An excellent piece at The Stone on “open carry” and the exciting time it is when a bunch of gun-toting fanatics can force law enforcement to back down because law enforcement doesn’t want yet another Waco or Ruby Ridge. Patrick Blanchfield

Earlier this month, in Bunkerville, Nev., representatives of the Bureau of Land Management withdrew from a tense standoff with supporters of Cliven Bundy, a rancher who owes the federal government over $1 million in unpaid fees for allowing his cattle to graze on public land. The hundreds of self-appointed militia and “states’ rights” activists who flocked to support Bundy, many in full tactical gear and openly carrying assault rifles, blockaded a federal interstate and trained their weapons on B.L.M. employees who sought to negotiate with the rancher and his family. Fearful of a pitched gun battle, the B.L.M. departed, leaving Bundy and his supporters to celebrate, emboldened, with a barbecue.

Seriously, now – what does that sound like? It sounds like fucking Boko Haram, that’s what. It sounds like fascism. It sounds like what it is: hundreds of men with guns thwarting a branch of civilian government. This is not something we want.

…as a transaction between the state and citizens decided not by rule of law, nor by vote or debate, but rather by the simple presence of arms, Bunkerville is deeply troubling. Guns publicly brandished by private individuals decided the outcome. For all Bundy’s appeals to constitutional justification, what mattered at the end of the day was who was willing to take the threat of gunplay the furthest.

We don’t want that. It’s the opposite of civilization, and we prefer civilization.

Bunkerville is simply the next step in a trend that has been ramping up for some time. Since the election of Barack Obama, guns have appeared in the public square in a way unprecedented since the turbulent 1960s and ’70s — carried alongside signs and on their own since before the Tea Party elections, in a growing phenomenon of “open carry” rallies organized by groups like the Modern American Revolution and OpenCarry.org, and in the efforts by gun rights activists to carry assault weapons into the Capitol buildings in New Mexico and Texas (links to video). According to open carry advocates, their presence in public space represents more than just an expression of their Second Amendment rights, it’s a statement, an “educational,” communicative act  — in short, an exercise of their First Amendment freedom of speech. (See this, from the group Ohio Carry, and this Michigan lawsuit.)

No. Guns are not educational and they’re not speech. Go away.

what does it mean, in a democracy that enshrines freedom of speech, to publicly carry a gun as an expression of political dissent? Toting a weapon in a demonstration changes the stakes, transforming a protest from just another heated transaction in the marketplace of ideas into something else entirely. It’s bringing a gun to an idea-fight, gesturing as close as possible to outright violence while still technically remaining within the domain of speech. Like a military “show of force,” this gesture stays on the near side of an actual declaration of war while remaining indisputably hostile. The commitment to civil disagreement is merely provisional: I feel so strongly about this issue, the gun says, that if I don’t get my way, I am willing to kill for it. 

Quite. And I don’t want that.

We should also note that not all symbolic speech is created equal. On the contemporary stage, those bearing guns in protest are most likely to be white, right-leaning, and rural. As the historian Adam Winkler has documented, this represents a more or less direct reversal of the upheavals of the late ’60s and ’70s, when Republican politicians pursued new gun control legislation in response to armed protests by urban African-American leftists. Today, it is those most sheltered from actual state violence — from the day-to-day reality of police brutality — who also feel most threatened by the state, most free to threaten violence against hypothetical violations, and most entitled to opt out of civil discourse by reaching for their weapons. Our racial double standards for who can safely gesture at political violence are enormous. At least before his racism became public, Bundy and his supporters could point assault weapons at federal agents and be lionized as “patriots” by a United States senator and celebrated on Fox, whereas a single New Black Panther standing near a polling station while holding a billy club prompted calls on that same network for former Navy SEALs to show up in force and “fight back.”

In many ways this country is just not sane.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

BBC 2 had a show about misogyny a couple of days ago, and the New Statesman has a review by Rachel Cooke.

She starts by saying misogyny is nothing new and she’s not sure it’s worse now than in the past.

I see, though, that in one sense all of this is irrelevant. What matters is that women feel misogyny is on the rise, there being so many exciting new outlets for the expression of woman hatred.

Well no, that’s not right, because it’s two different things. If women feel misogyny is on the rise when it isn’t, then it’s worth explaining that it isn’t. But the fact that there are so many exciting new outlets for the expression of woman hatred is not just a feeling; it’s reality. So there’s no need to make concessions to subjectivity and fee-fees, because the fact that there are lots of new outlets for misogyny means that there is more misogyny around now. Because of the outlets, you see.

