Female privilege

Ways in which women are privileged

--reproductive rights

--reproductive rights

--reproductive rights

--few reproductive responsibilities-- this is a dangerous combination of one-two punch.  the female has all reproductive rights up to, including, and surpassing carrying to term and the birth.  BUT simultaneously, the female has no responsbilities of making sure that an unwanted fertilization occurs.  popular consensus states that solely males bear all the responsibility to ensure that no unwanted fetus grows.
health insurance companies have now also made sure that females don't have to take responsibility for themselves.

--gender specific homeless shelters.

--the husband is expected to shower the wife relentlessly with affection, attention, compliments, all the time.
notice this joke right here.  look at it:  no expectations whatsoever from the female.  but look at the laundry list of demands expected of the male.

--but there is a catch.  if the man does happen to buy his wife flowers out of the blue, she has the full right and choice to interpret it as him being guilty of something.

--the husband must always apologize if there was any misunderstanding.  -for example, if the husband does anythign remotely that might be perceived [construed] in the female's brain as insulting, offensive, taken the wrong way

--notice that the woman is not expected to do anything for valentien's day.  go back through your memory and you will see this.  the husband is expected to make dinner reservations, or cook an entire home-cooked meal.

--notice that the husband gets crap for forgetting anniversaries, etc.  this is even though the wife is not expected to execute any romantic gestures for an anniversary.

--work, job responsiblities.  a man does not have the option of just taking some time off and not work for a while.  is never allowed to just get fed up with his job and quit.  -if a wife just gets fed up at her job one day and throws up her hand and quits, oh well.  she might choose to go back or she might choose to "tkae some time off to regroup and take care of herself___".  a man has no such luxuries.

--lots of females insist that men do "their equal share" of housework.  they expect that the man who is usually the breadwinner, meaning he is working a job that is actually importnat and that positively impacts society, must come home from working a full day,, and then clean the entire kitchen.  this is even though the females sure as hell don't do "their equal share" of working outside the house.  women are secretaries, assistants, clerks, etc.

--there are ALREADY tons of female superheroes.  hunger games, buffy, ___. trinity, xena warrior princess, alias

Singing the praises of Cap: Winter Soldier

Man, I cannot shut up about Captain America:  Winter Soldier.  It is such a good movie.

I serenely grace the ears of anyone who will listen, anyone who either likes superhero movies or who likes politically, modern-day relevant movies to go watch it.

Man, Captain America got arrested.  Say that again.  Captain frekn America got arrested.  You know something's wrong when a beacon of hope, freedom, and patriotism is arrested in the same damn country that placed those mantles upon him.

Imagine my gradual realization that Cap would be considered a terrorist/dissident specifically because he didn't want to shoot and blow up random innocent citizens.  Cap is considered a terrorist because he is not okay with the government terrorizing people.

My foolhardy self did not even realize this next thing at first.  I had to stumble upon a brilliant epiphany from a freakin tumblr user, of all unexpected sources of inspiration.

If the subject of government bullying arises, you have to address the major subtopic of black Americans.  You cannot address government intrusion and bullying -- without discussing the massive subtopic of black people being brutalized, abused, and murdered by officers of the law.  Harshly and in disproportionately large numbers compared to all other demographics.

The internet denizen made some incredible, insightful observations.  He/she stated that towards the middle of the movie, there were indeed sufficient warning signs that Nick Fury was a target of the government and under imminent attack.  Unfortunately, the signs of impending government brutality looked exactly the same as the daily, routine, systemic racism to which Nick Fury is subject every single goddamn day of his life.

The rare tumblr hero also noted that the police did not hesitate to murder a black man out in broad daylight, in the middle of the day, on a very busy street.  Doesn’t matter that he didn't do anything wrong, did absolutely nothing to provoke the police brutality.  Which is another important point only slight off-topic.  No one, that is, absolutely no one, that is forced under police detainment has ever done anything to provoke being murdered.  A person fighting back, wanting to maintain bodily integrity, understandably terrified, is never asking to be murdered.

Nick Fury only escaped alive because he is Nick Fury.  The police did not give a 3h + that Nick Fury was also a government official and a good person.  He is a black man, he is the target, end him.

