Clothes and sexism

As discussed previously, I'm evil and sexist.  Accepting that, I'm going to point out a few things about fashion.  Don't worry, this will be short.

First, the easy stuff that's not surprising to anyone.  Women's clothing is horrific and sexist.  No functional pockets and sizes being wildly different by company are just two ways in which this is the case.

That said, and here's the stuff I'll get flack for and proves further how I'm evil and sexist, expectations from men and women are different and have undertones of sexism too.  Professional clothing.  For a long time, women's professional fashion tended toward the showing of skin.  This is obvious sexism as it treated women as sex objects.  As time has gone by, offices have become more accepting of women wearing a much larger variety of clothes, including many that disregard the earlier sex-object fashion sense.  Men's professional fashion, on the other hand, while also changing, has not changed nearly as much.  Men are expected to wear pants.  Not shorts, pants.  In business casual environments we're allowed to wear t-shirts, but to be truly professional, we have to wear long-sleeve shirts, preferably button-down dress shirts.

I've heard more than a little discussion about how offices keep temperatures lower than women would like and that some of the reason for this is that men wear suits and therefore the office temperature is set to make them comfortable.  Here's some quick, highly unscientific observation on my part: women prefer much higher temperatures than men.  There is a constant complaint in my office of the building being too cold and as constant that complaint is, the men don't feel cold at all, ever, in any room, period... and we're not wearing suits.  We're wearing long sleeve shirts and pants, yes, but no jacket.  The top button of our dress shirts (or indeed sometimes the top 2, depending on the guy) are open.  And now we're back to that point I was making in the third paragraph.  Would the men wear shorts if we were permitted?  Probably.  I'd certainly be more comfortable in shorts and a t-shirt, but that's not considered professional.  I'm limited to long pants, whether it be "smart" jeans or long dress pants.  If I could, I'd wear "smart" jean shorts or dress shorts.  I'd still be perfectly fine with the temperature by the way, I'd just be slightly less likely to be sweating on any given day.

"So, what's the problem?" you might ask.  Well, it's 2-fold.  First, there's a hidden double-standard that nobody talks about.  Women have professional clothing that is a lot lighter and airy and doesn't have to cover as much of the body... but the range permits heavier clothing that covers just as much as men are required to wear.  The second part of the problem isn't a sexist problem at all, it's an environmental one.  By forcing men to wear heavier clothes, by forcing us to be warmer, offices need to be cooler, which requires much more energy in the summer.  In the winter, everybody wears heavier clothing because, well, it's colder outside.  But in the summer, when we should all be wearing lighter clothing so we're not as hot outside, men aren't permitted to.  Yes, we would still need air conditioning even if everyone were allowed to wear lighter clothing, but we would need less of it.

So, there's my rant on clothing.  Yes, I know, I'm a man and can't possibly understand the hardships of women and the demands on them from fashion.  Yes, I know, clearly these hardships of men are nothing in comparison to those of women (even though professional clothing for women now is far more diverse than men's clothing and includes clothing that is virtually the same, if not identical, to men's).  But you know what?  You already pointed out that I'm a sexist by simply being a man, so, why shouldn't I prove it a bit by speaking my sexist mind.

I am Become Trump (aka the problem with shame tactics)

O.k., so clearly I've been shamed into hating myself by people who's purpose in shaming me was to get me to fight harder for their cause.  People use shame in this way a lot and it seems they do so more and more.  This tactic is alarming and sometimes gets people to think about the issues and to change their ways... the problem is, what happens if that tactic turns someone off and in fact changes the person's ways so they are fighting less for the cause, and sometimes even fighting against it?  

Prime example: I feel shame for being a man.  I recently felt that I couldn't say something (I even edited a paragraph out of my recent post... yes, that post was edited, hard as that might be to believe). This reminds me of Trump's statement that men are afraid to say things about women.  Now, to be clear, I do not support Trump... but this one statement of his rings a bit true.  And let the further shaming begin.  Just as women's rights groups were quick to respond saying that while Trump is afraid of women saying things, women are afraid of real things, like rape, sexual abuse, regular physical abuse... I expect you're saying this right now.  I am shamed, but Trump's statement is also ringing truer to me.  

