A libertarian friend of mine blames government for the break down of community. Of course this friend continually blames government for the cause of everything bad that happens in the world, from brittle nails to indigestion.

I was like: how does government break down community? Like what is the mechanism that is stopping people from talking to each other? As far as I can tell government does nothing of the sort, if anything, government is a common source of discussion that brings people together.

However there is a much more disastrous and pervasive element in modern society and much more omnipresent than government, television. It is run by corporations and is having a disastrous effect on community. People stay home watching it, rather than socializing and they begin losing contact with other people.

Television is a one-way media and our only control over it is to change stations or switch it off. I prefer the latter. We can ring stations and complain or write letters, but its slow and indirect.

Some of the immediate things it does is it puts unrealistic expectations on love in our heads and causes the break down of marriages because television teaches us that love is the most important thing out there. We see perfect versions of people on TV where the women are all beautiful and the only men worth marrying are rich. As I have stated in earlier blog entries, what women want in men, men will chase. If the most important thing for a man to be is rich, then men will chase money to the exclusion of other desirable traits in a life partner, like gentleness, kindness, companionableness.

Love is the ultimate opiate of society now. It is beyond question the thing that is more important than pretty much everything else.

Television causes the break-down of community also because real people you know are not as cool, funny and as interesting as the people on TV that you watch every night. Real people don't have a team of script writers coming up with witty, intelligent and consistent things that iron out the wrinkles that real people have. Real people can be annoying. If people annoy you on TV, you can change the channel.

TV is probably what you'll discuss when gathered around the water cooler in the morning at the office. Why deal with real people and make allowances for their quirks when you can watch perfect people without faults on television each night?

I have heard people dismiss the dangers of television because its just entertainment, right? And we can always fast-forward during the ads. TV shows are full of product placements; films are full of people smoking cigarettes;
and TV and films have made guns so glamorous that people must have them since it is their supposed right, despite how many people are killed in suicides by rampage, domestic disputes or drug wars. While this is turning our streets, schools, malls and cinemas into war zones where the only people who benefit are gun manufacturers. There are no ads for guns on TV, there are whole films that are nothing but advertising for guns.

Need a distraction? Television is the answer and you can quickly forget about wars, drones, TSA, NDAA, patriot act, what's going on in Washington DC, wars, prisons... What ever is bothering you today, don't worry, there will be something very distracting on the TV tonight. Whether its the ending of a favourite series, a super-bowl will happen, the Oscars will be on, the finale of American Idol... Life will go on with a new TV series, we can forget about reality for awhile longer.

The only problem is it seems even our politicians are starting to believe what they see on TV. Even the GOP believed their own hype on fox news. These are people who can have a real impact on your life, and the lives of others all around the world. Reality becomes blurred and we come to believe the fantasies on television. And this was most dramatically portrayed in the 2012 election. Reality becomes questionable, debatable, and open to revision. Critical reasoning is under assault and the meanings of words are so easily altered that the meanings of words change. Words like 'science' have had their meaning so blurred that the process is not at all understood to the point that the word 'theory' is confused with the word 'story'. The reality that a fetus is merely a potential person rather than a full-developed anthropomorphized human. And that people are so little self-aware that they don't question their motivation or ethics for what they are doing.

Unquestionably, the right controlled the national conversation up until 2011 when the occupy wall street movement surfaced and since then reality became cool again. For a few months people were doing stuff in reality that was more interesting than the glimpses into the fantasy world created for us on television. We started taking back our power and we felt powerful again. I think that's mainly because interactive media like twitter and facebook were being brought to you live via the internet with the aid of hand held devices. The internet, once again given people full-duplex communication. More than anything the internet is letting people communicate with each other again.

Television is also a vehicle for manipulating the audience.

The advertising on television turns corporations into benign entities. Charming people become the face of corporations whereas the reality of corporations is that no one takes responsibility for their actions. The person answering your phone just works there or works in India at a call-center. Their boss just works there, the CEO only works there until s/he can quietly exit the corporation with the remuneration package they organized. Stockholders have little to do with the decisions made by the corporation, its a wonder the corporation ever gets anything done. But TV told us the lie  that corporations are always more efficient than government and always utterly aghast when I say that corporations are much less efficient than government, and that the falseness of the statement is indisputable, when really the efficiency of corporations is utter nonsense.

Many libertarians unthinkingly spruik corporate propaganda telling us that corporations products are always optional. Yet to use the internet, I am surrounded by corporate names, Dell, microsoft, google, twitter, facebook... My desk, chair, clothes, all necessary, all come from corporations. In fact it is only when I come on the internet that I even hear of the government. Yet corporations impact my life constantly. Advertising is everywhere, not just on television.

