On anger.

I just reread a post I made awhile ago, “On expectations”, and I couldn’t help but laugh ruefully at the example I used in it, given said example’s latest epic fuckery. Sigh.

You know, for me, Keith Olbermann has always served a very specific purpose. I try to be a reasonable, calm person when discussing issues. I really do. I try to hear everyone out, weigh the facts, learn and read as much as I can. Sometimes, though, as you might have noticed with my previous rant, I just can’t do it. I just need to scream and shout and yell about people being stupid because otherwise, I’ll explode. It’s taken me a long time to realize that this is actually good. It’s okay. Screaming and shouting can be helpful, and even if it isn’t helpful, it can at least be cathartic.

Keith Olbermann always appealed to me in that respect. At a time when we had a whole network of Angry Conservatives, we had absolutely no one around to be the Angry Liberal. No one was getting pissed off about the things that I got pissed off about. At least, not until Keith. Finally, someone was. Someone people knew. Someone who got listened to. (Granted, the fact that he’s white and male does help that a lot.) It was awesome.

That’s why I always appreciated him. I always appreciated that reminder that sometimes, it’s okay to be loud and angry. It can be good. It can be useful. So while obviously I never agreed with him 100%, and he has said things that make my blood boil, there’s that little part of me that still thinks, thank you. His recent Special Comment about the so-called tax “deal” comes to mind as a specific example.

Of course, I don’t let people off the hook just because I like them. When they do something wrong, they need to take responsibility for it, and my God has he done something wrong. Rape culture and rape apologia come in many forms, Mr. Olbermann. Stop digging yourself a hole and step the fuck up already. Either that, or fuck the hell off.

(And yes, it’s partly because of you that I feel comfortable enough in my anger to say that.)

Wherein I cease being reasonable.

I don’t even know why I pretend I’m going to start regularly updating this thing. Clearly the only way to accomplish that would be to literally find someone to hold a gun to my head and force me to do so. Anyway, I mentioned several thousand years ago in my last post that there was an issue that I could not discuss rationally if my life depend on, and that it was gay marriage, and I thought that I might add to that by posting a rant here that was originally posted on my much less “formal”…account. Journal. It’s not really a blog, so it feels silly to call it that, because while I sometimes discuss issues there, sometimes I also talk about the fact that I find Rachel Maddow and Jon Stewart to be extremely crush-worthy. You know.

Anyway, the rant, which is titled, “Why People Against Gay Marriage Are Totally Fucking Stupid” and should give you an idea right off the bat how incoherently rage-y this subject makes me. It even has a subtitle in, “Or, Sara Is Sick Of Your Shit, So STFU”.

ARGUMENT: Marriage is about family! The traditional family is best!

WHY IT IS STUPID: Marriage is about two people entering into a legal contract with the government so that they are afforded thousands of rights not afforded by anything else. There’s no clause stipulating you have to procreate. Haven’t you heard of married people who are childless, either by choice or lack of fertility?

Also, there is absolutely no proof whatsoever to suggest that children do not fare just as well in loving families with two dads or two moms as they do in loving families with a mom and a dad. If you’re going to say something that is so preposterously untrue, I only have one thing to say to you: [citation needed].

ARGUMENT: The Bible says it’s wrong!

WHY IT IS STUPID: First and foremost, we don’t live a theocracy. I don’t give a flying feathered fuck what the Bible says, and the law shouldn’t either. Marriage is not about religion. Straight atheists, quite shockingly, get married all the damn time.

Second, well, no. The Bible says nothing about gay marriage specifically. It has a few things to say about homosexuality, but that’s either in the Old Testament or by Paul, who was also pro-slavery and anti-woman. His thoughts are limited to his time period only, I’m sorry to say. There’s also a lot of mistranslation. That happens with books that are thousands of years old and have been translated into every freaking language known to man. As for Jesus, well, if this is as huge an issue as you seem to think, why didn’t he mention it? At all? Not once? I find that peculiar.

ARGUMENT: They have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex as anyone else!

WHY IT IS STUPID: Are you fucking kidding me? Does this one really need to be explained? Someone can actually say this and not immediately want to smack themselves upside the head and go, “I’m a complete moron!”? Okay, fine.

