Archive for the 'Chick Shit' Category


Zero Tolerance Of Everything Except Molesting A 13-Year-Old

In case you missed it, it seems the case brought by Savana Redding against her school for strip-searching her when she was 13 is going to be heard by the Supreme Court. If you have an aversion to horrifying invasions of privacy, please don’t read the following:

An assistant principal, enforcing the school’s antidrug policies, suspected her of having brought prescription-strength ibuprofen pills to school. One of the pills is as strong as two Advils.

The search by two female school employees was methodical and humiliating, Ms. Redding said. After she had stripped to her underwear, “they asked me to pull out my bra and move it from side to side,” she said. “They made me open my legs and pull out my underwear.”

This was, apparently, all done in the name of “Zero Tolerance,” perhaps the stupidest goddamned idea in education since “No Child Left Behind.” What I don’t understand about this is manyfold:

1. How can you perpetrate searches like this, then send a teen off to history class, where they will learn that the U.S. is unique amongst the world’s nations for its intolerance of unreasonable search and seizure?

2. When did we devolve into a society so terrified of drugs that searching in a child’s vagina for Advil became de rigeur?

3. What exactly would they have done for “punishment” had they found said drugs? Suspension? How would it be seen as a negative for the girl if she had to go home, and away from the hands of humiliation that had just scoured her every orifice?

4. Supreme Court? This had to go to the Supreme Court??? This sounds like a goddamned easy call to me. Then again, I’m one of those bed-wetting hippie feminazis who’s against child molestation.


Bill O’Reilly Stalks Women To Tell Them How Important Their Safety Is To Him

This is really…Hypocritical? Hilarious? Terrifyingly creepy?

After some poor female blogger pointed out that Bill O’Reilly’s upcoming speech at a rape victims’ convention is kind of odd, considering his notable history of calling a rape victim “stupid,” he had one of his goons accost said blogger on the street. That didn’t sate his appetite for womyn’s rights, though, so he had some people follow her on vacation to deMAND she apologize to victims of…well, stalking and rape.

The Stalking: Watters and his camera man accosted me at approximately 3:45 p.m. on Saturday, March 21, in Winchester, VA, which is a two-hour drive from Washington, DC. My friend and I were in this small town for a short weekend vacation and had told no one about where we were going. I can only infer that the two men staked out my apartment and then followed me for two hours. Looking back, my friend and I remember seeing their tan SUV following us for much of the trip…

The Evasion: I said that it was inappropriate for O’Reilly to imply that just because a woman may be drunk and/or dressed in a certain way, she should expect to be raped. Watters asked me whether I had listened to the interview (which I had) and claimed that O’Reilly had made the comments in the context of a commentary on Mel Gibson/drunkenness…

The blogger asked why Think Progress was being targeted here (and got the hilarious answer that it’s because they’re part of the “smear machine” that is after poor ol’ Billy Boy), but I think that’s beside the point. Keith Olbermann is part of that same machine, and he’s been harping on this bit o’ hypocrisy for a good while now. Why, then, did they target this woman?

This is part of a trend with O’Reilly. In the footage I’ve seen of his producers accosting people, I have only seen his people accost those with vaginas in private, intimate settings (at home or on vacation, rather than on the street or on a bus). One might say this behavior is…erm, predatory and plays on these women’s fears of being attacked (and might, therefore, help the producer’s elicit an apology from said woman).

Then again, just look at what Cynthia Tucker was wearing while at home checking her mail. She was totes asking for it.



No, Meghan McCain, This Is What Socially-Accepted Prejudice Looks Like

I recently read Meghan McCain’s idiotic blog responding to Laura Ingraham and her attack on overweight women. No, I don’t think it’s idiotic because it’s saying the attack was unwarranted and juvenile, since that’s obviously true. And, no, I don’t think it’s idiotic because it, like all her other posts, reads as though a 9-year-old wrote it. Mostly, it was this line that I objected to: Today, taking shots at a woman’s weight has become one of the last frontiers in socially accepted prejudice.

Inferring that you’re chunky is not a socially-accepted prejudice. Don’t believe me? Try reading the numerous responses written and spoken (including here) about Ingraham’s remark, all of which deem it out of line (even Bill O’Reilly admitted that). That’s not social acceptance of said prejudice; that’s a rightful repudiation.

What is socially-accepted prejudice, then? How about the kind of prejudice that rescinds 10% of the American population’s basic civil rights to live and love as they please? How about a new and growing trend in South Africa to “cure” some of these people by engaging in “corrective rape”? How about it seeming like a slur to imply our President was possibly once maybe connected to someone who might be a Muslim?

