There are many double standards between men and women that we have yet to break through. This is most prominent in the realm of love, romance, and sex. A woman who hits on or "picks up" a man is forward but when a man does it he's a player. A man who sleeps around is a stud but a woman who does is typed as a slut. There are certainly segments of society that have broken through and disregard these stereotypes, but the overwhelming majority are still clinging to societal traditions.
Another area where this double standard is apparent is in porn. Men watching porn is almost a given and only the extreme conservatives make a fuss out of it. Women, on the other hand, are commonly thought to have no interest in porn. The worst indicator of this is the "Porn for Women" book series. I give this entire line of books 2 thumbs down.
The idea that women are turned on sexually by images of men vacuuming, doing dishes, and changing diapers is a huge step affront to women everywhere. True, many women in long term relationships may like to see their partner doing those things, but that's not the point of porn. Porn is meant to be sexually arousing and unless you've got a fetish for it diaper duty is not it.
Women should be free to watch porn to their hearts content. Soft core, hard core, whatever their personal pleasure. Ladies, if men can do it, so can you.
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Sunday, July 15, 2012
It Doesn't Take Millions to End Homelessness
The header to this installment is the contents of a sign I saw yesterday in my city's dwindling occupy movement and only proved to me just how idiotic the movement has been. This is evidence of our society's failure to grasp Roosevelt's famous expression of giving "a hand up, not a hand out." Our society expects instant gratification, not understanding the cost attached to having their whims fulfilled.
The reality that has so obviously been ignored is that we live in a world of limited resources. If we presume to house each person in a studio apartment the rent will be approximately $500 a month (and that's on the low end compared to some cities) you are looking at $6000 a year to house just one person. And that is not taking into account the cost of utilities and food and clothing which are the necessities of life. In reality you're looking at an average closer to $1000 per month per person or $12,000 per year per person. Considering the number of people who are currently homeless in our nation the reality equates to millions of dollars a year, and then some.
That money is not just going to appear out of thin air, nor are the jobs to supply that money. And the economic movement necessary to supply people with jobs will never provide enough jobs to employ every individual. You also need to take into account that much of the homeless population struggles with drug and/or mental health issues that make it nearly impossible for them to hold jobs. All the social programs in the world cannot sustainably provide housing for every individual.
To make a large story short there is a lot more to solving the problem of homelessness than simply housing the homeless. The economy is a delicate system and we cannot allow our emotional ideals to veil the reality. The truth is that it doesn't take millions to end homelessness, it takes billions of dollars plus a vast array of other resources. Any economic issue is complicated and even our best intentions may result in the opposite effect (whether months or years down the line). The best thing our government can do to assist those in need without upsetting the balance is to give a reasonable hand up, not a handout.
The reality that has so obviously been ignored is that we live in a world of limited resources. If we presume to house each person in a studio apartment the rent will be approximately $500 a month (and that's on the low end compared to some cities) you are looking at $6000 a year to house just one person. And that is not taking into account the cost of utilities and food and clothing which are the necessities of life. In reality you're looking at an average closer to $1000 per month per person or $12,000 per year per person. Considering the number of people who are currently homeless in our nation the reality equates to millions of dollars a year, and then some.
That money is not just going to appear out of thin air, nor are the jobs to supply that money. And the economic movement necessary to supply people with jobs will never provide enough jobs to employ every individual. You also need to take into account that much of the homeless population struggles with drug and/or mental health issues that make it nearly impossible for them to hold jobs. All the social programs in the world cannot sustainably provide housing for every individual.
To make a large story short there is a lot more to solving the problem of homelessness than simply housing the homeless. The economy is a delicate system and we cannot allow our emotional ideals to veil the reality. The truth is that it doesn't take millions to end homelessness, it takes billions of dollars plus a vast array of other resources. Any economic issue is complicated and even our best intentions may result in the opposite effect (whether months or years down the line). The best thing our government can do to assist those in need without upsetting the balance is to give a reasonable hand up, not a handout.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Airplane Philosophy and Other Tidbits
Well, I'm returning from a much needed hiatus. I've got a new job so no more complaints about that. I also gave up on making my old insurance company pay up after going 5 rounds and almost 6 months with them (another reason for the job change).