Let’s say you’re allergic to beef burgers, and want a veggie burger instead. Unfortunately, the law says that you are not allowed to have a veggie burger; the beef burger is your only option. Do you not see how monumentally stupid it is for someone to go, “Hey, you have the right to eat that beef burger like anyone else! It’s equal!” despite the fact that you have no desire to eat the beef burger because you’re allergic and if you do, you will become violently ill?

It’s just as fucking stupid to go, “Hey, you totally have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex like anyone else! It’s equal!” to a gay person. They have no desire to marry someone of the opposite sex because they’re not attracted to them, and if they do decide to go with that option, both individuals involved will be fucking miserable. How is that hard to grasp?

Trying to pretend the law doesn’t effectively prohibit gay people from marrying because it doesn’t explicitly say “no gay person can be married” is just purposely obtuse. The intent of the law is obviously meant to keep gay people from being married, and intent of the law matters.

ARGUMENT: It isn’t an issue of equality! It’s about redefining the term marriage and the restrictions that apply!

WHY IT IS STUPID: Nice red herring! You’re clever, because you know you have absolutely no chance of winning this argument if we talk about it in the context of equality and civil liberties. A+ for effort.

We do not live in a vacuum. You can go on about the term ‘marriage’ like you’re writing a term paper all you want—have fun. That doesn’t change the fact that this issue affects real people with real feelings and is very much a matter of equality. But to play your game for a second: marriage has been redefined countless times since it was created, and if you’re a true traditionalist, you’re not only anti-gay marriage but anti-miscegenation and anti-women-being-more-than-chattel. Things evolve with the times, marriage included. Get the fuck over it. Gay marriage infringes on no one’s rights. It harms no one. There is no logical reason to prevent it, like there is for pedophilia or incest. If you can’t see that, you’re not only a bigot but a giant fucking moron.

ARGUMENT: Marriage being between one man and one woman is tradition!

WHY IT IS STUPID: Dude, look up one argument. Traditions evolve with the times, marriage included. It is very well not traditionally one-man-one-woman, anyway. Besides, something just being a tradition is not a viable excuse to keep it around. Slavery was a tradition. Torture is a tradition. Beating your wife was a tradition. Tradition can really suck balls, don’t you think?

ARGUMENT: It will lead to legalized incest and pedophilia or people marrying their cats!

WHY IT IS STUPID: This, boys and girls, is called “the slippery slope fallacy.” By taking some unrelated things and pretending they are related to another thing, we can predict certain doom will occur if said unrelated thing is allowed, hoping that no one will notice that our other examples are total fucking bullshit.

Sorry, I noticed. You fail at life and logic.

For the slow ones, though: Homosexuality =/= pedophilia, bestiality, or incest. Incest leads to known health defects in children, and is in nearly every case a matter of some sort of abuse. Pedophilia is a crime because children do not have the capacity or legal authority to consent, and then there are all the known emotional, mental, and physical detriments that result from it. Animals also do not have the legal authority to consent. Since Person A’s rights (the right to marry) cannot infringe on Person B’s (the right to be free from harm), it is therefore logical to conclude that these things are illegal for a reason, and will stay that way. This is basic.

ARGUMENT: The courts shouldn’t decide it! It should be up to the people!

WHY IT IS STUPID: Oh, yeah, the majority deciding the rights of a minority. That always works out so well.

Also, did you just sail in from the year 1700? Did you skip every single day of history class? I can only assume that you are either a transplant in time from before the United States was established or you never made it past second grade and have lived in an underground bunker ever since.

The courts have always played a huge role in granting equality. Brown v. Board of Education, or Loving v. Virginia, anyone? I don’t think there are many people (who are taken seriously) who would begin to decry those cases as judicial activism. The courts are part of how we do things here; it’s not some new, untested phenomenon. It’s been the case since we opened for business, for fuck’s sake! What is with all this convenient amnesia every time we want to deny a group of people the rights they deserve? Seriously, that bullshit belongs in shitty movies, not reality.

ARGUMENT: Some other bullshit not addressed here.