We have to be careful how we use this tactic, for it can easily have side-effects we weren't expecting. And maybe that's fine with you.  Maybe you've already made the calculation that your side will gain more out of the shaming than it will lose.  If so, my hat is off to you, as is my support.

Sincerely,

Privileged Ill Intent

p.s. - do Trump and The Kingpin now remind you of each other?

I am the Ill Intent

I understand that, as a white man, I can't conceive of how it feels to be black in this country.  I understand and respect that.  I've learned, over the last couple years, that I shouldn't comment on the opinions of blacks nor the tactics of those fighting injustice.  I've also learned that I am the adversary of those fighting injustice, simply by not fighting that injustice every day myself... in truth, I do not fight that injustice every month or nearly at all.  I used to like to think that I was a supporter of equal rights and privileges between races, but I have been told on several occasions that those who do not fight for those things are the adversary... so I am trying to accept that I am that adversary.

I also understand that, as a white man, I can't conceive of how it feels to be a woman in this country.  I am slowly coming to terms with this.  I have been informed recently that, here too, if I am not fighting the injustices placed upon women every day, I am the adversary of women's rights.  I am slowly realizing that I cannot make judgements about how important things are, such as the first woman to be the Presidential nominee of a major political party in the US.  I apologize to any who I have offended by belittling this accomplishment of Clinton's by comparing the US to other nations around the world or by suggesting that it is equally, if not more important to agree with the politics of the candidate you're in favor of.  I am a man, and have been told that I am therefore complicit in the rape-culture we have here in the US, which is disturbing to me, but I am working on accepting this too.

I'm going to digress here a bit and do something unusual for my posts.  I would like to ask for the opinion of women who are reading this post.  Would you be equally as excited the momentous occasion of the Republicans nominating Carly Fiorina, if they had, as you are about the Democrats nominating Clinton?  My feeling is that you would be, but I'd genuinely like to know what you think.  I'm not saying you'd be as in favor of Fiorina becoming President, just excited by a major political party in the US nominating a woman.

Ok, digression ended.  I imagine that I will learn in the coming years that I am equally complicit in other social injustices... whether it be toward Hispanics, Asians, transgender, homosexuals, bisexuals, ... the list goes on.

I would extend this philosophy to include that I am the enemy of the green movement.  After all, I drive my Prius to work rather than bicycle or take public transportation.  I use more electricity than my house will hopefully soon produce using roof-mounted solar panels.  I eat meat, which is not as environmentally friendly an option as being a vegan.  The list goes on.  I am coming to terms with this as well.

O.k., so I'm essentially evil and an advocate for all that I feel is wrong... It's an interesting dichotomy that I am working my way through understanding.  I have been working on it for years now and it may well take the rest of my life to fully understand it, but I do know one thing: this further explains my self-loathing and my feelings of obligation.  I would like to take a moment to apologize to all who I have harmed in the past and all who I will inevitably harm in the future, whether physically or emotionally, whether through action or by expressing my opinion or by expressing facts which are not as pleasing to hear or as helpful to the narrative that they would like made at a particular time.

A speech from the Netflix DareDevil series comes to mind and I will leave you with it:

"I'm not a religious man, but I've read bits and pieces over the years. Curiosity more than faith. But this one story... There was a man, he was traveling from Jerusalem to Jericho when he was set upon by men of ill intent. They stripped the traveler of his clothes, they beat him, and they left him bleeding in the dirt. And a priest happened by, saw the traveler, but he moved to the other side of the road and continued on. And a Levite, a religious functionary, he came to the place, saw the dying traveler, but he, too, moved to the other side of the road, passed him by. But then came a man from Samaria, a Samaritan, a good man. He saw the traveler bleeding in the road and he stopped to aid him without thinking of the circumstance or the difficulty it might bring him. The Samaritan tended to the traveler's wounds, applying oil and wine, and he carried him to an inn, gave him all the money he had for the owner to take care of the traveler, as the Samaritan, he continued on his journey. He did this simply because the traveler was his neighbor. He loved his city and all the people in it. I always thought I was the Samaritan in that story. It's funny, isn't it? How even the best of men can be deceived by their true nature. ... It means that I am not the Samaritan. That I'm not the priest, or the Levite. That I am the ill intent who set upon the traveler on a road that he should not have been on."

