Gliese 581g

That's where we should be looking for life.

      Spending all of our resources looking for the tiniest hint of life on Mars, simply because it is in close proximity to us is ludicrous.  That's like dropping your keys somewhere in the shady grass but looking for them on the sunny road because the light is better.  Don't look for something where it is easy to look for, look for something where you think you might actually find it.  

Ridiculous

Words are not actions.  Just as you can think whatever you, because we have freedom of speech in the U.S we should also be able to say whatever we want, as long as we don't act on our threats.  

       After briefly attending STLCC for a summer class I was put on their email list, to my shock these are the emails I have been receiving in the last month.  This is such a blatant over reaction to some girl's empty threats (honestly how many of us feel like going on angry rants when our financial aid is denied), and this poor girl's life will be so adversely affect by this despicable infringement of our fundamental rights.

        Speech should not be restricted, its time we started to take a stand against things such as this.

Stand up for Justin Carter as well as this poor, anonymous girl would couldn't figure out how to get financial aid at her community college.    

These are the infuriating emails I have received so far:

1.  "We are letting you know that we have contacted the student who made a threatening Tweet regarding frustration with the Financial Aid process. She has turned herself in to the Kirkwood Police Department, where she is being held in custody pending charges.

We will provide further information as we work with local law enforcement authorities. The Meramec campus Financial Aid office has reopened with an increased police presence. St. Louis Community College has a no-tolerance policy on any threats of violence. The safety and security of all our students, faculty, staff and visitors is our top priority." 

2.  "Per the St. Louis County prosecuting attorney’s office, the student who made a threatening Tweet has been released from custody pending application for a warrant, which we have been advised will be completed Thursday, Aug. 29.  The student has been told she cannot return to any St. Louis Community College location.

Again, St. Louis Community College has a no-tolerance policy on threats of violence.  Your safety and security are our top priority."

3.  "We promised to update you on the status of the Meramec student who made violent threats toward his Lindbergh High School alumni group on Facebook. The student remains in police custody and has been charged with “making a terrorist threat with reckless disregard of risk.” Bail has been set at $25,000 cash-only bond.

Again, even though the threats were not directed at any STLCC person or facility, we felt it was important to share the information with you, in the interests of ensuring the safety and security of our students, faculty, staff and visitors. If you see behavior on campus that is strange or concerns you, contact campus police immediately. IF YOU SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING!"

http://www.ksdk.com/news/article/395276/3/St-Louis-Community-College-student-arrested-for-threatening-tweets

Man Shot Running to Police For Help

I don't even know if we should trust our law enforcement officers with firearms anymore...  http://edition.cnn.com/2013/09/15/justice/north-carolina-police-shooting/index.html

Personal Conspiracy Theory

The United States might have jumped into Syria even without Assad's use of chemical weapons, maybe Assad purposely revealed his chemical arsenal in an attempt to use it as leverage in a diplomatic negotiation (with its long term ally Russia) to prevent other countries from interfering in its civil war.

The chemical weapons were just there so they would have something to concede to the rest of the world and seem cooperative.      

Syria: The Ultimate American Headache

The reason I haven't visited this blog for so long is because I've been turning the Syrian dilemma over in my head, trying to form a solid opinion.
   
No, honestly I've just been doing homework and playing a lot of video games.  And truth be told, I cannot decisively give my opinion on U.S intervention in Syria, because I don't have one.  (ikr, shocker).

This may seem similar to an earlier post I made concerning the country, because as of now I still have not made up my mind.  However, new dramatic things have happened since then.  As you know, the Assad regime has used chemical weapons on the rebels, and Obama is asking for congress's approval for military action.

First off, props to Obama for not simply rushing in and fucking us up.  The last thing we need is another Iraq.  Obama knows that however (notice the asking of congress, the no boots on the ground), hopefully we can be a little cleaner the second time around.  Also notable differences:  Obama is (hopefully) not lying to us about Assad's use of chemical weapons, as Bush did about Sadam Hussein's possession of weapons of mass destruction.  Also, there is no economic incentive for us (no evil ulterior motives), and we will be less disruptive as the country is already a warzone.

