Superman is a Dick

That's right. Superman is a dick. I stumbled on to the site Superdickery.com It's really pretty funny. The gist of it is, the guy who owns the website posts up scans of comic books, mostly covers, but some panels as well. His general thesis is 'Superman is a dick'. I have to tell you, it really does look like superman is a rat bastard. An interesting development, as he is often paired with Batman, and Batman is supposed to be the 'dark hero', anti hero if you will, and Superman is suppose to be the goody two shoes. There was one thing that horrified me though: how women are portrayed (I wrote betrayed the first time... Freudian slip...). If the fact that they weren't all shallow ninnies wasn't bad enough, half the time Superman is killing or beating them! The man who is arguably the most well known and beloved superhero in the U.S. is a misogynist dick! This one is by far the worst:



As you can probably guess by the art, it's a more recent comic (and by recent, I mean post WWII). Superman is pretty much implying he is considering raping this woman (is it Superwoman? I can't tell). Now, the master of the website admits (and part of the fun of the whole thing) is that all these scans are devoid of context. Basically, this might be some 'evil impostor of Superman' or 'Red krypotnite turns Superman evil' thing. There might be some kind of justification... but DUDE!

The rest of them aren't quite that bad, though this is a close runner up:



And people wonder why women are still oppressed? Because things like this show up in our comic books! These are things little boys read. Is there really any kind of excuse for beating or raping a woman? Especially when you're SUPERMAN and, you know, INDESTRUCTIBLE? I'm sure it's excused though, otherwise he wouldn't really be a super hero, now would he? He just 'lost control' or maybe she 'made him do it'.

If Jesus Had Had an Umbrella...

I was in China, studying, hell, three years ago, I think. It was my first time overseas, or even on an airplane. Unfortunately it wasn't the best time in the world, but that had nothing to do with the country or its people, just the group leaders of the class I was traveling with. But, I digress.

Being a minority kinda sucks. I think that, at least in most places in the US, no one is going to stare at you because of the color of your skin. Not true in China. Then again, it may simply be because in China it isn't a social faux pas to stare the way it is in the US. There were a lot of times while I was there that I felt very alone. There were times though, when Chinese people, almost all of whom I was just passing on the street, reached out and touched my life. A family had stopped me one time, just stopped me on the sidewalk, asking if I was an American, wanting to practice their English. It was so amazing to me, that I was interesting enough to them, that they would just start speaking to me, about where I was from and what I was doing there.

I wrote this next blurb about one experience in particular, while I was in China. It truly is one of my best memories, and one of a handful of experiences I came away from China with that will be with me the rest of my life. I think one thing that stuck with me, why I'm posting this here, was how different China was between those who are female and those who are male. I good friend of mine went to China (actually at the very same time I was there) but not as part of my group. When we shared experiences, they were radically different. I felt isolated, unable to find away to just interact in a social setting with Chinese people. He on the other hand, had wonderful times just 'shooting the shit' with Chinese men. The difference was one of gender, we've decided. In China, it simply wasn't acceptable for women to go to a bar, or any other kind of relaxed unstructured social type setting. Women just didn't do that. If you did, you were probably a whore (either as a profession, or just as a hobby). If you were white and female and in a bar, you were a Russian whore.

Basically the idea co-ed social groups is kind of new there. Girls spend most of their time with other girls. As an outsider, it created a problem, but from what I watched, and from the few brief times where I was treated as just a woman, as opposed to a white woman or an American, women in China were all sisters in a way American women aren't. As a woman in China, I struggled to adapt to the culture, but I wouldn't have changed the gender of this experience for anything.

Okay okay, here it is, one of the memories from China that I will have for the rest of my life:

It was raining, I had known that before I had stepped outside, but when I had left there had been a break in the weather. I thought it would last longer than it did, but of course, no one’s luck ever holds in these situations. I found myself just far enough away from my hotel that, press on or return to my room, I was going to get soaked.

China is a country full of umbrellas. Girls and women even use their umbrellas while biking. It’s a good idea, really, while in China I often wished I had my own portable patch of shade. I was never quite brave enough to purchase an umbrella to use for this purpose, plus sized white girl that I am, I stood out enough already. I didn’t want anyone to feel I was mocking the culture or trying to be something I wasn’t. My stubborn self consciousness over the purchase and use of an umbrella now seemed a bit in folly; as I stood on a street on the Laioning university campus in a down pour.