Tonight's topic is on the lighter side. I'd like to discuss a personal philosophy that I have adhered to for many years and has served me well. It's something I've dubbed Airplane Philosophy and if you've ever flown on a plane you'll know what I mean very quickly. After boarding the flight attendants always go through the standard safety talk including what to do in the case of a loss of cabin pressure. The cheesy yellow masks get brought out for demonstration and everyone is told that they should always secure their own mask before assisting children or those around them. Can you see where I'm going with this?
People always seem to idealize the concept of selflessness but in reality that concept does more harm than good. If you don't take care of yourself you are in no position to take care of anyone else. Like on an airplane, if the cabin loses pressure and you help your child with their mask and in turn pass out from a lack of oxygen you've done no good at all. You've caused someone to have to save you because of your attempt to save someone else.
We all need a bit of selfishness in our lives, so don't feel guilty about taking care of your own needs first.
Tonight's topic is on the lighter side. I'd like to discuss a personal philosophy that I have adhered to for many years and has served me well. It's something I've dubbed Airplane Philosophy and if you've ever flown on a plane you'll know what I mean very quickly. After boarding the flight attendants always go through the standard safety talk including what to do in the case of a loss of cabin pressure. The cheesy yellow masks get brought out for demonstration and everyone is told that they should always secure their own mask before assisting children or those around them. Can you see where I'm going with this?
People always seem to idealize the concept of selflessness but in reality that concept does more harm than good. If you don't take care of yourself you are in no position to take care of anyone else. Like on an airplane, if the cabin loses pressure and you help your child with their mask and in turn pass out from a lack of oxygen you've done no good at all. You've caused someone to have to save you because of your attempt to save someone else.
We all need a bit of selfishness in our lives, so don't feel guilty about taking care of your own needs first.
Friday, May 11, 2012
People Should not be Afraid of their Government
Today I was wondering downtown and there was a man trying to get people to sign a petition to put up a ballot measure to legalize marijuana. I put my signature down, and gladly, though even if it gets on the ballot it won't pass, even if it does pass the courts will likely overturn it, but my signature is where it belongs.
My issue is, as the man was passing on, he approached a woman and asked her to sign the petition. She refused, but I heard her say what her reasoning was: she is a teacher and she is afraid she will lose her job.
I will start with the less offensive assumption that being in support of legalized pot is equivalent to smoking pot. Coming out in support of legalizing marijuana doesn't even mean the you agree with people smoking it. Supporting legalized marijuana only means that you don't believe the government should restrict marijuana use and/or sale.
The more offensive item is the idea that your political opinions can be used against you by the government or your employer, and especially a government employer. If they did use it against you it would be a clear violation of free speech and any judge worth their metal would not allow it and probably grant a large civil settlement as well. The problem I see here is that any citizen should fear that voicing their opinion would result in government retribution.
I know it's anecdotal, but if one person is thinking it I'm sure there are many others. In the words of V for Vendetta, "People should not be afraid of their government; government should be afraid of their people."
My issue is, as the man was passing on, he approached a woman and asked her to sign the petition. She refused, but I heard her say what her reasoning was: she is a teacher and she is afraid she will lose her job.
I will start with the less offensive assumption that being in support of legalized pot is equivalent to smoking pot. Coming out in support of legalizing marijuana doesn't even mean the you agree with people smoking it. Supporting legalized marijuana only means that you don't believe the government should restrict marijuana use and/or sale.
The more offensive item is the idea that your political opinions can be used against you by the government or your employer, and especially a government employer. If they did use it against you it would be a clear violation of free speech and any judge worth their metal would not allow it and probably grant a large civil settlement as well. The problem I see here is that any citizen should fear that voicing their opinion would result in government retribution.
I know it's anecdotal, but if one person is thinking it I'm sure there are many others. In the words of V for Vendetta, "People should not be afraid of their government; government should be afraid of their people."