Trump, Clinton, Political Parties, and Labels... Evil Confining Labels

As unpopular among my friends as it is, I'll start by acknowledging that, similar to the title of this post, Sanders isn't going to make it to the Democratic nomination.  Is Clinton cold in saying that she's got this locked up?  Not really.  Barring something extreme, like her being indicted in the next 2 weeks or something coming out in the next couple months that drives the super delegates to go against what the Democrats have already voted in favor of, Clinton is the nominee.  Sanders would need 70% of the remaining regular delegates just to tie the Clinton in regular delegates.  Now... 70% isn't impossible, but New Jersey and New Mexico have closed primaries and Sanders isn't winning closed primaries... and then there are the super delegates.  Even if Sanders can manage to get 70% of the remaining votes, he still needs to convince super delegates to switch sides, and switch sides heavily.  If Clinton gets 13% of the vote and the super delegates remain where they are, she wins the nomination... that's right, she needs 13% of remaining votes and for super delegates (read Democratic establishment... i.e. the camp that wants Clinton) to maintain their announced positions.

Alright, enough upsetting blog post, let's move on to something similarly depressing.  Trump is the Republican nominee.  Why is this depressing to me?  Is it just what it says about the right wing of our country?  Clearly that's all it could be because if you listen to the news, Trump is awful and has no chance of winning.  That would seem great except for that the news has no feel for how Trump got this far in the first place.  They've been talking about how Trump is horrible and therefore people are going to turn on him any moment now.  So, the good news, Trump has severe unfavorable ratings.  The bad news is that so does Clinton.  The good news is that just about every demographic hates Trump.  The bad news is that the Right hates Clinton just as equally as many hate Trump.  But there is hope.  The demographics... thank goodness for demographics... if they stay true to their past support patterns, the Democrats will have an easy time winning, IF they get out the vote.  And there's the wild card.  Who will get out the vote.  Both sides can play up anger and hatred of the other side.  My fear is that we'll turn toward actual political positions and Trump will reveal that he's a moderate, just like Clinton... and potentially in some ways to the left of Clinton.  This one's really confusing to me to be honest and I don't know where people will turn.  I know that I don't want Trump if only because of the statements he's made in the race and how he's come this far.  Clinton's a centrist, slightly right of center actually, but she's pretending to be to the left because of Sanders.... but now comes the pivot for both candidates.  ~sigh~

Ok., one last thing before I go... people are making a lot of hay over political parties and the nomination process.  I keep hearing pundits say that people shouldn't be so upset at the parties because they're private organizations.  One thing that has been pointed out is that people who are independents because they don't want to be labeled are upset because they haven't been able to vote.  I can see both sides of this, but here are two things to consider:

