1993’s Demolition Man had promise at first glance. One of the lead characters was an adventurous female with Kung Fu moves, perfect aim and, best of all, a hint of bloodlust. She plays a futuristic law enforcement cadet who is fascinated with the 20th century (now, the “old days”). She has a sort of dopey, clueless charm but maintains an air of personal tenacity and proves she has nothing short of a titanium backbone.Wesley Snipes was a psychotic criminal who gave the audience the vicarious pleasure of brutally – and with flair – outsmarting the super-whitey police force and its overlording white establishment.
What could possibly go wrong?
Well… let’s begin with Snipes’ character (Pheonix) who, despite being a bad-ass criminal way back in the 20th century, is only now “truly intimidating” due to physical and mental enhancements bestowed upon him by a white man during his incarceration in ice. The capper? Even with these upgrades, Pheonix is incapable of defeating our hero, white guy Stallone. Our warrior cries against the inhumanity, the injustice, the prejudice, the abuse, the oppression, the corruption and the racism of the white establishment are drowned in Pheonix’s unfathomable death at the hands of our hero, white guy Stallone.
Unfortunately, that’s not where the travesty ends. After Bullock’s character (Huxley) proves herself to be a first-rate marksman, the audience’s excitement builds in anticipation of her certain role in day-saving. Wrong again. Right before our hero, white guy Stallone fights the evil Simon Pheonix, he renders Huxley unconscious, promising her it’s for her own good. He then goes on to save the day alone, once again restoring white male order to the universe and defeating the evil, however somehow still inferior, black criminal. When the dust settles, Huxley actually thanks him for keeping her out of the big finale. This statement is particularly bewildering since she has heretofore shown no signs of shying from danger and has enthusiastically plunged into any and all peril with gusto and drive. An integral part of her character’s motivation was her dissatisfaction with her mundane life of order and safety.
And the cherry on top: despite her forward sexuality in an earlier scene (she outright asks Stallone if he wants to have sex), the white male order is once again restored to the universe when he literally sweeps her off her feet romance-novel-cover style and plants one on her. And she didn’t even make it on the cover.
So… yeah. Whatever.
It’s just another disappointing caucasian male ejaculation on the summer dress of egalitarian potential. Boo. Damn, I really hate the good old days.
A detective gathers clues in order to form conclusions about a mystery or crime in order to solve it. In this same way, humans (and animals) gather visual clues in order to form conclusions about the world around them. For instance, if you are in a courthouse and you observe a man with a modern, neat hairstyle wearing glasses, a sharp, black suit, expensive shoes and carrying a briefcase, what do you conclude? Likely, you assume that he’s a young attorney. However, this is merely an assumption, based on his appearance and nothing else.
Everyone has the compulsion to form immediate conclusions about their environment – that’s how we survive. We use knowledge that we have accumulated from things we’ve observed, experienced or “heard about” and apply them to our lives with the intent to avoid conflict and pursue future positive and beneficial experiences. However, at a certain point, this hasty tendency becomes worthless – even detrimental.
When people assume that black women are “sassy,” or that fat people have low self-esteem, or that girls love the color pink, or that gay guys are feminine, they begin to lose their ability to know the individual. Fortunately, there is a way to fight these automatic assumptions: PRACTICE.
For instance, I was sitting irritably at a stoplight one day and a heavyset woman was crossing. She was walking with some difficulty. I suddenly said aloud, “Wow, she is fat.” As soon as I heard myself make such an out-of-character statement, I furiously chastised myself. What made me say that?? Yes, the woman was fat. Why would I mention it or even take note of it? I hadn’t said, “Wow, she is blonde,” or “Wow, she’s wearing purple.” So what was it that prompted this inappropriate outburst? As I searched my feelings, I realized that it was my own discomfort with the difficulty she seemed to be having getting across the street. The fact is that some people have more difficulty doing certain things than others. There is no reason for that to make me uncomfortable. Well, on top of that, I felt that she was unfashionably dressed, which subconsciously indicated laziness to me. I feel great frustration when I perceive laziness, and that affected my judgment in this case as well. However, there was no possible way for me to know what type of person this woman was. She might simply not have enough money to buy clothing that I considerable fashionable or, worse yet – gasp! – she might fucking like the clothes that she’s wearing; perhaps she didn’t dress herself solely to meet my approval today. In all reality, I was becoming frustrated because what I saw in front of me was unattractive, and this prompted a disgusted reaction instead of merely an indifferent one. We are taught by the media to loudly judge and reject those who don’t meet our personal criteria for attraction. I’d executed their programming flawlessly, I thought. Sickened by my own behavior, I admonished myself for being rude and inwardly talked out my true feelings about the woman until I had isolated my true motivations and examined them carefully. That was one of several battles I’ve had with my inner prejudice and I’m certain these battles won’t end any time soon. Personal motivations can be extremely complicated and varied, and that’s what makes this particular inner conflict a long-term, ongoing one.