Whereas regarding Cap, ehh, at least the police sort of afforded him the dignity of not being fed several rounds of bullets out in the open public.  Frank Grillo saw the news chopper and told his underling, "not here."

Nick fury had a main-character-sized role in this movie, which was an excellent story decision.  In all the other avengers movies, nick fury is relegated to a side role or simply a cameo.  The "avengers assemble" was an ensemble cast, so nobody had a main role.

Another reason Cap would be considered a terrorist is that he destroyed government property.

Never mind the fact that the government property of interest is a destroyer ship, built and programmed to literally slaughter millions of innocent people and therefore Cap is 100% in the moral right.

Nope.  Simply the fact that Cap caused millions of dollars worth of property damage is enough to label him "terrorist."  The fact that Cap is a decent human being with a good heart and a sense of right and wrong, are what brandishes him now as "terrorist."

But that's where the government is at now.  For that matter, Sam Wilson, Black Widow, and the legendary Nick Fury would also be considered terrorists.

The movie incorporated brilliant parallels to a lot of legitimate-sounding conspiracy theories.

patriot act; 9/11 used as a convenient, catch-all excuse for the patriot act, TSA, department of homeland security.  in this day and age where there are all sorts of propaganda TV shows and movies, including the I-haven’t-watched-it-because-frankly-it-looks-embarrassing "Homeland," starring my-so-called-life.  CA:  Winter Soldier is a very much needed reversion to the propaganda entertainment drilled into people's heads every second of every day.  Brutal honesty.

This movie is round-aboutedly declaring that it is not a straightforward matter of government acting in its citizens' best interests and simply screwing up phenomenally. The govmet is not simply following its purported good judgment and proceeding with extreme caution for the citizens' own good.  It is not simply the government reacting to the current sociopolitical climate.

No-- the government is fomenting chaos, terror, violent crime ON PURPOSE.  False flags.  Spreading hate and unease and distrust among average ordinary people, so that govmet have an excuse to crack down on people's lives, freedom, family home, freedom to travel n move around.  To declare arbitrary notions "illegal" so that the govt can lock up harmless people.

A specific act that the movie focuses on is the government spying on, profiling, and targeting people.  And then will murder them if they oppose the government's vision.  Hydra with its helicarriers. 

Analogous to intercepting private people's private phone calls.  Tracing and reading private people's private emails.

Profiling people's facebook posts, blog posts, twitter tweets, editorials written in newspapers or news websites.  Scanning, carefully methodically scouring the collection of the written word.  Searching tirelessly for any seeds of dissidence against the government.  And then eliminating that person because, after all, the government is good.  Therefore, anyone who speaks out against the government is surely bad, and anyone that is bad against the United States government is a terrorist, right?

The movie specifically addresses the so-called "war on terror."  The US government claims it is "protecting you from the bad guys" by accusing you of being the bad guys.

illuminati Rothschilds Rockefellas bilderbergs NWO the puppet masters George Soros Federal Reserve 9/11
the deep state; corruption of democratic party n republicans

Chipping away at the dignity of human beings.  A prominent example being TSA at airports being allowed to conduct body/groping searches.

—
The endings to each of their story arcs were very realistic. Cap waking up in a hospital bed, recovering.  With his friend by his side playing familiar comforting music.  Black Widow at the congressional hearing.  All of it extremely realistic, especially the hearing with federal congressional politicians feigning moral outrage.  indignation huffy and puffy towards the avengers' so so grievous, egregious actions, they would dare to take action against a scheming, beyond-corrupt, abusive, lazy, useless government.

About Nick Fury torching his belongings, holding a fake funeral with a real gravesite, and having to go into hiding.  I’m not sure how realistic that is, per se; in the sense that it’s not an everyday occurrence.  But I have never before seen a “superhero” movie present us a resolution so grounded in the physical world we inhabit.  And none so genuinely badass.

Captain America: Winter Soldier is the best superhero movie, period

This is so cool.  This is crazy and brilliant and fascinating:  Captain America is a libertarian.  (Hopefully the nice and moral kind, aka Christian libertarian.)

Which was a brilliant decision by the writers, producers, story editors, etc., whoever else is involved with making the plot.  Because seriously, as I have said before, a superhero named "Captain America" in this day and age is a macabre, tasteless, mirthless joke.

