ink_splotch: (she always comes up again [andie])
So, recently, it came to light that rape victims in England who were drunk when they were raped could receive less compensation. A newspaper, The Guardian, helped bring the story out and obviously there was a lot of outcry, because that's ridiculous and misogynistic and helps perpetrate the idea that women are to blame for their rape.

Or so most logical thinking people would think. But not Peter Hitchens, who would like to turn in his humanity card at the door (along with the rest of the Daily Mail staff, but that's a different rant). He loses extra points for suggesting that the problem is the collapse of sexual morality which rape is an inevitable consequence of. There was no rape before the 60s and that horrible feminism!

But best of all, there's this:
Of course she is culpable, just as she would be culpable if she crashed a car and injured someone while drunk[...]

Because that's a perfect analogy! And it no way makes it sound like the woman was asking for it!

(Incidentally, his brother is Christopher Hitchens, who is also hit over the head with the crazy stick. Which is also another rant for another day: England, birth place of fundamentalist atheism!)
ink_splotch: (in a blur of fluttering wings [winged])
Oh God, this story is not even half done and it's already two-thousand words longer than anything else I've ever written. I. I think I'm slightly in shock here. And I managed to exceed my word count again today (I'm trying to do a thousand words a day; today I did 1,964). I don't know why I'm so motivated about this particular story, except perhaps that it's been lingering in my head for almost four years now, and this is the first time I've been able to see the entire thing and get it to make sense. Still. Scary as all hell. Particularly since I'm just writing and writing and I don't know if it's any good at all.

Meanwhile, why can I find anyone who wants to go see OotP with me tomorrow? Argh! Stupid people and their jobs and their holidays and living in other countries.

also, people talking about the non-exsistence of global warming are pissing me off. what would be the POINT of lying about something like that? seriously? stop being morons. please. for my sanity's sake.
ink_splotch: (Mathilda is my hero [admiration])
This makes me gleeful.

Does anyone know why LJ won't let me copy text anymore? I can't even highlight the damn text when I'm posting. It's starting to get annoying.

Speaking of annoying, has it occured to Apple that their support services might be less busy, if they produced a product that works? I mean, I didn't spend half an hour calling them up, an hour fiddling around with iTunes, my iPod and the online site and then another half hour on the phone with a tech because I'm lonely. Honestly.

But the iPod seems to be slightly less crash-prone right now. And then the damn thing dies anyway.

Now, I'm going to wander off and call Leicester and try not to have any panic attacks.
ink_splotch: (republic of the imagination [read])
This article pisses me off. It does so, because the interveiwee just really, really doesn't get *the point* of Reading Lolita in Tehran. He insists on veiwing the book as a political manifest (at one point becoming angry over the fact that Nafisi ridicules the protesters at the American embassy, without mentioning the CIA led coup in 1953, among other things), and gets annoyed at Nafisi for being pro-American and pro-Western. Somehow, it complete escapes his notice that what Nafisi is commenting upon, is not whether or not America is a thing of goodness, light and candy-canes, her point is the growing absurdity of the revolution. Whatever happened in 1953 is utterly irrelevant. Nafisi is not comparing America to Iran, she really isn't, she is commenting on the absurdity, the ridiculousness, the utter inhumanity of the revolution as she saw it. Which is oddly enough why it's called a memoir, and not, say, a political manifest.

And I am not denying that it has political issues, it could hardly avoid them, due to subject matter. But if it is anything, it is first and foremost a declaration of individuality, and the regime made that political, not Nafisi.

Then again, a man who protests the fact that she uses English/American literature as the basis for her book, is obviously in a completely different stratosphere than the point.
ink_splotch: (frankly my dear [don't care])
I am not down with this cold.

I am in fact violently against this cold.

And it needs to cease.
ink_splotch: (No need to dream [otp])
1. To prove that I have no pride - I find the Gremlin movies incredibly amusing. Not good, mind - I realize they're crap, but amusing, cute crap. And Gizmo is the damn cutest thing ever to be obnoxious. (Also, it has Lionel Luthor and Christopher Lee. Mwahaha.)