Many factors can affect our reactions to a person’s appearance. Aside from preconceived notions borne of personal experiences, many times when we think we have a problem with someone personally, the root of the discomfort is that we’re looking at someone we’re not attracted to. For some reason, there is a human tendency to dislike (or, at the least, avoid) people we’re not attracted to. That’s why “attractive” people are treated better than “unattractive” people. Unfortunately, whether or not a person appeals to us visually or sexually should have nothing to do with whether or not we assign them worth. It’s just another form of prejudice, but it typically goes unrealized since we humans have the uncanny ability to justify things in our own minds so we don’t look like monsters to ourselves. It’s essential to try to break down this wall as well.
Part of the problem is that we forget that the person in front of us isn’t a product to be bought or approved by us; they are human beings with feelings and thoughts, just like we are. Often, we fail to give credence to the perspectives of others, and we fail to acknowledge that WE CANNOT POSSIBLY KNOW WHAT IT’S LIKE to be them. Sometimes that’s a fact we must face and be left without answers in order to see things more clearly. For instance, I will never know what it’s like to be a black or Mexican person living here in America. All I can do is listen to these individuals and hear what they have to say, and attempt to piece together an inkling, but I must admit to myself that I will never understand life through their eyes. All I can do is try to be empathetic, find common ground in the human experience where I can, accept the fact that my perceptions may be wrong… and care.
The best we can do is try to eliminate most of our knee-jerk reactions through self-imposed behavioral modification. The media inundates our brains with suggestions that judgmental reactions and thoughts are normal, even “cool.” We are taught that judging others elevates us and proves our belief in our own status – that belief in our own superiority might someday make it true. Unfortunately, this lie has consumed the personalities of men and women everywhere and caused cattiness and backbiting where no cause for it previously existed. Fighting this indoctrination takes years of practice and it may never be mastered, but it’s definitely worth a try.
Step two is to GET MAD AT YOURSELF. You cannot skip this step. When you feel angry at yourself for a behavior, you are less likely to repeat it – or at least more likely to be acutely aware of your mistake, once it’s made. It’s like a mental spanking – when you start thinking judgmental thoughts, you suddenly recall how sore your butt was last time.
Step three is to ANALYZE YOUR MOTIVES. Where did this thought come from? Dig deep. Don’t shy away from this self-exploration. Discover the root of the problem through brutal excavation. For this to work, you have to be brutally honest with yourself.
Step four is to COUNSEL YOURSELF. Explain to yourself why your reaction was unacceptable and force yourself to take another look at that person, this time without preconceived notions or unnecessary animosity. See them as a person, a human being. Pretend you’re psychic and try to put yourself in their shoes for five minutes and see through their eyes. (Your analysis of their thoughts will obviously be inaccurate, but I find this to be an effective practice, regardless. The idea is to get yourself to care enough to try.)
These steps are not fool-proof and I can’t guarantee eventual mastery over your inner Catty Bitch, but I can promise progress and awareness. And that’s one giant leap for humankind.
Photo courtesy of Not Bad For me, Not Good For You
Here’s the problem. Most people believe that once you remove yourself from an abusive situation, everything will be fine. After all, it’s all downhill from there, right? Wrong. Even after ending the relationship, people who have experienced abuse at the hands of a partner can suffer from PTSD, a lifelong illness that never goes away. PTSD affects you for the rest of your life. And it’s not just for soldiers anymore.
PTSD stands for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. Here’s a slice of criteria from the DSM-IV explaining the causes of PTSD:
“(1) the person experienced, witnessed, or was confronted with an event or events that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of self or others (2) the person’s response involved intense fear, helplessness, or horror.”