It’s in our faces (or perhaps I mean on our screens) like never before. In her excellent and often shocking documentary Blurred Lines (8 May, 9.30pm), Kirsty Wark thankfully didn’t get too bogged down in trying to ascertain whether misogyny really is growing. Instead, she focused on the impact of the internet (and, to a lesser degree, the media) on both women and men, whose more sexist impulses it may validate.

Ya think?

It was disappointing that she allowed the Spectator columnist Rod Liddle to talk so flabbily about how men get trolled as horribly as women – apparently, we should just “man up” and deal with it – without ever asking him why he thought it was acceptable to write of the deputy leader of the Labour Party: “So, Harriet Harman, then. Would you? I mean after a few beers obviously, not while you were sober.”

Rod Liddle is a shameless, indeed boastful misogynist. I did a post about that once, years ago.

Wark’s material was cold-shower sobering. The unstoppable vileness – from Frankie Boyle telling “jokes” about vaginas to a Stirling University men’s hockey team singing songs about inducing miscarriages on a public bus service – seemed even more than usually shameful, piled end to end in this way. We all know what followed when Mary Beard appeared on Question Time but Wark had thought to look at social media responses to all women guests on the show over the course of the first three months of this year. Dear God, it was ugly. Does this stuff keep some women from public life? Yes. For my part, there are pieces I avoid writing for fear of what will follow on Twitter and “below the line”.

Well then it’s the women’s own fault, right?! They should just toughen up – or else they should get off the internet. Oh wait…

Germaine Greer reflected on the prescience of her statement that (I paraphrase) most women have very little idea how much men hate them. Say what you like about the internet; at least it has given us a bracing slap round the face on this score.

Yes, but I’d rather it wasn’t true. I’m naive enough to wish fewer men did hate women.

Our friend Maureen Brian watched the show (the programme for you UKnians – never let it be said that I try to force everyone to speak and understand American!) this evening and gives this report (in the present tense because she was reporting while watching):

KW is a pretty competent journalist and is asking the right questions but she’s meeting a hell of a lot of people who are either deeply brain dead, totally confused or refusing to engage with the question. Heading that last list is the execrable Rod Liddle. There have been stars – a psychologist whose experiments show that e.g. tolerating sexist behaviour does indeed encourage those who are really sexist to go out and do it some more! Surprise!

Also a linguist countering the “but the internet isn’t real” meme by tracing the feedback loops between trolls and mainstream media and public life. Also Laurie Penny is on the ball.

Finally we get to the shift in the balance of power – Germaine Greer not sure about this – and the immaturity of the adolescent male. How this is being addressed in the very best sex & relationship education which not everyone gets.

Now we have Steubenville and more confusion. Balanced by the thought of using the changes in technology to power the fight-back.

It’s mystifying that they had Rod Liddle on that show (programme) at all.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Some comments left on one of the three or four irritable Facebook posts I fired off about Ricky Gervais yesterday:

All hail the great Atheist Community!

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Maki Naro @sciencecomic on Twitter:

Whenever anybody points out that “cunt” is a misogynistic slur pic.twitter.com/5zqxXwYSJp

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

The menace of Boko Haram is not just a military issue – it is an ideological one. The west should help Nigeria defeat Boko Haram and win the battle of ideas.

The kidnapping of more than 200 school girls by Nigeria’s terrorist group, Boko Haram, has attracted outrage and condemnation from different parts of the globe.(1)

People across the world have joined the online campaign to ‘Bring Back Our Girls’ and pressure the government of Nigeria to do more in combating the menace of this Islamist group.(2,3).

The US, the UK and France have offered to help Nigeria rescue the girls and bring their abductors to justice.

But some people are speculating that an intervention by western countries could turn Nigeria into another Afghanistan. They are suggesting that Nigeria be left alone, that no assistance be given to the country as it battles this Al-Qaeda linked organisation.(4)

Personally I think those making this submission are mistaken. I have been writing about Boko Haram and the activities of other muslim fanatics and theocrats in Nigeria for many years.

It is obvious that Nigeria needs military and intelligence assistance to rescue the abducted girls and defeat Boko Haram. Unfortunately, efforts by the Nigerian government to contain the insurgency and attacks have proved largely ineffective. So Nigeria needs help, urgent international help to boost its counter terrorism initiatives.