I had given up on the idea of staying dry; I could be waiting under a building overhang for an hour before there was another break in the weather. I resigned myself to my wet fate and turned to make my way back to the building we were residing in. My chagrin at being soaked due to my lack of foresight and self-consciousness was somewhat eased by the fact there was no one to witness it. Until I turned the corner onto the block that my building resided.

It was a side street and I had doubted there would be anyone on it, but there was, one Chinese girl. She was probably about the same age as I and was also caught out in the rain. She, however, was adequately prepared, her umbrella protecting her from the ‘liquid sunshine’. She looked at me oddly, walking with my American bravado through the rain, pretending like I had every intention of being soaked.

Feeling even more embarrassed, I tried to slow my pace. She was moving the same direction as I was, so I had hoped she would pass and I could again keep my folly private, but her pace slowed too. She called out to me in Chinese. I don’t know if she gave me the benefit of the doubt that I would understand her, or if she was talking for her own benefit as I often talk to my Deaf clients, knowing there is no understanding. I looked at her blankly, but she trotted over to me anyway, indicating she would share her umbrella with me. She walked me all the way to the door of my building, even though it was out of her way.

I thanked her in English and Chinese wishing I could tell her how her simple act of kindness had touched me. Tell her how sharing her umbrella had taken down all my defenses in its genuine caring and openness. But all I could say was thank you, and all she could say was ‘no problem’, but really, that’s all that needed to be said.

Can you imagine this happening on an American street? I can't. This wasn't the first time I'd walked in a downpour. The only time anyone else has ever offered to share an umbrella is people who are already friends, not strangers. This, I think, is a good example of the general sort of 'sisterhood' experienced by Chinese women (as far as I could tell anyway). I needed help, so she helped me, going out of her way to do so.

I just keep writing, trying to put into words this experience, to do justice to what was (for me) a very profound experience. Really, I just lack the words to really express myself, and I'll just have to put this out there, and hope others can somehow stand in my very damp shoes on that day three years ago.

I Stand

Just some feminist poetry for a little spice:

I Stand:

I stand, my legs below me strong and lithe like well-shaped branches of a willow tree. My bare feet and toes twine in the grass like roots.

I stand, like so many women before me, at the edge of the world, where grass

meets sand

meets rock

meets water, the sky the connection between.

I have pushed myself, driven myself ever onward, ever forward, striving to break a new path. And for all this, I find myself back where I started, here at the beginning,

the end,

of all that I am, all that I have been, and all that I soon will be. I know now that life is a circle. To move forward is still moving back towards the beginning. I’ve completed this circle, and now it is time for this circle to complete me. I return to the womb of the sea that cradles my past and will soon birth my future.

I stand back at the beginning to relearn what I have forgotten.

BSU to Sacrifice Virgins

Okay, I may be using the term 'virgin' very very loosely (haha pardon the pun) here. I won't even take a guess at how many incoming freshmen women are actually virgins, and really, I don't want to know. Honestly, it was just a catchy title...

Bemidji State University's FYRE (first year residential experience) program is going to add a second co-ed floor to the program. Currently, we have two all male FYRE floors, three all female floors, and one co-ed floor. As of next year that will change. Unfortunately, this change isn't only effecting the FYRE program. It's effecting an entire wing of a dorm hall.

Maple Hall, which houses the FYRE program also happens to be the only 'disability accessible' building on the entire campus (and in this case, I'm using 'disability accessible' as loosely as I previously used 'virgins'). So, first floor of both wings is not part of the FYRE program. Why is this important? Currently, Maple B wing is the only single-gender wing on the entire campus. Although there are other all-female and all-male floors, there is only one wing (which here can be loosely translated as 'building' the only thing connecting the wings is the lobby and a common room) that is single gendered. Although three of its four floors are FYRE and only freshmen women are allowed, the first floor allows students of any class rank. Next year, this safe haven for women will become integrated, as the second floor is turned into a co-ed floor for FYRE.

Why do I care, and why should anyone else care? I care because Maple has been my home for the last five years. I have intentionally lived here, even once I was no longer a freshman or an RA employed in the hall, because of its single-gender status. I have put up with all its faults because the community of women that previously existed within B wing was worth the other flaws. Of course, this is just my personal tie. As much as a segregated Maple hall means to me, that isn't a reason to keep it as it is.

