I believe that the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.
I believe all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of kinship, love and tolerance.
I don't believe in distinction of any kind, such as
- race, colour, ethnicity, nationality
- sex, gender identity
- sexual orientation
- language, culture
- religion, spirituality
- political opinion
- any opinion
- origin (social, national or any other kind)
- age
- weight, size
- looks, beauty or lack of it
- disability or illness, visible or invisible, of mind or body
- property, wealth
- birth
- other status or identity

Sunday, December 30, 2018

Bishop Donald Sanborn about #metoo


I have an opinion on his opinion. It stinks.

He opens by saying that some men's conduct in the regard of women who have suffered from the sexual assaults of men is deplorable. "Some men"? So - there are men whose conduct in regard of sexually assaulting women isn't deplorable?

"it is also true that the conduct of some women is deplorable as well"
That sounds very much like you are blaming the victim of the assault... not cool. But, let's hear what you have to say. I fully acknowledge that there are women who sexually assault men and men who are victims of sexual assault, and none of that is OK. The conduct of EVERY SINGLE PERSON sexually assaulting another person is deplorable.
AND THERE ARE NO EXCUSES.
Really, the only "excuse" is "I am sorry, I misunderstood. Yes, it was incredibly stupid and wrong, you did nothing to deserve it, it was all my bad, and I will not do it again. I am seriously very sorry, how can I compensate for my deplorable conduct."

But, no, he is not talking about female sexual predators. He is talking about ordinary, normal, modern women. He thinks the deplorable conduct of women in case of being the object of a sexual assault is:
- dressing immodestly
- putting themselves in public room
- interacting with men

He proceeds to talk about women's fashion. I don't know where he got his ideas from, but it doesn't have much to do with the actual fashion.

"Never in the history of women’s dress, up to about 1918, did women wear skirts above their ankles."

Elbows, Ankles and D├ęcolletage: Myths of 18th Century Women’s Fashion Part 1

"To show one’s bare arms was a sign of a prostitute."

This woman is not a prostitute.

"By the 1920s women’s clothing had undergone a radical transformation. So did their behavior. With the advent of the cinema, and especially that of Hollywood, the “glamor girl” look became fashionable, as well as the flirtatious activity which accompanied it."

Well... if you actually knew anything about fashion, you would know there was never anything radical about any of it. Every change was firmly anchored to what was going on.

The hemline started to rise when women were expected to work. In the peasant society, women always wore short skirts. You can't work well with a skirt that covers your feet. Long sleeves get caught up with everything and get wet and so on. Women who work have always rolled up their sleeves and (oh, immodesty!) revealed their elbows. So with the industrialisation and wars and all that going on in the end of 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, women's fashion responded to the times by becoming more practical. The men's fashion became more practical as well.


With industrialisation, ordinary, common people could get wealthy, even rich. Together with that, there were more young people who didn't need to work, and with the invention and popularisation of cars, the dresses become more free.
In the 20th century, the hemline covered the knees. It wasn't before WWII and lack of material, when the hemline started to rise again.
The 50s fashion is a reaction to the 40s "unfeminine fashion". In the 40s nobody wore a corset. In the 50s everybody did. In the 40s, fashion was very practical. In the 50s, it was all about looks.
In the 60s, the corset was gone, once again, and the clothes weren't tight. Yes, miniskirt was invented, but the fashion icon was Twiggy, who had very straight body. 60s dress was basically a sack with holes for head and arms. Then in the 70s we were back to covering everything.


When it comes to sexual revolution, one only needs to read erotic literature to know that the women of 20s weren't more flirtatious than their mothers and grandmothers, nor more liberal with their sexuality. The 60s sexual revolution was basically two things.
1) the development of contraceptives and women's healthcare
and
2) the radical idea of women being human beings

Women's sexuality is not in any way different from men's. We all have sexual desires, we all get attracted, we all enjoy sex. Women are not more virtuous or fidelitous than men, men are not more slaves to their animal urges and desires.
The temptation is the same.
The difficulty to withstand the temptation is the same.
The sin is the same.
The moral standard should be the same.
A man who has slept with 10 women is not less a slut than a woman who has slept with 10 men. (The average sexual partners normal people, men and women, have IN THEIR LIFETIME is 4.)
Virginity is a myth that has absolutely NOTHING to do with reality.

"But the 1960’s saw the miniskirt, something that the human race had never seen on decent women since the dawn of mankind. "
"human race", huh... These are Himba women. They belong to an isolated tribe in Southern Africa, where rape outside the marriage is rare. (Now, inside the marriage... they practice sort of wife swapping, where the husband can offer his wife to any man he likes, and she has no say to it. This practice has nothing to do with their "immodest" clothes. Now... if a "black African savage" can control his male urges, why can't a "civilized white man"?)

"Hollywood became extremely immodest in both dress and behavior in the 1950s. It was the prelude of the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Marilyn Monroe was a typical example of this degenerate tendency."

Jean Harlow was the first "blonde bombshell" in the 30s. It was actually the sexual liberation of 60s and feminism that killed this "trend". All the sex bomb movies were created by men. It was a male fantasy. All the pinups and "men's magazines" and sexy bimbos is male fantasy and a male image of what women should be. Marilyn Monroe didn't dress up as she did and didn't behave as we think is typical for her when she was in control of her clothes and behavior. She was playing a role, given to her by men. All the "degenerate tendency" of Hollywood you lament is 100% men's responsibility. All the sexual abuse and exploitation in Hollywood is 100% men's responsibility. Men have the power, men are responsible.

"Most of the “victim” ladies in these cases look like lascivious women, and probably did much to cause the assault."

They probably did nothing to cause the assault. Assault is ALWAYS the responsibility of the assaulter, never the victim. How ever the victim teases, provokes, instigates, invites, challenges, signals aso, because a good person, a decent person DOES NOT ASSAULT PEOPLE. Not sexually, not any other way, not women, not men, not children, elderly, animals or any other living creature.

People don't generally want to offend their employer, and definitely not a person they want to employ them. Most of the Hollywood sexual assaults happened to young women (or men) by a man in power. A man who was taking advantage of her innocence, her uncertainty, her ignorance and her wishes and dreams. She was trying to get a job and to play the role she thought he wanted he to play, so she was doing her best to look as pretty and sexy as the society keeps still telling women we have to be.
(Come on, just look around. How many ads for makeup, cosmetics, clothes, diets and exercise do you see? How many of them are directed to women and how many to men? What other ads do you see directed to women? Are you aware of that the advertisement industry uses only 40% of resources to ads directed to women, even though 80% of purchases are done by women? And women buy half of all the high-tech and cars, whereas all the ads are directed to men?)
So, when women manage to be what is expected of them, you sexually assault them and tell them it's their own fault. Evil.

Women left their homes and went to work, not because of the birth control pill, but because the world wars taught women that they can do the job just as well as men, and because the wars decimated the amount of future husbands. After the wars, there were a lot more women than men who could marry. If you didn't get a husband, who would support you? One has to live somehow. So, women went to work. Their daughters and nieces found out that there are other options for a girl than becoming a housewife or an old maid needing to live on someone else's charity. One could actually earn one's own money, get one's own apartment and support oneself. One's worth no longer depended on marriageability.

Especially, when the moral environment was what it was. The "French Postcards" existed long before the 50s. Nude calendars were produced in the 19th century. Pin-up picture was coined in the 40s. The Playboy magazine was founded 1953. The Apartment came out 1960.

Prostitution has been legal in Europe since forever. It was only after WWII when it became illegal and brothels were forced shut. This was mostly done by women. One could assume, the 50s ultrasexualism in USA was a reaction to this. Men who had been at war were used to having loose relationships, and wanted to keep getting the milk without buying a cow, and as it has always been possible to say to a girl who got pregnant "it's not mine" and not take any responsibility of the child, they wouldn't marry. Now, when the men weren't doing their part in raising children, why would the women stay at home?