Meanwhile while we were distracted by television, corporations have been whispering into governments ear. Working deals behind our backs and if we ever hear what they are up to, we'll be distracted by television tomorrow, which has given society a permanent state of ADHD.

Television dumbed us down and made us conform by making us homogeneous, thus turning us into the perfect consumers. It keeps us quiet by distracting us while supposedly 'entertaining' us.

Television sets up an advertising event horizon. A business needs to pass this horizon after which it becomes kosher  to buy from them. Once the corporation has set up a respectable veneer it has meet this condition, we the consumers are expected to buy from these corporations. We should beware of small corporations vying for your $$ as somewhat unworthy. Note the lack of air-time non-kosher political parties are given? Where were the greens, libertarians and Naders on the presidential elections? They weren't there because they haven't been given corporate approval. Never forget, corporations have both the democrats and republicans chasing them for their $$ for electoral campaign funding.

Television is the ultimate circus. Please turn off your TV.

Its no wonder so many young feminists portray themselves as unattractive on the internet. Yet without a doubt when they get into a relationship they still want to be attractive to their partners.

The odd thing is we always give allowances for men's appearances. Its so seldom we comment upon the appearance of men and it is truly unfair, like when Gingrich was in the race for republican nomination for the 2012 election, it was never commented upon how ugly the guy was/is. Same with Bill Gates and the dude who started facebook. If these guys were girls, guys all over the world would be falling all over themselves joking about how ugly they are.

At times when I'd mentioned Gingrich's ugliness on twitter, guys were aghast I could be so trivial.

Yet women's appearance, weight, armpit/leg hair, clothes, vagina's and uteruses are all up for public discussion. Men's appearance, clothes, penises, balls, asses, body hair are not up for public discussion.

The point of this post is that when we discuss what is on the inside, we always associate it with women. 'A pretty face doesn't make a pretty heart'... that kind of nonsense. Its like women come in two, and only two, flavours. They are beautiful and vain & stupid OR they are plain and nice. Clever is optional but only for plain women.

And making beautiful women stupid and vain is supposed to console the plain women with big hearts? I don't see why it should console anyone. Beautiful women are more likely to be treated like ornaments and get trotted out to impress whoever like they are well trained dogs, too stupid to understand more than simple commands.

If you are going to make statements about judging books by covers apply it to men, where we allow all men to have all options. Our society permits men to be good looking and/or intelligent and/or ugly all the way through.

Jane Austen makes a point of saying in several of her novels that peoples (especially women's) appearance improves on better acquaintance.

We women are so harsh on ourselves and our appearance. We women should learn to be more accepting of ourselves and part of this is buying into sexism. Men don't care so much about women's weight as women do. Indeed it seems to me, it is women who put these unrealistic expectations on women about their weight and appearance. If anything, women dress to impress other women.

If I could tell each kid one thing in life it would be to chose your scars carefully.

I am sure most people think scars aren't things we can chose, they are the result of events that happen to us. Not so, I say.

I've heard of kids being completely scarred by the stuff that happened to them when they were a 'tween. I am sure if I let stuff effect me when I was a 'tween I might have been scarred by it too but my father had cancer and that was pretty much all that mattered.

Some people are scarred by their parents, some are scarred by a teacher who 'touched' them inappropriately, some are scarred by a sibling, poverty, being raped, bullied at school, work, home...

What you choose to let scar you defines who you'll be, probably for the rest of your life. And in some ways its how you deal with your scars that makes you into an amazing person or just someone who is completely forgettable. Because sometimes when I hear the details of someone's scars I feel like shaking them and saying: oh get over it. These are usually the ones who run around bleating about it... And sometimes I am completely in awe.

Sometimes I wonder at friends scars, what was it that they had to deal with. Sometimes I would like to ask, some might tell me, most probably won't and I don't like to pry because it is personal and although in quiet moments I might calculate, I also try to respect privacy.

A bit of scarring is good for a person, I think. It teaches us humanity and compassion. I have long suspected that SOME libertarians, NOT ALL, weren't scarred enough and have no humanity in them, because they run around bleating about the govt like those who run around bleating about inconsequential scars and turning them into mountain ranges.

My first boyfriend went through childhood completely unscarred. He was the best looking guy I ever saw. He got good grades, he had great parents who loved him, he had lots of friends... and when he got into the real world he couldn't cope so he committed suicide.

On the 02/14/2013 I wrote an entry entitled 'How big are you' where I described the events of a trending topic #TellAFeministThankYou where I was telling individual men trolling that they had small penises. One of the men, obviously a young-mid teenage boy took exception to my questioning the size of his penis and came after me.