So, why should anyone else care? If your a guy, you should be thrilled, a second co-ed floor is a huge boon to your gender. For one, there will be more male FYRE slots, which will mean fewer freshmen will have to be turned away from the program. The benefits don't end there though. Studies have shown that living in a co-ed environment helps men be better people and do better in school. Boys in co-ed environments have fewer incidents of behavior issues (ie: drinking, vandalism, etc), higher grades, and overall more respect for women. Boys flourish in a co-ed environment, and Res. Life and the FYRE program reap the benefits. Less incidents means well... less incidents. Fewer calls to security and the police, less paper work, and and overall better track record. Better grades shows that the FYRE program really does work. Basically, everyone can go home at the end of the day patting themselves on the back about what a good job their doing with freshmen as a whole. Fewer incidents, less severe incidents, better academic performance and fewer ass holes... what a great deal! How much does this wonderful program shift cost?!

Well, there is the literal cost of course, fairly minor, basically just a structural change to divide the bathroom in half. Considering they've just gutted Linden, no biggie. The real cost, however, is this:

The freshmen women.

Studies have shown that women in co-ed situations tend to have lower grades then those in single-gendered environments. They tend to have more behavior incidents, worse self esteem, and tend to fall more in socially-prescribed female roles. Women in co-ed conditions tend to become the 'mommies' or sisters of their male counterparts, taking care of them, looking after them. Additional in my own personal experience, the girls don't bond with each other on co-ed floors and tend to be in competition with each other. Where as the presence of females encourages men to be on their best behavior, the presence of males tends to encourage the worst behavior in women.

Overall, the desegregation of B wing Maple will be a boon for Res. Life, the FYRE program and freshmen males. It's going to bring in more money for Res. Life, as it will balance out the male and female slots available, and as there tends to be female rooms empty and a waiting list for male rooms, more residence means more bling. We've already talked about the benefits to the men themselves. It would really sound like the benefits far outweigh the negatives, and in some aspects they do. 'Lower grades' in co-ed women tend to be a fairly small drop, and overall women's grades are higher to start out with. So, you might be seeing a few more 3.0 instead of 3.5's. In the men you are seeing grade increases of about the same increment, but it often tends to be the difference between say 2.0 to a 2.5. Behavior incidents for women, although they increase tend to be of a lesser nature, like more noise violations or minor drinking violations. For men, you a see a decrease in the more major incidents, drinking and vandalism.

What it comes down to, though, is this: BSU is willing to drop some of their women through the cracks to fish out some of their boys.

There is one consolation to the women of B wing... there will be about 25 more incoming freshmen males who are less likely to become rapists and more likely to treat women like people. There will be an extra 1% of the University residential population will better themselves as people and only at minor expense to 10% of the population. I mean so there's a few more girls with eating disorders, poor self image, less academic focus, and forced into a gender stereotype... It means that more boys will have good enough grades to stay on their athletic team and have the nurturing they need to become the people they should be anyway... you know, not sex offending misogynists...

((Post Script: I am making a lot of claims that I am not backing up with links in this post. I do apologize as at least a portion of that is laziness. However, I did a research paper on this very topic about two years ago, what I am relaying in this post is what my findings were at the time. Unfortunately, I no longer have the the links I used in my bibliography. I will, however, continue to look for them. The one link I provide discusses the benefit of single-sex education in k-12, and while it has valid and relevant points, it doesn't entirely support the claims I've made. I suggest that this is due to the discussion of day-school co-eduction as opposed to a live in university environment. Also, some information was gathered through interviews with the RHD of Maple Hall at the time, as well as the Assistant Director of Residential Life. Anyway, I just thought I'd let you know, I do realize I'm not thoroughly citing my sources.))

On the Plight of Markers

I had my marker stolen off my dry erase board the other night, so did half the girls on my floor. Any of you who have lived in a dorm have probably had this problem, I know at least one a year, sometimes more. I was speculating on this though, and eventually wrote a message on my whiteboard to this effect:

Somewhere there is a drunken freshman with a drawer full of black dry erase markers...

... but I suppose that is better than the more traditional panty-raid...

... I understand what a drunken freshman would want with panties.

Which begs the question... what does a drunk freshman want with our markers?

... Please don't return our markers.

Beaverbucks to MavCash

A happy little tidbit that is neither funny nor enlightening, but at least vaguely applicable. I've been officially accepted to Minnesota State University Mankato. Or, as my best friend's older sister referred to it... Mank State.

I applied to the Women's Studies graduate program at Mankato, and have been excepted. It's not earth shattering, we're not talking Harvard here, but hey, I think a Maverick for a mascot is a step up from a Beaver. I also have a half-time GA position, which, hopefully will end up being full time. Anyway, just wanted to share the joy.

