Remember when the Democrats advocated killing tens of thousands of people because some other people are racist homophobic theocrats who aren't paying the 100% estate tax they passed yesterday in Glenn's nightmares
There, there, Labs. It would only be fair, given that The Left has dominated academic discourse for far, far too long. Those poor conservatives longing for our jobs need tenure more than we do, just to right the Balance of Ideas between "good ideas" and "idiocy."
Btw, isn't it high time to add LGM to ye blogroll?
But practicalities aside, the point is -- why isn't war for oil not only morally permissible, but morally required, if the forcible redistibution of wealth in other ways (including "windfall profit" taxes) is OK?
With that last line he currently has, I think the whole thing is a lament against the evil of taxes. See if government power comes out of the barrel of a gun, it's exactly the same to kill every person in the Iranian army and every Iranian civilian who gets between us and that army as it is to charge Glenn an extra percentage or two?
Also, how is the government going to fund all of the Reynold's invasions without increased taxes?
3: They're not cogenial.
Wow, he gets dumber:
But practicalities aside, the point is -- why isn't war for oil not only morally permissible, but morally required, if the forcible redistibution of wealth in other ways (including "windfall profit" taxes) is OK?
Yes. Taxes are morally equivalent to invading armies. This is pretty much an admission of defeat on his part, right?
How long does it take to get tenure, anyway? When will that superkoranic day arrive?
Right now one of the professors is getting photographed outside her office in a photo shoot that's already gone on pretty long, and the photographer is giving her fashion shoot style instructions: "Okay, give me a lean. Yeah. Look at that book like you've just come fresh to it. 'Oh goody, the new tax code's here!' Yeah. I'm liking the lean. A little Fred Astaire. Ooh, yeah keep that elbow flying out."
Astonishingly, Insty got to that conclusion by reading a Max Boot piece that makes sense. I'm not crazy about the harping on Chavez or ANWR, but I think the policy proposals at the end of the article would be a net win. (If you supplement the gas tax with a progressive rebate.)
What's astonishing is not that Insty turned sense into raving lunacy, but that I was agreeing with Boot in the first place.
"C'mon baby, lecture the camera! Lecture it! Yeah, yeah, that's it, more pedantic. More pedantic! Now, toss your hair and grade me. Great!"
I'm not sure why I put a question mark at the end of the second non-quoted sentence in 5.
New quote: "You exude confidence and all sorts of knowledge."
Another one: "The lens is going to sign you to a lengthy book deal."
I was agreeing with Boot in the first place.
Boot's not 100 percent crazy.
But, holy smokes, Insty's defense of his hypothetical is that some anti-evolutionist cartoonist thinks along the same lines?
Is the professor finding these funny?
"That one's happening. I feel magic."
Hey, I'm ready for my closeup. What do you have to do to get some photographic love?
If it makes you feel better, it is actually rather easy to get tenured in the legal academy. So the fact that Insty is tenured does not, on its own, represent much of an institutional affirmation of his intellect.
On another note, I recently skimmed through a doctrinal article of his. It wasn't terribly interesting and could have been written by any reasonably competent 2L, but it wasn't particularly intellectually dishonest either. I get what's going on with someone like Malkin. But I just don't understand how someone who really has internalized academic norms could consider that blog a legitimate contribution to public debate.
I'll ask her when the photographers leave if she found it funny.
someone who really has internalized academic norms
a. Isn't that assuming facts not in evidence?
b. I know lots of professors who at one time had internalized academic norms, or at least were able to persuade themselves they had done, and then went on to find some other outlet, and quickly "realized" that academic norms are for other people.
(And slol, you have to get featured in the school magazine.)
(And slol, you have to get featured in the school magazine.)
I assume that's something like this.
I'll ask her when the photographers leave if she found it funny.
But what if she didn't? Won't she be insulted?
So, "war-for-oil" as essentially both an application of transparently evil Leftist dogma and the right thing to do in a white-man's-burden sort of way, if right-minded hawks could only convince the defeatist Left. Damn. Getting this tangled up in the midst of one's own juvenile "gotcha" argument is a feat even for Reynolds.
So, "war-for-oil" as essentially both an application of transparently evil Leftist dogma and the right thing to do in a white-man's-burden sort of way, if right-minded hawks could only convince the defeatist Left. Damn. Getting this tangled up in the midst of one's own juvenile "gotcha" argument is a feat even for Reynolds.
No, she's won't be insulted. She's really nice. And I think she probably did find it funny.
Waitaminute, who wants a "lengthy" book deal? Lucrative, sure, but lengthy?
Okay, the photographers left. The official verdict was that she was mostly feeling tired of plastering a smile on her face, but she was glad we were amused.
I had to do a photo shoot for a school magazine-type feature once. I ended up just smiling insincerely and looking uncomfortable, but inside, I was hating the photographer.
"hating the photographer" s/b "boinking the janitor"
I'm a little disappointed apo hasn't yet jumped in with all kinds of double entendres for 30.
(Ah, I see on preview we have been saved. Apo, aren't you going to interrogate "school magazine-type feature"?)
How long does it take to get tenure, anyway?
Normally, it's six years to tenure review. You'll have to get Labs to tell you how close he is to that.
Apo, aren't you going to interrogate "school magazine-type feature"?
"Interrogate"? Um, I don't think I know how.
Nonetheless, school magazine-type feature.
Now my sense of cosmic order has been restored.
(and don't try to be all, "I just lurk).
Thou shalt nomore replicate St/even D/en B/est/e's favorite google searches.
Well, I have to supplement my income somehow.
Dear God: Apparently his favorite google searches are for himself. And I don't think anyone here is bothering to replicate that one.