The movie is about so much more than just these asinine avengers, etc.  It is a mirror reflection of precisely what is going on in this dear country.  This land, once the land of opportunity, once the land of the free and home of the brave, has now deteriorated into a heap of huddled, haggard ragamuffins too deathly afraid to stand up to the IRS, to the government, or to other corporations.

I also thought it quite refreshing, calming, and progressive that, of the four main characters, two of them were black.

You must see this movie.  If you do not like the scenes of extreme violence, which is completely understandable, you can just fast-forward past them.  Haha, "fast-forward," I am such a child of the 80s.  Most kids under age 20 would be like, "fast forward?  What's that?"  Sorry, I'm just a little excited because I have not seen a movie this good and this relevant to current events in a long time.

It's not just a matter of corrupt government.  It is not a matter of crooked police, crooked local politicians, local mayors taking handouts, cash bribes [[kickbacks]]] from convicted criminals so that the criminal can go free.  It is not just a matter of police confiscating street drugs and then turning around and selling the street drugs themselves, thereby ingratiating themselves into the crime syndicate.  It is not a simple matter of corruption on a local, county-wide, state, or federal level.

No.  What has happened now is that they have created a whole entire agency that has the express purpose of spying on average citizens.  Its sole purpose is to sneak, insinuate, and ingratiate itself, into every facet of daily life to spy on, terrorize and restrict the movement of honest people.  And it says it is doing this for the honest people's own good.

This is a matter of the government doing what it thinks it is supposed to be doing.  This is a matter of the government thinking it is doing right for its citizens.  the government thinks it is protecting citizens and keeping them safe -- by imprisoning and kidnapping them before they have committed any crime, by imprisoning them in their homes, by imprisoning them in many ways preventing them from having normal decent happy family lives.

Be honest.  The corrupt cops and political branches doing bad -- they know they are doing bad.  They know they are corrupt and screwed.  They don't harbor any fantasies of doing what it takes to be in way of the greater good.  They just don't care anymore.

I noticed that the movie didn't really have one specific villain.  was it this guy?  bucky winter.  ehh, no.  we find out in the movie that Bucky is not the mastermind behind any of it.  in fact, it is readily apparent that Bucky has been tortured n essentially dehumanized during his entire stint as the "winter soldier."  ehh,, was it this guy?  Robert Redford.  Erm, I guess he is supposed to be the high-up CEO of the evil government agency.  but to be honest, Robert Redford's villain does not really have a leering, looming, domineering, threatening, truly villainous screen presence.  or maybe this guy?  frank grillo.  or these pieces-of-human-garbage cops?  Nah.  I suppose I'm comparing all villains to the gold standard that was set by heath ledger's joker.

None of them individually were the one true criminal mastermind behind the government agenda of holding a gun to every person's head and calling it "security."  They were all equally culpable and villainous.

This was precisely the point of the movie.  The movie's whole message is that no one given person is solely responsible for causing chaos and terror.  The entire system, the entire establishment is corrupt, rotten, crooked, compromised beyond all repair.

See, the heath ledger movie was about philosophy.  Our evil human natures, our primitive selfish motives, get people destitute and desperate enough and they will revert to their primitive violent natures, blah blah blah.  That can be easily enough embodied in one specific character.

This movie, however, is not about abstract philosophy.  This movie is trying to send a realistic, very urgent message to its viewers.  This movie is about current events happening in real time, transpiring as we speak.

It would make things so much easier to be able to pinpoint one specific culprit as the root of all evil.  And then in the words of Andrew Jackson, "rout [that one person] out," get rid of the evil influence, and then things could go back to being hunky-dory and happy.  but there is no one specific bad guy.  The government having grown to what it is today is a massive, colossal stupid unwitting cooperation of many subbranches numbering in the triple digits.  On local, county, state, and federal levels.

A major plot point that many others have pointed out.  The other avengers didn't show up in this movie. 

This was not a coincidence nor was it an oversight; I think there was a very good reason for this.  I think the point was to convey the feeling of being utterly alone when going up against a monstrosity goliath like the bloated, groaning, heaving US government.  the feeling of being made to feel isolated... with no one on your side, no one to turn to for comfort, for support, for aid.