One of the things he said was he supported womens equality, and then when I easily fielded that one he turned around and accused me of having my period to which I replied, and I thought you supported womens equality.

I think this is the general problem, men do support women's equality and rights when they think about it and they mean to but not really and that is because I think its beyond their grasp, not because they are dumb, but because its part of their genetics. Men, for millenia, have organized in groups of males to go hunting and then come back to their wives/partners. So, today, men figure out who the boss is and ignore the rest. Who the boss is, is primarily their wife/partner and their male superiors/peers/underlings. In general, other women don't count, unless they are close kin like sisters, daughters and mothers.

This means men tend to be utterly oblivious to the world around them. One time I was driving on a road only wide enough for one car but it had wide shoulders and a man was coming at me from the other direction. He would have run me of the road if I hadn't gotten completely off the road - he just stared at me looking terrified I wouldn't get over. Of course I moved to the side so his car could remain on the asphalt. Was it worth crashing my car into his, no of course not, but really why couldn't we both get over a little so we could both continue to seemlessly share the road?

This is just one example of men not being able to compromise and it is again women having to make way for men. Each time we have to bite back our anger of having to give way to men brings us closer to the day we will smash our  cars into an on-coming male. There is only so much anger of having to make way, give way, put up with, ignore, put ourselves lower than men that we can bear. Most of it is because we just seem to be invisible to men, unless they are in the mood for some lovin'.

In my earlier post today, Asking for it, I described my life of dealing with men's wolf-whistles, hips thrust forward, the endless advances of men thinking we just want to have sex all the time. Guys, yes you are nice guys, but how do us women know you are one of the nice guys? Isn't the serial killer the last guy you'd expect?

So when men want sex, we are afraid of them, and when they don't want sex we are invisible to them. Interestingly the guys trolling #TellAFeministThankYou were telling women to go make them a sandwich, because women are only really useful at doing stuff men can't be bothered doing for themselves. Women are nothing other than servants there to please them by looking beautiful and being available for sex or to be laughed at if they are considered too ugly or to be ignored in general.

Strangely when I am driving with my husband I don't see him feel the same anger. When he is cut off he may moan about it. I wonder if he's just oblivious to it? But it doesn't build up like it builds up for me, another difference between humans or genders, I don't know. My husband informed me, he knows it'll be his turn next time and it all evens out in the end for him.

Women have the certainty it'll never be their turn next and the only time it'll be our turn is if we trample on other women.

Recently a friend jumped into the middle of a woman who'd had enough. She knows there are nice guys out there, she knew she was generalizing, but she'd a gutful of men attacking her. She didn't need to be told about nice guys.

The thing is women do like men and we would like to be able to figure out which are the good men easily. The problem is men have power over us women. They are stronger and men also form a far more cohesive group, defending each other as no doubt my other friend did when he jumped into the mess. I suspect she thought he joined in to defend his mate/bro/friend... it seems he didn't but she didn't know that. If I was her I wouldn't want to deal with it anymore and just block and walk away. Things had escalated probably enough for her and she no doubt felt surrounded - I would have. She probably didn't intend to block anyone she might think of as friends. I don't know, I am speculating.

Interestingly, the thing most libertarians hate about govt is that govt has power over them and they have little power to influence it back - if men were in the same position women were in, men would probably hate men too, even the nice guys.

Recently wrote in We Build Our Society


"Waiting for 2 mins on the Vegas strip is all it took me to get asked if wanted to have sex, an early morning walk with no one about - and a man walks up behind me and asks me for sex - I'm wearing sweats... I've been chased down roads by men in cars... once a police car was parked and I ran to it - only to see a car speed off that had been following me. A guy helps me open something, so I smile and thank him - he asks me if I want sex. I ignore pelvis' thrust forward, I stopped hearing the wolf-whistles, the guys who stop their cars asking me to get in... Do you know how frightening it is for women in our society?

"Then when a woman gets raped, the legal system treats her like she was asking for it - no - she was walking home thinking about - dinner or work... and suddenly someone wants to have sex with her. Honestly, a woman NEVER has to ask for it. Or the other thing people whisper is we wanted it but changed our minds the next day - no - women don't ever put themselves through the ordeal of pressing charges unless they really have to... the next day they'll just regret it..."

I have to add, I admire any woman who puts herself through the ordeal of pressing charges against a rapist. Anyway, appended to the original entry, there was this article. Guys just don't know how frightening it is in our society for women.

Guy replied: And in the eastern hemisphere it is the exact opposite. A man can't walk down the street without being propositioned by several prostitutes.

I replied: and you are afraid the prostitutes are gonna get the wrong idea and rape you ?