If international assistance is provided to countries when they are hit by natural disasters, or when countries experience aviation mishaps as in the case of the missing Malaysia airline flight MH370, why should countries – western or eastern – not extend help to Nigeria and ensure that these girls are brought back to their families? Nigeria is grappling with a humanitarian crisis with a international dimension. The government is fighting a transnational terrorist group that recruits members from neighbouring countries.(5) Boko Haram has already carried out trans-border raids and kidnapping(6). It has attacked the UN building in Abuja.(7) If it gets the opportunity, Boko Haram could attack embassies of western countries or business interests in Nigeria as al-Shabab did in Kenya.(8) The menace of Boko Haram is not just a Nigerian issue. This terrorist group poses a serious threat to peace and security in the region and beyond.

There is no doubt that western intervention could worsen the situation in Nigeria. This could happen if western countries think that the Boko Haram issue requires only a military solution. It does not. The menace of Boko Haram is both a military as well as an ideological issue. And defeating this terrorist group needs – and would need – both the force of arms but also the force of ideas – secular democratic ideas. It will require mental reorientation and ‘value change’. Boko Haram is an armed group of suicide bombers driven by virulent Islamic extremism and existential nihilism.

The name ‘Boko Haram’ means ‘western education is forbidden’ in the local hausa language. This speaks volumes about the ideological leaning. The group is opposed to ‘western education’ and secular government. It is an offshoot of the ‘anti-western’, jihadist, islamist, theocratic ideology that prevails in many parts of northern Nigeria, hence its agitation for the establishment of an Islamic state.

Boko Haram is a radical fall out of this quest for sharia law andIslamic theocracy by muslim majority states in the country. Like Al Shababa, islamism is its ideological power base for mobilization of support and for recruitment of members. The abduction of the school girls is a radical demonstration of its islamist perception of women and its opposition to secular ideals of gender equality, dignity and human rights.

Secularists, feminists and human rights campaigners should explore ways of counteracting the indoctrintation, ‘dogmatization’ and brainwashing of young muslims in mosques and Quranic schools across northern Nigeria. It is at these ‘praying’ and ‘learning’ centers that clerics radicalize young muslims and turned them into mechants of death and destruction. Human rights campaigners should liase with secular oriented groups and institutions to promote educational reform and inculcate the values of critical thinking, separation of mosque and state, tolerance of other religions and world views, free and open society and universal human rights.

Western intervention should be geared towards helping Nigeria defeat Boko Haram militarily and ideologically.

Leo Igwe is a humanist activist currrently doing research at Bayreuth International Graduate School of African Studies(religious studies), University of Bayreuth in Germany

1. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/nigeria-missing-girls/article18459078/
2. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2623764/Bring-Back-Our-Girls-Anne-Hathaway-takes-streets-LA-megaphone-raise-awareness-kidnapped-Nigerian-schoolgirls.html
3. http://ahjotnaija.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/students-and-professor-susan-arndt-hold-multi-cultural-campaign-in-bayreuth-germany-to-bring-back-our-girls/
4. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/06/western-intervention-nigeria-kidnapped-girls-corruption-boko-haram
5. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-27107375
6. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-26899710
7. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-14677957
8. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-24191606

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Another thing about Ricky Gervais’s bit of Facebook wisdom is how childishly wrong it is as a claim (much less an argument).

If you grabbed Hitler and shouted “stop killing innocent people you cunt”, someone on Facebook would call you out on your sexist language.

Well first we have to accept that “you” can “grab” Hitler in the same world where people will comment on Facebook about what you shouted at him. It’s too much to ask us to accept that. If Ricky Gervais were in a position to “grab” Hitler and shout something at him, he wouldn’t be in a position to report his shouting on Facebook.

Then, an even more demanding task: we have to accept that grabbing and shouting at Hitler is some kind of important useful, even heroic work that shouldn’t be interrupted by people objecting to sexist language. But is it? No, I don’t think so. I don’t think Hitler would have been dissuaded from killing millions of people by Ricky Gervais, no matter how loudly Ricky Gervais called him a cunt.

Then we have to accept the hidden premise: that if someone is really really terrible, the way Hitler was, then it’s ok to call that person a cunt.

Well that’s just fucking stupid. The two things aren’t even related to each other. Calling a really terrible person a name, any name, makes no difference to anything. It’s idiotic to defend it in the guise of heroic resistance work.

