Activism Part IV

I now find it ridiculous, stupid, useless, even dangerous. Activism that is, --activism as in promote, impede, direct. As you may remember, I was quarreling with the whole concept of Activism through Parts ->I to ->III, trying to find the right angle to it, and dealing with people bustling around me. Now I don't anymore. This parental unit is proudly sitting on the couch, two cheeks fast asleep. Lazy. Still useful to some extent, but not in a world-changing manner, more in a "I'm watching you" kind of way. I'm eating while I write this. That's how useful I am. Sitting. Eating. Writing. Wow, that is some world-class multitasking, my friends!



Sometimes I think about what would happen if I weren't able to pay my bills - I imagine scenarios that result in me being in the gutter, and what I would do, that kind of thing. I consider that the everyday worries of human beings. DNA-wise, there's not much difference between a homeless person and Taylor Swift, besides varying degrees of busybodyness. I wouldn't call thinking about social decline as being stricken with sorrow, since those are concerns that move around aimlessly in (I'm guessing) everyone's head.

But now there's the extravagant stuff. Stuff, humans care about and put it in big letters on the magnet board next to the fridge, because those things presumably define them as a person, most of all a social media person of interest. Hah, and aren't those some wonderfully abstract things to worry about: climate change, pollution, sustainability, which by the way has quickly turned into my number one rage word. Things, world, possibly all that exists needs to endure. Because we want it to. Why does it always have to be so exotic?



I find that people are on a mission of self-denial. They're thinking big and I find that disturbing. Why can't you start small, damnit? It is quite arrogant to want to save a whole planet. What kind of a narcissistic ass starts with the big one? Don't you work your way up towards the big dreams anymore? Go clean up your room, do your taxes, whatever, and if you're still thinking big, why not try not to die of cancer next? That's pretty big, too. That should be a main concern on your way to saving everything. If the whole Lemmy-Bowie-Rickman incident has taught us anything, it is that our number one concern should be our immediate survival. Not on a large scale, but on a very small, singular scale. Don't die, you! Everyone's ass is on the line here, so please make yourself sustainable. The world may not need you, but you need you. What else is there to worry about?

Sexism Rant *Explicitly Offensive Content*

(I have been wandering around this post for days. I almost didn't publish it. I almost called for male protection aka asking hubby to publish it on his blog. And my chicken-ness infinitely disgusted me, so I had to do it. I think it speaks volumes about how dicey this actually is. Here are my two cents - I may be wrong.)

I'm sure every woman has experienced being hit on in certain situations at least once in her life. What the people who do this usually want is quite obvious. OK, I'll just say men, because they mostly are the ones to do it, fully aware that it's utterly sexist to call the bull by its name. But since women initiating flirtation with men doesn't seem to be that big an issue I feel like I'm allowed to say it. Anyways, every woman instinctively knows how to react; what to do if someone shows interest in them. If the feeling's not mutual, she usually doesn't respond or she responds negatively by saying "No, thank you" to the guy. 99,9 % of all men accept that and don't automatically cross over to raping mode. I bet most of them didn't bank on shouting "hubba-hubba" as the woman walks by would get them anywhere closer to their pants.

There's degrees of subtlety when it comes to flirtation, some approaches are more socially accepted than others. Some men say stuff like "I think I know you from somewhere" and offer to buy drinks. Usually not a problem, because it involves a polite line and freebies. Others don't beat around the bush and tell women more directly what they want. And there are those minimalists who simply grab a butt in passing. These are basically all varying degrees of the same thing, except at least one of them qualifies as harassment. Sexual advances against one's will are, of course, at all times completely illicit. No discussion necessary. But since harassment is not only a legal term but also a matter of personal interpretation, the boundaries can be quite blurry.

Call me oldfashioned - but when did the mere act of making contact become a cause for alarm? I'm talking about that infamous video with the woman walking through Manhattan. Why is it considered sexist to tell anyone that you're sexually interested in them? To my understanding it's not discriminatory to declare your interest, except if there's a disadvantage for the other person in case she does not reciprocate the feelings, like in a situation of subordination eg. But is it disadvantageous to be any random person's object of desire? Even if this person just thinks about you in a certain way, no real world consequences? I say, flirtation itself is not discriminatory, well, except, of course, to those trolls men have a preference over by choosing you. But since they're not the target, they will never file a complaint.

