women just want to get married. If he won't marry you, he's not that into you. If he's not calling, he's not that into you. Blah blah blah. It completely dismisses the possibility that men and women have equal potential to be stupid when it comes to relationships.
According to this movie, men and women fall into these categories:
Men: Cool-headed player with a clueless streak, sweet and earnest gentleman with a clueless streak, philandering douchebag with a clueless streak, flamboyant homosexual
Women: Lunatic spinster with a clueless streak, charming individual with a clueless streak, hip urbanite with a clueless streak, Scarlett Johanssen
Also, men will stop at nothing to get the woman they want while women, by and large, are morons. This is because men think with their penises and women think with their ovaries and ring fingers. Obviously.
Are you seeing where this is going? Incidentally, I have indeed read the book and while I found it interesting and even informative on some levels, I think that it was never meant to be translated into a storyline because we can clearly see where that would evolve: A movie devoted to the idea that women are insane with the subtle implication that when you're with The One (whatever the fuck that means) then you will never have problems ever (except the zany circumstances that led to your relationship).
My favorite part (in a self-abuse kind of way), the few seconds that made me almost barf into my Diet Coke, was the very end, when Justin Long (who has spent the entire movie harping on the fact that this is the rule and there are no exceptions ever) suddenly realizes that - omg - he is all that into Ginnifer Goodwin and he has to tell her, like, right now or else he'll just die. Their interaction goes like this:
GG: So...so I'm the exception?
JL: You're my exception.
Justin Long should stop playing main characters in romantic comedies and stick to shilling for Apple.
This particular twist (which I predicted twenty minutes into the movie) struck me as interesting because his character spent the bulk of the story treating women with almost pathological disdain, so evidently that's his rule unless he's hanging out with Ginnifer Goodwin. But since she's the exception, that leads me to believe he's probably still a dick. Moreover, he was kind of shitty to her but because she's desperate and gullible, she'll forgive him for using her as a maid service the second he cops a feel.
This is not to say that the basic concept of someone just not being all that into you is not an important thing to know. It really is and it's shocking/hilarious how many people can't fathom the idea of someone being mostly apathetic about them. But an entire movie based on the idea that women are lunatics with chiffon for brains and men are only about sex...well, this one will probably collect some dust on my shelf.
I want my $15 back.
In principle I guess it was kind of entertaining (I might watch it again if I'm not in the mood to think very hard), but I have this really big problem with that whole "he's just not that into you" thing because I feel like it cedes all control over any romantic and sexual interaction to the dude while simultaneously assuming that all men are simplistic horndogs and women just want to get married. If he won't marry you, he's not that into you. If he's not calling, he's not that into you. Blah blah blah. It completely dismisses the possibility that men and women have equal potential to be stupid when it comes to relationships.
According to this movie, men and women fall into these categories:
Men: Cool-headed player with a clueless streak, sweet and earnest gentleman with a clueless streak, philandering douchebag with a clueless streak, flamboyant homosexual
Women: Lunatic spinster with a clueless streak, charming individual with a clueless streak, hip urbanite with a clueless streak, Scarlett Johanssen
Also, men will stop at nothing to get the woman they want while women, by and large, are morons. This is because men think with their penises and women think with their ovaries and ring fingers. Obviously.
Are you seeing where this is going? Incidentally, I have indeed read the book and while I found it interesting and even informative on some levels, I think that it was never meant to be translated into a storyline because we can clearly see where that would evolve: A movie devoted to the idea that women are insane with the subtle implication that when you're with The One (whatever the fuck that means) then you will never have problems ever (except the zany circumstances that led to your relationship).
My favorite part (in a self-abuse kind of way), the few seconds that made me almost barf into my Diet Coke, was the very end, when Justin Long (who has spent the entire movie harping on the fact that this is the rule and there are no exceptions ever) suddenly realizes that - omg - he is all that into Ginnifer Goodwin and he has to tell her, like, right now or else he'll just die. Their interaction goes like this:
GG: So...so I'm the exception?
JL: You're my exception.
Justin Long should stop playing main characters in romantic comedies and stick to shilling for Apple.
This particular twist (which I predicted twenty minutes into the movie) struck me as interesting because his character spent the bulk of the story treating women with almost pathological disdain, so evidently that's his rule unless he's hanging out with Ginnifer Goodwin. But since she's the exception, that leads me to believe he's probably still a dick. Moreover, he was kind of shitty to her but because she's desperate and gullible, she'll forgive him for using her as a maid service the second he cops a feel.
This is not to say that the basic concept of someone just not being all that into you is not an important thing to know. It really is and it's shocking/hilarious how many people can't fathom the idea of someone being mostly apathetic about them. But an entire movie based on the idea that women are lunatics with chiffon for brains and men are only about sex...well, this one will probably collect some dust on my shelf.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