That being said, there is also no 9/11 to enrage the public.  That means that if Congress gives Obama the green light to missilize the Syrian government, the American people will be pissed.  As they should be, war is bad.  Sometimes it's necessary, but war is bad and should be avoided at all possible costs.

That's why I think a slow calculated approach is the right approach.  

Once Again, the Nation is Evenly Split

http://yourather.com/494/ballsy

How Missouri Does State Fairs

    Video of the event

Now you've probably heard about this situation, its been all over the media the last couple of days.  A Taiwanese exchange student filmed a video from his cellphone at some backwoods nowhere land of Missouri where a rodeo-clown was impersonating president Obama.
     
Now, first off I should say that as far as presidents go, I think Obama has done a fantastic job.  Sure he frustrates me sometimes, but on the majority of issues I agree with him.  However, that does not mean I'm about to go screaming bloody murder and racism like every other liberal seems to be doing at the moment.
     
There are people out there who are likening this tasteless prank to actions of the KKK.  I think that comparison is disgraceful to all the innocent blacks who were lynched and beaten back when real violent racism abounded.
       
Why are people upset?  It's not like this is the first time a president has been mocked or humiliated, the art of poking fun at presidents goes back to the very beginning, its a fundamental byproduct of democracy.  In fact, from what I can recall we made fun of Bush in a much more vile manner (not that he didn't probably deserve it), but that's besides the point.  What I'm trying to say is that dressing up like presidents and goofing off at rodeos is a part of our culture, it will never go away and never should go away.
     
I think a better indicator of how much racism still exists in this country is actually how little mockery Obama has received when compared to previous presidents.  Even people who disagree with Obama often refrain from voicing their opinions on subconscious fear that they might seem racist.  That does not condone a healthy democracy.
     
In an ideal world of course, people wouldn't make fun of presidents, they would only make fun of the presidents stand on specific issues and then engage in rational debates on the subject.  But in a rodeo, and especially in my home state of Missouri, they are gonna roll around on the dirt regardless of who is president so who can blame them for expressing their political views in the only way they know.      

Satires of Bush
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yTbL93RrzY&list=PL7C4A17AD74963AB5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EkqrI3IibYI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qVS4hUkiyk

Satires of Romney
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxch-yi14BE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnAQXLMJIg8

Satires of Clinton
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hU3CYs77Ku4

Satires of Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehYoIKTsiV0

From an Atheist

About Every argument against god summed up in a minimally offensive and entertaining way.  This channel has it all.   http://www.youtube.com/user/DarkMatter2525/videos


My favorite of his Videos
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODetOE6cbbc

The Injustice to Justin Carter

The big news right now is the Trayvon Martin case the and the acquittal of George Zimmerman, but I believe an even bigger american injustice is the treatment of Justin Carter.
   
      Justin Carter, a nineteen year old kid, was having an argument with his friend on facebook about a videogame.

      Friend (paraphrased): "You're crazy!"
       
      Justin Carter:  "Oh yeah, i'm so messed up in the head, i'm going to go shoot up a school full of kids and eat their still beating hearts.  Lol.  Jk!"
       
      Now as a teenage boy I can testify that things like this are said on a daily basis.  Just a little while ago I sent an email to my friend with "go fuck yourself with a razor blade, jk" at the end of the message.  Completely in jest, he was not offended.  It's almost a game among us, to see who can come up with the most violent, descriptive and offensive things to say.
     
      The only difference between me and Justin Carter, is that i'm lucky and he lives in Texas.  Also, I don't have some stalker in Canada reading all my facebook posts and sending complaints to the local police.  Justin was arrested, jailed, and held at 500,000 bail.  Fortunately an anonymous donor met this price, and he is free right now, but he could go back to jail any moment and face up too eight years in prison.  That is a third of his life, for saying one sarcastic joke, he even tagged 'just kidding'  for clarification!
     