WHY IT IS STUPID: It’s bigoted, plain and simple. You can delude yourself to that fact all you want, but it’s the truth. It’s also entirely possible that your stubborn refusal to see gays and lesbians as human beings deserving of being treated equally and not like second-class citizens is very hurtful to someone you hold dear. They’re our friends, family members, acquaintances, and neighbors. You may think you don’t know any gay people, but I’ll bet you $100 that you’re completely wrong. Moreover, I’ll bet you another $50 that at least one of those people is someone you love and care for.

Welcome to the twenty-first century. It’s a scary place, I know, but once you shake the prejudices of past generations off your shoulders, I think you’ll find it’s actually a pretty comfortable place to be.

As an addendum: I do not apologize or make any excuses for the angry tone of this rant. I wasn’t having an off day, I wasn’t in a bad mood, it wasn’t something I had to get out of my system. It’s just how it is with me, on this issue. There is no rationality. I don’t care how nice someone is about it, or how politely they disagree. I do not respect the viewpoint at all. If anyone in any way suggests that gay people should not be afforded the same marriage rights as straight people, they are wrong, and frankly, they can go fuck themselves.

The end.

The merits of discussion and common decency.

I just finished watching The Colbert Report, the guest on which was Meghan McCain, the daughter of John McCain. I have to admit that before I saw a previous appearance by her on The Rachel Maddow Show, I didn’t know much about her. I was impressed by her appearance there, and was equally impressed by her appearance on TCR.

I’m not a Republican, which I think is fairly obvious, but whenever I hear about or listen to reasonable, rational Republicans like Meghan McCain, I’m always deliriously happy. At heart, I’m a dork, and I just love discussion. It almost doesn’t matter what we’re discussing; it’s probably going to be interesting to me. In politics, though, it’s so hard to have a thoughtful, productive discussion, because 90% of the time it turns into a screaming match in a matter of minutes. I get why this is so sometimes. I freely admit that there is a topic which I could not discuss academically if my life depended on it (gay marriage, for the record) because it is too personal, and detaching myself is impossible. That said, when so much of the political world is bogged down by ideologues who would rather call each other names than talk about things like the adults they supposedly are–theater gets more ratings that substance, after all!–it’s really nice to see someone out there and think, You know, we agree on almost nothing, but they are totally someone with whom I could have a frank, interesting conversation. It’s good to know that there’s still hope, and that a discussion of politics isn’t always guaranteed to turn into chaos.

After all, I know it’s true in my day to day life, as my brother is a Republican with whom I have had a great many debates, as is my absolute favorite teacher, who is one of the most intelligent and thoughtful people I have ever met, and we’ve always been able to talk rationally. I think we can do this because of this strange thing that I believe is called something like “common decency” and I wish it was reflected much more in the mainstream media and blogosphere. Wouldn’t it be something if everyone could say, “I have different ideas about how the government should run than you do; allow me to explain,” instead of calling them fascists, or communists, or terrorists, or people who hate America, or just plain saying they’re assholes?

I know; I’m a dreamer. But with rational people starting to show up in the mainstream (finally!), I just can’t help but hope.

Choice.

I watched Jon Stewart’s appearance on Letterman tonight, and I have just one thing to say to him and his wife: rock the fuck on, guys. Seriously.

He mentioned how his kids were falling into stereotypical gender roles with the toys they played with, and how he and his wife attempted to mix it up (e.g., giving their son a baby doll to play with and their daughter action figures). While he also said it didn’t work out quite as they expected, I have to give them massive props for allowing the option to be there.

So many people think feminism is about forcing something on an unwilling populace, and therefore mark it as evil. It’s not that at all. It’s about the above. When given the choice, their kids stuck with what they were used to, and that’s just fine. The important part of the scenario is that they had the choice to do so, and clearly, the options are open if, when they get older, they decide to branch out. Choice is what’s important, and I commend the Stewarts for raising their kids to be open-minded when it comes to gender roles. It’s a small step, but an important one, and it makes me hopeful.

Now if only all parents could be like that, then we’d be pretty well set!

On expectations.