No, we have always had - and still have - women who want to be moms and take care of the home and children. If they find husbands and their husbands find jobs good enough to support their families, wonderful. If not - you would want them to become a burden to their families, and if they had no families, what then? Go live on the street and die? Become a prostitute? Have 5-6 children or more and no roof over their heads, no food on their plates, no clothes on their bodies...?
No. Birth control pills and other contraceptives were developed because they were needed, not so that people (women) could have freely sex without consequences.

And when you have been independent, you don't want to go back to slavery.

When you are freed from the responsibility of having and raising children - A FREEDOM MEN HAVE HAD SINCE THE BEGINNING OF MANKIND - you only have children you know you can raise.

"Little by little decent people were asked to tolerate more and more immodesty."
By whom?
Men.
Men were film producers, television producers, advertisers, men owned the companies, men hired the people, men wrote the manuscripts, men chose how to portray the women, men designed the fashion, men set the expectations on women. Men created the nude calendars and pin-up pictures and men's magazines, men owned the stores and paper stands that sold them, men made women into objects of their sexual lusts. Men created the sex objects, not women.
Most women in sex industry are there trying to do what they are told to by men, or what they think is expected of them by men, or because they believe their sexuality is their only worth. A lot of women are there against their will. Most women in sex industry - if not all - have been raped at least once in their lifetime, and quite a lot before their 15th birthday. By a man.

"men and women have been thrown together into situations which are very dangerous. Women are daily interacting with men in the workplace. In many cases they are dressed in such a way as to be immodestly attractive to men. The inevitable result is that, unless the men in the office are very vigilant about the virtue of chastity and fidelity to their wives, some very bad things take place."

Interacting with people in the workplace shouldn't be in any way dangerous. If you can interact with a man without trying to rape him or without thinking nasty thoughts, you can interact with a woman without seeing her as a sex object. It's not what she is wearing or that she's a woman, it's your own mind, it's the thoughts you allow yourself to think. It is your own programming that makes you think that it's OK to look at another human being and reduce her into an object.

I confront you, Donald, and Saint John Chrysostom with Jesus's words.
“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her (covets a woman) has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
Matthew 5:27-28
SHE hasn't committed adultery with you. YOU are the only guilty one here.

Also, THIS is normal work clothes for women today. There's nothing immodest there. Nothing everyone doesn't see all the time. Nothing not one adult today hasn't seen every day of his life. You are not saying you have a hard-on 24/7 because you have to interact with women dressed up like this. If you do, you need to see a doctor. And a psychiatrist.


Also, "unless the men in the office are very vigilant about the virtue of chastity and fidelity to their wives, some very bad things take place."

You don't steal everything you lay your eyes on, even if you want it, because you know it's wrong. There are situations when this can be hard, but in most situation you don't even need to think about it. 
You don't go murdering people, not even slapping them, just because you'd like to, because you know it's wrong. Again, there are situation where this is really hard, but in most cases it's just a fleeting thought.
You don't do a lot of things you might want to, because you know it is wrong, and it doesn't take much extra vigilance or effort. I do it every day quite effortlessly.
GET INTO YOUR THICK HEAD THAT SEXUALLY ASSAULTING WOMEN IS WRONG.

You might need to "steal" food because otherwise you would die of hunger.
You might need to hurt another person, even kill them, in self-defense.
BUT YOU DO NOT NEED TO SEXUALLY ASSAULT ANYONE FOR ANY REASON.

If you need to be "very vigilant about the virtue of chastity and fidelity to their wives" to not do things you know are wrong, there's something very, very wrong going on. WITH YOU.

"The reason why there was, in past times, so much modesty in women’s dress, and the reason why women stayed mostly in the home, is precisely that men have a very hard time controlling their sexual desires."
No. That's just a very bad excuse.

A man sexually assaulting a woman is more like a dog biting a human. When this dog bites the people and refuses to obey, it's not enough to keep it on a leash and putting a muzzle on it. No, this dog is put down. And you are telling me a man has less self-control than a dog and I am supposed to see him as a respectable human being?

"Although men are principally guilty, the women are partially if not equally guilty. In many if not most cases their dress is sexually enticing, and their conduct with men often invites sexual advances."

Temptation and Sin

If you cannot resist the temptation, if you cannot avert your eyes and flee the temptation, then you are not a man.

"Most of the “victim” ladies in these cases look like lascivious women, and probably did much to cause the assault."

It's like saying "most of the "victim" gentlemen in these cases look like wealthy men, and probably did much to cause the mugging". "Most of the "victim" homes in these cases look like wealthy homes, and probably did much to cause the burglary". "Most of the "victim" gentlemen in these cases look like... what? what do people look like to warrant them being beaten and murdered?

Also, "victim"? You are practically questioning their story. You are saying they weren't sexually assaulted. You are saying they are lying.

"Other cases of assault occur in situations in which men enjoy much power and influence. Sports figures are often guilty of this as well as politicians. There seems to be an aggression that occurs in men as they advance in power and/or fame. Women should not be close to any environments such as these."

No. If there is an aggression that occurs in men as they advance in power and/or fame, they should very vigilant when advancing in power and/or fame, or preferably not be close to any environment where such things might happen. One could even question why any man would want to advance in power and/or fame, as it seems to make them all sexual predators.
No. There are men in power and fame who aren't sexual predators, who do not sexually assault women, or assault anyone in any way, form or manner. Which means that this "aggression" is not real. It is just another excuse. Men are still 100% responsible of their own choices and actions and sins and crimes.
The solution is not for women to stay clear of these men, but for the men to CONTROL THEMSELVES.

"While women should not look odd by returning the mode of dress in 1912, they should nonetheless take all the steps necessary, even difficult, expensive, and inconvenient, in order to avoid being an occasion of sin to men, and thereby inviting upon themselves outrages by unscrupulous males."

No. It is not women's duty to try to stop men from sinning, IT IS EVERYONE'S PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO NOT DO BAD THINGS.

God will not ask you if you were tempted. God knows you were.
God will ask you why you gave in to the temptation. Why you didn't resist.
God knows you knew it was wrong and you still did it, and even accused the victim of your sin for it.
And God will not be happy. No, sir, God will not be happy with you.

Saturday, December 29, 2018

Confessions for the holidays

confessions for the holidays


I was with him until " I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period."

I believe in God and I have never been pushed around. Of course there are people who think I'm an idiot for believing in God. I don't care. I don't think my God cares either. I don't find it in any way offensive that people wish me "happy holidays" (in fact, it feels nice, inclusive), or "merry Christmas" (it feels nice, too. :-D) I like it when people wish me well. I don't mind it when people curse me, threaten me and tell me I'll go to hell. I know those people have nothing to do with my relation to God.

I don't mind it if people tell me to keep my exercising my religion to myself. I believe one's religion is a thing between oneself and one's God. Now, people yapping about my pentagram, the way I dress, or my usage of words, that's not OK, but - I know it's not me, it's them. They are just being rude and intolerant. So - I don't care much. I won't stop wearing my pentagram. I am a proud Pagan and I'm not afraid to show it.