Blogging With Balls Might Need to Wear a Cup

I am currently taking 'World Regional Geography'. Overall, It's a great course, the Prof really knows his stuff, and gives a lot of background information on the regions. The general idea being that geography is hella more than a place on the map. I was being a good student (for once) and was reading my text book for the class, and came across an interesting factoid I didn't know.

Apparently, Saudi Arabia doesn't attend UN meetings on issues of human rights. I know, this isn't terribly shocking. The reason for this "protest" though, is: It is their (Saudi Arabian Men) God-given right to discriminate against women.

I know there are religious zealots all over the world, but I can honestly say this is the first time I've actually heard someone have the balls to come right out and say 'God says men are better'. Needless to say, I have a bit to say about this particular 'God-given right'.

Alright, fine, Saudi Muslims have a 'God-given' right to discriminate against women. I'll accept that. However, in return, I demand that the Saudi Government recognize a "Divine" right I, as a woman, have been given.

I demand that Saudi men recognize my Goddess-given right to kick men in the testicles.

As a generic pantheonic spiritual deist, the female aspect of the Divine Entity has imbued on me the right of testicle kicking. She has relayed this information to me via one of her messengers the Holy Deer of Artemis. The Deer of Artemis told me that as a woman serving Artemis as a Holy Virgin I have the right to take vengeance on men as a gender, due to their violent, hateful ways and moral inferiority.

Oh, additionally, my status as a prophet trumps Mohamed, Jesus and Moses, and any other prior prophets. Why? Because the Goddess told me so.

I am currently carrying out this prophetic mission, walking around campus kicking men in the nuts. Thank Artemis I live in an all female dorm-wing, or I'd never rest. The next step in my campaign to convert the world to generic pantheonic spiritual deism is to attend the UN.

I have to admit, my spiritual mission is not purely duty, I am sure I am not alone in saying I will enjoy kneeing a few select world leaders in their reproductive organs.

I wonder how the Saudi reps. will feel when I kick them in the nuts and tell them it is my Goddess-given right to do so? Unfortunately, I doubt it will get them to reconsider their 'God-give right' to oppress women. After all, their prophet trumps all prior prophets... I mean, who can argue with that?

((As a side note, this isn't a dis on Islam... just the Saudi UN reps. Trust me there are misogynist bastards in all faiths))

Balls Meets Bike

I was recently interviewed via email by the woman who writes Blog Without a Bicycle. She also is using her blog for a Women's Studies project, her's is at the graduate level, however, and far far better maintained than my own. (Yeah, so I might be a little lazy... or busy... busy sounds better). With her permission I wanted to post the transcripts on my blog as well as hers, as I feel like I might have actually said something, y'know, smart. It's not funny... but hey, it's about feminism. I have chosen to edit out a significant portion of the interview, as it focuses on my blog use. It just didn't seem as relevant to my particular subject matter. If you want to read the whole thing, it will be posted here.

A Blog Without a Bicycle: Do you identify as a "feminist"? How important, if at all, is
being/not being a feminist to your identity?

K.M. Aase: Yes, I identify as a feminist. I think quantifying how important it is is rather difficult though. For me being a feminist is as fundamental as being female. I am a woman, I am a feminist. To me it is hard to understand how anyone who is female can -not - identify with feminism. Because this is such an integral part of my self- understanding, though, I don't feel the need to announce myself as a feminist. If I am true to the cause, my actions and ideas should make it clear that I am a feminist without having to "Evangelize'.

A Blog Without a Bicycle: Whether or not you identify as a feminist, what does "feminism" mean to you?

K.M. Aase: Feminism is about choice and respect. For women, it is about having the opportunity to create your own destiny. If you want to stay at home with a brood of children, or be a professional athlete, or cure cancer, all of those should be equally valid options with no social stigma either from men or from other women. Feminism is the idea that a woman's future is based on her own skills, dreams, and desires, not a gender role or social norm. For men, feminism is about respect. The respect for women as spiritual and mental beings, not just physical. Respecting women to make their own choices in life. Respect to treat women as equals and not feel threatened by that equality. The third aspect of feminism, I feel, is the understanding that everyone is different, each person is an individual, and no two experiences are the same, and respecting those differences.

A Blog Without a Bicycle: Do you think that activism can be carried out online? What are the possibilities of such activism?