I will be the first person to call myself a liberal and a feminist. Neither of these descriptions scares me away; they’re quite accurate in describing my belief system. Sure, there are probably a few discrepancies somewhere down the line (I am vehemently in support of animal testing, which tends to make some other liberals twitch at me, for example) but in general, I am pretty solidly liberal, and most definitely a feminist.

However, something I’ve noticed with liberals is our tendency to assume that others, because at some point they said something that might be classified as leftist, progressive, feminist, what have you, are warriors in our cause. I say “our” because I freely admit I’ve done this before as well. We then expect this person to consistently be a representation of our ideals, and are—naturally!—highly disillusioned and disappointed when they, well, don’t do what they never promised they would. Then we turn on them—kind of viciously, too. That, of course, leads to turning on ourselves: specifically, those who don’t immediately disavow any significance, importance, or assistance this person might still be able to offer.

This is our mistake.

I’m not saying that we should let people get away with stupid comments because sometimes they say things that make sense, but I am saying that we need to acknowledge that first of all, people fuck up. They say things that they shouldn’t say because they’re frustrated or upset or angry and—perhaps—a little disillusioned themselves. It happens, especially in politics.

Second, it’s not an all-or-nothing game. Someone can have valid opinions despite having once said something that was unsavory. Someone can fuck up despite having once said something that was thought-provoking and exciting. People are not defined by one comment they make, and it’s silly to expect them to be.

Third, we need to stop adopting people. Unless someone specifically says, “Why, yes, I am a liberal/feminist/democrat/progressive/insert-your-term-here!” why don’t we hold back on claiming them as One Of Us, no matter how enticing it may be? The fact of the matter is, a lot of people hold a wide variety of views—some of which may fit in with the feminist or liberal ideal, and some of which may not. Instead of arbitrarily declaring someone a champion of our cause and then being disappointed when they aren’t a champion of our cause, why don’t we just appreciate their comments in the context provided, discuss it, and move on?

Fourth, there are a few basics that make up a feminist, which I think we can all agree on. However, the big thing we have to remember is that we are a very diverse group of people. Not of all us are going to interpret things the same way, have the same reaction to things, or think the same way. I therefore find it very silly when people go, “Wow, I’m surprised so many feminists still like so-and-so!” Well, silly and patronizing. It’s like they’re implying someone isn’t a true feminist because they haven’t denounced some person for some specific reason. Perhaps the reason is enough for one person to totally discount someone’s views; it may not be for everyone. It’s not an all-or-nothing game, remember?

I’ll give you an example so this doesn’t seem totally random and out of nowhere: I’m a fan of Keith Olbermann. I will easily and quickly admit that lately he has said some things for which I would like to smack him over the head. I will also easily and quickly admit that lately he has said some things for which I would like to hug him. The point is that I can appreciate the good he does, in spite of the occasional bad, because I don’t expect him to be SuperLiberal. I expect him to be a passionate, usually-intelligent pundit on cable news—exactly what he is. Does that mean I don’t get angry when he says something I find possibly sexist? Of course not. Just because I know it may happen doesn’t mean it’s okay or excusable. It just means that I have no delusions about his function in the news cycle. Is he a superhero? No. Is he someone in the news media I know I can turn to and usually find some insightful analysis? Yes, and that’s more than enough.

Obviously, we all have issues that make us passionate, issues are very near and dear to our hearts, and when we’re dealing with those issues, it’s very easy to get caught up and say and things that we really ought to be thinking about more carefully. If we could all just take a step back and make sure we’re not trying to impose a context that doesn’t actually exist—that we’re looking at the entire picture, and not just one little corner of it—I think it would make sorting through the good, the bad, and the fucking ridiculous that much easier.

What the flying fuck.

Rush Limbaugh, could you be anymore of a fucking idiot?

I speak, of course, about this. Yes, Rush. It was absolutely the fault of Elizabeth Edwards that her husband cheated on her. If only she’d just shut up and put out like an obedient little wifey always should, no matter what, none of this would’ve happened!