That, my poor dear, is what hate look like. And it’s nothing whatsoever like implying that Jessica Simpson was wearing something mind-bogglingly unflattering that undercut her image as a sex symbol (one, by the by, that she and her father hand-crafted and topped off with a video of her washing a car in a string bikini).

This is not to say that, seeing as weight is still a social and not a health concern in American culture, it’s not difficult for you to hear someone lambaste yours. Especially when your social circle is largely, I’m supposing, composed of wealthy women who love nothing more than to snark at anyone approaching a double-digit dress size whenever possible (my high school memories are all coming back to me now). All I’m saying is it would behoove you to show some perspective, and some respect, for people who have to somehow survive and cope with the real deal.


Happy St. Patrick’s Day!

Gather ’round for story time!

In honor of the wearin’ of the green, I know I could relate the traditional legend about St. Patrick ridding Ireland of snakes. Rather than perpetuate bullshit, though, here’s a real Irish story from my family tree about our proudest member, Grace O’Malley, the famed bald pirate from back in the day:

Grace O’Malley (also called Granuaile) was a famous pirate, seafarer, trader and chieftain in Ireland in the 1500’s. She was born in 1530 in County Mayo, Ireland and was the daughter of sea captain Owen O’Malley. As a young child, Grace always knew she wanted to be a sailor but as a female, she was discouraged repeatedly. Extremely upset when her father refused to take her on a sailing trip, legend has it Grace cut off all her hair and dressed in boys clothes to prove to her parents that she could handle the trip and live a seafarer’s life. Seeing this, her father and brother laughed aloud and nicknamed her “Grainne Mhaol” meaning “Bald Grace” (which is believed to have led to her nickname “Granuaile.”) Eventually, through her persistence, she was allowed to go to sea with her father and his fleet of ships.

In her later years, Grace developed her reputation as a fearless leader through her efforts in battle along side her followers. Legend has it that Grace gave birth to one of her sons while out to sea. The very next day following the birth of the baby, the ship was attacked by Turkish pirates. Though exhausted from giving birth Grace grabbed a gun, went on deck and proceded to rally her men against the Turks, forcing their retreat.

At 56 years old, Grace was captured by Sir Richard Bingham, a ruthless Governer appointed by the Queen to rule over the regranted territories. Soon after his appointment, Bingham sent guards to arrest Grace and have her hanged. Grace was apprehended and along with members of her clan, imprisoned and scheduled for execution. Determined to die with dignity, Grace held her head high as she awaited her execution. At the last minute, Grace’s son-in-law offered himself as a hostage in exchange for the promise that Grace would never return to her rebellious ways. Bingham released Grace on this promise but was determined to keep her from power and make her suffer for her insurrection. Over the course of time, Bingham was responsible for taking away her cattle, forcing her into poverty, even plotting the murder of her eldest son, Owen.

In short, she personified the best stuff to know about the Irish: We’re bawdy, witty, willful, and tough as shit. And the English are petty dickheads. The end. Now go get drunk and pick a fight with anyone with bad teeth.


Ingraham Beat Coulter To Calling Meghan McCain Fat

Oooooh…Ann Coulter’s gonna be PISSED! Her fellow skinny blonde conservative, Laura Ingraham, took all the easy Meghan McCain mockery before she had the chance!

INGRAHAM (mocking): Ok, Meghan. Do you think that anyone would be talking to you if you weren’t kind of cute and you weren’t the daughter of John McCain? Or do you just think that they would just think that you were just another Valley Girl gone awry?

MADDOW: You picked a fight with somebody who’s definitely going to fight back.

MCCAIN: Yeah. Well, if it was, you know, if it was too hot in the kitchen, I’d get out. I know what I’m doing and I know that I’m creating, she probably will respond, she already has, but I’m sure she’ll respond harder, but this dialogue should take place. It should. I think that you know, often times and I think it’s relevant because I am a Republican. I still consider myself a Republican and that’s why it’s relevant because I’m someone within the party.

INGRAHAM (mocking): How long before she totally totally abandons the Daily Beast and makes it official at the Huffington Post?

MCCAIN: And I think there’s an extreme on both parties and I hate extreme. I don’t understand. I have friends that are the most radically conservative and radically liberal people possibly ever and we all get along. We can find a middle ground.