PTSD causes physical damage to the brain. It’s literally a stress fracture. The stress imposed upon the brain resulting from the traumatic event causes damage to the hippocampus, a part of the brain involved in learning and memory as well as in the handling of stress. As a result of this damage, people suffer from memory loss, flashbacks, and delayed comprehension. But that’s not where it ends. Other chronic symptoms of PTSD include insomnia, vivid nightmares, intense psychological distress at exposure to situations or objects that resemble any aspect of the event, depression, detachment from others, feelings of impending doom or imminent death, irritability, outbursts of rage, difficulty concentrating and exaggerated startle response. Typically, people experience all or most of these symptoms for most of the rest of their lives.
Some people need just one event to trigger PTSD. One of my close friends was slammed against the wall, punched in the eye and helplessly cornered when she smashed his glasses against his face in self-defense. He threatened to kill her and she hit him with a nearby coffee mug. She managed to get away and call the police, but it was too late. She was already destined to re-experience this trauma repeatedly, day after day, for years to come. She currently has difficulty leaving the house, interacting with an intimate partner, and dealing with crowds. Her awareness has been heightened to a state of hypervigilance as a result of the damage to her brain.
Unfortunately, deliberate acts of domestic violence that occur repeatedly (or a domestic situation that causes prolonged fear on the part of the victim, as in a constant fear of your partner’s reactions) will create a more severe condition than would an attack from a stranger. Not to mention, the closer you are emotionally to your assailant, the more severe your condition will be. Experiencing trauma at the hands of someone you formerly trusted or someone you currently love causes deeper injury and produces harsher symptoms as a result.
If you are involved with an abusive partner, you might think that “good guys” don’t exist. You might think that no one really has a good relationship. You might think that relationship equality is something out of a television sitcom; something that doesn’t exist in real life. I’m here to tell you you’re wrong. There are billions of men out there who will treat you respectfully every single day. There are billions of men out there who will love you for exactly who you are, whatever flaws you may think you have. There are billions of men out there who will sweep you off your feet and romance your socks off. (And women.) YOU SHOULD NEVER EVER BE AFRAID OF YOUR PARTNER, NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIT. But if you are, consider the risks. The result may be more than you can deal with for the rest of your life. Just think it over.
Image from MediManage.com
It was recently brought to my attention that there are A-sexual individuals who populate this world right next to us indiscriminately leg-humping horndogs. I hadn’t previously considered the fact that there were people out there who had no sexual attraction to others or that there were those with zero sex drive who weren’t interested in sex at all. Once I realized this, I thought myself very narrow-minded and self-focused to never have contemplated this possibility but I tried to forgive myself because most people don’t become aware of things in a vacuum; they have to expose themselves to outside sources and influences in order to become educated and informed. That’s what reading is for. That’s why human contact with a variety of people is necessary.
Back to the point: here on this little blue marble, there is EVERYTHING, ranging from full-on “sexual addiction” to A-sexuality and ALL of it should be respected. However, use of the word “slut” points toward the complete avoidance of voluntary female sexuality. Female sexuality is only acceptable as a passive acceptance of the inevitable penis which must invade our helpless vaginas, because it is the way of things. Amen. However, if a female is utterly and completely uninterested in said penis, she is considered a deficient anomaly to be similarly dismissed and marginalized as “abnormal.”
To make things worse, our culture pushes emphasis toward the sexual median and forces all of us to walk a fine line between harlotry and frigidity, asserting that neither “extreme” of sexuality is acceptable. If we are completely uninterested in sex with others, we are defective and have issues. If we are too enthusiastic about sex and relish the opportunity to engage in every available casual encounter, we are overzealous and have issues.
If a “slut” is a promiscuous woman, how do we define “promiscuous”? By church-going, Republican-Baptist standards, promiscuity is pretty much defined as any extra-marital sexual engagement. Even a quick rub-and-tug. By free-loving, debauching, Liberal-atheist standards, promiscuity is alleged when you don’t know their first name. In the adult industry and swinging community, promiscuity isn’t a term that’s really even taken seriously; it’s considered laughable and ridiculous — however, this phenomenon is due to the commonality of casual sexual encounters and has little to do with tolerance of others. Those same adult communities ridicule those who choose not to participate with multiple partners.
The intolerance of diverse sexualities plagues our nation, with everyone attempting to shame everyone else to sexual practices that are more like their own. Don’t be gay, be straight. Don’t be slutty, be abstinent. Don’t be straight, be gay. Don’t be gay, be bi. Don’t be A-sexual, be a slut. Everybody’s human. Why can’t we just hump when we want to?
Just in case you don’t know the answer to this question, it’s PATRIARCHY. (Again.)