So that’s one thing. It’s totally beside the point. And the other thing is, it’s still bad to use sexist (or racist etc but Ricky Gervais didn’t talk about any of those, it’s only the sexist ones he’s defending) epithets. It doesn’t become ok to use them once you get VERY angry or VERY upset. There isn’t a gauge you can check to see if you’re angry or upset enough to start using sexist epithets. There isn’t some point at which it becomes ok. As sadly usual, this becomes easier to see if you swap a racist epithet for the sexist one. Suppose some white Republican legislator writes a law making it a crime for a woman to have a miscarriage (hello Tennessee!); does that make it ok to call that legislator a nigger or a wetback?

No.

This isn’t a hill anyone should want to die on. It’s pathetic. It’s pathetic to see grown men pitching baby fits over their precious right to call people cunts. It’s gervaisy and pathetic.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

According to the Nigerian Tribune, the US and UK have brought in the high tech equipment to locate the Boko Haram hiding place and the schoolgirls they’ve enslaved.

BOTH the United States and British anti-terror specialists who arrived Nigeria on Friday have started deploying high-grade surveillance technologies to track down the voice, location and the fire power of Boko Haram terrorists who kidnapped over 200 girls of a secondary school in Chibok, Borno State.

According to reports on Friday by Daily Mail of the United Kingdom and other news channels monitored by the Saturday Tribune, the deployment and further operation of the exercise is being overseen by the Special Forces, even as there are indications that the Special Forces may deploy, within days, the spy plane called The Sentinel Radar Plane to be operated by the British Royal Air Force Squadron 5 to locate the hideouts of the terrorists.

Both the British and US anti-terror specialists started using aerial surveillance and evesdropping technology on Friday to help pinpoint the position of the terrorists holding nearly 300 schoolgirls hostage.

Let’s hope it works – and that Nigerian soldiers capture all the Boko Haramists alive and send them to a prison where they get a whole lot of Boko.

[Gordon] Brown, who is the United Nations special envoy on global education, said that he had spoken to US Secretary of State, John Kerry, who agreed that air and satellite surveillance would be extended into neighbouring countries.

The former PM urged British people to sign the Bring Back Our Girls petition, which he said was putting pressure on the Nigerian government to take action and making clear that the international community shared the ‘revulsion’ of ordinary Nigerians for Boko Haram.

US First Lady, Michelle Obama, is among dozens of political figures and celebrities, including Jessie J., Angelina Jolie, Leona Lewis, Hillary Clinton, schoolgirl Malala Yusafzay and model Cara Delevingne to have backed the petition.

Speaking from Abuja, Mr Brown said: “The more people who can sign the petition, the more I think the Nigerian government officials and others will want to take action.”

We all signed it ages ago.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Ricky Gervais is so proud of his clever joke about how people will object to your use of sexist epithets EVEN WHEN IT’S HITLER YOU’RE CALLING THEM that he put in some time defending it on Twitter as well – entirely and obliviously missing the point while doing so. God he’s thick. I think I’ve mentioned this before (but then, he keeps illustrating it), but I thought David Brent was satire, when it turns out he was just Ricky Gervais.

Ricky Gervais @rickygervais 4h

Sorry I called Hitler a cunt. I wasn’t thinking. His behaviour just got to me. Soz.

I will continue to use offensive words like cunt, atheism & Derek and post pictures of myself in the bath. Unfollow now if you don’t like it

Here are some words more offensive than cunt: bumph, soz, yummy, serendipity, swag, baby mama, totes, & ass & douche if you’re not American

Notice what he does not say. Notice he does not say he will continue to use offensive words like nigger, kike, faggot, Mozzie, gook, slope, Polack, towelhead, goat-fucker. Notice that it’s ONLY THE WORD THAT DENIGRATES WOMEN that he makes a big point of bragging about saying and defending.

He is a piece of shit.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Another blow struck for the right to call people cunts.

Ricky Gervais
If you grabbed Hitler and shouted “stop killing innocent people you cunt”, someone on Facebook would call you out on your sexist language.

And?

Has Ricky Gervais ever done a Facebook post saying “If you grabbed Hitler and shouted ‘stop killing innocent people you kike’, someone on Facebook would call you out on your anti-semitic language”?

I don’t know for sure, but I seriously doubt it. People like him don’t defend calling people niggers or kikes, but they do defend calling people cunts. Why is that? Because the first is not ok while the second is ok. Why? I can only conclude it’s because hatred of women just doesn’t even show up on the radar of people like Ricky Gervais.