      The most destructive element of terrorism, is the fear it creates.  That is the secrete weapon terrorists have that as Americans, we are falling victim to.  Why do you think the bombs at the Boston Marathon were designed to amputate limbs but leave victims alive to tell of the terrors?  Wire taps, wars with innocent countries, the stockpiling of my personal information, I can tolerate all that, but by infringing on our freedom of speech the government has taken a step too far.
     
      If you can be arrested for what you say on facebook, the beautiful wild place that is the internet will soon be turned into a polite society of terrified citizens.  Even if the majority of people aren't prosecuted for what they say, the fact that one faces eight years in jail will make everyone more cautious.  The government doesn't have to monitor all of us, it is enough that we know that we can be arrest for what we say, if so we will be too afraid to speak our mind.
       
       Honestly what Justin said isn't even the worst statement on the internet, I doubt it's even close.  Compare his words to that of common pop rappers in the mainstream culture of the youth....
           
           Eminem:  Well since age twelve, I've felt like I'm someone else
                          Cause I hung my original self from the top bunk with a belt
                          Got pissed off and ripped Pamela Lee's tits off                         
                         And smacked her so hard I knocked her clothes backwards like Kris Kross

    

           Tyler the Creator: I'll Crash that fucking airplane that that faggot nigga B.o.B is in

                                       And stab Bruno Mars in his goddamn esophagus

                                       And won't stop until the cops come in 

           

           Game:  Wolf Grey Jordans use his intestines for the strings

                        Snatch up Rihanna and throw her in front of a fucking train 

                        Sniff a fucking unemployment line of cocaine

                        Tie Lil B up to a full tank of propane  

I don't see any of those individuals facing eight years in prison for what they said in their songs?

           

Christ, sometimes I want to bomb the capital of Texas and eat the still beating hearts of whoever created this crackpot justice system. 

Lol Jk 

More Info

Sign Position to help Justin

      
     

Snowden vs. The World

Heroic whistle-blower to some, anti-american espionage agent to others; Edward Snowden raised a lot of controversy when he leaked confidential information about questionable government activity to the public.
     
     I don't however, believe we should focus entirely on prosecuting Snowden in this scandal, the second guilty agent is our own governments.  So far as I understand, Snowden exposed that the government was gathering data about phone communications, such as when certain calls were placed and from what numbers.
     
     This breach of privacy I don't believe is very severe when compared to the wiretaps during the Busch administration, or even when compared to the unregulated intake of information our government currently has access to in our online communications.  I believe there's no reason the government shouldn't be able to monitor phone calls, especially if that is essential to stopping acts of terrorism or protecting citizens.
       
      But there's a key difference between the government's access to our online interactions and their access to our phone records.  We had no knowledge that they could access our phone knowledge.  This, as far as I am concerned, is the actual crime.  I don't understand why it was necessary for the government to try and hide this function of their espionage service, other than protecting the president's public image of course, but by keeping their phone-record surveillance a secret, they turned it from a form of protecting the American people into a secret weapon that could 'potentially' be used against us.
   
      I believe Snowden deserves a meddle for exposing this furtiveness.

After all, we are a democratic nation, so how can we decide when to sacrifice privacy for protection when the majority of us aren't privy to the sacrifice.         
       

Teenage Alcohol Consumption

I'd like to start by saying that I don't believe prohibition is an option.  Alcohol is a fundamental part of our culture, and trying to take it away from people will only cause trouble (just look at the twenties).  Sex and alcohol were the reason humans settled down and developed civilization in the first place, so what kind of sad society would we be living in where those two things weren't readily available.
       Now obviously, there are problems with alcohol, such as drunk driving, the addictive effect it has on certain victims, and excessive teenage consumption.  The reason teenagers are so good at drinking and so bad at stopping (as demonstrated in recent movies like Project X, and TV shows such as Skins), is  because during the vulnerable stage of their life when they are learning how to drink moderately, instead of having guidance they are forced to indulge in secrecy.  They have no mature adults present to suggest when they've had too much.
     Of course, there's a good reason that it's illegal for youth to purchase or possess alcohol.  Until the brain is fully formed I don't doubt that there's a large risk poised by alcohol (although this didn't stop Victorian children from drinking beer three meals a day).  But is the excessive age limit of 21 really a wise decision?  In many countries alcohol is legal to citizens at the age of 18, but only mild alcohols such as beer and wine.  That way they have time to learn moderation before they are introduced to stronger concoctions.
      Anyway, this was a rather neat article I found about global age limits for drinking.      

 http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/LegalDrinkingAge.html 

Neil Armstrong Screwed Up

I love how politically correct spell check is, it wants me to replace mankind with Human kind.