I do mind when people don't keep their exercising of their religion to themselves. I do mind when my education is interrupted with prayers to a God I don't believe in. I especially mind when my space is invaded by a culture that has harmed me.
I shouldn't need to tolerate a Nazi flag, and I shouldn't need to tolerate the symbols of people who has been persecuted my people for centuries. And I really don't care that to you the Federation Flag doesn't stand for racism and persecution of Black people. Proudly display it in your own home.
And, yes, the Christian symbols are really as strongly negative as these symbols to some people. Now, I don't mind nativity scenes and plays and angels and all that. I have some objections to some Christmas songs, but what irks me most is "Jesus is the reason for the season". It is offensive. It is ignorant, it is selfish, self-centered and callous. It is also wrong. Solstice is the reason for the season. MY religion, faith and spiritual beliefs, MY people are the reason we celebrate Midwinter. So, sure, there's a war on Christmas, but it was the Christians who started it some 1700 years ago. It is OUR party. You MAY celebrate it because WE are kind and generous, but you MAY NOT hog it!
Infuse your holiday celebrations with any symbolism and meaning you wish to, but don't assume that's the actual meaning. Only 200 years ago people celebrated Christmas by fasting the day and going to church. The Pagans celebrated Midwinter with lavish foods and fun and games, coming together and partying, and even the gift giving is Pagan. The Pagans decorated their homes with evergreens and decorating trees with beautiful things is so Pagan it's a wonder any Christian ever thought it wasn't. But - that's one of my pet peeves.

Separation of State and Religion:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."- Thomas Jefferson, 1802
If you can't find anything in the constitution about the separation of the state and religion, it's because you don't understand the text.

I believe in the separation of state and religion. Why?
I believe a Christian shouldn't need to hear Pagan prayers and shouldn't need to see Pagan idols in their everyday environment, and especially not in the environment they must visit. Pagan idols belong to Pagan homes and temples.
AS I BELIEVE IN THE GOLDEN RULE, I, A PAGAN, SHOULDN'T NEED TO DEAL WITH YOUR RELIGION.
I shouldn't need to see Christian (or Jewish or Muslim or any other) idols, icons and attributes in the public area (churches, temples etc. should, of course, exist, and should be accessible and respected), I shouldn't need to remove myself from the common rooms if I wish to not listen to Christian prayers, Holy Book being read, etc. etc. The only place for religion in schools is the classes where religion is being taught and in private clubs and so on. If the Christians in school wishes to have a prayer circle and Jesus club, that's fine. But it may not interfere with the regular, general, equal education, just as the other clubs and leisure time activities may not. You are not excused from biology class because you need to pray.

ESPECIALLY WHEN YOUR HOLY BOOK TELLS YOU TO PRAY IN SECRET AND NOT MAKE YOUR FAITH AND RELIGION THE BUSINESS OF OTHER PEOPLE.

And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocritesare: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues andin the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men.Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.Matthew 6:5

"where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God?"
Who says you aren't allowed to worship God? We are saying you need to do that in private, in your places of worship, in your homes, not that you may not do that. Why do you need to display your worship in public for you to feel you "may"? Why do you need to flaunt it?
And who says you should worship celebrities? Is there some... er... Britney-Spears-mass or George-Clooney-day in USA? Where symbols for these celebrities are displayed in public places and people are forced to listen to the teacher or mayor or some other authority talk about their adoration of these people? Because there sure aren't any such days or celebrations in Sweden. The people who worship celebrities are generally regarded as more or less silly, like "Twihards" or "beliebers". They at least keep their worship for themselves and just intensely hate the haters. They aren't forcing everyone to listen their songs, scriptures or discussions with their idols, or watching the movies or what ever their celebrity idol does.
In Finland there's always a lot of Christian things in public television on Christmas and Good Friday. They will always broadcast at least one nativity movie on Christmas and at least one Jesus' life and death movie on Easter. As I said, Good Friday was even more so, because EVERYTHING broadcast on that day was built around Good Friday. Just think of a religion you don't much care about (like, I don't know, Satanism?), and think there's a day when everything around you, in television, in public, in stores, on the streets, everywhere, is about that religion and some single event important to that religion. Do you still think it is OK and people are overreacting when they tell you to keep your faith out of the public, general, common environment? It really is a question of consideration and "doing unto others".

So, this is not OK: "'I believe God is deeply saddened by this, just as we are, but for years we've been telling God to get out of our schools, to get out of our government and to get out of our lives.And being the gentleman He is, I believe He has calmly backed out. How can we expect God to give us His blessing and His protection if we demand He leave us alone?'"

I have not told God once to get out of my life. I have told the Christians to get their religion out of OUR schools and government. Why aren't the Christians "gentlemen"?
Hurricanes, earth quakes, tsunamis, all the natural catastrophes happened even when the state and religion were inherently bound. You are not blaming non-Christians and people who wish to keep the state and religion separated for natural catastrophes!

If Madalyn Murray O'Hair was murdered because God didn't protect her, because she didn't want God to, why are "good Christians" and "good Jews" murdered?
Madalyn Murray O'Hair's kidnapping and murder was a horrifying piece of history that had nothing to do with her beliefs, and shouldn't be used as some sort of rhetoric point. That's really not speaking well of the author's morals.

The secular humanist and atheist morality says "do not murder people, do not take things that belong to other people, do not do to others what you don't want to be done to you". That's basic human morality we learn in the kindergarten. It has always been "it's good to do things I like when done to me, and bad when things are done I don't want to happen". I don't want to be killed, I don't want my loved ones to be killed, so I don't kill. It has nothing to do with religion, Christianity, the Bible or any Holy Scriptures. This is human morality. People who can't read follow this.
Also, when prayers and Bible reading was a habit in schools, people were still hurting others, murdering people, stealing their things and what not.

Dr. Benjamin Spock was 100% correct about his views about spanking. I was not spanked and I am not a murderous a-hole. The prisons are full of people who were physically punished. Frankly, if you cannot solve a problem without violence, you shouldn't be responsible of anyone's well-being. Spanking parents are despicable. Yes, spanking teaches kids that "might is right". And just look at the USonian general attitude today. "If you don't do as I tell you, I'm going to force you to!" "I'll kill you if you don't!" "I'll start a war!" "I'll punch you on the nose if you don't shut up!"
I have a strong conscience, more so, because my parents were intelligent and kind people, who taught me to use my own intellect to separate the right from wrong, who spoke with me about my errors and wrong-doings, who made me understand the consequences of my choices. My siblings brought up their children with the same principles, and they are all good people.
In Sweden, spanking is illegal, and the Swedes are less murderous people than the USonians.
So, no, spanking is not the reason why people get a conscience. Spanking is the reason why people think might is right and if you don't get caught, you can do anything.

Dr Spock's son didn't commit suicide. His grandson did. The boy had mental health problems. BUT YOU WILL NOT USE SOMEONE'S SUICIDE TO MAKE A POINT. That's despicable as well.

"Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell."
Funny how easy it is for some people to equate themselves with God.
Separation of the state and the religion is not trashing God. It's separating the state and the religion.
The world isn't going to hell. The general morality of people is better than it was 300 years ago, when the whole Western world was Christian. Secular humanists are among the most moral people in the world. You don't need God to be good. If you do, you are not good. If you do what you think God wants you to do (and that that is revealed to you in a book or by some authority), and think godless people are bad people and immoral people, you don't know the difference between what's good and what is bad.
Besides, if God can't take some trashing, God isn't worth to be considered a God. God isn't petty.

"Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says."
The newspapers should be reporting facts and if a newspaper is found out to report not facts, they are being reprimanded and if it happens more than once, people won't believe what that newspaper says.
Now, what one holy scripture says is often something different from what another holy scripture says, and when it comes to the Bible, it contradicts itself often. There is no instance one could complain about the errors and non-facts and no responsibility. Every man and his dog has their own interpretation of what the words mean, and it was written in several languages, by several people, during a very long period of time. Holy Scriptures are to be considered fiction and philosophical ponderings, and one should question what the Bible says.

"Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing".
In my experience people share political outrage more than jokes or religious thoughts. I wish I share most often good news and calls for action to make the world a better place. I'll try to get better with this.
But... if there is a Bible in every home and people are supposed to read that, why would they resend messages regarding the Lord?
Also, please, don't send me messages regarding your God. I really think that's between you two, and I wish to be left out of your relationship. Jokes I'd like to receive. I like laughing. I believe God likes laughing as well.

"Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace."
Public discussion of God passes also freely through cyberspace, and lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene discussions are suppressed in the school and workplace.
Also, do not discuss God at a workplace! I have nothing against people wanting to discuss their God with people, because I can say "no" and expect my borders to be respected, but the only workplace where it's appropriate to discuss God is churches and other such places. Do not try to introduce prayers to people's work and school. That is disrespectful and intrusive, and totally unnecessary. Discuss God with your friends and family at your leisure time.

"If you discard this thought process, don’t sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in" is very bad logic and effort to manipulate and emotionally blackmail people, and that, my dear, is highly immoral. "This though process" should be discarded, because it's illogical, based on stupid and faulty assumptions and it is whiny, blaming others for things that are not their fault nor responsibility. Sharing this little piece of crap doesn't warrant you to sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in, because it doesn't do anything to improve the shape of the world. It suggests that the world would be better place if there weren't separation of state and religion and if children were hurt as a "punishment" for some imagined grievances. We were there for some 1000 years, and the world was not a better place!

Sunday, February 18, 2018

Abortion

So you think abortion is murder and you won't budge one inch from that position. Sure. No-one is saying you may not think that way or that you shouldn't.

I am saying it's irrelevant.

People who consider abortion don't care about your opinions. They don't care about the information you offer, because it's irrelevant to them. To be able to influence others, you need to consider what is important to THEM, not what is important to YOU.

So, if you REALLY care, then you will start working to obliterate THE REASONS.

That abortion is legal isn't one of the reasons, because people will have an illegal abortion. I know you think abortion is abortion, but it really isn't. You see, when an abortion is done by professionals who have to follow certain procedures and standards, it's more safe to the mother. Also, it's more safe for her productive system. The "baby" will die in any case, but you might force people to kill the mother as well and ALL HER FUTURE BABIES.
Yes, I know, you don't care.
You should.
Because the goal should be to stop abortions, not to force people to do as you want them to do just because you want them to do it.

1) pregnancy in itself has negative physical, psychological, economical and social consequences.
If pregnancy would be just carrying the child for nine months, giving birth and moving on as if nothing happened, your suggestion that "just bear the child and give it to someone else to foster" is ignorant. You really have no right to force anyone go through a pregnancy just because you have an opinion.

the effects of pregnancy
 Unintended Pregnancy and Its Adverse Social and Economic Consequences on Health System 

"Unintended pregnancy is also considered as a high-risk pregnancy associated with high rates of negative consequences for mother, partner and the baby. These groups of women are more exposed to suicide and depression rate, poor nutrition during gestation, mental health issues, unstable family relationships, experiencing physical and psychological violence, risk of miscarriage and having low birth weight infants and delayed onset of prenatal care.

Statistics show that when compared to wanted ones, unwanted children are exposed to greater risk factors, so that they more likely experience negative psychological and physical health issues and dropout of high school and tend to show delinquent behavior during adolescence. The participants of a research in Australia reported higher level of depression, anxiety and delinquency than compared with those in wanted children group thus child smoking were self-reported at 14-year (10).

According to several micro-level studies, a child’s overall health has an impact on his or her ability to achieve academic success. Existing studies at the macro level suggest population health has a significant effect on a nation’s economic performance and growth. Overall, the evidence suggests that unintended pregnancy is one of the most critical challenges facing the public health system and imposes significant financial and social costs on society. Long-term studies confirm that reducing unintended pregnancy incidences would increase labor force participation rates, improve academic achievement, have better economic efficiency, increase the level of health and reduce in crime rates among vulnerable groups. Thus in this paper we focus on the socio-economic impacts of unwanted pregnancy from the viewpoint of health system."
Now, it's not easy to change this.

Free healthcare to all pregnant women should be self-evident.

It would be good if all pregnant women were offered free meals if they can't give them to themselves

It would be nice if there was someone to help them with their lives, as things are harder to do when one is pregnant

It should be illegal to refuse to hire someone who is pregnant or fire someone who is pregnant because of the pregnancy. It should be illegal to give any negative consequences to pregnant women or women with small children in their workplace. A woman shouldn't be punished in her worklife for getting pregnant, because this will cause her not wanting to get pregnant, and it makes it easier for her to choose to abort the pregnancy, to avoid the negative consequences. Remove the threat of economical punishment, remove the threat of abortion.

Remove the stigmata of single pregnant women. If you treat them as whores, you are making others want to avoid that, and when they get pregnant, they will abort the pregnancy and not let anyone ever know.

2) inability to support or care for child 

Of course, the easy answer is to tell people that there's a lot of people in the world who would love to take care of the child - but as said, being pregnant isn't without consequences.

3) Birth control failure

Teach people to use contraceptives and make them free for all. A condom correctly used is almost 100% secure. That it's not 100% is because people have used a too old condom - or not used it correctly.
Teaching children how to use contraceptive doesn't make them more eager to have sex. It makes them less likely to get pregnant and that means fewer abortions. They will have sex any way.

4) To prevent the birth of a child with birth defects or severe medical problems.

5) Pregnancy resulting from rape or incest.

Work to stop rape. Incest and child molestation is practically the same thing. Make the consequences harder for the criminal. Don't punish the victim by forcing her go through pregnancy.

6) Physical or mental conditions that endanger the woman's health 

7) relationship problems /unwillingness to be a single mother

Make it easier to be a single mother and you reduce the amount of abortions


Make men more responsible - work to make the parenthood 50/50 responsibility - make fathers take as much leave from work to care for sick children as mothers (right now it's 90% on mothers) and see that a parent won't get negative consequences in his/her career because of being a responsible parent.

One part of this is that the father should have a say in abortion decision IF THE CONCEPTION WAS NOT A RESULT OF A CRIME. A rapist has lost all his rights and paternal privileges, and if I got what I wanted he'd lose more than that. I really think a father should have the right to become a father if he wants to, just as the mother has the right to become a mother even if the father doesn't want to. But in that case the parent who would have aborted the pregnancy shouldn't have any obligations or consequences of it. The unwilling father/mother shouldn't be forced to pay alimony. The child should be enough. Now, because pregnancy and child-birth aren't without consequences, I think the father should pay the unwilling mother compensation for her sacrifice, but he should have the right to become a father.

Why women choose abortion

Friday, December 30, 2016

Taylor Swift

 5 Important Reasons I Can't Love Taylor Swift Anymore

You feel what you feel. None of my business. But I don't think those reasons are valid... perhaps you express them in a way I don't understand, being a white European woman. Our cultural reference frames are very different.

1) "Her Music Videos Are Full Of Cultural Appropriation"

Firstly, she has made 38 music videos. You talk about two.

Cultural appropriation is the adoption or use of elements of one culture by members of another culture.

Was there any of that in "Wildest Dreams"? No.

I can see how it was insensitive, inappropriate and just wrong, but there was no cultural appropriation.

So, was there that in "Shake It Off"? Perhaps. But there were many different dance styles presented and Taylor was relating to them all equally, so I don't think you can say it was racist or "perpetuating stereotypes".

Let's compare that to Nicki Minaj's Anaconda. It shows black women as twerking bottoms and the message of the song is "it doesn't matter if you are kind, smart, funny and loving, all that matters is that you have a big butt.."
Also, how do they justify placing the video in the middle of South American jungles? And not one Native American in the video... but that's OK, because Nicki isn't white?


"This time, I couldn't find any excuses on her behalf."
OK. What about this:
Someone else made the casting?
The director didn't want any black people on the set?
That's the way Africa is presented in Bogambo, African Queen, Out of Africa and English Patient, which was their intention with the video.

The profits from the video go to save and protect the African wildlife shown in the video.


I'm not saying those make anything OK, just that there are excuses.

2. She Constantly Displays White Feminism

With other words "she doesn't seem invested in the struggles of nonwhite women". Fair enough.