K.M. Aase: I think it's possible but likely less effective then carrying out activism in the real world. The internet provides a platform from which an idea can be expressed. However, simply expressing an idea isn't really 'active'. The internet can be used to provide information, which is a major component of activism, but information alone is rarely enough. Although the internet can be used to drum up support for a cause, without real-life action, it seems to me like it's just a lot of noise, a lot of people talking to each other, most of whom already agree with each other anyway. Of course there is online petitions, but it seems to me (and I admittedly have very little experience) that online petitions do not hold the same clout as actual physical paper petitions. To summarize, [I] feel that activism can be supported and furthered by online activities, but online work with out real-life action is only a prelude to activism.

A Blog Without a Bicycle: Do you think that feminist activism is being conducted online? If so, can you think of any examples?

K.M. Aase: I think the dissemination of information for feminist causes, as well as the platform to discuss feminist ideas is being conducted on the web, both are important adjuncts to feminist activism, but require more than that. For example: The internet can be used to provide information about safe sex, activism would be providing free prophylactics or teaching a safer sex class.

Second amendment Pummels First

I was cruising MSN news, as I often do, when I found this particular article . It's a happy little piece about some well known hunter, Jim Zumbo, (I had no idea who he was, but I don't hunt) who had pretty much just flushed his career because he said, basically, that using an assault rifle to hunt prairie dogs was idiocy. I happen to agree.

Needless to say, the NRA went ballistic. Though, to be fair, he did call assault rifles "terrorist guns". I think the politically correct term is "Extreme Peace Enforcement Tool".

Now, Zumbo was kind of an idiot, at least as a businessman. He's a hunter, an NRA member himself, and his livelihood is based on maintaining the following of other hunters and NRA members. Did he honestly not realize that the NRA and a bunch of gun-toting bambi killers (I say that tongue in cheek) would flip their lids at the suggestion that there is such a thing as too much firepower? Apparently he didn't.

All of this, though, is hardly worthy of mention. The NRA overreacting and its members being zealots is hardly newsworthy. What scares me is how quickly everyone moved to placate the NRA. This guy's hunting show was dropped like a hot rock, all the sponsors for the show wanted their ads pulled, Remington (it was mentioned that a this Zumbo used a Remington rifle that day in the same blog post) felt the need to issue a statement saying it did not endorse or approve of this guy's statements. The NRA is threatening to drop endorsement of pretty much anything within three degrees of Zumbo.

As if that wasn't bad enough Zumbo didn't even have the balls to stand behind his statement. His career was already flushed, you'd think he'd have the pride to maintain that killing rodents with weapons that military personal use to kill other military personal with is overkill, literally. He's tripping all over himself to apologize, all but groveling in apology. He's even said that next time he hunts it will be with an assault rifle. I'm sure all this publicity and NRA-boot licking has Charleton Hesston orgasmic with joy.

At the end of this article Harden, the author, suggests that the reason for all of this isn't just because Zumbo made a link between guns and terrorism (remember, guns don't kill people, angry minorities do). Harden says:

Zumbo's fall highlights a fundamental concern of the NRA and many champions of military-style firearms, according to people who follow the organization closely. They do not want American gun owners to make a distinction between assault weapons and traditional hunting guns such as shotguns and rifles. If they did, a rift could emerge between hunters, who tend to have the most money for political contributions to gun rights causes, and assault-weapon owners, who tend to have lots of passion but less cash.

In other words, the nutjobs in Montana who run training camps for when RaHoWa (a Neo-Nazi version of the apocalypse, it stands for Racial Holy War) finally happens, don't want the rich "sport hunting" Texans to figure out that there is a difference between only being able to kill ten things before having to reload and being able to kill fifty things before having to reload.

The NRA issued a statement saying:

It says that for the enemies of the Second Amendment there is no chance that the kind of divide and conquer propaganda strategy which preceded the 1994 ban on semi-auto firearms will ever succeed again.

I didn't know the personal opinion of one man on his blog counted as "propaganda".

To get my ducks in a row, an "assault rifle" is, fundamentally, a gun that can fire more than (I think) ten rounds without having to reload. They are not fully automatic; only one round is fired per pull of the trigger. When I first read this, I had to pause a moment, and wonder if maybe there was some anti-gun propaganda going on here (you know, using a big scary word so people hear it and assume the worst, like "weapons of mass destruction"). It isn't just anti gun propaganda. Think about it in terms of a school shooting (which is one of the things that precipitated the 1994 ban on semi-auto firearms. How much damage can ten rounds do before the shooter has to reload? How much more damage can fifty rounds do? The pause needed to reload is the opportunity that law enforcement may have to take down a criminal, and a chance for civilians to find better cover. Reloading may only take seconds, but it's still a pause.