Why is that? Well… because that’s how oppressive, insecure men prefer their women: compliant but not too eager (lest a woman’s sex drive cause her to find a better dicking somewhere else.) And the Patriarchy is the system under which oppressive, insecure men set the cultural rules. If our cultural norms reflected female perspective, men would be similarly shamed for infidelity and promiscuity. But under current rule, there is no shaming word for men who like to fuck. There also isn’t a comparable word to the stigmatized “frigid” for men, either. That’s because men get to fuck who they want when they want – and don’t fuck who they don’t want to fuck – and they refuse to be shamed by their preferences.
Unfortunately, part of the problem is women themselves. Women help pass around the word “slut” and “whore,” eagerly slandering and belittling each other with the weapons that men happily wield against them. This is not because “women are naturally competitive.” Men are naturally competitive, too. If we lived in an oppressive Matriarchy, men would turn on each other in the same way women do in order to compete for validity. But here we are, clawing our way through the crowd to prove our sexuality and denounce our whoredom, therefore affirming our validity in a Patriarchal world. We’re truly pathetic.
Why can’t we just like ourselves and wait for the person who likes us back? Let’s stop buying into the degrading makeover reality shows and be ourselves for once; do we really believe that men will forever deny us? Are we really that convinced that we have to make out with our best friend to score dick on the weekends? Let’s fuck who we wanna fuck, labels be damned, and laugh in the faces of those who would try to insult us with meaningless references to our conquests. Let’s be proud of our sexuality, whatever it is, and deny the Patriarchy the right to shame us for what we do with our own vaginas.
It is time once again for the traditional inspection of the President’s long form birth certificate. This custom dates back to Einsenhower; when he was inaugurated in 1953, the American people naturally demanded that a copy of his birth certificate be printed in the newspaper and shown on television. People’s suspicions were founded on the premise that he was of German descent and on the fact that he simply “looked like a traitor to the American people.” They speculated on his religion, despite his claim to have practiced Christianity. His German roots simply could not escape public scrutiny. He finally put all fears to rest when he produced a copy of his birth announcement with his feet-prints on it accompanied by a birth certificate which confirmed the information found on the birth announcement, in addition to a photograph of himself as a newborn being foot-printed along with a stamped and sealed verification of his birth date and social security number, a blood sample and full medical records. As is the tradition, the President’s origins are constantly doubted and questioned by the opposing party.
Ford continued the legacy when his British heritage was found out; people demanded reassurance that he was, indeed, born in Omaha, Nebraska. He was forced to produce five witnesses who could confirm his identity, a petition proclaiming his innocence, his marriage certificate and living will, his full dental records and a court-ordered psychological evaluation. It was then that his political opponents pounced on his lack of transparency, pointing out that he’d never offered to provide his school records or his original driving permit and must therefore be hiding something. Ultimately, Ford was forced to comply with the demands of the people, and revealed the shocking truth: he got C’s in Biology.
Judging a Book By Its Cover: A Quick, (Judgemental) and Vomit-Inducing Glance at Barnes and Nobles’ Bookshelves
I found this title to be riddled with misandry and harmful to men (as well as women.) It’s a common stereotype that women marry for money. Perpetuating this perception encourages women to victimize men in this manner which prompts men to mistrust women. My brother aptly suggested that the converse of this book would be titled, “Smart Old Guys Marry For Looks and Youth: Why Rich, Old Men Should Choose A Girl Who Will Be Hot For the Rest of Their Lives.”
Looks like the main point of this book is to portray girls as ditzy, tanned and “easy.” I have nothing against being “easy,” but the positivity of sex is not exactly being embodied by this laughable anti-role-model. When you’re publicly dumb and sexual, you stereotype intelligent sluts as idiots. (Thanks, but no thanks.) She makes fun of herself for being stupid. This can not be a good sign. I also have to admit that it shames me every time a self-admitted moron is allowed to write a book. Where’s the pride in the accomplishment of book writing?? Snooki, you’re just making us girls look bad.
Anything that touts one definition of a “beautiful” beach body is total shit in my book. There are many different forms of beauty, and only one form is represented throughout the book, and on the front and back covers. This is the type of loose stool that shames women into believing they “shouldn’t” wear a bathing suit or go out in public. Clearly, since their bodies don’t look like that, they should go back inside and hide under a mumu. This is merely bullshit reinforcement of poor self-esteem.
