?

Log in

17 June 2010 @ 09:17 pm
I have a list of colleges I refuse to go to, for moral reasons. For example, I refuse to go to Duke, or even apply, after the basketball team rape case. There are schools that I will not be applying to, because they and I have conflicting values. For example, I respect women, and I do not respect abusers! That is why I will not be going to Cornell.

See, a Doctor at Cornell- Dix Poppos- decided that it was okay to cut up little girls' clits, and then assault them to "make sure they still worked."

I really don't have anything to add, so I'm just going to copy-paste the email I sent to the Dean of Cornell. I can't- I can't even start to tackle this.

I am disgusted to hear about the study conducted by Dr. Dix P. Poppas, of the Pediatric Urology Department of Cornell, entitled "Nerve Sparing Ventral Clitoroplasty: Analysis of Clitoral Sensitivity and Viability", in which Poppas (I do not recognize his title as a doctor, as I feel that no doctor would ever molest, abuse, mutilate, and traumatize children, as Poppas has) decided that he had the authority to decide exactly how large a little girl's clitoris should be. Not only did he decide that 51 small children- the youngest of whom was four months old-- had oversized clitoris', but the then decided to operate upon these children, knowing that this could end all nerve feeling in their genitalia. As if this was not traumatizing enough, he then took yearly reports to see how their sensation was in their clitoris'. These repots were done by telling a small child to lie back and tell Poppas how it feels while he molested her with a vibrator.

This is disgusting. First off, who is Poppas to decide what makes a clitoris "too large"? It is a disgusting example of the culture we live in to show how a three year old child must be cut up, because she is "abnormal". There is no such thing as an abnormal child, especially when it comes to genitalia. Men do not have their penises cut up because they are "too large", and doing this to a small baby girl does not make this okay.

Secondly, this is sexual assault, abuse, and rape. Using a vibrator upon a child is statutory rape. She cannot consent to this invasion, and Poppas should not be operating on her, let alone raping her afterwards. Many of these girls were over 5 years old when they had their first annual "check-up"- this means that they were old enough to remember a Doctor, someone who they should be able to trust, molesting them. This man used a vibrator upon small children- doesn't this offend you? Doesn't this shock and appall you at your deepest core? If your daughter, niece, sister, mother, aunt, cousin, wife, any female member of your family, told you that a Doctor had raped them as a child, wouldn't you be in an uproar?

I am asking you to review this email and be appalled yourself. This man is a stain on Cornell, and a stain upon the medical community itself. He should be thrown in jail for the rape of 51 minors, and at the very least, have this "report" looked into. This is not something that should be condoned, or funded. You are responsible for what happens at your university; this pedophile should not be housed at your university. Just as you wouldn't let an arsonist be around matches, you shouldn't let a child rapist work in a Pediatric Department.

Thank you for your quick and decisive attention to this matter.

Aly ------
 
 
02 February 2010 @ 03:27 pm
The word retarded disgusts me, which is really awfully hypocritical, considering the fact that I have said it before, and it wasn't until last year that I finally figured out that calling someone 'retarded' to mean that they are an idiot is hateful and demeaning.

So this? Makes me angry.

Emanuel's comment was reported in a story that recounted a summer strategy session in which liberal groups said they might run ads attacking conservative Democrats for refusing to back Obama's health care plan.

"F---ing retarded," the Journal reported Emanuel as saying during the meeting. A report last August recounted Emanuel as having said "f---ing stupid" at the meeting with liberal Democrats.


I don't care that it was last year. I don't care that he apologized. I don't care that it was Sarah Palin who brought it to light. I don't care that it was about health care, I don't care that he was speaking of his own party, I don't care that he just meant it as "stupid, and it wasn't supposed to be taken that way!

When someone in a high position of power, such as Rahm Emanuel, an educated, intelligent man, uses a word such as retarded, it just goes to show how absolutely acceptable these terms are. When someone as intelligent as Rahm Emanuel says that, someone who is college educated, who is in a position of high political power, someone who has to be versed in flattery and diplomacy, uses the word retarded, it just shows how absolutely acceptable it is, how it's okay to use, don't worry, everyone says it so much that it has lost any hateful meaning!
 
 
01 February 2010 @ 04:02 pm
I watch Family Guy, I'm actually a pretty big fan. Now, without doubt, there are offensive jokes in there, and a major rape joke motif. But I have never been as disturbed and offended as I was this time. The premise of it is that Peter has tried to go bull riding, and he has been bucked off of the bull. Peter is now on the ground, with the Bull standing over him.

