Evidently it is, at least according to these Men’s Rights Redditors and the people who upvoted them:
Oh, I know, they were JOKING. Pretty hilarious joke there, fellas!
I’ve got a few more based on the same formula:
How many [insert name of group you don’t like] does it take to screw in a lightbulb?
It only takes one to “accidentally” electrocute themselves doing this routine household chore, if you catch my drift, nudge nudge.
—
Why did the chicken cross the road?
I don’t know but it would be a shame if he didn’t make it all the way across if you know what I mean.
—
Knock knock
Who’s there?
It would be a shame if the person you let in the door were to murder your family, hint hint.
Yeah, those really aren’t jokes, per se, are they?
Thanks to Cloudiah for pointing me to this lovely little Men’s Rights subreddit exchange.
Alimony is inherently sexist to begin with. As a woman, I can’t imagine trying to claim to be a “feminist” and begging for money from an ex at the same time. Grow up and get a job.
Rant on art and maybe feminism:
If we are going to talk about art, I’m really damn sick of seeing the same* girls in contemporary art. Like the white, pinup, waif, long flowing hair, perky breasts, some lacy tattoos, and maybe holding a pistol or cigarette. It’s really annoying. I wish people would stop acting like a girl being young and pretty is something that makes a girl super mysterious, virtuous, or even badass. Plus it’s old. People have been painting pretty women since… ever. I get it. Attractive ladies are nice to look at.
*I don’t mean that any art featuring a woman who is attractive is bad. Just when people make the art entirely depend on her beauty(and not create their own in some way by modifying things).
Also, thanks David!
Falconer: I remember reading as a youth a book about a Hasidic child who had a knack for painting. He eventually managed to finagle a tutelage under another Hasidic painter who was largely considered a quasi-pariah by the community. The older painter takes him to one of the New York art museums for the first time.
Now, say what you will about those Crucifixion paintings, many of them are incredibly powerful (possibly in ways that the artist or sponsor didn’t mean, but still evocative).
This becomes a major point of contention, because his father is incensed when he starts doing sketches of “that man”, as his father puts it. The kid eventually ends up breaking from his family over the issue, because he’s compelled to paint, more than worship.
***
On a side note, I like some found art. It usually needs some degree of modification or presentation to work, however. If you’re not going to tweak it, or combine pieces into something else, then you at least need to go for childhood wonder and present it at an angle that evokes some shape in the human mind. If that twisted crankshaft looks like a flower or a serpent, that will grab me.
Um, that’s not entirely accurate. Alimony began as a way to keep divorced women from being thrown into poverty. Quite a few middle class women stayed at home, and upon divorce, suddenly had to find jobs after being out of the work force for many years. It was put in place to provide for those women and help them get on their feet and care for their children, not eat bon bons while laughing evily at their acheivement.
Also, that was then. Today alimony isn’t imposed that often because typically both parties were working to begin with, and therefore isn’t necessary.
History, it’s kinda important. The more you know! *Rainbow swish*
@freemage, I think the book you read was “My Name is Asher Lev” by Chaim Potok.
A great and powerful book, and highly recommended. Available for e-readers as well as dead-tree edition.
Hawt Glue Mess:
1: Alimony is specifically meant as a remedy for one partner being placed in the ‘homemaker’ role for a considerable portion of their life when they would otherwise be either training or developing a work history. Doing the traditional homemaker role often meant that the breadwinner was more able to focus on their job, thereby enriching both of them, and alimony was a corrective for that.
2: Even in two-income families, the lower-paid spouse is often the one called upon to compromise, such as when the other gains a new job in a new city that pays more, or when they decide to have a child and one of them needs to cut back on their work hours (or professional commitments outside of official hours that would enable them to network). Because of the patriarchal pay structure (as a feminist, you should be familiar with that concept, right?), that role, as with the classic homemaker role, has often been thrust upon women.
3: But good news, my feminist ally! See, as time goes on and we really do manage to see more equity and less gender-essentialist bullshit in society, the roles described above are either not occurring as frequently (both partners are roughly equal in pay), OR the roles are actually reversed. And guess what? In the null-cases, there is no alimony; in the reversals, the housekeeping/lower-earning husband is the one who receives alimony! So you don’t need to worry about alimony being ‘sexist’ after all. Isn’t that great?
In short, alimony is a equalizer that arises from past behavior and present conditions, not some scheme to permit women to sponge off of a spouse indefinitely.