Syria

So seriously, as often as they talk about it on NPR I feel like i'm rather ill informed when it comes to this global crisis, the only thing I know is that no one can agree on what to do about it.
       So there's an ethnic war, between the minority in control of the government (and weapons etc) and the oppressed racial majority who are fed up and would like to eradicate the ruling class from the world.  Lovely right.  But it's not that simple because there are Chemical weapons involved, and the U.S obviously doesn't side with the Syrian ruling class cause they have been doing various heinous things, but on the other hand it doesn't want to arm the rebels and risk creating another Taliban.
       Actually repeating past mistakes seems to be high in the minds of every American, no one wants another wasteful Iraq war, but many people more experienced than I argue that the two countries can't be compared.
       But it is still war, and I think American interference will probably only raise the death toll...I think.  But i'm really not informed well enough, all I know is that we should try to avoid at all costs repeating the mistakes of the past.
       But maybe this is a war we actually should be involved in, unlike the Iraq war.  The difference is Obama doesn't have the public's support the way Bush did when he fed off of 9/11, so becoming involved in the Syrian conflict might be more difficult.  Which again, might be a good thing.
       

The Boston Massacre

The problem with the great gun debate is that it is more complex than people like to pretend.  The NRA especially seems to be incredibly close-minded when it comes to compromise and civilized debate.

         The heart of the problem is the second amendment, a part of our constitution that specifically states that American Citizens have the right to bear arms.  Our constitution is over two hundred years old however, and we need to take into account the fact that weapons have changed dramatically since then.

       In 1791, when the second amendment was adopted, the most advanced weapon was a flintlock musket with a bayonet at the end.  Muskets were so inaccurate, slow, and cumbersome that many soldiers carried swords for close range fighting.  Part of the logic behind the second amendment stemmed from the massive American debt at the time.  Early presidents particularly Thomas Jefferson made massive cuts to the U.S military, trusting that if America was invaded the American people would be armed and ready to defend their homes. 

       In 1945, the first atomic bomb was dropped in the Trinity Nuclear Test.  Nuclear weapons are powerful enough to literally destroy the planet, obviously the right to bear arms does not include such devastating devices.  It’s clear that individuals can’t own missiles or drive around in tanks, it wouldn’t take long for some psycho to march into a school or church and wreck havoc.  Why then should automatic weapons be legal, when they can be just as devastating? 

         Today, as I’m sure you know, someone bombed the Boston Marathon.  This tragic event raises a new issue in the debate over guns.  In our wonderful age of the internet and instant information it is easy for any malicious person to make their own homemade explosives.  Basically, in our overpopulated world there will always be someone who wants to bomb a Boston marathon, and there will always be ways for them to find weapons, so the only thing for us to do is lock ourselves in our homes.

          Thankfully, there aren’t that many insane people.  People who shoot up schools get all the media attention, but the majority of gun violence occurs from completely sane individuals.  Anyone can lose their temper.

          The thing about losing your temper, or being startled in the night, is that your moment of weakness only lasts a few minutes.  That’s not enough time to go create some explosives.  With guns being so easily available however, plenty of people who never plan on using them have deadly weapons within their reach, and in that split second of weakness they can destroy someone else’s, as well as their own future.

           I believe the right to bear arms should extend to weapons that allow weak persons to defend themselves from strong persons, such as an old-fashioned musket, and not to weapons that allow you to massacre large groups of moviegoers, school children, or tired joggers.

Info on the Bombing:  The 2nd Boston Massacre 

Here's an opinionated video I made on handgun restrictions last summer.  Watch it with a grain of salt, it is mostly sensational.  But still, the argument remains.... 