The government does this on purpose to people.  For instance, imagine that an acquaintance of yours has received a letter from the irs or from the state council accusing them of something nefarious.  They owe back taxes.  Or they are being fined a hefty amount for some grievance.  Alternatively, imagine that your acquaintance's credit history is so bad that they are unable to qualify for an apartment lease.

Do you feel sympathy for that friend?  Do you feel that you should be there for them to offer a sympathetic ear or shoulder to cry on?  Or do you feel kind of uneasy being around this person now?  Perhaps you feel morally that it is no longer a good idea to be associated with this person?  It's kinda skewed now, isn't it?  Like this friend is now revealed to be a dishonest person.  You durn tax evader, you criminal, you non-patriotic troublemaker, you shirker of your responsibilities, you neglecter of your civic duty, you neglecter of credit.  And then do you choose to distance yourself from that friend.

Think of how the friend feels.  He or she is still the same decent, honest human being.  But now they feel targeted by a monstrous looming evil kraken that they cannot hope to fight evenly, such as reasonable I court.  They probably feel isolated, cold, unloved.  They know that they have now in the eyes of their friends, such as you, become a social pariah.

This is the exact feeling that the writers and producers of this movie wanted to convey to the audience.

I sing this movie's praises to anyone within a twenty-feet radius of myself.  Extoll the virtues (that's from go fug yourself re:  sandwiches; it is equally applicable here) to anyone that is interested in government abuse but wants to be entertained at the same time.

relevant memes:  what I expected:
fun avengers
superman

what I got:
9/11 false flag
edward snowden/nsa
when did this (friendly neighborhood police) become this (militarized local police)
fake police-do-gooder news articles 1984
arbitrary imprisonment without due processsssss
america bombing syria, america forcing into sovereign countries
federal reserve/irs

Middle-class white women, men's rights activists, and divorce

I've been revisiting this very controversial topic iin recent months.  Sigh.  I just can't stay away from a challenge.

I'm sorry, but a lot of the complaints that MRA's cast against wimen are ture.

Women leave and get a divorc for no apparent readon.  She is the ine whi gets bored, because the guy did not entettain her enough.  Then she demands child support and alimony simy because she does not want to look at bis face anyore.

----- ((perh put in here???)))  I have heard the bslip reasons that so many women say they still expe ttheir ex-husband to support bem financially.  They saythey wxpect the father to supprt the ex-wife and kids because there is no way she would be able to suddenly gou out and get a job that could comfortabl supprt them all.  does not have the work experivec, she does not have a marketable degree, ad nauseum.

--THere is a very easy solution to this.  Give custody of the kids to the father.   -- I have read enougn supporting arumets to be of the opinion that child cusotdy sbould go to the parent who is financially solvent enougn to support them.  the oher parent proba l does not make enoughomey in some minimum wage nob that she had to scramble to get once she relaized she could not subsust without the gravy train that she micked out of her life and her cbildren's life when she got bored.

In the vast majoriy of divorce situations, the fathe is the one that has the work experience and the reliable, professioanl job.  HThe is the one who could best suppor the kids and give hem a giod home.  He can afford to live in a good enighborhiid sfae from crime, affird healht insurance so he can take them to the doctor whneener needed, he can buy prescription medicines.

This is the most logicsl silution for all invilved parties regardign a divorce.  the ex-wife could get a job in a grocery store stackig canned fodds on shelves.  Wihitu the wory of supporin the kids financually, she could easily support helrsf on this minimum wage bourly income. __For God's sake, she is a griwn-ass adult woman.  She should work to support herself.  She shpuld not be alloee to rely on alimony to support ber.

To whicht I can imagine their counte argument is that the father would be workign sll thr time, herefore the would not have time to actuall raise the kids, as in servingthem dinner, helping them wih homework, talkin to them and nust veing their for them '

Oh, so waht you are sayig is that one parent should work to support the kids, and the other parent should refrain from workig a salaried job so that this one can devote full time to raising the kids.

Yeah, you already had that arrangemey -- it was called marriage.  You chose to opt out of it.

This is more juvenile entitlement bullshit.  What this feemale is absicly saying is that she does not want to face any of the reponsibilites of a a marraige, such as beig there emoiknally cor her husbamd nor cooking for him -- but she still wants all tje genefits-- such as him continuing to support her with his paycheck.