Why do hunters need a weapon that can fire more than ten rounds without having to reload? The answer is, they don't. If you can't hit something in under ten shots, you need to find a new hobby (even I could probably manage to hit a moving target in ten shots, and I've fired a gun once in my life). So you can see why these gun-zealots are worried that people might make a distinction between the two.

Assault rifles aren't for hunting. You can use them for hunting, but you can also use a fork for hunting, or a grenade. That doesn't make them appropriate choices. The only thing assault rifles are made to do is kill people. That was their original intent, and to this day what they are used for. People hunting. Jesse Venture may have made a joke about hunting people (in poor taste, but not worth the drama it caused), but it's not really a joke. Spend a few minutes reading about Christian Identity, and it won't seem too funny any more.

Ideally, we wouldn't need gun control, because in my happy little utopia, no one would want to own one anyway (not even for hunting, not because I'm against hunting, but because I think bow hunting is an actual challenge and skill). Unfortunately, people do want to own guns for more than just hunting. They want to own them to use them on their fellow human beings. Be it in RaHoWa or to defend themselves against "armed intruders". Self defense is one of the biggest arguments for why we should own handguns and assault rifles, but how often do you hear of someone actually shooting an intruder? I'm sure it happens, but I can't think of a single time. This is fear-based reasoning that Americans so love. If you can make Americans afraid you can get them to agree to anything.

The NRA and other pro-gun lobbyist are using the same tactic George W. used to attack Iraq. Someone, somewhere, has something that can hurt you/us. In order to defend ourselves against this possible threat that might maybe happen sometime in the future, it is justified that we/you take extreme action in order to prevent this possible attack that may or may not happen sometime by someone who may or may not actually have the capacity to hurt us.

The idea that, somehow, the fact that any given person may be a gun owner deters crime is asinine. People have been murdering, steeling and raping for pretty much the entire history of the world. Having a hand cut off for picking a pocket wasn't enough to deter criminals; being hung on the spot for rape didn't deter criminals. Why the heck would getting shot deter them?

There are a lot of unfortunate things about the entire situation with Zumbo, and the things that all this implies. It's unfortunate that corporate America is afraid of the NRA. It's pathetic that Zumbo doesn't have the balls to have an opinion of his own. It's also sad that the NRA has to be such zealots, and that its members react by towing the party line, instead of actually stopping to think. What's more, and organization so dedicated the preservation of one amendment, is using its clout to repress another. Using guns to repress free speech.

"Maiden" Voyage

I'm popping my blog's cherry. We've fooled around a few times, there's been some heavy posting, but we've never gone all the way. So, I'm finally going to do "it". Rest assured we're doing "it" with protection, I'm using spell check, I'd hate to end up with any accidents. I feel that post-life begins from the moment the curser touches the 'publish' button and the postling joins with the web and creates a blog. So no post-deletion for me.

Alright, I'll stop with the sex metaphors for my blog... for now... but I reserve my right to metaphor-production freedom, to resume my metaphoric activities at anytime. Look, I'm metaphoring right now, and I'm using both hands!

Okay, I swear I'm done this time.

Welcome to "Blogging With Balls"; a radically left wing feminist blog. Knowing where to start with this blog is rather difficult. I will admit that this is a very daunting task; how can I possibly ever right enough to do the broad-stroke idea of feminism any kind of justice? I can rant for pages on end, but how do I make this in any way meaningful? This blog is being started as a Senior Practicum for my Women's Studies minor, so not only does this blog need to be meaningful in a large sense of actually being more that a public stroking of me ego, it needs to actually, y'know, have a point.

I have, indeed, done a lot of 'heavy posting' for this blog. I've written half a dozen 'first posts' of varying length and subject, and not 'gone all the way', with any of them. At best they get 'save as draft'ed. Most of the time, I just delete. I just want my first post to be "special". You can see why the situation lends itself to my sex-metaphor. I've decided, though, that there is only one way to deflower my blog, though, and as you can see... it's messy, short, and probably unsatisfying. The pressure's off though, because there can only be one 'first post' and once it's done, with any luck, and some practice, my skill and blog-prowess will increase, and hopefully future postings will be satisfying for all parties involved.