Dear Roger,
I’m quite fond of the English language and communication arts, so please, please, stop mangling both. I realized you, errr, “borrowed” some phrases from here and there, thinking it would make you sound intellectual, but it had the opposite effect here. Also, you made references to events that apparently, happened only in your head:
“David insists that people don’t mind having their communities turned into war zones.”
Huh? When did this happen, Roger?
I guess you mean women expecting equality will turn homes into war zones…but you could have just worded it that way. Also, suggesting that bitches refusing to make sandwiches or not liking “jokes” about men murdering their ex-wives is grounds for warfare says a lot about you — and none of it good, my little shit lord.
You know, I used to tutor college kids in English Lit. A lot of them thought I couldn’t tell when they swallowed a thesarus, plagiarized or used words they didn’t understand. But I could tell, Roger. I got used to reading sentences that sounded like this:
“His allocutions emphasize the formation of small units of impudent apostles that can avoid detection by authorities, strike quickly and disperse, and, to some extent, institutionalize sex discrimination by requiring different standards of protection and behavior for men and women, and that’s one reason why I’m writing this letter.”
I mean…wow. I get the jokes people here are making about found art, but from my perspective, your posts are more like an unruly montage or sculpture.
Though, I actually believe you came up with “…and that’s one reason I’m writing this letter” all by yourself.
And does anyone know what the hell this is all about?
“Did he cancel his plans to quote me out of context because he had a change of heart, or is he continuing the same battle on another front? It would appear to be the latter.”
Freitag: Yes! Asher Lev! Thank you. I’m hoping I remember most of the plot-points right–it was… yeesh. 3 decades ago?
I mostly find Christian-sponsored art dull, probably none so much as CCM, and probably because the artist is trying to please somebody, really.
Falconer: Oh, no doubt–but keep in mind the difference between seeing it for the first time, as opposed to being forced to study so much of it you can probably replicate it in your sleep.
Freitag, good to see you posting again! How’ve you been?
So yea, I read about GGG just now. Fuck, I had just laughed hard from some video games family time. I wasn’t ready for the gold this guy spews. I’ve never heard of GGG, ever.
Yeah, GGG started out as … weird funny, so bizarre, but people who’ve read more about him or read his blog have said how genuinely creepy and possibly dangerous he is. I’m not sure if he claims to have committed rape or not (no way am I going to his blog) but he’s been described as all too likely to go postal eventually. Nasty piece of work.
@kittehserf he admits to blackmailing a woman into having sex with him, and alternately claims it wasn’t really blackmail/he was entitled because “incel”
Ignore GGG if he bothers you so damn much.
Every time he starts in on that “you can’t apply normal ethical standards to me on account of my sad neglected boner” thing I want to respond with “don’t think that argument will hold up in court, buddy”. Fucked up he most certainly is, but I’m deriving a great deal of schadenfreude from watching him make an ass of himself in public.
@emilygoddess, don’t forget the bits about admitting to attacking his parents because they wouldn’t fix him up with someone. Also trying to con his mother and therapist into servicing his sad boner because, SAD BONER. He, naturally, claims to be a “nice guy” who women should “just know” isn’t dangerous just by “talking to him”. And of course, as such, the nice, non-dangerous reaction to a woman online cutting off contact because she got scared off by another creeper on the internet is to rage about how stupid and immature she is, because duh, you can totally tell just by talking to men on the internet whether or not they’re dangerous.
It’s one part laughable irony, two parts “yikes this guy is actually for real” scary, and one part just plain sad. I honestly feel bad for him because it’s obvious he gets in his own way, but I feel worse for the people who have to interact with him.
@Ostara, I hadn’t forgotten any of that. *shudder* I was just responding to Kittehs asking if he’d admitted to rape.
@ ostara
You actually feel sorry for him? I don’t. He’s made his own bed, now he gets to lie in it for the rest of his life.
I know it’s totally unwarranted pity, but I just think it’s sad that he basically did it to himself and KEEPS doing it to himself, in the face of a lot of evidence that this is a self-made problem. But like I said, I feel more sorry for the people in his life (family, friends, random women he may encounter) because he’s obviously dangerous and difficult to engage with.
That’s of course, not to say I didn’t enjoy watching a good proverbial trainwreck, just like anyone else.
Clearly you’re a kinder person than me. Given how awful he is I tend to consider his present and presumably future unhappiness as a sign that karma is a wonderful thing.
I don’t know about kinder so much as maybe just more of a sucker.
I’m too skeezed-out by GGG to take a peek in his blog, but has something new happened? I know about his general creep-tastic nature, but did something new happened?
*just wondering if I need to start popping popcorn
Wow, repetative and incorrect tense. I write good, I promise.