ink_splotch

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!)

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.

I am not down with this cold.

I am in fact violently against this cold.

And it needs to cease.

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...