         

               

More on Feminism

Feminism is bad.  Gender equality is good.

Now I should probably warn you that the guy in this video is a little rude.  Actually he's a huge dick, but after sifting through his profanity to get at the meat of the argument he raises an interesting point that I think furthers my argument from before.  
       Feminists fail in their quest for equality, because they have gone over the extreme end.  Our planet is confused because half of the world is still oppressed by patriarchs while the other half is trying to be subjugated by radical matriarchs.
       Why  can't we all just live equally, and also respect each others freedom of speech, geeze.

So, if you feel like listening to an incredibly annoying guy rail against some unbearably annoying women protesting a meeting to discuss inequality for men.  Here's the link:
Lose Faith in Humanity        

Passover vs. The Easter Bunny

I think an important function of religion that people tend to overlook nowadays, is the call for self sacrifice.

      Now obviously it's a bad thing to go chopping off your limbs to satisfy some blood thirsty deity, but when people are challenged by religion to fast every now and then during Ramadan or eat some nasty-ass Gefilte fish, it can only be a good thing.  Traditionally the main part of Easter was lent where you would give up something you enjoyed to represent, on a slightly less severe scale, the sacrifice of Christ.

      In modern times that's apparently too hard on people however, so most passively religious folk prefer to hide eggs around the yard and give candy to their children.
      I think if religion has a place at all in modern society, it is to build people's characters by teaching them (hopefully) good moral conduct, and by pushing them outside of their comfort zone so that Sunday mornings can't be occasions for sleeping in and holiday meals can't just be wine and Charoset with no Maror and salt water.

Why Marriage Equality is an Important Issue

My music teacher has been married for thirty years.

      Just this summer, his husband became sick.  For the last eight months, my lessons have been sporadic as my instructor has been in and out of the hospital with his husband. 

       Yesterday, the Friday of March 29^th, his husband went into surgery to have the infection removed from his leg.  My teacher apologized for having to cancel my lesson again, and I told him that I understood, he needed to be with his husband through such serious surgery. 

        To my surprise my teacher informed me that he wouldn’t be by his husband’s side, he would be in the visitor's room or even, after nine PM, waiting in the parking lot for the visitor hours to reopen the next morning.  Directly after his surgery, only family members would be allowed to visit my music teacher’s husband.

       See the problem is my music teacher’s husband is not actually his husband.  As a gay partner in a state that doesn’t recognize any forms of same-sex marriage, my music teacher doesn’t qualify as a family member, and would be forced to visit his husband only as a friend.

           Does that affect his husband’s likely hood to survive the surgery?  Probably not.  But the mental hurt that must he must feel, not being allowed to see the person he is closest to after his surgery, may have a very real effect on his recovery.  Any heterosexual couples in this situation would take it to court, many gay couples however, have come to accept the fact that they are second class citizens in the eyes of the law.

          And that is what needs to change.  It’s not about the tax benefits or divorce protections that come with the label of marriage, it’s about the label itself.  It’s the difference between living as two really close friends, and living as a single married entity. 

Support DOMA

Or the gays will procreate and come rape our women and churches.

Genetic Engineering

Genetic Engineering isn’t as complex as it sounds. 

      

Regardless of how different two species appear, their genetic composition is largely the same, which means that specific genetic traits are compatible in a variety of different hosts. Mice have been modified with the gene from a firefly to glow in the dark like a light bulb.  These mice experienced no harmful effects, because mice DNA and firefly DNA are hardly different at all.  The gene for luminescence continued to function properly, simply using a mouse as a medium instead of a lightning bug.

        

Humans share 98.5 % of our DNA with chimps, approximately 85% with zebra fish, around 36% with fruit flies, and about 15% with mustard grass.  All living organisms are closely related. 

       

Usually people don’t imagine animals being genetically altered, but in reality, research into animal modification is well underway and cows that deliver pharmaceuticals in their milk have already been developed.     