I despise people like Ricky Gervais…and Penn Jillette and all the rest of the “it’s hip to use misogynist epithets because everybody knows women are dreary buzzkilling cunts” crowd.

H/t Stephanie

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

From Banda Aceh, Indonesia – sexual morality-policing via gang rape.

An Indonesian woman who was gang-raped by men accusing her of having extramarital sex may be caned publicly for violating Islamic law, an official said Wednesday.

The 25-year-old widow said she was raped by eight men who allegedly found her with a married man in her house. The men reportedly beat the man, doused the two with sewage, and then turned them over to Islamic police in conservative Aceh province.

No, the men reportedly beat the man, doused the two with sewage, gang-raped the woman, and then turned them over to Islamic police in conservative Aceh province.

What business was it of theirs what she was doing in her house? It may be the man’s wife’s business, but it’s not the business of anyone else.

The head of Islamic Shariah law in the district, Ibrahim Latief, said his office has recommended the widow and the married man be caned nine times for violating religious law, pending an investigation. Its preliminary finding was that the two were about to have sex at that time, but Latief contended they violated Shariah law by being in the same room together. He said they also admitted they had sex earlier.

But nobody violated Sharia by gang-raping the woman, beating the man, and dousing both of them with sewage? That’s all right is it? Any old passerby can punish people for sexual misdemeanors with extreme violence and abuse?

You’re doing it wrong.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Michelle Goldberg reported last month on the trial of Cecily McMillan.

Two years ago, a young activist named Cecily McMillan attended a protest at Zuccotti Park marking the six-month anniversary of Occupy Wall Street. When police moved in to clear the demonstrators, a cop roughly grabbed her breast—photos show an ugly bruise—and she ended up being injured so badly that she had a seizure and ended up in the hospital. In a just world, she would be getting restitution from the City. Instead, in a grotesque act of prosecutorial overreach, she’s currently on trial for assault and facing up to seven years in prison.

According to prosecutors, McMillan, now 25, intentionally attacked her arresting officer, Grantley Bovel, by elbowing him in the face, and was then hurt when he tried to subdue her. She says that she instinctively struck out when she felt his hand on her breast, not knowing that he was a cop, and was then further assaulted.

Why should we believe her instead of the prosecutors? Well there’s this hand-shaped bruise on her breast, documented in pictures…

In her opening argument last week, assistant district attorney Erin Choi tried to use McMillan’s outcry during the arrest against her. Choi quoted McMillan asking onlookers, “Are you filming this? Are you filming this?” Choi’s implication was that McMillan didn’t want her premeditated attack on tape. But anyone who has ever covered a protest knows that this is what demonstrators say when they feel they’re being mistreated—it’s a call for documentation, not for turning the cameras off.

She was convicted on Monday, and could be sentenced to 7 years in prison.

The Guardian – which, Goldberg says, has been covering the case closely – reports today that the jurors have petitioned the judge not to sentence her to prison.

The Guardian reported on Tuesday that several jurors, who were barred from researching the trial while it was happening, were shocked to discover that McMillan could receive a substantial prison term when they searched for details online, minutes after being dismissed.

“They felt bad,” said one juror, who did not wish to be named. “Most just wanted her to do probation, maybe some community service. But now what I’m hearing is seven years in jail? That’s ludicrous. Even a year in jail is ridiculous.”

Let’s not try to rival Saudi Arabia, shall we?

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

This seems useful and healthy – this Facebook group called Women Who Eat on Tubes*, which features sneak photos of just that.

Some women had a picnic on the tube last month to mock the whole disgusting thing.

Sarah Hardcastle, in a T-shirt reading “women who eat wherever the fuck they want”, produced a bottle of juice neatly relabelled “bloody feminist cocktail”.

“It’s very bitter,” she explained.

The gathering in a London underground train carriage was a response to a controversial Facebook group entitled Women Who Eat on Tubes, featuring surreptitious mobile phone photographs of just that.

Hardcastle, an advertising copywriter, was already wearing the T-shirt when she heard Lucy Brisbane McKay confront film-maker Tony Burke on the Radio 4 Today programme on Friday, and realised gratefully that she and her friends were not the only ones who found his Facebook and Tumblr pages creepily misogynist.

Oh, pshaw. It’s important to monitor the behavior of women in public so that they will be sure to either do the right thing (as determined by randos with camera phones) or stay home.