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Playing on Sympathies
President Obama's announcement earlier this week that he supported legalizing gay marriage has caused quite a stir, as I'm sure his campaign intended it to. Though he believes "marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman" he is still coming our in support of gay marriage. Overall his speech is full of mixed messages.
One one hand, he believes "marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman."
On the other hand he says that "it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."
But then again "I was sensitive to the fact that -- for a lot of people -- that the word marriage is something that provokes very powerful traditions and religious beliefs."
He also played up how he was effected by same sex couples in the military who were "not able to commit themselves in a marriage."
I am a full supporter of same sex couples, though generally I believe that marriage of any type should not be recognized by the government. Obama's comments seem like nothing more than trying to play both sides of the table to win support for himself in the upcoming election. The president has had 4 years of increasingly intense interest in same sex marriage and yet he waits until 6 months before a major election to speak out. In my mind, he is playing the American public and trying to draw attention away from the many ways that he has reduced American freedoms, failed to improve the economy, or reduce the national debt and government spending.
I just find it unfortunate that the American public have latched onto the idea "Obama supports gay marriage" without seeing the many undertones of the statement.
One one hand, he believes "marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman."
On the other hand he says that "it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."
But then again "I was sensitive to the fact that -- for a lot of people -- that the word marriage is something that provokes very powerful traditions and religious beliefs."
He also played up how he was effected by same sex couples in the military who were "not able to commit themselves in a marriage."
I am a full supporter of same sex couples, though generally I believe that marriage of any type should not be recognized by the government. Obama's comments seem like nothing more than trying to play both sides of the table to win support for himself in the upcoming election. The president has had 4 years of increasingly intense interest in same sex marriage and yet he waits until 6 months before a major election to speak out. In my mind, he is playing the American public and trying to draw attention away from the many ways that he has reduced American freedoms, failed to improve the economy, or reduce the national debt and government spending.
I just find it unfortunate that the American public have latched onto the idea "Obama supports gay marriage" without seeing the many undertones of the statement.
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Missionary Mayhem
Today I got a visit from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (a.k.a. Mormon) missionaries. It was a very sweet elderly couple who started off trying to flatter me into submission. I invited them in and we all got comfortable at the dining room table before I started in on them. I am fairly familiar with LDS (their term for themselves) doctrine so I brought the conversation around to my main issue with the church, their treatment of the LGBT community. We spent the next hour going around in circles about this. I'll paraphrase the arguments for the sake of brevity:
Me:I support LGBT rights and the church doesn't
Missionaries: Gay people are more than welcome as full members as long as they don't act on their feelings
Me: I think there is nothing wrong with their feelings and they should be free to act on them
Missionaries: The Scriptures say it is a sin
Me: Scriptures can and have been altered and misinterpreted
Missionaries: Not that drastically
Me: The Council of Nicea had a serious debate over the divinity of Christ which is now commonly accepted by Christians. I'd say that's pretty drastic.
Missionaries: The Prophet says it's wrong
Me: A Prophet can misinterpret signs from God or just lie
Cycle and repeat those arguments in various combinations. They even had the gall to compare being gay to being a robber so I'd like to set the record straight:
The church, as a private organization, has every right to limit or exclude who they will from their activities. And it is my right, as an individual, to not associate with organizations that practice discrimination. The LDS Church is such a discriminatory organization and their logic for why doesn't hold water.
Me:I support LGBT rights and the church doesn't
Missionaries: Gay people are more than welcome as full members as long as they don't act on their feelings
Me: I think there is nothing wrong with their feelings and they should be free to act on them
Missionaries: The Scriptures say it is a sin
Me: Scriptures can and have been altered and misinterpreted
Missionaries: Not that drastically
Me: The Council of Nicea had a serious debate over the divinity of Christ which is now commonly accepted by Christians. I'd say that's pretty drastic.
Missionaries: The Prophet says it's wrong
Me: A Prophet can misinterpret signs from God or just lie
Cycle and repeat those arguments in various combinations. They even had the gall to compare being gay to being a robber so I'd like to set the record straight:
The church, as a private organization, has every right to limit or exclude who they will from their activities. And it is my right, as an individual, to not associate with organizations that practice discrimination. The LDS Church is such a discriminatory organization and their logic for why doesn't hold water.