INGRAHAM (mocking): Ok, I was really hoping that I was going to get that role in the Real World, but then I realized that, well, they don’t like plus-sized models. They only like the women who look a certain way. And on this 50th anniversary of Barbie, I really have something to say.

Awright, girlies, I know you get upset when one of your own says something bad about one of your bestest ever girlfriends, but come on…Meghan McCain? Really? She discredits herself when she opens her mouth, so why bother? I mean, that’s why I haven’t commented on either Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, or Ann Coulter till now.

And why now? Selfish reasons. While watching poor Meghan McCain unknowingly embarrass herself on Maddow last night, I turned to my husband and said, “Coulter will call her a fat bimbo in 3…2…”

So, yeah, I’m just writing this to proclaim, once again, that I. know. mean. bitches.

So what’s next? Well, of course, all of Coulter’s BFF are going to chime in (ain’t a serious girlfight without your friends helping you out), and I’ll put my money on any or all of them attacking her useless degree, her status as only recently employed, and her recent decision to become a Republican to please her daddy, who pays her rent, since she doesn’t agree with conservative views on social issues and doesn’t have any economic beliefs that aren’t on a bumper sticker (“Pork bad”). Then it’ll be on to her family (her dad, who recently lost in a landslide to what the Right considers an “empty suit,” and her pill-popping mom), her clothes, her hair, and her makeup. And more fat jokes (“It sure doesn’t look like she doesn’t like pork” and the like). Pretty standard.

As a quick note, I’m so fucking tired of people saying, “I didn’t take [class name here] in college,” and using that as an excuse to not know anything about it (Meghan McCain claimed on Maddow–after saying how bad “pork” is–that she doesn’t want to venture opinions on economic issues, since she didn’t take econ in college). Read a goddamned book, and stop telling the world that your lack of intellectual curiosity is somehow an out. You’re in the public forum. Pick up a fucking newspaper. (Or all of them, if you’re the queen of the idiots, Sarah Palin.)


Can Michelle Obama Teach Americans To Eat Right? Prolly Not.

Don’t get me wrong: I hope she succeeds in her stated goal to encourage healthful eating across the United States. And I really think, if anyone can do it, she can. (Can anyone remember such a collective swoon happening in the States at a couple’s physiques as has happened with these two? Seriously, it’s like we all have a touch of the vapors when they bare the tiniest bit of skin.)

It’s just that, as I’ve said many times before, the notion that being American means overindulging in everything is soooo ingrained, it seems impossible to extricate from our collective consciousness. Her idea to highlight overindulgence in local produce seems smart, since it’s not taking away anything (just modifying it), but it’s still a tough sell. Wearing our hyper-consumption of bacon grease (and spare tires) like a badge of honor has become de rigeur. I hope it changes, since it’s not only wildly unhealthy but also seriously costly to the American taxpayer (yes, more so than smokers or drug addicts), but I lack the hope these guys have.

Part of the reason? They’re already catching flack from our fucking Congressmen about the “tiny portions” they’re being served at the White House dinners. If these guys (who, I hate to say it, are actually role models to a lot of people) can’t suck it up and set an example, I just don’t know if this idea can sell.

It’s not just about the food either. It seems to be a generally accepted notion in the U.S. to sort of expect free lunches, if you will. The legends of people pulling themselves up by the bootstraps aside, we seem to expect to just be given things without working very hard or long at them. It could be my generational lack of patience with everything (blame Sesame Street!), our proliferation of easily-available fast food, or who knows what; cutting corners to get ahead just seems to be the new American dream. Sure, we want the chiseled bodies of our new leaders, but we don’t soooo much want to put in the hours at the gym or eat like they do.

Part of this also stems from our reluctance to tell people they’re not special in some way. From high school teachers no longer being able to correct grammar, to the SAT’s being easier to ace, we seem to be unable to tell our children that everything they do and are isn’t exceptionally perfect, lest we damage their self esteem. I understand this desire. Really. I constantly tell my daughter how wonderful she is, and I loathe the notion that one day she won’t feel that way. But my greatest hope is for her to one day truly accept herself, scars and all, and I know that me constantly denying she has any faults won’t help.

So, yeah, there are a lot of reasons I think Michelle might fail. But, then again, I had many more reasons I thought I’d never see a president elected who is smart, handsome, and in love with his family, so fuck do I know, right?


Off With Their (Dick)Heads!