Bull: You know what I am back at the ranch? I'm a breedin' bull.
Peter: Wha-wha-wha-what's that?
Bull: You gon' find out.
Peter gasps, tries to crawl away.
Bull: pulls him back by Peter's ankles Where you goin', fatty? We're gonna have a party!
Peter is yelling, scrambling in the dirt to try and get away, while still being held by his ankles. A fight scene starts, where the bull flips Peter, who is shouting "No!" onto his back. The bull pulls Peter's pants off, so he is now in his underwear. Peter then hits the bull, kicks him, and tries to crawl away multiple times, but is pulled back.

The scene cuts away to his family looking in shock, eyes wide, and you can hear Peter screaming. There is then other plot things happening, and the next thing that happens with the bull and Peter is this.

Peter is in the fetal position on the ground, shaking. Bull is standing up, watching him, relaxed.
Bull: I got a house on the cape. Maybe you come visit.
Peter: M-m-maybe?
Bull: stands up straighter, irate Maybe you call a few days in advance, give me time to get the house clean!
Peter: O-okay!
Bull: Maybe you bring a blazer, so we can go to a wider range of restaurants!
Peter: I'll- I'll bring a bl-blazer.



Um. Where to start?

Okay, first off, this disturbs me a lot more than other jokes that are on Family Guy. I don't know why, but I'm going to try and explore that. I think it was how blatant this was- Peter was being raped. Without any silly punch line, or hinting, this is just flat out rape- he's screaming no, and is being violated. I don't think you can get anything else from this scene. So the blatantness of it, and the fact that this is supposed to be funny?

Secondly, I don't know how this would be done if it were a female. Now, I know that there is an insane amount of rape jokes in modern media. However, I can't help but feel that, if this were a female, and not Peter, it wouldn't be as blatantly done- I can't see them having a woman being pulled around and raped. Because it's a male, is that okay?

Also, where is the joke? Look, rape isn't funny. But what I don't get is this: normally, in rape jokes, there's some type of punch line, a way for the writer to say that it was crazy edgy humor. I don't see what the punchline is. Is it when the bull is ordering Peter to wear a blazer? I just honestly don't understand.

Rape jokes suck. Rape in general, not even for any "comedic" value, crosses a line I didn't even know was drawn. It's quite literally just rape on TV for the sake of rape being on TV.
 
 
19 August 2009 @ 12:41 am
I know that a lot of community members here probably read Shakesville, but if you don't, here is one post that I strongly encourage everyone to read: The Terrible Bargain We Have Regretfully Struck.

Although my summary will not do it justice, the post is about the unintentional misogyny that comes from cismen close to oneself, as well as that loathesome position of "devil's advocate".

Let's discuss?
 
 
12 July 2009 @ 06:14 pm
Would anyone care if we had a twitter? We don't update daily and whatnot, and I'm so sure that all of you would just ~love to read 140 characters from May, Emmy, and myself, when we first hear the news. I was thinking it would be more like a, "Oh snap, guess what just happened thing." For example, if I had posted when I first heard the news Palin was outtie, it would sound like this. "Oh snap crackle pop Palin is out of office according to msnbc. so excited, but this isn't going to help her in the lower 48." Something like that. Would anyone care enough to follow?

Should We Have A Twitter?

yes
2(50.0%)
no
2(50.0%)
maybe (elaborate in comments)
0(0.0%)
 
 
 
09 July 2009 @ 12:03 am

This makes me rather uncomfortable.

Basically, what happened was that a boy called Shakilus was stabbed to death. What makes this death 'interesting' is that he was actually led to it by a girl called Samantha. She had dated him and he'd been pretty in love with her, but the problem was she already had a boyfriend, the boy who, with his mates, stabbed Shakilus to death. Samantha led Shakilus into an ambush. He died, as you may have guessed, of his wounds.

It seems pretty clear to me that Samantha committed a crime. She was responsible for taking Shakilus to the place where he died. She was responsible for cheating on her boyfriend with him.

But she did not, so far as I can tell, murder him. She did not take a knife and stab him.

The line being taken by the British press is that Samantha is totally responsible for the whole thing, including the fact that her ex-boyfriend or current boyfriend, it's surprisingly hard to tell, got his mates together and murdered a boy two years younger than him. They're calling her a 'honey trap', and basically slut-shaming the girl. This in itself distresses me, because I do not understand why they are not talking about the murderers themselves! I do not understand why they aren't blaming the boys who picked up weapons and beat up Shakilus, but the girl- except in a way I do and I just don't want to, because the whole thing reeks of sensationalism and misogynism, spicing up a story that could have been just like any other teen-murdered-on-the-streets-of-London news story, making it 'interesting'.