But - there was no squabble between Swift and Minaj. People accuse Taylor of "derailing" Nicki's "important issues", and say that Nicki was trying to speak for black women and against the sexism of focusing on skinny as beauty ideal. In my mind Taylor's reaction is very understandable. When a black woman's video was nominated, and when Taylor was the only woman in the nominated videos with "a very slim body", it's hard to see how Nicki was NOT saying "Taylor was nominated only because she's a skinny white woman, and it should have been my video there". I suppose it's even harden when one is a skinny white woman...
And she invited Nicki to the stage if she wins, and she won. Did Nicki take the opportunity to get on stage to speak about how non-white people and especially women are being exploited?
Nope. Why?

3. Her Use Of "Squad" Is Also Cultural Appropriation

No, it's not.
1) Squad is an existing word that has been existing for hundreds of years, and within white culture it is nothing more than a synonym to "group", "team", "pack".
2) How long has the "black youth culture" used the word, and how probable is it that the white culture is even aware of this usage?
3) Who do you think is more "mainstream"? Taylor Swift or Waka Flocka Flame and Gucci Manet?
I suppose it's not a surprise to you that I have only heard one of those names.
I also assume you don't want me to tell you how "Gucci" is cultural appropriation.


Seriously, that your culture has one meaning to a word, it doesn't mean that another culture can't have another meaning to the word.

4. And The Demographics Of Her "Squad" Are Problematic

A white girl born in Pennsylvania, grown up in Tennessee, who has been famous for some 10 years, has friends who look just like her. Most black singers are also shown with black women.
She also told Nicki to come up to the stage with her if she wins, and she won. But I suppose if she had done that, people would accuse Taylor of tokenism.

It's kind of ironic that people are making it HER problem that her "squad" reminds them of the popular girls. Taylor was bullied at school by the popular girls, too. She was too tall and too skinny and looked weird and liked country music, when everyone else loved something else. 

5. She Refuses To Acknowledge Her Privilege

Ok, so she is a rich, white girl, and also tall, skinny and pretty. What would SHE know about obstacles and difficulties?

Of course she has had it easier than 90% of people. But that doesn't mean she is lying about the hardship. One thing with first world problems is that they are so difficult to take seriously. We are spoiled rotten. But to us it's the norm. It's all we know. Just like every other human being on this planet, you included, we believe the world is like it is to us for everyone else.It's not "refusal to acknowledge our privilege", it's failure to understand. But when one is spoiled rotten, what is a wrinkle to you, is a mountain to me. Because it IS the "worst" that has ever happened to me. It was painful. It was hard. It was an obstacle. It's totally subjective, so it cannot be compared.

For example, I have fibromyalgia, which means that my body aches more or less all of the time. I can't even remember what it was like not to be in pain. The last time that happened was when my doctor ordained new painkillers and they kicked in. It lasted for a week, I think it was march 10 years ago. I remember standing on the bus stop and wondering what was wrong because I didn't feel like I used to... and then I realized... the pain was gone. I felt "normal". OMG, it was wonderful! Why don't healthy people understand how invincible they are!
Being in pain 24/7 has also its benefits. I can function with migraine. I can function when smells make me want to vomit, and I can't deal with light, and the pain is splitting my head. I have learned to ignore it. I can walk on sprained ankle. No problems. That's just a little more annoying than what I usually have.
So when I see someone sprain their ankle and fall on a sniveling heap and crying - CRYING - because the pain is SO BAD, I roll my eyes and think they are making a lot of noise over nothing. Just get up and move, and whine about the ankle when you're done.
But who am I to laugh at someone's pain? Maybe that IS the worst they have ever experienced? Maybe that is crippling to them.
And maybe there are people who live with worse pain than I do, and to whom I am the sniveling wussy. Like children with cancer... and I'm pretty sure they don't judge me.

So, please, don't compare journeys. Just because there are people who have a harder journey than others, others' journeys aren't easy.

And, sure, she could use her fame and influence better. What about giving her ideas? Write her a speech? Give her suggestions on how to make a video that is NOT offensive? How she could be more inclusive of the non-white population?


Friday, October 14, 2016

Guess what? You've made a feminist of me!

Not really. It turns out I have always been a feminist.

Some things have happened this week.

1) Some people seriously think women shouldn't have rights.

2) There's this... person, who brags about how she and other women like she started "#repealthe19th"

3) I came here to comment these two things, when this happened (Ketutar says so: I have been watching Penn & Teller: Bullshit - comments), which lead to that I saw the show about 12 steps, and I reacted the same way I did the first time around. "But that's not what it means!!!" But I was reminded of why I like the show, and I wanted to see more, so I saw the Cheerleader episode.
And that one is so horrible I find it hard to believe.

These young women, girls, are being treated like shit just because they are girls. They are expected to do highly advanced physical stunts without any safety precautions or covers, which makes cheerleading more dangerous than ice hockey.
CHEERLEADING IS MORE DANGEROUS THAN ANY GAME THEY CHEER.

People look at this picture and see an athlete and his pretty little girlfriend.
When in reality it's she who has the more physically demanding and dangerous job
and he who's wearing all the protection.

And even though cheerleading has become more and more demanding and dangerous, and is practically something totally different than what it was in the 70s when it was decided it's not a sport, the status of it hasn't changed.
No, I don't think it's a sport, but it MUST be classified as sport to protect the girls! All these injuries, especially to the head and spine, will have serious medical consequences when they are older!
And people just think it's "basically just being pretty".

"Perhaps you should just keep your mouth shut and stay in the kitchen where you belong."

"Women should be in the kitchen. If they aren't in the kitchen then how am i supposed to live? I can't feed myself, I'm a man." 

Now, that's just pathetic. Adult people who can't even feed themselves.

"You can't expect a guy to spend all of his time in the kitchen unless he is better than a women, which never happens"

I agree. It never happens that a guy is better than "a women".

"Yes, save civilization and repeal the 19th!"

What civilization is that?

This? "The Latest Trend In Christianity: Beating Your Wife For Jesus"

If I can beat you up, that means I'm right?
Guess what, guys...

I don't think women are better than men. I think people are equal.

But this:

If a woman has told you "you can't hit me, I'm a girl", that means that you have wanted to hit her... and do you know what that makes of you?
Pathetic. What's the victory in beating someone weaker than you?

I have never said to anyone "you can't hit me, I'm a woman!" Because the second you hit me I know you are a pathetic loser. So you want to hit me? Go ahead and prove me right.


Frankly, all the "feminazi" memes are so damn stupid. 

I don't expect you to pay more for stuff, I don't expect you to get paid more either.
So if you think it's OK to pay another person less than you for the same job, because this person is of different gender, it's you who are the Nazi here.

I don't expect you to pay for dinner. I'm fully capable to pay for my own food. 
I am also fully capable of filling my fridge and cooking my food, too. 
I expect you to be able to do the same. 
Every time you say things like "women belong to the kitchen" I think you're a pathetic loser who can't even feed himself.

I don't expect you to open doors to me. I expect you not to barricade the doors either.
If you do, I know you are afraid of me.

I don't expect benefits because of the gender, I expect no disadvantage because of the gender either. For either of us.

I don't hate men. I don't think all men are this or that. I don't think women are better than men. I expect the same from men when it comes to women.
I expect people to not hate women, or think women are this or that or think men are better than women.

"I just don't think they should have equal rights. Because (no offense) they're not equal."
If a woman would say that about men, you'd call her feminazi.


I oppose objectifying of all people, men and women. 

I don't think my looks have any relevance to any of this, just as little as your looks, so if you start saying things like "they are just ugly old maids" you have obviously nothing intelligent to say.

On the left is a cartoon of what idiots like to think suffragettes were. 
On the right a real suffragette, Emmeline Pankhurst. 
She got married at the age of 21 and had 5 children. 
People who cannot separate cartoons from real life are a bit... special. 
People who prefer to believe cartoons over historical facts are idiots.

"All things valuable to mankind were created by men only, thus only men can have rights to use them."