Picture of luminescent Mice: http://kidsblogs.nationalgeographic.com/2009/05/14/glowing-animals-gallery/ 

Amusing Website for Shared Genes:  http://genetics.thetech.org/online-exhibits/genes-common         

Are genetically engineered foods dangerous for your health?  No.  Genetic modification is a way of speeding up a completely natural process; unless geneticists were to purposefully engineer crops to be toxic, tweaking the structure of the plants won’t harm us.  Despite this, and because of public outcry, genetically engineered foods are forced through rigorous testing before being sold.  Genetically modified foods are actually the safest options on the market because they are screened for afflictions that slip by in traditional crops. 

      

Why then, is there so much opposition to genetic engineering?  Well, one explanation is that genetic engineering poses a very real risk to the environment.  Sometimes, crops are modified to be so resilient they spread beyond farmland and take over local ecosystems, destroying bio diversity.  As a solution, scientists have engineered modern crops to not reproduce independently so that they won’t spread beyond where they’re planted, but this has proved unpopular among farmers who are then forced to buy new seeds every year. 

         

Sometimes genetically modified foods are engineered to be resistant to a specific pesticide.  After they are planted, their fields are then doused with massive amounts of that chemical, killing off everything besides the intended crop.  This, as you can imagine, is not the most environmentally friendly use of genetic engineering.  On the bright side, in recent years scientists are moving away from that by developing crops with natural insect repellent inside of them, so that pesticides will no longer be necessary.

       

Gradually we are becoming more aware of the tools’ environmental implications, and we are engineering to avoid them.  Our world is home to seven billion people, and organic farms are not efficient enough to feed us all.  Rather than choke our fields in chemicals that are potentially harmful to ourselves and the environment, why not invest in something that has the potential to coexist with the natural elements of our world?   

Anti GE source,

“What is Genetic Engineering?”  ucsusa.org.  2003.  Union of Concerned Scientists.  Web.

February 24, 2012.    

http://www.ucsusa.org/food_and_agriculture/science_and_impacts/science/what-is-genetic-engineering.html   

Pro GE source,

“Food:  How Altered?”  enviroment.nationalgeographic.com   Ed. Jennifer Ackerman.   2012. 

The National Geographic Society.  Web.  February 24, 2012.  

http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/food-how-altered/

  

Women In Refrigerators: Part 2 of Why I Hate Feminists

A few days ago, I watched a YouTube video explaining the Women in Refrigerators phenomena.  The speaker in this video, Anita Sarkeesian, basically stated that pop culture is evil because a common occurrence in stories (this study focused on comic books), involves women being brutally murdered to set the plot for their male counterparts to avenge them.  Sarkeesian also complained that when male superheroes die, they tend to come back to life, whereas the women are never revived. 

     
Now I don’t have a problem with this study as a whole, I agree, though less common than the rescue damsel in distress cliché, the avenge mother/wife card is overused.  However, there is a very good reason for this.  Comic book authors want to deliver the best story possible, and there is nothing that develops a character like killing off his girlfriend.  Why do men come back and women stay dead?  You might ask.  This answer is even easier, in super hero comics, usually the male superhero is the main character.  You can’t kill him off and expect to keep making money.  Maybe if Women in Refrigerators had looked a little closer they might have realized that sexual equality in superheroes is pretty standard in series that don’t follow a single individual, such as X-men or The Avengers.  Of course, there’s always the question of why aren’t there more female leads in superhero comics….again the answer falls back to authors trying to deliver the best product.  It’s easier for a male cartoonists to identify with a male subject and write a good story from a male’s point of view.  Also, the comic reading demographic is largely male, and a protagonist of their same sex is general appeals to them more.  So in the end, in this particular case of sexism, I don’t believe it’s the oppressive grip of a patriarchal society that causes of super heroines to be brutally murdered, but actually the fault of females themselves.  Less females read comics, so in turn less females write comics, and as a result we have less female protagonists and more chopped up in the refrigerator. 

        
      In reality that was just a little thing that set me off, and probably wasn’t worth the rant I wrote about it.  Still, it is just one of the examples of failed feminism I would like to point out.  