Sometimes I think there’s absolutely nothing morons like Rush can say that will surprise, shock, or disgust me anymore. Then I stumble across something like this. It honestly still manages to blow my mind that there are people who can still find a way to blame a wife for a husband’s infidelity. It’s just so plainly preposterous to my mind. He is the cheater! He lied to her! He betrayed her! I don’t care how many pounds she gained or how many times she wasn’t in the mood or what the fuckshe complained to him about; it does not excuse it! If you are in a monogamous relationship and you stray, the blame for that falls on you, not your spouse. And yet there are still disgusting fucking imbeciles like Rush Limbaugh trying to place the blame on the wife because their brand of sexism is so ingrained into their minds they cannot possibly wrap their tiny little brains around the idea that, no, women do not only fit into two roles: evil temptresses who lure unsuspecting men into being unfaithful, or nagging, unattractive hags who drive their poor, innocent little husbands into the arms of other women. It’s such an adolescent and emotionally stunted frame of mind. Grow the fuck up and learn to take some goddamn responsibility for your actions, you fucking immature little boys. You’re embarrassing the other members of your gender who would never stoop so low.

Ugh, this belief system is so repulsive in its misogyny. I feel like I need a shower now.

It’s late, and I’m pissed.

Now you know why I’m always exhausted. I stay up to absurd hours reading things that are bound to make me angry.

In this particular instance, I refer to: this. I occasionally read the site for laughs; a lot of the quotes they post are so absurd that you can’t take them seriously enough to get pissed. This is one of the exceptions.

I cannot stand rape apologists. They make me want to bash my head into the wall multiple times, because I figure if I’m going to hurt that much I think it should be self-inflicted. The sexism and misogyny that surrounds this viewpoint is just mind-boggling incredible. How…I honestly can’t even begin to contemplate it.

Let’s get a few things straight about rape. It isn’t about sex. It’s not about lust. Nope. It’s about power and rage, so you know what? What a woman is wearing makes not one whit of difference. It doesn’t matter if she has on sweatpants or a mini-skirt, if she’s 18 or 80, or if she’s attractive or not. Rape. Is. Not. About. Sex. Do we have that understood? Do we? Good.

Let’s also note that two-thirds of rapes happen indoors, and the vast majority are perpetrated someone the victim knows! Yeah, so that ‘grabbed by a stranger in a dark alley’ scenario you like to parade around? That’s actually the least likely way it would really happen. Kind of makes you feel like an idiot, no? Unless the woman is still at fault for not having armed sentries guarding her doors. I can see how you would make that argument. (Oh, shit, what if one of the sentries rapes her? Now we’re just getting confusing!)

Another thing: yes, false reports happen. So do false reports of assault, burglary, robbery, etc. But every time someone says one of those has happened, our immediate reaction is not to go, “Oh, they’re probably lying!” And the incidence of false reporting is about the same rate, so I’d really like to figure out why.

The misogyny inherent in this argument is palpable and obvious, but what about the incredibly poor characterization of men? To hear these idiots talk, every single man is at the mercy of his hormones 24/7, to the point of completely overriding any higher thought, and that the moment they lay their eyes on some scantily-clad young woman, they will be so overrun by their primal and base urges that they will simply not be able to control themselves! Geez, that’s harsh! Personally—and I say this as a radical, liberal feminist—I think men are more than just slaves to their sex drives. I think they’re decent, respectable, intelligent people. Of course, I have a brain. The people who support this point of view do not. I guess that makes the comparison unfair.

I know it makes everyone feel better to think that only bad people have bad things happen to them, and if something as reprehensible as rape is the bad thing, well, clearly they must have done something to deserve it. I’m going to let you in on a little secret: the world doesn’t actually work that way. Sorry to burst your bubble, but bad things sometimes happen to good people, and this includes rape. Anyone can be raped, anywhere, at any time. It doesn’t matter what they’re wearing or what they look like, and it’s insane that we waste time blaming the victim when we could be, oh, I don’t know, trying to catch the rapist!

Gee, what a thought!

Newsflash.

I am a liberal. No, really. I’m sure you’re shocked. Also, I have it on pretty good authority that Grant is buried in Grant’s Tomb.