You use the household appliances, I use the medicine. Also, I preserve and cook my food. You hunt and eat your meat raw.
Any objections? Women were gatherers, men were hunters.
The gatherers gathered the herbs used as medicine.
The gatherers processed food for storage. Among other things, they invented fermenting, which is how beer became to be.
The gatherers prepared the food for eating.
The gatherers invented agriculture. 
The gatherers invented fire, pottery and basketry.
The gatherers invented yarn and fabric.

The hunters invented how to make things to hurt and kill others.

Hunters might have domesticated the animals, though it's more likely women who did that too.
Come on. You are a hunter and find a wolf pup. Would you think "oh, how fluffy and cute that is!", or would you think "that's going to grow up and eat my prey and probably my kids, too. Better to kill it now".
Or you see an orphan lamb. Do you think "oh, so cute! I want to take care of it!" or do you think "oh, food! I want to eat it!"


But seriously. All the references to history and how "all the inventors and influential people have been men!" claim. That just shows an incredible ignorance and understanding of society.

Firstly, women were seen as objects to own for several thousands of year, simply because we are physically weaker. Men have been writing women off the world history, diminishing our impact and influence and taking credit for our work and inventions. It's the same thing with every person not a white male.
For a very long time women weren't even allowed to study. Still in the 60s women in Universities were told they are stealing a place from a "better deserving" male, a person who would not just get married and become a mother, but would actually work. Through the whole 20th century women had to fight to prove that they are just as intelligent and capable at work as men are. But still there are people who don't believe this, without understanding the consequences of the 2000 years of slavery.
There are still people who should know better who say things like "women shouldn't be working with science, because they are too emotional and distracting men". Total bullshit!
Women weren't allowed to do certain works. Not because they couldn't have done them, they do them today with no difficulties, but because "it was believed" women couldn't do these jobs. Not even when women HAD to do these jobs - because all able-bodied men were at war - did people believe that they actually could do these jobs. Women put together all the planes and tanks and guns and bullets used to win the war, and were rewarded by people telling them they did nothing, just let men fight for them.
There were a lot of things women weren't allowed to do.

One could ask why there were no female Leonardo da Vincis, then? Or Galileo Galileis?
Actually, there were, but most weren't allowed to engage in such "manly things". Those who did it against the society were ostracized. Some were even killed for daring to do "things only men should do". Some got their work and contribution stolen. After all, who would believe a woman? Even today we have people who claim Marie Curie was "just an assistant".
These are just the women we know of. How many brilliant women were killed or forced out of the field before they managed to do anything? How many brilliant women got their work stolen by a man the society today believes is the "father" of the invention or idea? They thieves wouldn't most certainly tell. Considering today's field I am certain of that there were a lot more resources there. And just the thought of that we have been wasting all those resources because of a brittle male pride... Makes me sick!

But, I know. You can bend it from wire and paint it with fire, and people still don't get it. More stupid people.
On a Plate - a great comic strip about equality of opportunity


You just don't get it.

Tuesday, December 29, 2015

Fat shaming vs Skinny shaming

I found out that some idiot created #FatShamingWeek.

I wanted to know if there's #SkinnyShamingWeek. There is. I found four tweets with that hashtag.

What I also found was this:

The stupid bitch writes "Don't tell me I'm "shaming" because if you didn't want to be shamed you would look after your body and not eat your heart out and do nothing. (That is if obesity was your choice)"

What?
She also describes herself "Orla Kelly Savage, memer, degree in offending people"
Which means: "Orla Kelly, Idiot, Sheeple, Bully and a Crybaby.
Motto "Don't do to me what I do to you, because it's mean and hurts my feelings".

Sorry, Ignoramus, but you lost your right to object to people telling you both this and that when you chose to start "shaming" people. If you didn't want to hear the truth about what you are, you would look after your actions and not open your stupid mouth in public.

Later she says: "I just feel like if you know the consequences of over eating/lack or exercise i feel like you shouldn't complain about being "fat""

I am not complaining about being fat. I know I am and why I am. But you are not saying "You're fat, and that's none of my business". You are saying "EEEEW, YOU'RE FAT AND UGLY AND GROSS AND DISGUSTING YOU SHOULD GO AND FUCKING DIE STOP EATING YOU ARE JUST LAZY AND UGLY AND STUFFING YOUR FACE AND WAAWAAWAA!!!" 

Also, you have no guts to have photos that YOU actually took on Instagram, or a photo of YOU, so I am going to believe that you are really seriously envious to fat people who don't go hiding in shame and kill themselves, which is what you would do if you had the guts.

Also, this is the original image. Her sign isn't even saying "fat is beautiful".


Then there was this:
Apparently this rant appeared in Cassi Van Den Dungen's instagram.

Are the people telling you you are bony, ugly, anorexic, telling you to gain weight and "eat a cheeseburger" overweight? Or just "people"?

You are what you are "naturally" and you "eat what you want". Aren't we all? Even the anorectic and over-eaters?
You say you don't starve yourself. Hmm... Maybe. Maybe you do. But isn't it your choice? Just as it's my choice what I decide to eat or not eat?

You say you think you are beautiful. You are a model, so obviously you are not alone thinking that. For some reason not even that is enough. You are demanding that the whole world "allows" you to think what ever you like about yourself. How is it any of anyone else's business?

Why am I allowed to love my curves? Am I?
Are you aware of that there's a "Fat Shaming Week"?

And are you not allowed to love your bones?
Must everyone love your bones for you to feel you are worth loving?
Then how can't you understand how difficult it is for me to realize that I am worth love and feeling beautiful, NOT FOR BEING BIG BUT IN SPITE OF BEING BIG, when most of the world tells me I should be like you? How many colleagues do you have who are plus sized? How many of your colleagues are even the national medium size? How many of your colleagues are as much above the national medium as you are below it? The national medium is 12, and if you are size 2, how many size 22 models are you walking the runway with? How many of your colleagues are about your size?

Are you aware of that anorexia is a serious illness. Obesity is not illness. They are not antonyms.
Are you aware that people call people fighting to survive anorexia "brave" and "courageous" and have all the sympathy in the world for them, but people who fight to survive their overeating are called gross, disgusting and needing to blame themselves for the consequences of their illness, they are told to have some self-discipline and "just" exercise and diet and stop whining and complaining about "fat shaming". Because "if they seriously didn't want to be bullied, they'd change themselves".

So - when I'm calling you anorexic, on one hand I'm pretending to be a doctor, but on the other hand I'm saying I fear you are seriously ill and it's high time to do something about that before it gets worse.

When you are calling me fat, it can be just stating the facts. That it's totally irrelevant, uninteresting and a fact I'm well aware of, doesn't make it any less true. But it is also possible that what you are actually saying is "you are ugly and gross and disgusting and I believe you are lazy, dirty and unhealthy, and you will cost me money and how dare you to show yourself in public and promote obesity! You should get fit and skinny and stop hurting my eyes!"

It's really not the same thing, is it?

If I tell you to gain weight, you can tell me to lose weight.

What do you even know about being fat and how "easy" and "just do it" it is to start exercising and dieting, and all the complex physiological and psychological issues involved in losing weight? You say you are "naturally long and thin", which means that you have always been "long and thin" and never anything else. You have never worked one minute for your body to be "model size". So next time someone tells you to eat a cheeseburger, tell them "yes, please, just bring it!".

Now, Cassi... When it comes to human beings, we are kind of programmed to think "a woman cannot be too thin". But we are not programmed to think like that about pets. Are you aware of that there are these pictures showing how to see if your pet is too thin or too fat? We could talk about emaciated and obese.