Women in Refrigerators Video:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DInYaHVSLr8

Women in Refrigerators Website:  http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WomenInRefrigerators

A Crisis of Sexism and Why I Hate Feminists

Anyone who doesn't believe sexism is the most old world, closed minded part of our culture is kidding themselves.  Sexism makes present day racism and sexual orientation discrimination appear unimportant by contrast.  And yet, despite its omnipresence, the outcry against sexism is one of the most flawed, non-progressive battle cries I've ever heard.

      Feminists focus on the wrong things.  They rail against pornography and sports, but often excuse women who cook all day, or schools that separate young men and women.  It’s a complicated mess, as anything so ingrained in our culture becomes when you try to unravel it.  The worst part though, is the women who try to pretend like they are the victims of sexism.  Women are not blacks, or Jews, or Gays or any minority at all.  It’s 50/50. Sexism goes both ways, and both men and women are equally responsible for its existence.

The Problems with Sexism

1)      Segregation in schools.  I live firmly by the belief that, “Segregation never brought anyone anything except trouble,” Paul Harris.  Even though that quote targeted racial segregation, the same applies to sexual segregation.  I understand its practicality in certain circumstances, such as public restrooms, but separating boys and girls for something as important as their education can only lead to inequality. 

2)      Changing acceptance standards to accommodate females.  I believe true, hardcore feminists will agree with me here.  There’s no reason women can’t perform at the same level of men, unless it’s a test of physical strength in which case women should either bulk up or get out, but not ask for the weights to be lowered. 

3)      You can’t pick and choose.  If there is perfect sexual equality in the workplace and domestic life, which I hope will one day be the case, there are certain privileges women must share with men.  We are past the age of letting women off the titanic first (as if their lives are more important than ours).  We are past the age of holding the door open for them (that should be reserved for the elderly or disabled, or actually anyone if you’re a polite person).  And we are past the age of paying for women on a date.

4)      Women don’t feel more pain than men.  Yes, domestic abuse is terrible.  Slapping someone isn’t domestic abuse.  Or, if it is, than every time a woman slaps her husband for saying something inappropriate she should be locked away. 

5)      Sex, pornography, and mini skirts.  Showing skin is not a sign of sexual oppression, quite the opposite.  Throughout history, the most powerful and free willed women have come out of cultures where sex is casual.  Sexually objectifying women on the other hand, occurs in places where women are viewed as sexual inferiors (in terms of the amount of pleasure they experience).  Places where genitals are mutilated and men tend to keep women covered up so that other males aren’t distracted by ‘their’ property.  If you see a woman walking around barely clothed, you may be offended, but in terms of sexism she is taking a stand against a culture that has forced women into dresses for generations. 

6)      Don’t look down on Muslims.  Sure, Burka’s may not be the most open minded thing, but it is exactly the same way in this country.  It’s illegal for women to walk around topless isn’t it?  Why’s that?  Males can walk around without shirts on, is it just about the breasts?  Should we make really fat men wear bikinis?  What about flat-chested women, is it okay for them to be half naked?

7)      Being a mother is not the hardest job in the world.  A ditch digger has it worse.  Mothers aren’t angels, and women aren’t the only ones capable of raising children.  A devoted father can replace a mother just as easily, and women should not only allow but insist on this.  They need a break now and then, and they shouldn’t have to clean the diaper every time the baby poops.   

8)      Guys need to be accommodating.  If your wife works, you can take the dinner shift every other night, or maybe clean the bathroom, or possibly help watch the children.

9)      Sexisms starts in childhood.  The damage is done before they even learn to read or write.  As soon as the doctors stick the boy babies in the blue ward and the girl babies in the pink one, they are on the path towards sexual segregation.  Young girls become obsessed with princess movies and play with dolls.  They learn to depend on men and raise children.  Young boys look up to male remodels who are assertive and fight their way through adventure movies.  Boys play with Lincoln logs and bouncy balls, which give them a head start in problem solving and hand eye coordination.  I think parents need to be a little more observant when their children are maneuvering infancy.