It was, Burke said, an art project, mere reportage – “an observational study”.

Julia Bohanna disagreed. “I write about art and that’s rubbish,” she said. “You only have to look at captions commenting on the size of a burger a woman is eating. It’s voyeuristic bullying, turned on a group which may include many vulnerable people. The mere idea that these photographs could be called high art is borderline hilarious.”

I think “contemptible” is the word, more than “hilarious.”

Hardcastle said: “Some people have asked us: ‘Why are you standing up about this? Why aren’t you tackling a real cause?’ But you can’t do everything – and when you can do something, it’s better than doing nothing.”

In other words, some people were all “Dear Muslima” – so fuck them.

* “Tubes” in the sense of the London Underground. “On Tubes is slightly odd, now I think about it; “on the Tube” would seem more normal to me, but “on Tubes” just means on different trains on the Tube.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Jen Phillips’s 11-year-old daughter wrote a research paper for school which is so good it needs to be published here, which Jen gave me permission to do.

It was first published on J. Robert Deans’s blog in UPDATE #2: Hey, Ladies! (You Are) Comics!

Women in Comics–an Independent Research Report, by Erica

Women In Comics: By Erica

The topic I chose is female superheroes in comics. I’ve always been interested in comics, especially when there is a female main character. I noticed some differences in the way female characters are represented compared to male characters. I think it is important that women and men are represented as equals, so I decided to dig deeper into the creation of the characters. I learned some interesting thing that I will now share with you!

Black Widow

First, I noticed a big difference in how men and women were drawn. Almost all the men have better powers stances, like “I’m ready for action” and the women look graceful and dainty. It seems as if they can’t look like a warrior and pretty at the same time. Most male superheroes are drawn with normal athletic bodies and usually have adequate clothing. Also almost all the females have long hair that is always down, which is easy to grab in combat Not very practival right? The females often have exaggerated body parts and body shapes, and physically impossible  poses. This matters because if you were a little boy and you read a comic with a great male superhero who saves the day and looks heroic too, then you would want to be that person. But if you were a little girl and all the females in your book had skimpy costumes then you would most likely not want to be them.

Susan Richards: The Invisible Woman, and a wife and mother

Jessica Walters: the She-Hulk, and a practicing attorney

We all know superheroes don’t fight every second right? Outside of fighting, most superheroes are important to the world in other ways. For example,  She-Hulk is a lawyer, Captain Marvel is an airforce pilot, Sue Storm (A.K.A. The Invisible Woman) is a mother and a wife, and Storm (from X-Men) is a teacher. These jobs are all very important, but if you compare them to the men’s jobs, there are some differences.  For example, Iron Man is a brilliant billionare inventor, Reed Richards (Mr.Fantasic and Sue Storm’s husband) is a scientific genius, as is Peter Parker (A.K.A. Spiderman).  These men are all portrayed as super smart and acomplished. The women’s jobs are not on the same level.

Susan Storm, from team “mascot” to its most important member

Superheros get their powers in many different ways. Some, like Mystique, Storm, Emma Frost, and Jean Grey from “X-Men” are born mutants. Others, like the Invisible Woman and the rest of the Fantastic Four, got their powers from being exposed to space radiation. Not every superhero has super powers though, for example Black Widow is great at martial arts and uses high tech equipment. There are many different types of powers, but in general male superheroes have offensive powers for attacking, while the female superheroes have defensive powers for protecting themselves and the team.  I was surprised when I relized that the types of powers weren’t equal.

Unrealistic Poses

Change can be big or change can be small. The changes of the female characters over the years were big and small. In WWII, (1940s) there were a lot of patriotic superheros. Most of the female characters were drawn so the soliders would have pretty pictures of women to look at. Also in the 1940s, more than half the time Female characters were shown, they were doing chores. If the female characters had children, the child was more likely to be a son. During the 1960s, comic artists tried to draw female characters more equal and powerful but that didn’t work because that wasn’t what the buyers wanted, so they went back to drawing them with not much clothing and unrealistic body shapes and poses. In the past most female characters were sidekicks or assistant to the main MALE superhero. In the past few decades, female characters have slowly gotten more speaking roles and more equal partnerships.

Why can’t all comics be like this?