Are you aware of that this goes for all animals. Even human animals.
"In humans, the overall physical appearance of emaciation includes a thinning of the limbs, upper body and buttocks to an almost skeletal-seeming state with an apparent absence of fat and muscle tone. The face is thin and drawn with a hopeless, vacant and distressed demeanor; the eye sockets are sunken, giving the eyes a bulging appearance. The scalp is bony with dry, withering hair that is lacking. On the torso, the collar bone, chest bone and ribs are quite pronounced"
The following is a visual demonstration of this using photos of emaciated women.

If your shoulder joint, elbow joint and wrist joint are the widest parts of your arms, you are too thin.
The same way, if you knees and ankle joints are the widest part of your legs, and the inner curve of the thighs goes inwards creating the "desirable thigh gap", you are too thin

If your buttocks go in and not out, you are too thin
If your scapulae, ribs and backbone is visible through your skin, you are too thin
If one can see your sternum, you are too thin. Visible collarbones and ribs are not worrying, but the sternum is.

Women's face doesn't show it as well in the early stages, as can be seen in the concentration camp victims... maybe we are just used to see the slightly emaciated face as "normal"... But this is Rachael Farrokh, a very brave woman, who had the courage to go open about her illness. In the picture left she is of normal weight, very beautiful. Something made her believe she was fat and needed to "lose a couple of pounds". In the picture right she weighs "40-something pounds"...
But there are some signs to look at. The "dimples" on your forehead. The visible eye socket. Sunken cheeks. Narrowing nose. The area around your mouth "dries up".

So, let's look at some famous women.

Angelina Jolie. Too thin.

Keira Knightley. Looks totally fine to me. Yes, she's skinny, but not too skinny.


Rachel Zoe. Too thin.

Nicole Richie. Not too thin.

Isabelle Caro. Too thin.

Isabelle and Angelina are great examples of this, because both of these women looked very different earlier. 

Calista Flockhart - not too thin

So... Cassi...
In this photo you look a lot skinnier than in the earlier photos.
I can see sunken cheeks. I can see the changes on your face. I can see your large elbows and knees. I can see how the inner curve of your thighs is "wrong".
I'm not saying you are anorectic. I hope not. But you look too thin in this photo, and being too thin is just as bad for your health as being too heavy.

Monday, November 9, 2015

Funny...

A person wrote a list about time management tricks. She put on the headline "5 Time management tricks I learned from years of hating Tim Ferriss" and a lot of people got "offended"...

This happened 2009 and the comments have been closed for years now, but there are some of the comments I'd like to comment :-D

"Here’s a quick a fast rule on who to listen to:
I come to this blog and read tons of negativity supporting more negativity.
I go to Tim’s blog and there is endless positivity supporting more positivity.
Tim strikes me as a likable guy."

I'm sure. Like most narcissists.
But what you ARE saying that to you it's more important that a person is charming than what he says.
I do hope you stop saying that you appreciate honesty and hate liars, because you don't.

Likability is not a good thing to use to decide whom to listen to.


"Tim is positive. Penelope is often negative. Shoot by adding this comment I am probably increasing her readership. This article wasn’t that good about saving time, I’ve read better."

Perhaps that blog entry wasn't about "saving time"... but about what Penelope has learned about time management from hating Tim Ferriss... Maybe you might need to pay more attention to the TITLE OF THE ARTICLE?

"I suppose there is a market for negativity – which is a shame."

Looks to me you attract more idiots with positivity :-D

But... you have read two articles by Penelope and both were defined by you as "negative"... and so you decide she's "negative", and she's being negative to get more readers...
while you agree with people bashing her for her "negativity" - which indicates that you - among other people - find "negativity" as negative :-D
And then you are assuming that your very negative assessment of Penelope and her reasons to be "negative" are correct, and state it's a "shame"... which is a very negative thing to say :-D

"there is diminishing value and return in spending time on stuff like this"

Try to remember that. There's usually a storm in a waterglass going on. And that storm is not Penelope's... it's those people's who are reacting "rebuttingly" to the "hatred" and "negativity"

"Firstly, Would you say, Penelope, that this was an efficient use of blog space and personal time?"

I think she wouldn't have written it otherwise.

"To what end?"

To people who actually reads what she writes and are not "offended" by her "hatred and negativity", she gives five very good rules on time management.

"one thing he certainly does not seem to spend much time on is criticism of particular people"

His life, his choice. Nothing to do with Penelope.

"What does anyone gain from ‘hatred’?
That’s a strong word, used too lightly here.
Hatred? Really?
Not ‘dislike’? Not ‘my issues with Tim’s views’ but YEARS of HATING?"


Perhaps she really hates him. Who are you to call her a liar?

"I’ve heard Tim debate and criticize, but ‘hate’ is NOT a word I can recall him using."


Again, what does that have to do with this?

"It’s not even necessary for it to be a part of your common usage."

Perhaps, but maybe it's the best word to correctly describe what is going on.

"At the request of Tony Robbins, I began eliminating many negative words like this I used often."

Good for you. But do you know you are namedropping?

"Humans are flawed, we are not yet perfect."

Aha...

"I don’t hate you"

good for you.

"Tellingly, an above linked similar article has disappeared from that blog, (‘why I dislike Tim Ferriss’)
Change of heart?"


How would Penelope know why a blog entry Shelley Delayne linked in her comment has disappeared? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the whole blog has disappeared? Perhaps that has nothing to do with anything related to this, as there are several reasons to why blogs disappear? Perhaps some Tim Ferriss fanboy hacked and hijacked the blog to remove all negativity about Tim Ferriss from the ether? Considering that you comment FOUR YEARS AFTER THE COMMENT?

"What a shame people don’t spend as much effort spreading what they do love rather than what they hate."

What a shame people can't see beyond their own attitudes to recognize the good in something.

"On the subject of posters claiming Tim avoids criticism and champions devotees - Who the hell doesn’t?"

Penelope.

"How many people expend effort communicating with haters, other than to defend themselves or return that hate in kind?"

Quite a lot, actually. Most of them try to tell the "haters" how wrong and negative they are for hating and how they really don't have time responding :-D 

Frankly, one of the comments was very good:
"When I see or hear someone going on about positivity and negativity, I pay attention only long enough to confirm my suspicion that they thereby avoid any discussion of the content of whatever they’re judging to be positive or negative.
Haven’t been disappointed yet."

"Tim is all about time management for achievement and winning. But there are not trophies or measurements for relationships. There is only that feeling that someone is kind. And good. And truly connected."

"I might beg to differ about not having measures for relationships…having relationships (unless you’re using the term loosely) is the measure."

The one with most relationships wins? I personally prefer quality over quantity.

"So most weeks Tim probably has a 100-hour workweek. It’s just that he’s doing things he likes, so he lies to you and says he only works four hours. He defines work only as doing what you don’t like.
It’s childish. It’s a childish, semantic game. And it reminds me of him winning the Chinese National Kickboxing Championships by leveraging a little-known rule that people are disqualified if they stop outside the box. So he pushed each of his opponents outside the box to win.
He is winning the I-work-less-than-you game with a similarly questionable method: semantics."


"Actually, this just shows he had a better understanding of the competition than did his opponents. If his opponents were so great, then they should be able to stop some amateur from pushing them around. Not being able to do so only speaks to their lack of skill. A champion fighter would not make excuses, but would instead figure out a way to beat Tim’s pushing tactic.
Remember when Indiana Jones shot the guy with the swords? Same deal – Indy was just plain smarter."


So he's smart. And? That's not being discussed, though. Penelope is not telling anyone not to like Tim or not to like his books, or not to buy them, or not to be his fan boy. She's not saying Tim is stupid or anything of the sort.
So if you want to cheat your way to victory, go ahead. I appreciate people who win fair and square more than cheaters, how ever intelligent.

Nevertheless, "Prior to his writing career, Ferriss claimed that he became the national champion in the 1999 USAWKF Sanshou (Chinese kickboxing) championship through a process of shoving opponents out of the ring and by starving himself before weign in to compete several classes below his actual weight, although this has never been verified and no public record of this event exists. In fact, the news and results section of the 1999 USAWKF webpage reveals no mention at all of Tim Ferriss competing in any of their tournaments. Likewise, an extensive archive of results in a variety of Chinese kickboxing disciplines, dating from 1999 to present, reveals no mention of Tim Ferriss."
Oops...