The way I see it is that legally we're either heading towards a unified gender - because pointing out the differences between them is considered an act of sexism - or that we're approaching an age where every remark, every lecherous glance, even every perceived un-materialized intent will be cause for legal action. I clearly woke up in the wrong century.

And these so-called modern feminists do nothing to further the cause for gender equality. And I mean true equality, not tiptoeing-around-alleged-offense equality or - yes I have to say it - professional victimhood. Equality means that certain things are either allowed or not allowed - regardless of gender. Like me, walking down the street, randomly wolf-whistling men. Allowed, and so far, none of my victims ever screamed rape. Or could it be this newfound need for awareness in truth is all about the prejudice in regards to a woman's lack of physical and or mental strength compared to the alleged male "dominance"? I have this nagging feeling some women may think that. And if that's the case, it's at the core of the deepest and darkest sexism there is, women seeing themselves as helpless victims of the much-cited patriarchy. Ladies, you seem unaware that we as a species have evolved. We have acquired laws. In fact, why do you feel the need to diminish our foremothers achievements by pretending we still live in the stone age? Thanks to legislature it is not common practice to hit women with clubs and drag them away to some remote cave. I fear that since you ordered that Victorian, we'll all be going to pay for it at some point. No freebies. Holy shitballs!

A list of all sexisms listed in this rant according to modern feminist standards

Naively calling the abuse of women "hitting on".

Degrading canine behavior to the level of male humans through the use of "hubba-hubba".

"Getting into pants" as an expression of sexual advances when clearly every woman is allowed to wear a skirt.

Calling women cheap, because they like freebies.

Using the vulgar expression "beating around the bush".

Discriminating against unattractive people by calling them trolls.

Using the term Victorian as a cocktail. A Victorian is not a drink, but a dark age of oppression which no one should ever be allowed to make fun of.

"Holy shitballs" - Accusing men of being such pigs, fecally soiling their babymakers is a natural occurrence. Blasphemy also. My guess is most women wouldn't have a problem with either of that.

Activism, Part II

There is this other form of activism, the frightening kind. It has nothing to do with holding hands in protest or shaking heads in silent disapproval. It's the only statement that sets out to take a drastic step: the violent kind. Violence is the voice of the powerless, as life is a value to be threatened anytime, by anyone.

It's the 1300s. Picture peasants with pitchforks in front of the house of a landowner. He kept them under for years, oppressed them as he got richer and richer. Now they are knocking on his door. Him being afraid for his life is the only leverage they have and it's the making of a good and clean revolt right there. His head may end up on a pike, or his body, hanging from a lamp post in the course of events. Someone loses his life in order for someone else to get a new house. In ECON, we call this redistribution. In politics, it's coup d'état. Let's mingle human loss and reset our finances. This is the kind of activism I can get behind.

Peasant's Revolt: any day now

Everyone knows that the way wealth is distributed amongst people is far from fair. Our personal financial state doesn't necessarily represent the things we earn, even less deserve. There is some obscene prosperity accumulated by a privileged few, in many places all over the world. In the USA, the top 20% of Americans owned 85% of the country's wealth and the bottom 80% of the population owned 15% (year 2007, source Congressional Budget Office). How does that not scream revolt in loud and bloody letters? How does that not make you want to kick in some doors?

The powers that be keep us down and we buy into what they tell us. We'd rather believe that they worked long and hard for what they have. That they started from nothing, same as we did. That we, if we work long and hard, can be one of them some day. It's all a big bag of lies. They had a head start in being born with some privileges. They may have worked hard, and cheated even harder, but they didn't tell you about the selling of soul which has to be done as well. That's were the real money is buried. Because they have long passed "being wealthy" now, since it's all about being filthy rich. They know how to get it. They know where to take it, and who to take it from. And hide it. Another bonus this year, just for being 'you'! Congrats!

This makes me sick. So sick, in fact, I think vomiting could become a chronic problem for me. I proved myself wrong. There is some use in activism. I just don't think judging the guy next to us for his lifestyle choices is where it should begin - or end. We should take out the ones that cause the real damage. Let's go now, you take the banner, I'll get the axe. Let's head out and make a statement, red on white.