As history shows, comics have ben mostly drawn for boys and men. Even though changes have happened over the years, in 2010 the editor of DC comics said “The superhero story has been more appealing to boys than girls”. This attitude explains why most comics are still made for male readers. Recently though, more female writers and artists are working in comics and have been giving female characters more speaking lines, cooler roles, and more diversity. But not everybody is happy with these changes. Last month,  Janelle Asselin, a comic book editor and writer, wrote an article criticizing the cover art of the new Teen Titans series. Ms. Asselin thought the teenage girl on the cover was drawn inappropriately and also thought it was bad that the only person of color on the team was way in the background. She felt that the cover art would probably not attract new readers who were girls or people of color. After her article was published, she received hundreds of angry letters and even threats of violence. I can’t believe people would treat a real person that badly over an opinion she had about a comic book character.

I was very interested in learning more about this topic. I don’t like how the comic industry is disrespecting women. There have been some changes in how the characters have been portrayed since they were first created, but the genre is still not very open to women.  As a fairly educated comic book reader, some of the pictures that I see now make me feel uncomfortable and disappointed that someone would draw a human being like that. I think a lot of the stuff I learned was very important and I think comic artists and editors still have a long way to go before their comics will appeal to female readers.  Maybe they can put more women on the offensive side and more men on the defensive side, not completely switching the two, but making them more equal.  I hope some day all the comics will be more equal and diverse. After all, there are more ways to be super than looking super!

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Major English language media are now reporting the horrendous news about the new and even more barbaric sentence imposed on Raif Badawi.

The BBC reports.

A Saudi court has imprisoned blogger Raif Badawi for 10 years for “insulting Islam” and setting up a liberal web forum, local media report.

He was also sentenced to 1,000 lashes and ordered to pay a fine of 1 million riyals ($266,000; £133,000).

I would put the 1000 lashes first.

Mr Badawi, the co-founder of a website called the Liberal Saudi Network, was arrested in 2012.

A Saudi newspaper close to the government reported that he had lost his appeal against an earlier, more lenient sentence of seven years and three months in jail and 600 lashes.

Makes the blood run cold, doesn’t it, when a sentence of seven years and three months in jail and 600 lashes for atheist opinion and a liberal web forum is called “more lenient”?

Amnesty International describes him as a “prisoner of conscience” and has called for his release.

“Raif Badawi is the latest victim to fall prey to the ruthless campaign to silence peaceful activists in Saudi Arabia,” it said in a statement.

Last October a Saudi journalist was freed after spending a year and a half in prison for writing insulting tweets about the Prophet Muhammad.

Hamza Kashgari fled Saudi Arabia for Malaysia in 2012 but was extradited just days later. He was released last year after making a public apology.

Way to make everyone love Islam, Saudi Arabia – keep telling the world that refusal to love Islam gets you fined and imprisoned and whipped ONE THOUSAND TIMES. Yes that should work well.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Well thank fuck somebody is asking the real question about the kidnapped and enslaved schoolgirls in Nigeria. Noah Rothman at Medialite is asking it.

This focus on Boko Haram from both the media and the government is an unqualified good. The press arguably increased the pressure on global governments to do something about this backwards group of terrorists. But Boko Haram is not a new phenomenon. It was not long ago that some – including this author – were asking why this group’s atrocities were not generating any attention in the press.

On February 25, between 40 and 59 children were killed by the fundamentalist militant group. Early that morning, Boko Haram terrorists attacked a boarding school and shot many of children, aged 11 to 18, while they slept. Some of the students were gunned down as they attempted to flee. Others had their throats slit. In some buildings, Boko Haram militants locked the doors and set the building alight. The occupants were burned alive.

All of the victims were boys. Reports indicated that the young girls the militants encountered were spared. According to the BBC, the militants told the girls to flee, get married, and shun the western education to which they were privy.

Beyond wire reports and a handful of segments on globally-focused outlets like NPR, this atrocity went unremarked upon in the popular news media.

February 25 was not Boko Haram’s first atrocity. By March, more than 1,000 people had been killed in the country’s northeast since the first of the year. Prior to Boko Haram’s shift in tactics, from wholesale slaughter of young men to the kidnapping of young women, the group traveled from village to village where they killed children and razed buildings with near impunity.

The massacre in February prompted me to ask what the press found lacking in story surrounding Boko Haram’s atrocities that they would not cover it extensively. Was it a geographical bias? Was reporting from Western Africa more difficult than Beslan, Russia? There, hundreds of school children were massacred in 2004, and that event comprehensively covered in the Western press. Maybe there was simply an ethnic bias at play, and American audiences were prejudged to care less about atrocities in Africa than in Europe.