Friday, May 4, 2012
Mutually Exclusive
Today I was musing on the concepts of freedom and equality. Both are spectacular ideals that cause as many problems as they solve because they are mutually exclusive, or nearly so. To many people this may seem like a lie, but a little examination into the true meaning and consequences of each reveals it all.
First there is freedom, or liberty. By definition it means: The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. In its unadulterated form this includes every individual's right to do, say, or think anything they want. Obviously, with no restrictions freedom is dangerous because it includes actions like murder and robbery.
Equality is another matter. The definition of its root, equal, is: A person or thing considered to be the same as another in status or quality. The problem with supporting equality is that humans are not naturally equal. I mean this in the sense that we have different strengths and weaknesses, likes and dislikes, levels of intelligence, environmental upbringing, etc. Individuality only exists because inequality exists.
It is quite apparent that either state, with no restrictions, is a bad thing. Freedom is commonly restricted in its ideology so that you are free as long as your actions do not hinder the freedoms of another. Equality, on the other hand, is restricted to social and economic equality.
The problems begin when you start determining what actions do and do not infringe upon another person's freedom and equality. In government, laws exist that either preserve freedoms while reducing equality or reduce freedoms to enhance equality.
In economics this is readily apparent. A person who makes very little money, for example, is commonly believed to be unequal to a person who makes a lot of money. However, taking money from the rich person and giving it to the poor person takes away the freedom of the rich person. In this case freedom is often sacrificed in the name of equality, though the Occupy Movement continues to clamor for even fewer freedoms for the rich.
Another example is the case of affirmative action. In this case equality again gets the upper hand over freedom. Enforcing equality of the sexes and racial equality has reduced the freedoms of schools and businesses by dictating who they can and cannot hire. Unfortunately, before this system was in place, the tables were turned and it was freedom that had the upper hand over equality resulting in rampant discrimination.
Overall, enhancing equality reduces freedom because it determines a standard that must be adhered to, whether a person wants to or not. On the other hand, preserving freedom reduces equality because there will always be people who use their freedom to rise above others. The trick, as in all things, is moderation, but the details of how much must be determined on a case by case basis and very rarely is a consensus possible.
First there is freedom, or liberty. By definition it means: The power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint. In its unadulterated form this includes every individual's right to do, say, or think anything they want. Obviously, with no restrictions freedom is dangerous because it includes actions like murder and robbery.
Equality is another matter. The definition of its root, equal, is: A person or thing considered to be the same as another in status or quality. The problem with supporting equality is that humans are not naturally equal. I mean this in the sense that we have different strengths and weaknesses, likes and dislikes, levels of intelligence, environmental upbringing, etc. Individuality only exists because inequality exists.
It is quite apparent that either state, with no restrictions, is a bad thing. Freedom is commonly restricted in its ideology so that you are free as long as your actions do not hinder the freedoms of another. Equality, on the other hand, is restricted to social and economic equality.
The problems begin when you start determining what actions do and do not infringe upon another person's freedom and equality. In government, laws exist that either preserve freedoms while reducing equality or reduce freedoms to enhance equality.
In economics this is readily apparent. A person who makes very little money, for example, is commonly believed to be unequal to a person who makes a lot of money. However, taking money from the rich person and giving it to the poor person takes away the freedom of the rich person. In this case freedom is often sacrificed in the name of equality, though the Occupy Movement continues to clamor for even fewer freedoms for the rich.
Another example is the case of affirmative action. In this case equality again gets the upper hand over freedom. Enforcing equality of the sexes and racial equality has reduced the freedoms of schools and businesses by dictating who they can and cannot hire. Unfortunately, before this system was in place, the tables were turned and it was freedom that had the upper hand over equality resulting in rampant discrimination.
Overall, enhancing equality reduces freedom because it determines a standard that must be adhered to, whether a person wants to or not. On the other hand, preserving freedom reduces equality because there will always be people who use their freedom to rise above others. The trick, as in all things, is moderation, but the details of how much must be determined on a case by case basis and very rarely is a consensus possible.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)