[DISCLAIMER: The following was written by a man and may therefore be lacking some keen insight into the situation that would lead to a different conclusion. Please note that responding in anger will only solidify those conclusions.]

So recently there's been a fuss about something a Toronto cop said, which I suppose is appropriate because American cops are always saying and doing horrible shit. He said something along the lines of "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized." Which is true, I mean; if one were only to suppress men's libidos, they would no longer feel the need to feel powerful. Wait, what? Something seems off about that sentence. Probably the fact that IT MAKES NO FUCKING SENSE WHATSOEVER.

Yes, it seems that some people still have a tragically flawed view of not only what causes rape, but what it is in the first place. Which is why some people have gotten together THE 2011 BOSTON SLUTWALK! To... accomplish something... maybe?

I'm really not all that clear on what this thing is about, actually, even though I read the page they've got up explaining what they're doing and why. I do know that "this event is inclusive to all genders, all sexual orientations, all races, all ethnicities" which is good, I guess, because otherwise you wind up with that one guy sitting on the corner looking all mopey and muttering "more like BITCHwalk..."

But, like most things spawned by Feminist Theory, I can't help but see the ways in which this is more harmful than helpful. They seem to be really big on opposing what they call "slut-shaming", which is a term for the way in which society looks down upon women who lead active sex lives. They wonder how these women can be uplifted into a position in society where they are looked upon with the respect they deserve as human beings.

Well, I've got a first step all planned out for how to stop slut-shaming: STOP CALLING IT THAT! Is that not the most ridiculous term for something you've ever heard? If you're trying to get something done seriously, you need to be taken seriously.

It also doesn't help that it's got "slut" right there in the term, and right there in the title of the walk. The people involved here are trying to take back the word "slut" and keep it from being just an insult. But that's not how these things work. The word has a storied history of being used against women, and that's always what people will think of when they hear it. In that sense, it's very similar to a certain other derogatory slur that starts with "n" and rhymes with one of Pooh's friends. The word "slut" needs to be consigned to the same place "nigger" has: used only by the most extreme bigots, as a red flag to note who the most extreme bigots are, and by people who use it satirically to mock those extreme bigots. There's no way to "take it back", because history has already been written.

But this is the problem I see whenever I run into the runoff from any soft science, Feminist Theory is just the one I encounter the most. For those unfamiliar with the term, a soft science is like a real science, only the people who are involved in the field don't run labs and don't conduct experiments. So really it's not at all science. It's a field of study, granted, and the people involved in this study are looking at scenarios in reality and drawing conclusions from that, similar to what I'm doing now in my speculation as to how the Slutwalk hurts women and what could be really done to help them. The difference is, whereas I encourage dissenting opinions like a real scientist would, I have overwhelmingly seen dissenters of the ideas held in Feminist Theory to be met only with vile contempt. Ideas don't grow or evolve by passing them around between people who agree with them and add in no critical thought; they only stagnate and become solidified in whatever flaws there are within it.

And this is what I have seen; back when I and some of my friends were commenting on the Penny Arcade Dickwolves fiasco, we were all repeatedly told that Penny Arcade and anyone defending them (which is what we were doing) were encouraging rape. I can't even imagine how deluded one has to become to think that anyone who disagrees with oneself therefore is encouraging rape. It's really the most extreme abuse of Godwin's law; discarding all responsibility to come up with an actual argument and just saying "Well you know who else would disagree with me? HITLER!"

There's one final point I have to make about how Feminist Theory is hurting women. I have a female friend who I've talked about on the issue who has told me about how she is frequently accosted by FT-enthusiasts who tell her that she's setting women back decades because she enjoys baking. I think that's what really set me off against Feminist Theory. After all, which is more sexist, a man telling a woman to get in the kitchen(in this case she does not want to cook), or an FT-enthusiast demanding that she get out of it(in this case she does want to cook)? If you said anything other than "they are exactly as sexist as each other", don't even bother talking to me about this.

One final note: You may have noticed that I have taken pains to refer to the objects of my ire as "FT-enthusiasts" rather than feminists. There is a reason for this. Many people who call themselves feminists simply favor equality for women, this is a very good stance and by that definition, I too am a feminist. But there are also people who buy into Feminist Theory, a soft science which like all soft sciences makes me go all Bruce Banner just thinking about it.