But do you know what else distresses me? The little glimmers of something in the BBC report that suggest that there's more to be said about Samantha than has actually been said, or that has been buried by what seems to be a very talented prosecuting QC who certainly knows his way around the English language. Glimmers like this:

Joseph admitted under cross-examination she had been bored with McLean, who just used her for sex and never took her out or bought her presents, whereas Shakilus showered her with attention and offered to buy her gifts, including a dog.

Giving evidence Joseph even claimed that shortly before he was killed Shakilus had warned her McLean had been in contact with him and wanted to set her up so that she would get beaten up.

There's also the tone of the report. It's constantly accusing. Why 'Joseph [Samantha] even claimed'? What's so extraordinary about it? That little word even changes the whole tone of the sentence, implies it's so unlikely it's patently not true. There is no sympathy for the death threats she received, and the ending of the article is sanctimonious in the extreme 'Joseph now faces a life sentence and will have plenty of time to mull over the part she played in the death of an innocent boy'. And the crowner has to be the second sentence: 'Shakilus Townsend would still be alive today if it had not been for a teenage temptress who toyed with his emotions and then betrayed him.' 

They're blaming her. Not the people who killed him. They're blaming her. What if she was frightened and wanted to save herself, not realising that Shakilus might die? Ignoble but plausible. What if she wanted out of her relationship with McLean and she couldn't escape- why is there no concern over why an eighteen-year-old boy was having sex with a fifteen-year-old girl? What about her motivations?

I'm not saying that the boy's death isn't a tragedy. I'm not saying that Samantha didn't commit a crime. I'm saying that maybe she doesn't deserve this kind of unrelenting, uncaring, slut-shaming oppobrium, and maybe the people who killed Shakilus should take more of the blame for his death. There are probably more elegant and eloquent ways of saying it, but I don't know them.

 
 
08 July 2009 @ 12:24 am

Just when you thought you'd come across the crackpot solution to end all crackpot solutions in British politics, Nick Griffin hoves into view with a corker. I honestly do not know why the government/EU hasn't implemented the policy he suggests to combat immigration from sub-Saharan Africa: by sinking the immigrants' boats. Perhaps because the (rather taken-aback) BBC interviewer hit the nail on the head when she said 'I don't think the EU is in the business of murdering people at sea'?

He came out with this gem in an interview with the BBC, a brief clip and article on which can be found here. Transcript to the best of my ability:

NICK GRIFFIN: If... there's- measures for some kind of force to stop immigration or to help say the Italians, set up a force which actually blocks the Mediterranean, then we'd support that. But the only measure sooner or later which is going to stop immigration and stop large numbers of sub-Saharan Africans dying on the way to get over here, is to get very tough with those coming over. Frankly they need to sink several of those boats- anyone coming with measures like that we'll support. But anything that is there as a 'oh, we need to do something about it but in the end, doing something about it means bringing people to Europe' we will oppose.
INTERVIEWER: Well I don't think the EU's in the business of actually, ah, murdering people at sea. But, um, I- the- you- it's interesting that for somebody who wants withdrawal from the EU, you would support an EU frontier control agency and the strengthening of that- is that what- if I understand you correctly-
NICK GRIFFIN: Well I didn't say anyone should be murdered at sea, I said boats should be sunk, they can throw them a liferaft, and they can go back to Libya. Europe has sooner or later got to close its borders, or it's simply going to be swamped by the Third World. It's the Camp of the Saints scenario. It's madness to let it go on.

Leaving aside Nick Griffin and his, uh, xenophobic outlook on life (the British National Party, which he heads, campaigns mostly on a platform of preventing immigration and being native to Britain, exciting a yelp of 'Native Britons what native Britons?!' from many people, given that the Romans, the Picts, the Saxons, the Danes, the Angles, the Jutes, the Vikings, the Normans and various other peoples have all had their way with the British gene pool before you even get into more modern immigration, but that's another story) I would dearly love to know how Mr. Griffin thinks it is possible to sail to Libya in a liferaft, and how he thinks people are not going to drown if he attempts this. How likely is it that they can swim? How are you planning on sinking these boats without injuring the people inside? Are you just going to leave them there, helpless on a liferaft? Are you prepared to let them drown, die of exposure or starvation? Let them run the risk of being squashed flat or knocked down by another boat, maybe a ship too large to see them, while they can't get out of the way- you are aware that the Channel is one of the world's busiest shipping lanes?

I very much hope that that was a throwaway comment, not honest-to-God policy.

 
 
06 July 2009 @ 06:45 pm
I'm in the midst of watching a recap of McNamara's 1995 interview on the NewsHour, and I'm fascinated by his complete and total belief in the validity of what he did as Secretary of Defense -- his deep effort to justify the efforts taken by the departments under his command.