1. The news is saying that people are upset at the political parties because of the closed primaries.    That's not all we're upset about.  There's also the structuring of the debates so that most Democrats wouldn't watch them and therefore wouldn't be able to see the contrast between Clinton and Sanders as readily.  The political parties have more to do with who gets nominated than just the primaries themselves.  The Democratic Party leadership has been supporting Clinton from the start.  This is what angers Sanders supporters, not the primaries, but the way that the party leadership has been openly against Sanders.
2. The primaries on the Democratic side have fallen into the following pattern: Sanders wins states that allow independents to have a voice and have caucuses.  Clinton wins states that don't allow independents to vote and have elections.  Let's take out the last part of each sentence and focus in on the first.  Independents are leaning toward Sanders and are upset about not being able to vote in closed election states.  What's equally interesting, if not more so, is that independents tend to vote the same way from election to election.  Some vote Republican every time, others vote Democratic every time.  So, why are they independent?  They say it's because they don't like labels, they don't like being tied down to anything.  I've said this before and I'm saying it again, get over it.  You want to have a say in the politics but your state is overwhelmingly in favor of Democrats or Republicans and therefore your vote in the general isn't as powerful?  Your state has closed primaries?  Fine, pick your side and vote in the primary.  Labeling yourself as a Democrat doesn't mean you agree with the establishment, it just means that in the Primary you get to vote in the Democratic Primary.  Done.  Fin.  That's it.  You're not confining yourself.  It's not like you're saying you're a straight, male, Catholic... you're saying what party you're affiliated with, i.e. which side you're going to try to have an impact on.  Oh, and if you're going to tell me that by refusing to pick aside, the establishments will pay attention and change their ways... if that were the case, would they not have heard and changed by now based on people not voting?  Abstinence from the political process won't change those that have power over it, it never has, it never will.

Was Trump Actually Right?

Last week, Trump told Chris Matthews that, if abortion were illegal, women getting abortions should be punished.  There were two paths of thinking this led me down:

1. When should the person purchasing the illegal act/item be punished versus when should it be the provider?  In most cases, I would say it's the provider: drugs, guns, murder.  There are a few where it should be the purchaser instead, the primary one that comes to mind for a potential is prostitution.  There's also the potential for the purchaser and the provider should both be punished.  In the case of abortion, there's an interesting predicament, which leads me to thought-path #2.
2. Why do pro-life people think that abortion should be outlawed.  My understanding is that they feel it's murder.  They feel that personhood begins significantly earlier than I do.  IF you feel that abortion is murder (I do not), why would you not feel that the woman seeking the abortion should be punished?  The pro-life movement seemed to instantly distance itself from Trumps statement and even lash out at him for it, Cruz included.  So, I ask Cruz, if person A brings someone to be murdered by person B, is person A not going to be charged with accessory, at minimum?  So, how is the person within the woman different from the person outside the woman?  I feel it necessary to remind everyone reading this that I do not believe the thing that is growing within a woman is a person, I believe abortion is not murder, and therefore the doctor is not murdering someone and the woman getting the abortion is not an accessory.... but I'm curious what the distinction Cruz makes is.

False reasoning and punditry

I hate false reasoning and false logic.  Sanders won 2 of 3 primaries yesterday... does that mean he won yesterday's contest?  No.  He gained fewer delegates than Clinton did, and that's what matters.  I'm hoping he starts picking up more delegates than Clinton and starts to catch up, but this hasn't happened yet and claiming victory when there isn't one is like Bush's mission accomplished speech on the aircraft carrier.

I heard yesterday on NPR about how pundits aren't discouraged or upset about being wrong all the time because they're not looking at how things are but instead looking at how they want them to be.  I understand why they do it.  They want people to believe in the goals they have.  For example, if people think that Sanders is winning, he's more likely to win in the future, so you tell people he's winning.  This why I could never be a pundit, I want to analyze how things are and look at the potential.

There's reason to hope, but winning 2 out of 3 states while losing the delegate count fight isn't it.

I've also seen people saying that the states that Clinton has been winning, for the most part, are states that vote Republican in the general and this fact by itself means that they matter less.  This just simply isn't true because the primary is decided by delegates and the states that have voted thus far have just as many delegates as they would if they voted Democrat in the general.

There's reason to hope, but it's not because the states that have voted thus far don't matter.

There's reason to hope, though.  I have the hope that states that are more liberal, those that vote Democrat in the general elections, will have a heavier turnout for the more liberal candidate.  Sanders is more liberal than Clinton on her most liberal day, and significantly more liberal than than her record shows her to be in general.  Therefore, one can reason that, potentially, just maybe, perhaps, there will be higher turn out in places where people may be more enthusiastic about Sanders.  I'm not being sarcastic in my hedging though.  We have yet to see the true groundswell that Sanders needs in order to win the nomination.