I just felt the need to mention it, and I’ll tell you why: it’s not an insult. It’s not a slur. It’s in no way derogatory. Sorry! Calling me a liberal will not make me stutter and deny it, nor will I cling to the banner of ‘moderate’ or ‘Independent.’ And I’ll tell you why: your political affiliation makes your opinion no more or less valid than anyone else’s opinion. Yes, this is actually true. I don’t care if you’re conservative, liberal, moderate, a Libertarian, a Democrat, a Republican, a Socialist, a member of the Green Party, or anything. If you have an opinion, the only thing that will make it valid is if you support it with logic, reason, and facts.

Anyway, I only bring this up because I was reading Keith Olbermann’s new book (I love gift cards to Barnes & Noble; they’re always spiffy) and got to a section where the first sentence reads, “I’m frequently accused of being a liberal, or a flack for the Democratic party.” Okay, I’ve got no issue with the second part of this sentence at all. Being accused of being a flack for anyone is insulting; it implies that you don’t think for yourself and do nothing but parrot the beliefs of whoever you’re working for. Certainly I can understand annoyance at that.

It’s the first part that made my eyebrows shoot up. “I’m frequently accused of being a liberal.”

Really? Being a liberal is something one is “accused of”? You know, it’s funny, but last time I checked? Liberal wasn’t a synonym for moron, criminal, terrorist, or any other thing one is typically accused of. And even if, bizarrely, one is “accused of” being a liberal…why? That’s like being accused of being a botanist. It’s just something you are. There’s no inherent negativity or positivity attached to it, or at least there shouldn’t be, and associating it with being accused of being a flack, which is inherently negative, is almost as insulting to me as the people who think “fucking liberal!” is the height of intelligent repartee. No one is ever “accused of” being a moderate or conservative, are they? Why is liberal different?

I’ve said before that I’m a fan of Olbermann’s, and I meant that. Personally, I couldn’t care less if he’s a liberal, moderate, Independent, or a member of a secret new party that seeks to eliminate consumption of hotdogs. (Actually, I’d be totally in support of that last one. Hotdogs are incredibly gross.) He seems reasonable and makes sense to me when I listen to him, and I agree with him on a lot of things—not everything, naturally, and I’d be a little disconcerted if I did. How he chooses to define or not define his political opinions doesn’t change any of that.

But for the love of dead gay Dumbledore, “I’m frequently accused of being a liberal”?

All I can think of in response to that is, “So what?”

If you see a penny, pick it up…

I am the luckiest person ever. So you know that research paper? I accidentally fell asleep last night and, uh, did not get to finish it. So I briefly panicked this morning until I decided to call my teacher. Evidently? During the last class that I missed (yay syncope and not being able to walk without fainting!) the class mentioned they were having trouble with it and she decided to extend the deadline until Monday. So yes, I am extremely lucky, and both B, my suitemate, and S, my roommate, totally hate me now. Haha.

In other news, I leave tonight for Georgia! I cannot wait, as it is sure to be awesome times thirty-seven thousand. The flight isn’t until 7:45, though, and I have to first suffer through Spanish and math (ugh, quizzes). That won’t be fun at all. And you know Time will be an utter bastard like he always is and purposely go really slowly, because he knows I want to be somewhere else. That’s just not nice, Time. You should work on being more pleasant to people. We didn’t do anything to you!

Yes, I’m rambling. I should stop now because I have to leave for Spanish. Bah. Adios!

Endorphins are good things.

I suppose I’m weird, but when I’m feeling gross and having cramps, (if that grossed anyone out, well, good; the twelve-year-olds need to stop reading my blog anyway) I actually like to exercise. (I use the treadmill.) It makes me feel a hell of a lot better and much less like I should immediately kill all lifeforms within a ten-mile radius. I’m also happy with myself today, because I pushed myself and went further than last time. (1.9 miles last time. 2.3 this time. Here’s hoping for at least 2.7 next time, since that seems t0 be the increment I am increasing at.)

I also ran solidly at a good speed for the last five minutes, (I run for thirty minutes plus a five minute cool-down) which is a holdover from my cross-country days: burst of energy at the start, steady pace throughout most of the race, and that last burst of energy at the end. I think I need to start actually running among scenery again. The treadmill is convenient, but one of the best things about running is the paths you can take when you do it.

I do actually enjoy running. I am strange, I realize this.

Adios!