Like Chuck Norris, Jesus lost his virginity before his mom did

Via Pandagon: Chuck Norris responds to Chuck Norris Facts with a roundhouse kick in the name of Jesus. On WingnutDaily.

Alleged Chuck Norris Fact: "There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live." It's funny. It's cute. But here's what I really think about the theory of evolution: It's not real.

Like Chuck Norris, Jesus lost his virginity before his mom did

Via Pandagon: Chuck Norris responds to Chuck Norris Facts with a roundhouse kick in the name of Jesus. On WingnutDaily.

Alleged Chuck Norris Fact: "There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live." It's funny. It's cute. But here's what I really think about the theory of evolution: It's not real.

New layout!

It's done! And mostly how I envisioned it. (I wish I could play with the fonts—I had to change the title* so that it wouldn't overlap with the image—and colours a bit more.) But otherwise, I'm pretty happy with it.) It's more chipper than I generally feel, but I was never too happy with the brown one.

I vow to stop fiddling with it for awhile. No one really looks at it except me. But hey, I have to look at it every day. So there.

* Okay, it was an obscure reference, albeit not as obscure as "The Christie Pits Memorial Softball Team," which no one got (it's a reference to the 1933 Christie Pits Riots). "Don't despair; the whales have survived" is a line from Neville Shute's On the Beach, which I must have read over a decade ago, and it still resonates with me as one of the darkest punchlines in any novel, ever.

New layout!

It's done! And mostly how I envisioned it. (I wish I could play with the fonts—I had to change the title* so that it wouldn't overlap with the image—and colours a bit more.) But otherwise, I'm pretty happy with it.) It's more chipper than I generally feel, but I was never too happy with the brown one.

I vow to stop fiddling with it for awhile. No one really looks at it except me. But hey, I have to look at it every day. So there.

* Okay, it was an obscure reference, albeit not as obscure as "The Christie Pits Memorial Softball Team," which no one got (it's a reference to the 1933 Christie Pits Riots). "Don't despair; the whales have survived" is a line from Neville Shute's On the Beach, which I must have read over a decade ago, and it still resonates with me as one of the darkest punchlines in any novel, ever.

A short rant on veils and the self/other divide

Well, will you look at this? I seem to have gotten myself into another one of those veil debates. And as luck would have it, there's a token plucky neo-conservative piping up with that brave LGF battle cry, "I will not be a dhimmi!"

(Can we start making neo-cons be dhimmis? Please? I'd love to hear the ring of little bells to alert me when I'm talking to someone with no moral conscience or shred of sanity. Although I can usually tell.)

It's funny how male dress seldom comes under such scrutiny. I remember a bit of controversy around Sikh turbans when I was a kid, but reason prevailed in that case. I have no faith that reason will prevail in the countless small fires raging around the wearing of various veils by various Muslim women living in Western countries.

Here is the rational response to veils. Forcing women to wear them is wrong, except in specific contexts*. Forcing women not to wear them is wrong, except in specific contexts**.

Western culture, however, seems to abandon reason when it comes to certain things: food, sex, war, and women's clothing. To give an example of the first—I'm a vegetarian. I'm not a fussy eater, and there are rare times that I can't find something to eat, especially in a restaurant. You'd be surprised at the number of people who feel threatened by my dietary choices, though, even while they're not directly affected by them. Simply asking a waiter if something contains meat has been taken by dinner companions, on occasion, as an invitation to lecture me about my health, my ethics, and my lifestyle. My choices were actively offensive to these people, who responded in an instinctual, irrational manner.

But that's a small inconvenience compared to being a woman living in the West and having to wear clothes outside the house. Almost any choice one makes will be considered unacceptable by someone, and subject for public debate (clothing debates being a subset of the belief that women's bodies, in general, are the business of the general public). Your shirt is too tight? You're a strumpet to the Christians. Your pants are too baggy? I've been lectured by Darleen-who's-not-a-dhimmi in the past about the inappropriateness of baggy pants. You're wearing makeup? You're a tool of the patriarchy to the radfems. A girl can't win. (And this is where the argument of the veil-as-feminist-act does hold some merit: It screams "my body is private; not for you." Which is not everyone's reason for wearing it, and besides, you'll end up with someone complaining that you're being "rude.")