This is going to make me wildly unpopular, I know, but here we go (deep breath):

The issue of chemically castrating sex offenders is a fascinating one, mostly because both genders find nothing really all that complicated about their views. But those views are almost universally opposite one another. I just find it amazing that we have come so far in our understanding of one another over the generations–no thanks to the mythology that we originate from different planets, or whatever depressed women are lulling themselves to sleep with nowadays–and yet when it comes to basic penis etiquette, it seems we are again looking at one another, head cocked to the side like a spaniel hearing a fire engine. “Really? You think it’s your right to have an erection well into your 90’s? Well, I’ll be dipped.”

Viagra aside, the issue of chemical castration seems to be the one where I differ most from my be-phallused brethren. To me, the issue is simple. If a repeat sex offender requests castration so that he no longer fears his own worst impulses, do it. Period. End of story. Snip snip. The statistics on this back me up. From today’s story in the NY Times, in which they highlight the debate currently raging on this here side of the pond:

Dr. Martin Holly, a leading sexologist and psychiatrist who is director of the Psychiatric Hospital Bohnice in Prague, said none of the nearly 100 sex offenders who had been physically castrated had committed further offenses. A Danish study of 900 castrated sex offenders in the 1960s suggested the rate of repeat offenses dropped after surgical castration to 2.3 percent from 80 percent.

Of course, there are detractors, citing their opinions that this behavior is burned into the brain and not the testicles, and also that the newly eunuch-ed can order testosterone over the internet and resume their monstrous tendencies. To me, that seems (a) oxymoronic (If it’s all in their brain, why would they need/want to buy testosterone over the internet?), and (b) easy to fix (Back to prison witcha, mister!).

Regardless, while I agree that this type of deviant behavior is largely mental, I disagree that chemical castration can’t help. If the problem really is that the man can’t concentrate because of his need to fulfill horrifying sexual urges (as the lead-off case in the Times’ story said), chemical castration might help quell that (as the aforementioned eunuch says it has for more than 20 years). I have read some pleas for help, written to my darling Dan Savage, from pedophiles who, while they know their impulses are repulsive and dangerous, have no idea how to live without somehow purging them. Giving them some piece of mind, if they ask for it, seems…well, humane. Even if rape is only about control and is not sexual at all (an argument I buy, by the way), then I am yet to be convinced that lowering the testosterone level in someone wouldn’t help that problem of over-aggression out (I know the scientific community’s jury is still out on the direct correlation between testosterone and aggression, but the evidence is overwhelmingly…erm, coincident?).

I truly believe part of the problem in instituting this is the over-empathizing that a lot of men do with the convicts, just because they share a beloved body part. Let’s be clear here: This is not being proposed, nor should it be, as a way of dealing with any guy accused of date rape by his ex-girlfriend. Thus far, this has been used by volunteers who don’t want to feel they need to repeatedly stab 12-year-old boys to get their rocks off. (This is not to say that I wouldn’t like to see a pack of wild dogs unleashed at the bacon-wrapped crotches of frat-boy assholes with pockets full of roofies, but that’s my over-empathizing problem.)

Adding to the dilemma for the poor guys is that virtually any report you read on this tends to have sections like this:

Surgical castration has been a means of social control for centuries. In ancient China, eunuchs were trusted to serve the imperial family inside the palace grounds; in Italy several centuries ago, youthful male choir members were castrated to preserve their high singing voices.

(Huh? Weren’t we talking about it as a way to stop sex offenders from perpetuating their reigns of terror? Who said anything about creating slaves or reenacting Dido and Aeneas the way it was originally written?)

These days it can be used to treat testicular cancer and some advanced cases of prostate cancer.

(And now we’re talking about it as an extreme measure to counter death? Wait, whaaaa?)

At first, I couldn’t believe the Times printed an article with such off-topic and out-of-nowhere paragraphs in it, both of which seemed designed to portray castration in a horrifying light (which, let’s face it, isn’t hard). Then I checked. Yeah, a guy wrote it. And edited it. Poor guys could probably hardly type while hunched so tightly over their imaginarily imperiled members.

To sum up: I have long considered rape to be the most heinous of crimes, not only because of its sometimes brutal nature, but also because of the emotional violence it inflicts on its victims. They are left confused and scarred forever about one of the most intimate and wonderful parts of being a human being. I do believe that it’s a form of genital mutilation of the mind, if you will. So, yes, part of me just wants revenge-type punishment. But that would entail the aforementioned hungry dogs and fire pokers, rather than a chemical procedure. I really just think this might be a good idea.

Then again, I just watched Doubt last night, so I may be speaking a tish bit impulsively (good flick, by the by).