Pundits and news reporters are touting Clinton's overwhelming number of delegates and saying it will be difficult for Sanders to catch up.  But this, too, is overstating things and blinding us from the truth. Clinton currently has 663 delegates based on primaries and 458 super delegates.  Sanders has 459 delegates and 22 super delegates.  Super delegates can change their votes before the convention begins, so really, right now, the difference between the two is 204 delegates.... and there are over 3,000 left for them to split up.  All that said, Sanders needs to pick up a lot of delegates before the super delegates will start to change sides.

I wrote this the afternoon of Sunday, March 6... the day of Maine's Democratic Party primary.  Maine is now reporting at 80% that Sanders has won 64% to 35%, making the delegate count difference about 8 delegates less.  If Sanders can pull this kind of win over Clinton is some of the other, larger, Democratic footholds, he stands a chance.

Super Tuesday 2016!

Super Tuesday is upon us and registered voters in 11 states have a couple decisions to make:  1) Am I voting and 2) if so, who am I voting for.

I'm hoping that the answers for many will be "yes, and I'm voting for Bernie Sanders"... which shouldn't be surprising to anybody, but you might not agree with me... so let's go through your options.

If you want someone who is anti-government and anti-religious freedom, you probably want to vote for the Texan from Canada: Ted Cruz.  He is hated by everybody in Congress... no kidding... and is all about bringing down the government in any way he can.  By the way, politifact reports that he tells mostly truths/truths 21% of the time and tells mostly false or even more false 67% of the time... so if you like a liar, he's a decent choice.

If you want someone who is anti-government and not white, you probably want to vote for the youngling of the crowd: Marco Rubio... and he even has more of a chance at being nominated than 2 others that are running.  Politifact reports that he tells mostly truths/truths a whopping 35% and tells mostly false or even more false only 42% of the time... so if you want someone that one third of the time tells the truth and boldly lies only half the time... he's your man.

If you want someone who is a Democrat but is a war-hawk, economically-moderate, and who Republicans hate more than the Socialist in the race, vote for Clinton (no, seriously, I know Republicans who will vote for Sanders before Trump but will vote for Trump before Clinton).  If you want the Democrat who is most electable in the general, that's not Clinton based on all the polls.  By the way, Clinton tells the truth significantly more than she lies, so that's a positive... 51% for mostly truths/truths and 28% bold lies... including 1% pants-on-fire lies.

If you want someone who truly believes in liberal ideals and thinks we should avoid going to war, or if you want someone who can beat any Republican that ends up getting nominated, or if you want someone who doesn't change their stance on a variety of issues every 4 years, vote for Sanders.  To be fair, Sanders only tells the unvarnished truth 47% of the time and lies 32% of the time... but he never lies at a pants-on-fire level.

If you want someone who lies, disparages wide swaths of the public, doesn't think that issues are what we should vote based on, has gone bankrupt (unlike any other candidate listed thus far), and the rest of the world hates even more than Republicans hate Clinton, just stay home.  Seriously though, Trump lies... he lies a lot.  He has a harder time telling the truth than Cruz does with 7% of the time telling the mostly truths and 78% telling mostly falsehoods with a full 20% of those being full-on pants-on-fire lies.  He's insulted Mexicans, Women, residents of Iowa, immigrants... and that's just the wide generalizations.  And when asked if he would disavow white supremacist supporters, his response was that he didn't know David Duke... whom he had tweeted about previously... no, his response was not to say "white supremacists are racist thugs and I don't need support from the likes of them", which I hope most Americans would have thought reasonable.

So... let's see if this follows... If you want Trump to win, congrats, your job is done, stay home, nobody cares.  If you want Trump not to win the general, your best approach is probably to vote for Sanders, since polls show that he's the best bet at beating Trump.  If you don't like Sanders because he's too far left, fair enough, vote for Clinton, but don't be surprised when we've got troops on the ground in Syria for a decade.

Super Tuesday matters, go out and vote, but vote informed and thoughtfully.