It’s just a joke. And that’s the problem. The feminization of men is consistently a joke. What’s so funny about it? Well, isn’t it obvious? He’s… being girly! And that makes him less of a man! Which makes him weak! Because girls are weak! And that’s funny!!… I’m SO sick of hearing shit like this being spewed indiscriminately; male is the position of power and admiration – everything else is pathetic and laughable. I hate it almost as much as when I hear people using “gay” as a negative adjective: “That movie was so gay.” Gay is not a negative adjective. “Girly” isn’t either. Guys are allowed to have feminine traits. Stop trying to box men into the ridiculous masculine “ideal,” and stop telling me femininity is a bad or WEAK thing, because it’s NOT.
Why, why, whyyyy must people present marriage as some kind of inevitability?? It might be my old fashioned values talking here, but isn’t marriage supposed to be a result of true love?? So if he’s just “good enough,” then why would you get married? I personally wouldn’t even date a Mr. Good Enough, but to suggest that I marry Mr. Good Enough is ridiculous. If I were inclined to marry, I would reserve the offer for Mr. Super-Fantastic-Can’t-Believe-I-Met-Such-a-Fabulous-Guy-Makes-My-Heart-Skip-a-Beat-And-My-Tongue-Wag-Whenever-I-See-Him. And if the inference here is that “at a certain age,” you’re less likely to get many offers, then I guess that’s the way the cookie crumbles. Marrying someone doesn’t make your life happier. Period. That is all.
Nothing pisses me off more than the use of the word “gay” or “fag” as an insult. “That movie is so gay,” is supposed to automatically indicate that it sucked (not that it had boy-on-boy/girl-on-girl action) or “You’re such a fag,” is supposed to indicate that said fag (as a male) is feminine (femininity being innately bad, of course) or stupid. Being that those of us who aren’t born white, heterosexual and male simultaneously are summarily dismissed due to our “minority status” at one point or another in life, it always grinds my gears when members of a heavily-oppressed minority bash another heavily-oppressed minority group. Like when a black guy uses the word “faggot.”
Unfortunately, this particular black guy, a famed celebrity, has lead a privileged life since his youth that may not have lent itself to much empathy. But he’s not alone. Individuals of all races and economic statuses gleefully take part in homophobic mud-slinging. Why? Because, for some reason, it’s still okay to say “faggot.” The N-word went out with the “politically correct” era of the 80’s and 90’s and it’s a pretty big deal when a high-profile personality uses it nowadays. But, in reality, it hasn’t been that long since it’s been dropped from the acceptable lexicon and – even today – in some shit-brained, ethnocentric circles, it’s perfectly tolerable (if not encouraged.) There’s always the lunatic fringe to contend with. And, of course, there are all of those in the middle who don’t use the word out loud, but mean it.
So here we are again, this time with the word “faggot” – or, as Kobe Bryant prefers to use the term, “fucking faggot.” We’re back at square one, and the word can be spat in any circumstance against anyone of any color or sexual persuasion. Straight or gay, you can be called a “faggot.” Black or white, you can be called a “faggot.” Anywhere but on public television, you can pretty much get away with using this heinous slur, but fortunately Kobe Bryant was dumb enough to get caught, and justice was (sort of) served. He was fined $100,000 and then he gave this apology:
“What I said (Tuesday) night should not be taken literally. My actions were out of frustration during the heat of the game, period. The words expressed do NOT reflect my feelings towards the gay and lesbian communities and were NOT meant to offend anyone.”
Riiiight. Kind of like when I accidentally call my brother a nigger because he’s beating me in a video game. Wait a second… that has never happened in my life. Why? Because I have respect for people of all races and would never use that word in my daily speech or at any time in my life (except to impactfully illustrate its caustic, abhorrent nature.) I don’t toss the N-word around at anyone because I respect black people. I don’t toss the word faggot around because I respect gay people. I don’t use the word “gay” as an insult, because it isn’t one, and it’s despicable to infer that it is.
However, allow me to make this perfectly clear: I am not equating the African-American experience with the GLBT experience. They are completely separate and different experiences and identities entirely with completely separate and different dynamics involved. BUT… is it too much to ask that us minorities band together against the establishment’s systemic, straight-white-male supremacy that prevails in our society?