I, not having lived through the Vietnam War, have the chance to step back and try to look at it through long-range analytical binoculars. 1960s Vietnam stands at the center of a Venn diagram of the United States (free-market, captialist, Western, supported by the elite) and the Soviet Union (communist, command economy, supported by the populace) -- and in that position, it was not alone: there are a number of other countries who were caught in that shredder, namely Egypt (who slipped out the side, thankfully, with the RCC and Nasser); it just seems like Vietnam was the worst. So that, I guess, sets up a mindset of black-and-white tensions wherein there is no chance of compromise whatsoever, and where practical fears (spread of Communism and end of Western civilization!) trump democratic ideology (allow countries to elect the leaders they want, regardless of whether or not you'll like them).

Errol Morris, the documentary filmmaker who made The Fog Of War about McNamara, has described his most defining characteristic as his deep and abiding sense of loyalty. This makes me think that McNamara was deeply loyal to this mindset, and that this led to his inability to acknowledge (until much, much later) the flaws of his personal endeavor to sustain the war effort.

One of the things that strikes me about our current president is his seeming unwillingness to allow the overruling of democratic principle, both here and abroad. McNamara seems so far to the other end of that spectrum that it makes my skin crawl.



Robert S. McNamara, Former Secretary of Defense. June 9, 1916 – July 6, 2009.
 
 
06 July 2009 @ 10:38 am
Wow! I just moved from my old apartment to another and this new one sucks. I used to live on the westside, not in a wealthy home but a nice apartment. Now I live in the east side, and trust me, it aint no joke, its scary out here! My mom usually exagerates, but not this time. She told us there was gangsters living near by and to stay away. I don't really mind about them being gangsters and living near by, all I gatta do is stay away. But how can I? When the next door neighbor is stupid enough to argue with them. They started arguing over something dumb, and one of the gangster pulls out a gun and gets ready to shoot. Wow! My heart jumped out of my chest. ( I'm in my room listening thru the window as this goes on). Me and my sister just look at each other to make sure we heard the same thing. My brother is too young to know what's going on. He asks us what's wrong. And my sister and I say "gun" at the same time. My sister goes to my moms room quickly and my brother and I follow. We tell her what's going on and all she could say is "laydown on the floor if anything happens". What else can she say? We have never been in a situation like this. She told us earlier that she was about to cry when she taught about the shitie house she put us in. So the other guy apologized for what he said wrong and it was over. Its been the worst experience I've had in my whole life! My brother is now scared to go anywhere, he's even scared to go out of a room without anyone going with him. I never thought that the "East" was a bad place compared to the "west" side (like your hear and see in movies) . But now that I'm here its SCARY! I jus hope that when my dad drinks to the point that he doesn't know what he's doing, he doesn't offend any of these gangster neighbors we now have, I don't wanna be the next person to see that gun pointed at somebodies head. Hopefully when my parents and I come back from Mexico we could move to a safer place. In the mean time were ganna have to stay on the low and away from those type of people. GOD HELP US!. Let us get thru for two or three months. Keep us safe and don't let anything bad touch us.

Its a shame what we've become. There's a lot of crime now a days. Eventhough times are hard right now people are still hurting each other for the stupidest reasons. Jesus shouldn't of have sacrificed himself for people that don't even care. The crime needs to STOP! In the town that I live in it used to be quite, peaceful, and safe to go out. But now there's a lot of youth, children, that are claiming to be in "crews". That's all they talk about. If you don't know somebody for who they are, you'll know what they claim to be in. And what's the point of that? If people don't know you for who you are then why even care to find out what crew you claim. Kids always talking about " my crews got my back, don't trip ". Yea right! I had a friend get killed a year ago, and not one of his friends has told police who it was that shot him, even though they know exactly who it was. The sad thing is that he didn't claim to be in anything he was a well known and liked guy, and they weren't even after him, they were after his friend who is now under police protection. Its a shame what these young kids put their families thru, and what they're doing with their life. They are just screwing up not only their lives but every person that knows and loves them. I pray to God that nothing like this will ever happen to my loved ones and for those who already claim to be in a crew I pray that they find any way possible to get out, its not the right way to start their lives. Its a shame and a disgrace.
 
 
05 July 2009 @ 06:04 pm
Um, also, by the way- our two year anniversary was a month and a day ago. Just like last year, when I remembered on July 5th. :D It's a tradition.

Forgetting your birthday was an April Fool's joke unless I remembered it in which case please disregard this



omg, went to philly last night for the fireworks- absolutely astonishing. It's not often that I'm captivated by something- normally I'm just like "Okay whatever let's go" about it, but these were freaking awesome.