-- and middle-class white demales notice absolutel none of it. 
Likeyhat insipid eat pray love featuring a ninny of a privelwged, comfortable, and Ompeltey oblvious to her privelage female.
Her husnad eas a ghood duy.  She disht have any actual substania compaints about him.  He eas not abusive, not an alvohoic, nt a duggie. 
-- just a generla vague feeling of malaise and boredom,, as middle-class white females are wont to do.

You nkkw why she was feeling so bored?  It's because she is borig.  I see this eerythere, not just in hollywod.  Middle-class white females are eiher boring -- or disgusting..  Their carees are borig, usually some sht like publishing or advertising or some junk like that.  They have no jnteresting hobbies.  The only dosernible hobvy I can identify is that they like compainjg about men.
……….
Then when she decides she is bired eith him, after the has apparenty given her whatber she wanted from him, she decides to dispose of him.  She gets a divorce.  Or moves cross country, wahtever.
Rendering the man as beig no more use to her.

Tooany times, women see men as little more than a speem bank and a money bank.

Review of "Frozen," aka The final nail in the coffin of the failed social experiment that is feminism

Apparently there is a new computer-rendered animated movie out called "Frozen."

I don't watch much TV on a TV set so I suppose I have not been assaulted with the same amount of drowning propaganda to which others have been subjected.  Also I don't hang out in the children's underwear department much, so this movie somehow escaped my attention until now.

This is a story about a girl with really awesome superpowers and enormous responsibility expected of a queen, and her boring, typical middle-class white female sister.

Hunh.  So it employs the same digital animation style as that used by Pixar.  Well, Disney has been collaborating with Pixar for so long, it stands to reason that they would learn a thing or two about animation in the new millennium.

The move honestly was very enjoyable, very entertaining.  The musical number "Let It Go" lived up to every bit of the hype it has apparently been getting.  I read up on youtube comments so I know this was a popular hit with fans.

The two main characters were mostly a pain in the ass.

It is the classic story of some very comfortable, privileged, upper-middle-class white girls who are convinced that the patriarchy is somehow holding them down.  They are oppressed even though they are born into royalty, have every freedom to do whatever they want and freedom not to do whatever they don't want at their whim.  They have the whole entire kingdom at their beck and call.  But don't forget that they are oppressed.

In all probability, men designed and built the whole entire castle in which they reside.  This includes the plumbing system, the furniture on which they sit their rich asses, and the fine crowns and jewels with which they adorn their privileged heads.  They don't have to do any cooking, cleaning, or laundry whatsoever; those tasks are most likely left to working-class women.  But don't forget that the two princesses are oppressed.

They spend their days waking up at noon, not having to work a day in their goddamn lives.  They spend their days singing and talking about snowmen.  They don't have to worry about trade relations, the economy, any peasants' standard of living.  But don't forget that the two princesses are oppressed.

The younger sister, to whom I guess we are all supposed to relate, is a girl born into privilege and wealth and comfort.  Who has not had to work for anything in her life.  She has no special skills or powers, nothing.  No marketable talents that could get her a respectable, prestigious, well-paying job.  nope, her wealth is entirely due to the fact that her *parents* are comfortable and wealthy.  (*Were* comfortable and wealthy; my bad.)  She did not earn a penny of it herself.  She is not interesting, she is not jaw-droppingly intelligent, she is not phenomenally talented.

She is also a typical female who is naiive and easily duped about romance/men/dating.  She is so desperate for a boyfriend that her gullibility allowed the hot red-headed guy to be a jerk.  Sorry, but everything Hans said to her in that part where he was going to murder her in front of the fireplace, was true.  This is the case in the vast majority of girls that end up with untrustworthy guys.  There was nothing remotely extraordinary or fascinating about the Anna character.  She is just all-around mediocre as hell.

I am also concerned because of the unwitting message this is sending to girls regarding desperation for male approval.  We all know that teenage girls aren't too bright, especially in matters of romance/dating/sex.  I am worried that girls are going to see this and think, "ohh well as long as I don't *marry* someone I just met, I'm not being desperate.  It's okay if we sleep together, or shack up together, or have a baby together, after having just met.  As long as we don’t get married, I'm not being desperate."  That nuance and simile would probably be lost on them.