Kobe. Mr. Bryant, sir. I know you attended Lower Merion High with all of the other well-to-dos and high-profilers. I realize that you’ve been living your celeb-tastic life as though you’re invincible, and the fine they made you pay was more like a trip through the McDonald’s drive-thru… but please examine your conscience and don’t blow this off as another scandal you shrugged off or another penalty you avoided. You’re a star and people – even grownups – look to you for validation and inspiration. You’re talented. You’re loved. So please… I’m begging you… STOP FUCKING IT UP.
I speak from personal experiences when I say that it is of crucial importance for a woman to ensure her own economic independence. It’s imperative to her own well-being and also that of her child. I would never suggest that money is more important than family because for me it isn’t. I have no desire to hold a high-powered job making six or seven figures. I want only to make a decent living for myself and for my family.
Three years ago, I came to the harsh realization that for my own sake and that of my daughter, I had to leave my marriage. It was an agonizing decision made all the more so by the fact that I was a stay-at-home mom at the time. With no way of providing for myself or my child, I was terrified at the idea of leaving and yet I knew I had to for the good of everyone involved. The end result is that I have struggled for the past three years to provide for myself and my child. I could not possibly love my daughter more and had I been given the choice, I would have continued working so as not to have had to put her through this period of economic instability. Fortunately, she is very young and will likely not remember the vast majority of it but I will never forget the pain of knowing that I couldn’t provide for my child the things I so desperately wanted to provide for her. I certainly gave her all the love and attention possible but neither of those things will put food in a child’s belly or clothes on that child’s back. There were days when I cried over being unable to spend a few dollars on an ice cream or a ride on the merry go round. I would never wish that experience on anyone, male or female.
Having been a stay-at-home mom, I know how difficult the job is and how little recognition women in that position often receive. In no way am I looking down on women who choose to stay home with their children. I’m simply cautioning them to think carefully about their choices as the unforeseen can strike any of us at any time and with no warning. I certainly never expected to get a divorce from a man to whom I’d been married for five years before getting pregnant and to whom I was utterly devoted, a man I had loved so passionately for the nearly seven years of our marriage. I certainly never imagined I’d feel the powerlessness that my economic dependency brought about, nor did I imagine I’d submit to the misery I did because of this dependency. Even at this considerably more stable point in my life, I shudder to think of those dark days and of the physical and psychological toll they took on me. This book is absolutely correct in stating that a man is not a financial plan and I am living proof of this.
— Bookphile, on a book review of “The Feminine Mistake” by Leslie Bennetts
J. Crew’s recent ad for the latest $65 Coastline-Stripe Pullover and $8 Essie Nail Polish has gotten Fox in a frenzy. In the ad, Jenna Lyons and her son, Beckett, are shown laughing together with his pink-toed foot in her hand. Clearly, Essie looks smashing, even on a rough-and-tumble toddler; the ad evokes warm feelings of family togetherness and the playful abandon that your children can inspire within you. But according to the ominous paranoid ramblings of Dr. Keith Ablow, boys who play with pink might as well chop off their weenies now to save on doctor bills later: “Yeah, well, it may be fun and games now, Jenna, but at least put some money aside for psychotherapy for the kid—and maybe a little for others who’ll be affected by your ‘innocent’ pleasure.” In his conspiracy-theorist tangent, he links Beckett’s playtime pedicure to “assaults on genuine emotion and genuine relationships,” the sexualization of young girls, “split-second Prozac prescriptions,” and — the old Fox standby: ethnic self-hate — making false claims to African-American heritage and, inversely, bleaching African-American skin in order to appear Caucasian.
He further claims that the fallout of this $8 Essie Nail Polish will include: the abandonment of all gender identity, the psychological turmoil of our entire species, a mass compulsion to “grotesquely amputate body parts” (an obnoxious and outrageous contortion of the sex-change operation procedure), female-on-female violence, a society that tosses out family in exchange for sexual gratification and refuses to serve in the armed forces, and, finally, the downfall of the entire human race.
So my question is this… what about all those girls who wear pants and baseball caps? Should we worry about the girls who aren’t painting their toenails, since they’re clearly just denying who they really are? Does it take just one pedicure to destroy a boy child’s psyche, or does this irreversible damage only occur after several instances? Can boys avoid psychological destruction if they use blue nail polish?
Keith… come on, now. Put your eyeballs back into your head and get a grip.
Why did they ever get rid of Glenn Beck? At least he would’ve made a frenetic flow chart for us to follow. Perhaps Mr. Ablow’s aversion to medication is rooted in the fear of his self-diagnosis… maybe a healthy dose of Prozac is just what this doctor needs.