Tuesday 15 September 2009

I am genuinely terrified

OK, so looking at some pictures of Glenn Beck's "9/12 Project" protest I have come to a sobering and terrifying conclusion: the Republicans have gone fucking mental.

How I wish things could be the way they were! Sure the cynical, calculating evil of Cheney and Bush wasn't great, and the unabashed ignorance of the Palin-era incarnation of the GOP was pretty horrible too but this.... Jesus Christ.

Beck's '9/12 Project' in many ways typifies the kind of ideology these people espouse. His list of nine principles and 12 values, including steadfast belief in the nuclear family and God (presumably the Christian God). He makes a point of stressing that criticising the government is not un-American, although this kind of rights-conscious approach to political critique wasn't really in evidence when the Republicans and Fox were whining about people being mean to Bush as he was leaving office, or accusing people who said Palin was an idiot of misogyny. You only have to watch this promo video for it to see how ridiculous it is, Lord of the Rings music and all.

The popularity of the Project shows that a worryingly large proportion of the American people think he's got the right idea. And they just lap up his bullshit - from the whole ludicrous "birther" movement all the way through to the idea that recreating the Boston Tea Party is somehow relevant in 21st Century America. Worst of all is the belief - so overt in these protests - that America is under attack, that their rights are being trampled on, that the President is sitting in some ivory tower of anti-white racism and liberal superiority ignoring the will of the masses.

Well you know what Republicans? He isn't ignoring you. You just happen to be the most obnoxious and loudest people in politics right now. You lost the election. What that means for you is this: suck it up. By all means criticise and debate his policies but what happened to co-operation eh? Shouting him down in Congress, unscrupulously encouraging the spread of unfounded rumours about his birth and blocking him at every turn is not appropriate political engagement. All you're doing is alternately pulling faces and blowing raspberries, and throwing all your toys out of your pram in a series of ever-escalating hissy fits. Oh sure there are conservatives out there willing to act like grown-ups but these days they seem curiously quiet.

They're quite happy for their party to come across this way but I suspect had the roles been reversed and the Republicans were in power things would have been different. The Governor of California probably wouldn't have gotten away with threatening to secede from the fucking Union, and there's no chance in hell that a Democratic senator heckling the President in Congress would have been received with the same kind of calm rationality as Joe Wilson. There would have been calls for impeachments, resignations and a foot-stomping Hulk-out from Fox News. To be fair, it's not something particularly desirable. I like the way Obama has conducted himself with dignity in the face of tbe Republican's fuming ignorance and impotent rage, but it does give the nutters room to spread out and multiply. The '9/12 Project' is a clear manifestation of this growing lunacy in the American political system. It's as much a circle-jerk over the ol' days of living in fear and America The Conquerer dishing out righteous jugdement as it is any kind of protest agains the new president. To quote blogger Pareene on Gawker:

On 9/12, people in New York (and DC) did not feel as ‘great' as Glenn Beck, they just felt like shit. They felt scared and confused and depressed. Many of them were drunk. And only an idiot or an actual terrorist would want to always feel like it was 9/12/01... Eight years later, normal people, with brains and souls, have decided that some emotional distance from that disaster is healthier and wiser than trying to recapture the dread.

It does worry me though, that the people protesting against Obama this week are now the mainstream of their party; the opposition party of the most powerful nation on Earth. These racist, thick as pigshit, monstrously ignorant nutters represent a serious challenge for the presidency in 2012. They're undoubtedly stupid or at least, that's what I hope. When I see a picture like this, I have to believe that she's stupid, because the alternative is accepting that she thinks that advocating selling her black president as a slave is a funny concept.

The thing is, these protesters and Beckites have this idea that just because it's their opinion, it's valid. It's the same kind of thinking that goes with devout religious belief, but this time coupled with an amazing ability to absorb criticism in one ear and funnel it out the other, without it ever touching grey matter. It doesn't matter how many times you slap down their representatives on TV or point out where they're just empirically, factually wrong, they will go on thinking that Obama isn't naturalised, or that the NHS has death panels. They genuinely fear that they're going to be enslaved, that socialism is going to destroy the USA and that Obama is a Muslim.

Sometimes I do feel sorry for them, much as I feel sorry for the readership of the Daily Mail. It must be hard being pumped so full of hatred, paranoia and terror all the time. If they really do believe the kind of thing that O'Reilly, Beck et al are screaming about 24/7 then they must genuinely feel under siege. Fucking hell, if it's got to the point that children are harking back to the good ol' days of McCarthyism then how can you feel anything other than pity? To quote a wiser man than I:

You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons.


Save your rage instead for Glenn Beck and his friends over in the Fox News Fortress of Evil. They are unapologetically fanning the flames of these hysterical idiots with misleading interpretations, backwards views on morality and and flat-out lies. I happen to believe that Beck at least - if not the entire Fox News crew - do wholeheartedly buy into the bullshit they spout, but there has to be someone somewhere making the decision to whip up the lunatics on the borders of American politics into such a frenzy. It stands to reason that you couldn't run a company with the kind of mindset that makes you filter out the truth and replace it with your own little fantasy world (at least, I hope that's the case). Somehow having the whole show run by cynical, money-minded hypocrites abusing the stupidity of their audience is more reassuring than the idea that Fox and the conservative media are basically passengers on a runaway train destined to hurtle over the cliff into anarchy and madness - and taking us with them.

But what can they do now they've put the lunatic, teflon-coated ultra-conservatives in the centre of the American political stage? You can't put them back in their box! Glenn Beck et al created this rabid, raving mob of ignorant prats, crazed with fear and loaded up on guns. I don't even live in the USA but I'm still terrified. I am really really scared - in the pit of my stomach - that someone is going to shoot Obama, that one of these things is going to spill over into violence, that democracy and politics in America is going to be irreparably damaged by people who can't grasp the concept of a birth certificate, or that if you lose an election that's not the same as tyranny. It's fucking scary. They're all psychopaths and there's nothing we can do over this side of the pond but watch the whole self-destructive scene play out. We can only hope it's a passing phase and that the mature, intelligent Republicans are just waiting for the mob to thrash itself to exhaustion so they can sweep it back into the dirty corners of American politics where it belongs. Then maybe there'll be a serious debate about healthcare reform and financial relief.

Tuesday 8 September 2009

Do you know what nemesis means?

Oh dear, I think I've got a nemesis. I didn't mean to. It just happened.

There I was, reading the following jaw-droppingly offensive Daily Mail article, happy as Larry (or at least as happy as Larry can be when reading the Mail), when I saw the name of the author of the final, horrendous bit from the 'male' perspective.

David Thomas. David Dickface Thomas. The author of the sterling piece of douchebaggery that inspired me to write this last month. Well, he's done it again. I think we were probably separated from birth or something, because he seems to set me off like no one else. Clearly an evil twin situation.

In a nutshell, the article is arguing that women don't have sex because they want to but in fact because they need some shelves putting up, or they want their partner to take out the bins. They can't do these things themselves: that's man-work! As with all 'science' journalism, this is based on a book, based on a scientific study, called Why Women Have Sex. I haven't seen the science behind this book, and I'm willing to bet Liz Jones hasn't either. I don't know what controls they put on the questionnaires to ensure that the respondents were being truthful, or the exact contents of this list of why women have sex. Perhaps the phrasing "high up the list" implies that there is more to the results than the Mail chooses to pass on. Hey you never know, having sex because it's enjoyable might be up there too!

It's classic. Women aren't sexual! They don't want orgasms and good sex, they just want a loving partner. They'll prostitute themselves to have somebody care about them, that's just how needy they are! Those women who actually like sex, and don't seem interested in submitting to providing sex to their partner on demand so that he shows them basic courtesy and affection are the product of broken homes and lack good father figures. Liz, what planet do you live on?

She also peppers the piece with misandric tripe about the male sex drive being "blunt" and stunted. While you get the sense that her misogyny is fairly accidental - she sounds essentially like "I'm not a feminist but..." - her misandry is an unthinking reflex. She has absolutely no qualms about dismissing the male sex drive out of hand, characterising men as being scared of discussing feelings and - perhaps worst of all - implies strongly that men only care about sex. This 'revelation' that women only have sex with men because they want us to do some DIY around the house is to be met with indifference rather than dismay and horror. Most people I know would be appalled to find out their partner didn't have sex with them because they actually wanted to. You know why? Because men care about more than sex in relationships. Christ alive.

But don't just take her word for it! She bases all this on the findings of the book, despite no mention being made of whether any men were interviewed. So does the book discuss male sexuality in depth, probing the whys and hows behind male sexual behaviour? Probably not. It is, after all, a book about the relationship between women and sex. I would love to know how many of these bald statements about male attitudes to sex are actually based on the book and how many have just sprung fully-formed without independent thought from the brain of Liz Jones.

I wasn't exactly expecting David Thomas to leap to the defence of male sexuality, despite the fact that he's an odious anti-feminist. It would be very out of character, given that the myth that men are mindless slaves to their sexual urges suits him right down to the ground. It's a stereotype that he believes is beneficial and one he's quite happy to propagate with the following:

"A young man's relationship with his sex drive is like a dog-walker's with an ill-disciplined dog: he's led from pillar to post without hope of discipline or control."
I've already highlighted Thomas' cavalier attitude to sexual asault and rape elsewhere, but if this is what he actually believes I'm not very surprised. Worst of all he then chooses to define himself as a progressive man who loves women! They're not the "pointless, silly creatures" that all men assumed them to be in their youth (and who wouldn't, what with their hormones and shoe shopping?) but in fact real human beings. Right, look. I'm 22 years old. I am, by any definition, a young man. I know plenty of people my age and younger who see women in the way David Thomas describes and they are - to a man - disgusting examples of human beings. The idea that treating women with respect, as equals is something that it's acceptable to learn with age is unforgiveable. I understand the use of this stereotype in justifying unethical sexual behaviour, and treating women like shit, but that's no reason to uphold it.

His toe-curlingly awful attempts to appear to be more than a cave-dwelling troll succintly sum up all the reasons I hate him. Just look at this:
Women don't have to do anything to hold men in their power. Just existing is enough. Why else would men have written countless poems and love songs; why else would they have painted them, sculpted them, gone to war for them?

So what's the worst thing about this article? The fact that David Thomas appears to believe whole-heartedly that women have no desire for sex beyond needing the odd shelf putting up, or that he claims to speak for both genders with his all-encompassing comments on human sexuality? Enough has been written about how ridiculous Liz Jones is to fill several volumes, but I am worried about the increasing presence of David Thomas on these issues. What special skills or qualities does he have that give him the appropriate comprehension and sympathy to write so often on feminism and women's issues? All I've seen of him has confirmed beyond doubt that he is a massive, wrong-headed cock who has some serious problems relating to women.

Monday 7 September 2009

A slow few weeks

I've not been updating much lately, as my time has been taken up almost entirely with producing the latest issue of Secular Future, which is the quarterly magazine of the AHS

It's quite a large undertaking, and one I've got to balance with my day-job of making scientists happy and angry in equal measure (oh the joys of science publishing). I'll be glad to get this one out of the way and back to blogging!

It should be done and dusted in the next couple of weeks or so, at which point I've got an article about heresy ready to go. If you're interested, you can read the back-issues of Sec-Fu at: http://www.ahsstudents.org.uk/secular-future