A bit of backstory: For a little over half a year now, I've been writing articles for Nerdfit.com. These basically were various rants against articles of bullshit I've seen in the world. However, as Nerdfit aligns itself more and more with nerd culture and becoming a respectable site, I've been asked to direct my posts there to less ranty, more newsish aims. This is perfectly fine with me, but, now having gotten into ranting about stuff, I'd like to keep my writing skills honed by writing up additional rants. AND SO I RETURN TO POSTING ON LIVEJOUNAL.

What currently serves as a source of ire to me is a certain turn of phrase. It wouldn't be the first time such a thing has irked me; phrases which become commonly misused or which don't really make a lot of sense in the first place have always been able to get at me in some way. This time it's a phrase which doesn't really match up with its historical roots: To extend an olive branch.

As you are probably aware, to extend an olive branch is to step forward an offer an end to a conflict. It most often involves falling on one's sword*, admitting wrongdoing, and requesting forgiveness. This, however, does not match up with the phrase's origins.

The phrase comes from the Christian Bible, specifically the story of Noah's Ark. The god of Abraham (whom I have come to refer to as "Abradeus" for short) has washed the Earth of all life, save for the inhabitants of Noah's ridiculously large ship. Having let his chosen servant stew around in boat packed with animals for over a month, and then ignoring the first few birds Noah sent out for signs of dry land, Abradeus finally allows for an olive tree to be found by a dove, which returns to Noah with an olive branch.

This is not an offering of peace. This is not a request for forgiveness. This is barely even an admission of wrongdoing--Abradeus merely states that he'll never flood the Earth again. After murdering countless humans whom he deemed evil by his own ridiculous standards, as well as many more innocent creatures, Abradeus--seemingly begrudgingly--allows for life to return to normal. "Normal" meaning "do exactly what I say whenever I say it and follow my incredibly long list of laws, most of which are insane, or else I will straight-up murder you and send you to my own special dungeon of eternal torture." Even his promise to never flood the Earth again is meaningless: The Old Testament is packed with tales of Abradeus raining death down upon those he deems unfit. Who else can we think of who felt justified in murdering all those he decided were unfit?

So yeah. Don't extend an olive branch--don't put forward a begrudging truce and imply that you'll remain just as insane and intolerable as you've always been. Just, y'know, apologize.

*This is a superior turn of phrase which basically amounts to the same thing. The "sword" being one's own harmful actions and "falling in it" meaning accepting the damage these actions have caused. To fall on one's sword is to admit one's own contributions to a conflict, which is an important part in resolving it.

Valentine's Day is based around the life and death of some dude named Valentine who helped people get hitched illegally. When the local king found out about this, he had Valentine executed. The people Valentine had helped out then made a holiday to annually remind the king that he didn't have a queen.

[Error: unknown template qotd]

"There's more than one way to skin a cat."

This one vexes me on many levels. First of all, who exactly is so cruel as to take a cat and rip the flesh from its bones with his blades and watch it die in agony? The answer to this rhetorical question is, of course, Moloch, but that's neither here nor there.

The real thing that causes me to waste hours of thought on this topic is that, as far as I can figure, there is only one way to skin a cat, or any fleshy creature for that matter. You take a knife and skin the damn thing. One way. Until someone can tell me a second way to skin something, I don't want to hear anyone using this figure of speech.

And if I do hear someone using it, I will gladly demonstrate the one way to skin a fleshbag.

[Error: unknown template qotd]

I sent in an absentee vote, and good thing too; I'm too sick to wait around at a polling place for countless hours.

Just last night, playing World of Warcraft, I had hours of entertainment with a new feature that allows a player to be infected with the plague of undeath and play as a zombie.

Today, I have the plague. Ugh.

[Error: unknown template qotd]

It could work the other way. The first time I read "The Power of the Rellard", I was disappointed because, iirc, evil prevailed. But, if I ever got the chance to re-read it, I may yet uncover something positive.

But despite my years of searching, I still can't get a copy. T_T

EDIT: After finding a copy, I'm not sure how well I read it the first time, because reading it from start to finish, the forces of evil pretty much spend the whole book getting their asses kicked.

I'm soon to be off to my Calculus exam. Worth 25% of my final grade, it's pretty damn important. So I've prepared, and now, I simply must wait for the storm to come.