But the events of the last month have demonstrated that none of these explanations were accurate. Apparently, the press simply needed the right reason to cover this terrorist group and their brutal tactics. But an even more disturbing question needs to be asked now: why did the press spring to action when young women were kidnapped, but were virtually unmoved when it was young boys who were being slaughtered and burned alive?

Yes, that’s the important question here.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Malala Fund’s photo.

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

A Pakistani human rights lawyer was shot to death in his office, AFP and Dawn report.

Human Rights Advocate Rashid Rehman Khan was gunned down by unidentified attackers in Multan, DawnNews reported late on Wednesday night.

Initial reports suggest that Khan was targeted by two gunmen inside his office at Kachehri Chowk.

Because of the human rights I suppose? That’s blasphemy, is it? Yes, of course it is. Lawyers should be defending the prophet’s rights, not human rights.

Advocate Rashid Rehman Khan was a coordinator for the Human Rights Commission of Pakistan (HRCP). The senior lawyer was defending a university lecturer accused of blasphemy and had complained that he had been receiving threats on his life.

The HRCP had voiced serious concern over the threats extended to Khan.

The Supreme Court advocate had submitted an application with the District Bar Association president Sher Zaman Qureshi last month, saying he was threatened by two lawyers and two other persons who asked him not to appear in the case he was representing.

Rehman was representing Junaid Hafeez, a lecturer at Bahauddin Zakariya University.

Hafeez was known for his liberal views at the university and the case of blasphemy was registered after pressure from right-wing student groups, said a student, who wished not to be named.

What kind of pressure? The kind of “pressure” that was applied to Rashid Rehman Khan?

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)

Luke O’Neil at Medialite warns that there are risks in mocking the self-satisfied obliviousness of haplessly privileged college kids, who could become embittered Republicans as a result.

But screw it, let’s do it anyway. It’s unlikely we’re going to find a better candidate for a ideological stoning than Tal Fortgang, of the New Rochelle Fortgangs, who courageously struck out against the oppressive climate of basic cultural awareness and bare minimum human decency that has despoiled college campuses everywhere by penning a whinging invective against the concept of “checking your privilege” in The Princeton Tory. The piece was republished by Time, and a profile of the Rosa Parks of Ivy League white guys was published by The New York Times yesterday, something that always happens to people without privilege.

No, it always happens to people who work hard, like Tal Fortgang.

Fortgang, as many Ivy League students often do in their first few months on campus, found himself being challenged by a concept from outside of his hermetic culture bubble, when classmates began telling him to “check your privilege.” Also like most entitled white guys, upon finding himself on the opposite end of the entire world’s fawning approval, he started crying about it.

“The phrase, handed down by my moral superiors, descends recklessly, like an Obama-sanctioned drone, and aims laserlike at my pinkish-peach complexion, my maleness, and the nerve I displayed in offering an opinion rooted in a personal Weltanschauung.”

Fox News and other conservative outlets, perhaps reeling from the vacuum created by the Cliven Bundy-shaped hole in their hero narrative, picked up the story as well.

Instead of stopping to consider why so many people around him had begun suggesting he may want to question where some of his opinions come from, Fortgang tap-danced through a series of aggrieved conservative cliches, practically reaching Reverse Racism Bingo before the end of his second paragraph.

And that will be why Time saw fit to publish it. “So many clichés collected in one place by one so young – this is for us.”

Looking through the rest of Fortgang’s [Twitter] timeline you’ll find many other caustic clichéd opinions you’d expect from a young, clueless, aggressively aggrieved conservative. Actually, feminists are the ones with the discriminatory problem, seems to be a common theme.

The cognitive dissonance is just too good to pass up. Sure, my father became a successful businessman, he says, but what does that have to do with me? His father before him didn’t have it so great.

I’m pretty sure almost every person of privilege could say the same. I come from a relatively comfortable background, but if you go back a few generations my ancestors were shitting in holes in the ground, so therefore everything I think and say is good.

What follows in the rest of the piece is a detour into the greatest hits of “pull yourself up by your bootstraps” mythologizing. Maybe if people moaning about privilege simply worked harder and stopped worrying about what other people have, then they’d be in a position of privilege, like me!

Well that’s what America means. If you work hard and ignore all possible sources of structural inequality, then you can wear your P for Privilege with pride!

(This is a syndicated post. Read the original at FreeThoughtBlogs.)