Guy replied: I'm about as afraid of prostitutes raping me as you are of being raped on the Vegas strip. That said, the prostitutes do put their hands on you. I have been groped on the street on several occasions. A friend of mine was groped and pick-pocketed by two women at the same time.

I replied: i may not be afraid of being raped on the vegas strip but i have been afraid of being raped often.

One time I went to a bar with a couple of male friends and a guy did the casual grope of my chest - and i grabbed him by the nuts - he looked like Christmas had come. I'd never have done this if i hadn't had 2 male friends with me.

You got pick pocketed - so what - I've been pick-pocketed too in Asia. And when I went out of a hotel I'd be accosted to buy silks or whatever too. its not the same.

Guy replied: Sexual assault is nothing to make light of, it is a serious crime. I'd hoped you see both sides of the story and make light of neither, oh well.

[Oh see now I am sexually assaulting this guy??]

I replied: what its not sexual assault to feel up my breasts?

Guy replied: It's sexual assault to grope anyone.

I replied: u are worried some tiny asian woman is gonna grab your ass - yet i only feel brave enough to grab some guys nuts because I had 2 men with me. You are right - I am not afraid of being raped in public - but its when I am alone that I am most afraid and thats when men ask me for sex, or grope or come after me in their cars. You have no idea of perspective you poor excuse for a male

Guy replied: You have no idea of my physical stature or anything else about me. Yet somehow I'm the one making all the assumptions. At least we all know your perspective and your opinion of those who agree with you completely, but not in the manner you deem fit.

Another guy replied: The thing is that sexual assault by a woman on a man does not typically carry the implied threat of violence/rape. That doesn't make it OK, it but it doesn't necessarily and automatically include a greater danger.

On the other hand, sexual assault by a man on a woman pretty much always carries the implied threat of violence or rape, especially if the woman is alone. Whether or not the guy means to be additionally threatening, it is a threat that the woman must take into consideration.

Perhaps more to the point, a man (at least in Western culture) almost has to go looking for a setting wherein he is actually groped/assaulted, whereas it is depressingly common for pretty much all women to have the experience of being groped/grabbed/propositioned/pressured/assaulted in one fashion or another.

It's a false equivalence to try to equate the behavior of a few women in a specific scenario ("tourist trap" type environment where the number of tourists supports a high sex trade to the point of aggressiveness) to the behavior of men toward women *across women's entire lives* growing up.

Guy replied: And since neither a sexual assault or any violence occurred in this thread, there is no reason not to (COMPLETELY AGREE) and add that sexual assault is wrong no matter who it comes from or where it is being perpetrated.

Another different guy replied: Guy, the difference in circumstances is chiefly that the prostitutes are offering services to potential paying customers, where as in the other the men are threatening to take what they want. The sad part is that we live in a society that cheapens all human relations, leading both to some women selling themselves and many men thinking it's fine to treat women purely as cheap sexual objects.

Guy replied: I am aware of the difference and I think it's a sexist generalization.
1) Not all women who assault men sexually are prostitutes. 2) Not all men who treat women badly are rapists.
To pit men against women is to divide us against the real issue which is sexual assault itself, regardless of the gender.

I let the matter drop because the guy was obviously dealing with his own issues. But there does seem to be a general blinkering of men to the problems women endure in our society.

We've all heard the jokes about women with large breasts and no apologises are ever needed, yet when women make jokes about the size of men's penises, it is woman who is supposed to apologize.

I was dealing with trolls on a trending topic on twitter: #TellAFeministThankYou
So when dealing with the trolls I said, amongst other things, statements like:
#TellAFeministThankYou for making it obvious @x has a small penis and isn't worth sleeping with.

To this a male 'friend' took exception and blocked me and left me a note saying he 'didn't appreciate comments about guys with small dicks' while telling me how he's always supported women's rights.

Another of my male friends saw me dealing with these trolls and disappeared off to facebook.

I told my husband about this and he laughed which made me leave a comment like: #TellAFeministThankYou for making it obvious I married the right man.

Meanwhile the friend who disappeared to facebook started ignoring me and then a few days later I got an email from him saying: hey you should apologize to this other friend.

Huh? so I did some reconnaissance and the 'friend' who blocked me attacked the friend who disappeared to facebook calling me names and making it very clear he has a very small penis. (Who knew? If he'd kept his mouth shut there is no way I'd have ever known - seriously, it wasn't like we'd have ever gotten intimate and really, its a kinda metaphor for a man's ego.)

So the bottom-line girls is guys will demand you apologize for making fun of them being small in the under-pant department... even when other people are calling you names.

At the end of the day #TellAFeministThankYou for making it obvious which guys are worthwhile and which are not.