Anne Applebaum, who was the subject of the original post, and Darleen both seem to feel that if a woman's clothing decisions make them uncomfortable, said woman does not have the right to make said clothing decision. This, in spite of the division between "self" and "not-self" that we were all supposed to understand by, oh, about age two. My impolite dinner companions did not recognize that my choice to not eat meat did not affect their choice to eat meat, and similarly, these women do not understand that other women's choices*** do not actually have an effect on them beyond making them feel uncomfortable. And while the West recognizes, at least on paper, the right to religious freedom, it does not recognize the right of Darleen to be accommodated at all times by those around her.

I think there are a lot of folks out there who would be well-served by repeating kindergarten. It's rude to stare at people just because they don't look like you. Just because you want someone else's oil something doesn't mean that you're entitled to it. Your own freedom stops at someone else's body.

I'm constantly astounded by how many people just don't get it.

* You should cover your hair when entering an Orthodox church or a mosque.
** Maybe being a lingerie model isn't the profession you should have chosen.
*** And yes, that choice is qualified by social pressures. As is the choice to wear makeup. And heels. But I don't see Darleen raging about those things.

A short rant on veils and the self/other divide

Well, will you look at this? I seem to have gotten myself into another one of those veil debates. And as luck would have it, there's a token plucky neo-conservative piping up with that brave LGF battle cry, "I will not be a dhimmi!"

(Can we start making neo-cons be dhimmis? Please? I'd love to hear the ring of little bells to alert me when I'm talking to someone with no moral conscience or shred of sanity. Although I can usually tell.)

It's funny how male dress seldom comes under such scrutiny. I remember a bit of controversy around Sikh turbans when I was a kid, but reason prevailed in that case. I have no faith that reason will prevail in the countless small fires raging around the wearing of various veils by various Muslim women living in Western countries.

Here is the rational response to veils. Forcing women to wear them is wrong, except in specific contexts*. Forcing women not to wear them is wrong, except in specific contexts**.

Western culture, however, seems to abandon reason when it comes to certain things: food, sex, war, and women's clothing. To give an example of the first—I'm a vegetarian. I'm not a fussy eater, and there are rare times that I can't find something to eat, especially in a restaurant. You'd be surprised at the number of people who feel threatened by my dietary choices, though, even while they're not directly affected by them. Simply asking a waiter if something contains meat has been taken by dinner companions, on occasion, as an invitation to lecture me about my health, my ethics, and my lifestyle. My choices were actively offensive to these people, who responded in an instinctual, irrational manner.

But that's a small inconvenience compared to being a woman living in the West and having to wear clothes outside the house. Almost any choice one makes will be considered unacceptable by someone, and subject for public debate (clothing debates being a subset of the belief that women's bodies, in general, are the business of the general public). Your shirt is too tight? You're a strumpet to the Christians. Your pants are too baggy? I've been lectured by Darleen-who's-not-a-dhimmi in the past about the inappropriateness of baggy pants. You're wearing makeup? You're a tool of the patriarchy to the radfems. A girl can't win. (And this is where the argument of the veil-as-feminist-act does hold some merit: It screams "my body is private; not for you." Which is not everyone's reason for wearing it, and besides, you'll end up with someone complaining that you're being "rude.")

Anne Applebaum, who was the subject of the original post, and Darleen both seem to feel that if a woman's clothing decisions make them uncomfortable, said woman does not have the right to make said clothing decision. This, in spite of the division between "self" and "not-self" that we were all supposed to understand by, oh, about age two. My impolite dinner companions did not recognize that my choice to not eat meat did not affect their choice to eat meat, and similarly, these women do not understand that other women's choices*** do not actually have an effect on them beyond making them feel uncomfortable. And while the West recognizes, at least on paper, the right to religious freedom, it does not recognize the right of Darleen to be accommodated at all times by those around her.

I think there are a lot of folks out there who would be well-served by repeating kindergarten. It's rude to stare at people just because they don't look like you. Just because you want someone else's oil something doesn't mean that you're entitled to it. Your own freedom stops at someone else's body.

I'm constantly astounded by how many people just don't get it.

* You should cover your hair when entering an Orthodox church or a mosque.
** Maybe being a lingerie model isn't the profession you should have chosen.
*** And yes, that choice is qualified by social pressures. As is the choice to wear makeup. And heels. But I don't see Darleen raging about those things.