Wikipedia claims Marvin Perry was the 1999 USAWKF San Shou National Champion

"I don’t think he’s tried to pass himself off as a GREAT guy, (he lambasted himself over outsourcing his dating life) but this article doesn’t do him justice. To be honest lady, Tim Ferriss is the ONLY REASON I FOUND YOU.
Hater."


This whole article is about Penelope hating Tim. Calling her a "hater" is sort of superfluous, don't you think :-D

Also, she didn't say even once that Tim tries to pass himself off as a GREAT guy.  
She is explaining why SHE hates Tim.
She isn't telling you to hate him, or not read/buy/like his books, or that Tim isn't saying anything worthwhile.
 
This is what she says about Tim:
She hates him.
"how difficult he is"
"Tim is great at accelerated learning"
"Tim was brilliant to start this book marketing trend" (even though some of his tactics are questionable)
"I knew Tim, sort of" (well enough to have his phone number and being in talking terms)
(he's full of sh*t and self-centered)
(he's a spammer who doesn't respect other people's time)
"Tim got to where he is by being an insanely hard worker. I don’t know anyone who worked harder at promoting a book than he did."
"Tim does not excel in [relationships]"
"Tim is all about time management for achievement and winning"
"Tim is not [kind], [good] [And truly connected].

So, how well do you know him? Through his books and blog? Have you had a cup of coffee with him? Do you have his telephone number?


"to stumble upon a professional who I am supposed to trust, personally and publicly slating another only highlights the reasons why I wouldn’t work with you or trust your professional judgement"

Ok, that's your choice. Again, don't say you appreciate honesty :-D

"This post isn’t even comparable to a professional disagreement that has gotten out of hand"


It's not supposed to be, because this is not about a professional disagreement, and it has not gotten out of hand.

"it appears that this is a post thrown out there as a result of your own insecurity and upset"

Doesn't appear like that to me at all. "Upset" perhaps. Now, you need to ask yourself the question, why is Penelope upset? And so upset that she decided to write this blog entry she has avoided writing for TWO YEARS. This is not a question of insecurity, professional envy and jealousy.

"I do not know why you dislike Tim"
Funny, as that is what this blog entry is about. Perhaps you need to read it?

But to tell you what she says: she hates him because he doesn't respect other people's time or plans, he is an a-hole, full of sh*t and self-centered, he's focused on winning and doesn't mind bending rules, finding loopholes and lying to win, and he uses time management to win more and he doesn't care about people. She's not angry, she hates him. She uses the word "hate" several times in the post, it's OK to say she hates him.

"There is nothing brave nor admirable about this negativity."

Why should there be? But considering that quite a many commenters are whining about "negativity", and you are saying you would not hire her because of her "negativity", it is very brave and admirable for her to speak her truth. Her message is not to bash Tim Ferriss, but to share the time management tricks she learned having Tim as her acquintance. She's not talking about his books or what he is telling people.
She is saying:
1.Don’t hang out with people who don’t respect your time
2.Cut to the chase: Tell people who are full of sh*t that they’re full of sh*t
3.Self-centered people are more likely to waste your time
4.Productivity is about meeting your goals, not getting out of doing work
5.Time management is about making time to connect with people
That was made very clear by her stating her intention in the subject line and bolding these five time management tricks, so that you can get straight to those without being bothered by her hatred of Tim Ferriss.
But I suppose you missed that.

"I hope you feel better soon and learn to turn your anger into a more neutral, less hormonal teenage like state, for your sake."
Passive aggressive :-D So you're not negative, Elle?


"His methods are different than just about anyone else’s and his ethics surrounding those methods may be different than yours, but does that mean that what he teaches is worthless?"
Did Penelope say it is? No.

"Even if he was a “do as I say, not as I do” type of person, does that mean we shouldn’t listen and tease out what works for us?"
Did Penelope say you shouldn't? No.

"Even though I don’t live my life or agree with some of the choices Penelope makes or has made, does that mean I don’t have something to learn by reading her work?"
Did she say there's nothing to be learned by reading Tim's work? No

"While we would hope that someone who writes work that helps people does so selflessly and has other very positive attributes, why can’t we just take the work at face value and let the guy be who he is."
Is she trying to change him? No. Is she telling he shouldn't be the way he is? No. She is saying she hates the guy and why. She isn't telling you to hate him.

"His ideas have been pretty thoroughly argued against by people who disagreed with them already, but his personality is not really relevant to that process."
Agreed. But Penelope isn't talking about his ideas. She is talking about what she learned about time management by HIS PERSONALITY. And his personality is pretty relevant to that process.


"Tim Ferriss certainly has a lot of time to make sock puppet accounts. It must be because of his four-hour work week."

You need to reread this blog entry. Penelope isn't talking about sock puppets. She said "...told him to tell his employees to stop spamming my blog. First he implied it was his fan base..."
His employees and fan base are real people. Not Tim Ferriss pretending to be someone else. Perhaps you aren't really aware what a sock puppet is?


"...you are finding inspiration in this low ball writing, that does not speak well for you.."
"This is the most worthless piece of writing that I have ever seen"
"but then you did mention that we should call things for what they are. This is b**t"

Actually, it speaks well for Mark for actually getting what Penelope is saying. Reread the article and ONLY THE HIGHLIGHTED PARTS OF IT.

And your comment is still on... I suppose Penelope IS just as fair and open as she seems to be. But I won't expect you to acknowledge that :-D

"a post by a blogger who has dedicated a post to her personal hate that stemmed from admitted jealousy"
Er... her hate doesn't stem from "admitted jealousy".

"...also, his book, The 4-Hour Workweek, was a bestseller and mine wasn’t. So I figured people would say that I’m jealous. And really, what author is not jealous sometimes? I mean, every author wants to write a bestseller. But at this point, two years later, my hatred goes way beyond jealousy".
All the things she says about him are about him and not about his popularity or work. Her personal hate stems from Tim Ferriss being a selfish a-hole. And this post stems from that admitted hatred, not jealousy.

"Dude – you’re clearly jealous that his books is way better than yours."
Have you read her book? I don't think you have.
Being a best-seller is not synonymous to "better than". Just think about Twilight, 50 shades of grey and Da Vinci Code.



"Well, interesting. I’m amused by how many commenters, not knowing Tim, nor having read his book, are judging him on the basis of your OPINION."

Well, firstly, she is telling her opinion as someone who knows the man. That counts higher than an opinion of someone who has read his book. You learn more about a person by having a cup of coffee with him than by reading a book he's written.

Secondly, most of us know who Tim Ferriss is and have formed an opinion on him already. Based on what HE says and does and claims. Which can be seen by some people saying "I agree with you" and some others saying "you're just a jealous, hateful, negative bitch", totally based on their opinion on the man.

Thirdly, quite a lot of us have actually read his book. The majority, actually. Which is expressed. So "many commenters" is a bit of an exaggeration... "Some" might be more accurate.

Of course this blog entry - just as your comment - says more about the author than the object :-D

This blog entry tells me that Penelope doesn't appreciate aggressive marketing using any means available, and she doesn't appreciate people using other people as means. I agree with her.

Your comment tells me you think you're smart, and you think everyone else, especially people who disagree with you, are gullible sheep. You have difficulties in understanding what you read and you are not very good at expressing yourself, even when you read a lot and have quite a lot to say, mainly because you think you're witty and sarcastic, and think everything you can think of is too brilliant to leave unsaid. Which makes your opinion hard to understand.
And you created an opinion on Penelope by this blog entry, even though you haven't read her book, her blog or had a cup of coffee with her. :-D