From a recent tweet by James Martin:
A woman gives birth in the UK every 48 seconds. She must be exhausted.
Which reminded me of a recent conversation I had about the surprisingly dangerous skills of deer:
Every year, somebody’s dog gets killed by a deer. It’s always the same person. They never learn. You just shouldn’t have a Chihuahua in Churchill, Manitoba
Obviously, the original intention is for neither the same woman nor the same dog owner, and the humour comes from violating this expectation, but why are both readings available in the first place?
Hold the Phone”! bc there are multiple scope taking expressions in the deer sentence meaning that there many more readings available than just 2. what if it’s the same dog that dies every year? and what if there’s just one murderous deer that’s responsible? these meanings can be analysed as the expressions taking different scopes. semantics is hard
Oh true! There’s a SOME (existential quantifier, if you want to get technical) over both the dog/dog owner and the deer, so combinatorily that’s several more readings available. I think six? Or are readings (1) and (4), (3) and (6) equivalent?
1. a particular dog, a particular deer, every year
2. a particular dog, every year, any deer in general
3. every year, any dog, any deer
4. a particular deer, a particular dog, every year
5. a particular deer, ever year, any dog in general
6. every year, any deer, any dog
(Sorry for the rather bloodthirsty example sentence by the way.)
Now I want to read the short story about the dog that keeps getting killed by the murderous deer and gets brought back to life, only to be killed again the next year on the same day. Forever, into eternity.
I DID meet a fake geek girl once. Turned out she was in fact an assortment of squirrels in a trenchcoat.
Those squirrels sure did know a lot about Batman, though.
A lot of men (and probably other genders, but mostly men) like to creepily hit on people (usually women) in contexts in which it’s not ok to hit on people. (Eg: on the subway).
Girls start experiencing this before they’re considered old enough for sex ed.
Creepy men regularly do this in a way that’s slightly deniable.
Like sitting way too close. Or asking an almost innocuous thing. And it feels really horrible to be on the receiving end, but it can be hard to put your finger on why. And if you object, the man who started it will try as hard as he can to say you’re being unreasonable. Often, bystanders or people you tell afterwards will empathically agree and tell you he was just being friendly and that didn’t have to be rude.
This is not your fault. It’s not your fault that creepy guys are awful to you, and it’s not your fault that people punish you for refusing to cooperate with their creepy actions.
There is usually no polite way to object. Because they manipulate the rules of politeness so that you have to be rude to say no.
It’s ok to be rude in that situation.
Being in that situation doesn’t mean you’re a rude inconsiderate person. It means you’re asserting an important boundary in the only available way.
Most of these guys know exactly what they are doing. It’s not innocent awkwardness. It’s a different thing. It’s doing something they know they can probably get away with denying that they’ve done.
(People do sometimes do this kind of thing by mistake, too. But it’s not ok then either. And most people who do this, know damn well what they’re doing.)
Steve Rogers is not afraid of strong women.
Steve Rogers is not afraid of strong women.
Stop it with the fic where Steve is terrified of Natasha, or Maria, or Pepper, or guh, Darcy. I guess people think it’s cute, or whatever.
Seriously. Strong women don’t make Steve scared, they make him swoon.
The only thing Steve is afraid of is that strong women won’t like him.
Acting like Steve is afraid of women also ignores one of my favorite moments of the movies, where Steve isn’t sure if Clint can be trusted, but he looks to Natasha and it just takes one nod from her for Steve to be okay with it. He respects people who know what they’re doing, male or female.
Earlier today I posted about the promo card left developed to promote the Austin based Capital Comic Con. Here’s another look at the card.
I reached out to the contact on their web site, Aaron Luevano who told me by email that he was aware of the card and approved it telling me”I asked before it was designed, many approved.”
A reader also posted about the promo card on the Facebook page for the convention and she sent me the response she got:
"I have to wonder if you’ve even been to a comic con."
So that’s it. They did it. They admit it. They think it’s funny. And when a woman calls them out on it they snidely dismiss it.
Once again that’s the Capital Comic Con of Austin, Texas.
Well, that’s awful and disgusting and awful.
This was actually said by a prominent member of the Men’s rights community on Reddit who then proceeded to get 24(!) upvotes:
Wearing a skirt has consequences. If we use state violence to protect women from the consequences of her choice to wear a skirt, we remove her agency. This man didn’t assault her, didn’t touch her… all he did was take a picture of what her choice in clothing exposed to the public.
How is that criminal to the point of deserving of state violence upon him?
This is saying that protecting women from the consequences of their choices in clothing is more important than men’s freedom.
Now that’s what I call a real men’s rights issue. Could you expect anything less from a hate group?
Screencap (and more info) over at the always excellent Man Boobz.
Mens Rights Activism: hard at work defending sexual harassment.
men’s rights: where a man’s right to sexually harass a woman based on whether they’ve decided she meets some standard of “modesty” she has no say in, should supersede a woman’s right to basic personal boundaries and human decency.
men’s rights: when a woman freely making the choice to do whatever she wants with her own body, not affecting anyone else in any way, needs to “accept the consequences of her actions”- but men who choose to harass women shouldn’t have to face any consequences for THAT choice, even though it hurts someone else.
men’s rights: a “movement” (purposeless online misogynistic circlejerk) where rights are defined as behaviors that you feel entitled to carry out without being even mildly criticized for it, no matter how many other people are negatively impacted by that behavior.
men’s rights: where being asked to show basic human decency towards women is “infringing” upon a man’s freedom not to do that, even though that is how a society is supposed to fucking function. because fuck them, you shouldn’t have to consider other human beings when you make your choices. how dare they?
men’s rights: you got yours (basic human rights). so fuck everybody else. now, let’s talk about how poor people don’t deserve to earn a living wage, because then the services you use every day might cost you an extra $20 per year.
men’s rights: a movement dedicated to preserving and forwarding the rights of men to continue the subjugation and abuse of women.
I’m so embarrassed to share a gender with these pieces of shit.