2. I really need an attention span. If you find one, mail me it.

3. If you need some righteous anger, a good laugh mixed with righteous anger or a simple answer to a fandom question that'll make you laugh out loud as well? [ profile] thebratqueen's rants. Seriously. If you have ten minutes for one of them, or a couple of hours for all of them, go read. They're hilarious and at the same time incredibly hitting, and I hate to sound like a cliche, but they may change your point of view.

4. I solemnly swear that one day I will stop being a whore for run-on sentences.

4a. On that note, I wrote a fic for [ profile] contrelamontre. Personally, I'd blame [ profile] myhappyface. Really.

5. Icons!

6. And tomorrow I meet with a dieting specialist. My mother'll be so proud when she hears.

7. I love fandom. I love being a fan. I love being part of fandom. And I love you guys, the best of fandom. Just thought I'd mention it.

ETA: 8. And I love Paris. In the springtime.
ink_splotch: (every good girl does fine [flaws])
In the newspaper today, there's an debate about the artifical insemination of lesbians and single women, which is interesting for three reasons:

1. Using the phrase "lay back, spread your legs and think about the homeland" seriously. Granted, about how lesbian women should just find a random man and do as above, but it still made me giggle.

2. Mentioning mpreg. And the slipperly slope theory

3. In all seriousness suggesting that giving lesbian the right to artificial insemination is discriminating. Against men. Because see, if women can just get inseminated without all that mess with a man, wouldn't she? And so we can conclude that if women can have babies without men ---> men will disappear from the face of the earth. Yeah. I'm just getting to let that stay there for a while. Read it again. Wonder at the indisputable logic. Possibly bang your head repeatedly against a wall. Wouldn't recommend that last one.

In all seriousness though, that's one of the things that annoys me most about this whole debate. It's a lot like the arguement about how the child of a lesbian couple would have no male influence on it's life. Lesbian does not actually equal man-hater. Most of us do not live in colonies where we never, ever see men. Hell, I'd bet that a good 99.9% of lesbians have a close male friend and/or family member. We have fathers, brothers, uncles, cousins and friends of the male gender. Not so much with the hating of men. And the arguement above, in 3? Look, I know plenty of heterosexual women, bisexual women and so forth, that are with men because they love them. Believe it or not, I also think many of those women would find it preferable to babymake the old school way. Why, some of them don't even want babies and they're *still* with men. Amazing, isn't it? To think that some women choose to be with men just because they like them! But if that were true, wouldn't it completely invalidate the arguement in 3?

Yes. And if *I* can see a hole in your logic, well...
ink_splotch: (for 2004 we're in this together [electio)
Dear Stanley Kurtz, c/o The Hoover Institute

Saying 'Coincidence? I think not!' proves nothing. Nothing. And guess what? That is really all you have. You have data from Danish researchers regarding the divorce rate and the amount of children born out of wedlock, and guess what that tells you? Exactly what it says it does. The fact that 60% of first born children are born out of wedlock means exactly that.

And lets fact check for a moment.

1) You say Denmark has legalized gay marriage. This isn't true. We're a bunch of pussies who only have registered partnerships, which no matter what the Danish National Party tells you, isn't the same thing-

2) You say that the amount of children born out of wedlock has increased in the ten years Denmark has had "gay marriage". The results you have are from 2003. That would make fourteen years, sweetie.

3) You say that the divorce rate and the amount of children born out of wedlock are a direct fallout from allowing "gay marriage", yet the studies you cite show no evidence of this.

Which leaves us with 'Coincedence? I think not!' which is still not viable proof. In fact there is nothing mentioned in the studies about registered homosexual partnerships.

So how about you leave us the fuck alone, kthnxbai.

Much hate, Chris

There's a better rebuttal here. There is also an article in Urban about it this morning, with Danish researchers condemning the essay and the conclusions it draws.


ink_splotch: (Default)

April 2009

5678 91011
19 202122232425
2627 282930  


RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags