Thursday, December 29, 2011

why voting for gay rights is stupid

Voting for gay rights is stupid because we shouldn't have to vote on them at all.  In the Constitution is says the we are all entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It doesn't say, "except for gays." In the Bible it says love your fellow man. It doesn't say, "except for gays."  When I look at my college contract, it says treat all students with respect.  It doesn't say "except for gays."

When I served in the armed forces, the paper I signed didn't say you can talk about everything with your unit except your sexuality, even though as a woman I didn't really.  These people who have your back in emergency situations can be trusted. Not once did I think that Hans, the medic, who I knew was gay, didn't have my back, and I didn't have his.  Not once.  It simply did not occur to me.  We did talk about dates, but only slightly, as in, I had one, or Hans was busy on a given night.  No names and no sex talk.  Maybe the guys did amongst themselves, but I was never a part of it.  I did get asked for a lot of advice about girls.  (Boys are dum).

I will say that Will, our part time Lt. was kind of an ass, and none of us wanted to hear anything about any part of his life.  I am pretty sure he was straight.  Nobody asked.  Nobody cared, not because we thought it was such a big stinking secret, but because we just didn't give a toss.  When the Don't Ask, Don't Tell thing came along suddenly we began looking around a bit, but nothing really changed.  We still needed to get each others backs, that was the only thing we wanted to know.

Less than half of all adults in the US are married, and those who are married wait to get married until they are a bit older.  No one rushes to get married at the age of 20 anymore.  We wait until 30 if we get married at all. Yet, we tell a given portion of the population that they can't marry ever.

I love some of the far Christian right, who tell me that God doesn't make mistakes, and we have evidence that being gay is not a choice, so God did not make the mistake if a person was born gay.  the choice comes when you act on your desire.  Well, that is true regards of sexuality, so, okay, I will buy that.  There is no "except for"

So why are we voting on what seems to already be law, in church, in state, in our hearts?  It seems stupid to vote on a given.  Hey, everybody, let's vote on whether or not there is gravity.

What a waste of time.


Saturday, December 24, 2011

Col. Barbie

On Facebook there have been a couple of photos posted of children happily opening toy rifles, toy Berrettas and toy assault rifles.


First, why are these things "toys?"

Second, why are we giving them to children who are not able to cognitively understand why they are dangerous to the psyche.  Maybe the people who are giving them do not have a psyche, baring that, have not been in real combat.  Maybe they are just the idiots who shoot yellow road signs.

Third, why is there not a protest by the feminist body to prevent the forced masculinity training propagated by the issuance of the guns to little boys.  We protest Barbies for little girls and make up kits, arguing that they hyper-sexualize the idea of women as objects of adornment.  Why not guns and GI Joes for little boys arguing them as ways to hyper-aggression in men?  This seems a bit one sided.

Many supporters of Barbie argue that it is an adult role playing doll, and the action figure (doll) of GI Joe are examples of possibilities for adult roles that children can imagine themselves in.  I'd buy this, except I don't see any male action figures (dolls) that are lawyers or doctors or tech guys.   I have seen celebrity dolls, but no Mark Zuckerberg Action Figure.

I can hear Mattel whispering in my ear now telling me, "That won't sell. Those guys are boring."

Is that it?  Do we need our toys to be action packed, rather than mind candy? I am kind of hurt by this, really.  I suddenly want a sudoko book in every stocking.

I guess we could create an AK47 that Barbie wears with  a cute little camo outfit to represent all the women in the armed forces. But see, the thing is, that I don't want to teach our little girls to be violent either.

There are plenty of toys that promote the idea of boys as aggressive and violent.  Guns seem to be at the top of the list, and I wonder why the outrage is not louder over this.  It might be because we seem to associate the types of people who give their children toys as the ignorant hillbilly rednecks, and it is hard to argue with those folks.

Coming from that part of the country, and knowing my share of hillbillies, I am here to tell you that those those folks use guns to eat with.  They are not toys.  And I have seen more than one rifle from the turn of the century that protects the wimminfolk when the men are off shooting dinner.  It is considered a rite of passage when the child learns to shoot, and it isn't gender restrictive.

I return to my original question:  Why are these "toys?"  Boys will pick up a stick and shoot you with it.  Girls will use jam as lipstick.  It is just a game.  Let's not provide adult versions of either danger.  Sooner or later the boys will put down the sticks, and the girls will wash their face.  No need to make toys out of these things.



E Cards

Really?  for Christmas??

I am so not a fan.  Please don't bother to send me an ecard. 
It clearly shows that you don't know me at all, and the thought that went into sending it, was really, not a thought at all.

I love paper.  I know people think that paper and cards are redundant or obsolete, but not me.  As long as there is colored  designed paper and wonderful pens to write with in this world, I will be happy.

One blogger even wrote that the image of women gluing shit onto other shit is a way for them to be occupied and not claiming their own power in business.  (Occupy the Paper?) Um.  Okay.  A little angry and sarcastic and clearly not the girl who liked art.  Or whose art projects just ended up looking like a blob of glue and some torn up construction paper.  Sad.  A dear friend owns a business that does just that, and she is doing well, thanks.  (Maybe I can hook the two of them up to release Angry Girl's inner artist)

And then I get a Jacquie Lawson card in the inbox.  I LOVE these.  This woman is creative, sweet and clearly puts thoughts into her cards.  These I don't mind.  But I secretly think that they are vestiges of my Scottish Grandmother from Heaven reminding me of my heritage, and telling me in gaelic that I had better remember the true things.

The point of all of this is that if you are a writer and you love books and the written language, you don't want anything but a paper and pen card in the mail.  There is something about a person's handwriting that it truly and uniquely "them" and they don't even know it.  It is heart puller when I get one from a friend and Christmas is supposed to be all about and only about Love, so as insipid as it sounds, I feel both Love and loved when I get a handwritten card.

And yes, okay, I know it isn't very "green of me".  I recycle the fronts and use them as Tags, okay? Back off.

A bigwig tech CEO told me once that we will soon be a paperless society.  Not if I can help it.  I plan to send Christmas cards until I face down in my pudding.