And asking the poor blonde guy to help her.  Ah, let me rephrase that.  She did not "ask" Christoph to help her.  She ordered him to help her; she didn't really ask him.  She ordered him to, and just expected that he would comply.  Let me rephrase things again.  The word "help" intrinsically means one person is already *doing* the work.  Then they can then get a second person to *help* them.

That is not what happened here.  Anna expected this poor poverty-stricken guy to do all the work for her while she sat back and watched him "help."  Who does she think she is?  ""ohhh welll she's a princess."  Yes, I am aware of that.  She is a spoiled, pampered princess.  That all is what got on my nerves about the movie.

But I loved almost everything about Elsa.  This is because Elsa was the opposite of Anna.

That is, I loved Elsa until I read some critiques of the character, and did a little more thinking.

So... she's a queen with girl power who don't need no man.  She's such a capable and intelligent queen... that she just cursed her whole damn kingdom into frost, ice, dangerous driving conditions, killing crops and livestock, dangerous walking conditions.  And then she ran away like a coward.

She's such a strong capable woman in charge of her own life... that she doesn't know how to control her own powers.  Remember this scene?

What do you mean you "can't"?  You're a flucking grown adult.  Figure it out.

We certainly don't accept this kind of BS excuse from men.  We expect men to have a good handle on any magical powers.  If they are not able to control their own powers, they are evil.  Jafar, Rasputin.  No one accepts the following excuse regarding males, "oh he doesn't know his own strength."  And rightly so.

We do not accept this excuse regarding any male that, say, is restraining a female, has grabbed her arm, and inadvertently leaves a really bad bruise.

Therefore there is no reason to be so accommodating towards women.  That is your responsibility to figure out how your powers work, not anyone else's.

By the way, in the past , we did hold women to the same standards of knowing their own magical strength.  Fairy godmother, the three good fairies.

Maleficent, the wicked queen stepmother, the evil fairy in Shrek 2.

It is the classic story of some very comfortable, privileged, upper-middle-class white girls who are convinced that the patriarchy is somehow holding them down.  They are oppressed.  Even though they are born into royalty, have every freedom to do whatever they want and freedom not to do whatever they don't want at their whim.  They have the whole entire kingdom at their beck and call.  But don't forget that they are oppressed.

Let's be honest.  In all probability, men designed and built the whole entire castle in which they reside including the plumbing system and fuel/heating system.  Men built the furniture on which they sit their rich asses, and the fine crowns and jewels with which they adorn their privileged heads.  They don't have to do any cooking, cleaning, or laundry whatsoever.  Those tasks are most likely left to minority, working-class women.  But don't forget that the two princesses are oppressed.

They spend their days waking up at noon, not having to work a day in their goddamn lives.  They spend their days singing and talking about snowmen.  They don't have to worry about trade relations, the economy, any peasants' standard of living.  But don't forget that the two princesses are oppressed.

Men being objectified, Part II, aka Avengers Edition

We might also call this, Men Being Objectified:  Avengers Edition.

I agree that things that degrade women's bodies into an assemblage of various physical pieces is shameful and disgusting.  *But dildos and truck nuts are okay, I guess.

*Those hefty trash-bag commercials

*Comparing men's cars as commentary on their penis sizes.  Seriously, we see and hear the penis-size jokes everywhere and all the time.  I'm surprised that people don't recognize this as the blatant objectification that it is.  Sigh.  Then again, I guess I'm not honestly too surprised about it.  I didn't coniser it to be objectification myself until very recently when I sat down and actually thought about it.

*Fan photograph opportunities with celebs.  Apparently at fan/comicbook conventions, there are booths where fans can stand in line to get photo ops with the stars.  There was commentary of Stan Whatshisface being prodded into pictures that were too familiar and intimate.  I was curious what in the world are they talking about, and yep.  These are poses that the fans are requesting, not the actor.  Most of the photos are definitely too close for comfort, especially for a chance on-off meeting with a complete stranger.  Remember that these girls asked him to do this.  They were the initiators, not him.

*The girl in the audience that asked about the Captain America boob grab.  (Chris Evans tends to grab men's boobs, not women's)

*A reporter just reached out and grabbed Tom Loki's Adam's apple.  To women's credit, this was a male reporter that did the grabbing, not a female reporter.

*Any sexy interviews of Chris Hemsworth, i.e., any interview of Chris Hemsworth