Yeah, I'm thrilled that's going to be on my surfing history, Matt.
I cannot tell you how creeped out I am by the fact that the first search was just for the word 'schoolgirl', and the first page was all porny.
Almost as creeped out as I was by the conversation I had this morning with a family friend, who chose to comment on how tall and beautiful Sally is getting by asking if we were going to get a pit bull to protect her. I know he meant to be complimentary, and I know it's conventional, but jesus: "Better get a scary dog, or people are going to want to rape your little girl. And understandably so!"
You don't think it's "Before you know it boys will want to date her and you'll have to kill them"? Not that that's any less jesus.
Also, doesn't the second paragraph of 43 contradict the first?
43: In what part of the country is that conventional? Even I am creeped out by that.
I guess 47's what I was thinking in 44; I can imagine someone expressing the sentiment in 44, though it's creepy when you think about it; I can't imagine anyone wanting to express the sentiment in 43.
44: Maybe, but then what am I supposed to be killing them for? If the implied threat isn't rape, but future dating, then death seems inappropriately harsh.
And 46: I'm not getting the contradiction.
If the implied threat isn't rape, but future dating, then death seems inappropriately harsh.
Ask Buck if he feels the same way.
Isn't 44 basically the same as LB's interpretation? After all, the only reason boyfriends are a "threat" is because of the assumption that they'll deflower My Little Girl.
the assumption that they'll deflower My Little Girl.
"deflower"=="rape"?
What kind of alien feminist are you, and what have you done with bitchphd?
Ask Buck if he feels the same way.
We've had this conversation. I am slowly browbeating him around to my point of view.
Deflowering My Little Girl, who would otherwise have no sexual desires of her own because she is, after all, My Little Girl and as pure and clean as the driven snow = rape.
B/c if the daughter were conceived of as, you know, actually *wanting* sex, there'd be no call to sic a dog on the boy, don'tcha see.
We've had this conversation. I am slowly browbeating him around to my point of view.
See, men know what men are like. And in consequence a lot of them would, on the whole, much rather their daughters were lesbians, really.
I have been spared such a conversation, I guess by pure dumb luck. I get a lot about how tall my daughter is, nothing about the rest of the package, which seems appropriate to me.
much rather their daughters were lesbians, really
In Catholic schoolgirl uniforms. Yes.
You're an evil man. Who has no daughters.
I guess slol's 50 covers it, but it is a common theme in pop culture that the parents look askance on their daughters' swains; e.g, and there's a Dave Barry routine about how if he had a teenage daughter his lawn would be a minefield etc.
As for 46, the idea was that you said you couldn't explain it -- and then you explained it! The contradiction is perhaps not in the content of what was asserted, but the speech act performed in the second paragraph falsified the assertion in the first. w00t.
See, men know what men are like.
Oh, come on. This is *totally* the "all boys are rapists" point of view. Men want sex; so do women. Doesn't mean that either of us can't exercise reasonable judgment where sex is concerned, *or* that if we fail to do so, that somehow women are harmed by this (short of the rape scenario, of course). Everyone has regrettable sex sometimes. No big whoop.
Oh, come on.
Okay, bzzzt, time out. I was kidding, and responding to LB, not to your explication.
60, 61
Yeah, I'm pulling the humorless feminist card here, but that's essentially the same joke that creeped me out when Chris made it. I know it's conventional, but when it's about your own kid its freaky.
See, men know what men are like.
Slol, we've tried explaining this again and again to the womyn folk, but they jus' dont wanna believe.
Arg. And people wonder why women end up saying, sooner or later, that we hate men.
I'm going to go take a shower now, and wash all of you right out of my hair.
I know it's conventional
I'm still having trouble getting past this. Saying that people will want to rape your children - "and understandably so!" - is conventional? What?
Technically, it's not "all boys are rapists", it's "all boys pick their noses and like toilet humor, do you really want to get in bed with that?"
66: He didn't actually say those words -- he said that we were going to need a big scary dog because she's getting so pretty. What he said is conventional -- the implication (how else do you get from 'pretty' to 'needs additional protection' other than through an implied fear of rape?) is creepy.
I pick my goddamn nose, too. And I've been known to gross out my husband by making poop jokes at the dinner table with my son. So there.
Oh no wait. I meant to say that, of course, I am a Delicate Flower of Femininity and I have no bodily functions. Which is why I don't actually need a shower, but only take them in order to consume my expected allotment of shampoo and soap.
Let's hope I don't faint and knock my head on the tap from rolling my eyes too hard.
I am a Delicate Flower of Femininity and I have no bodily functions
Well, you'd better well pretend, sister, is all I'm saying. Otherwise how will you ever get a man.... er, two men.... oh, nevermind.
He didn't actually say those words
Ah, okay.
and wash all of you right out of my hair.
Did we leave something in your hair? Sorry.
I think I'd be pretty frosty to someone who said that to me. If it weren't for pop culture, Meet The Parents, etc. I wouldn't even be aware this was supposed to be conventional. Even back in the days of Mike Douglas's The Men in My Little Girl's Life, the shotgun bit was supposed to be a vulgar joke, usually accompanied with overalls tattered to rags around mid-calf and toothless gumming of a corncob pipe.
Ideal just linked this in the Homobonus thread, which seems like it might be relevant.
Certainly, one has the right to be freaked out by it; I'm not denying that.
54: Hey, do you know my mom?
That's the not the conventional formulation. Usually, it's a smile and a joke that her big brother should invest in a bullwhip, or practice his Menacing Big Brother routine. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge, isn't she cute?
I hear things like this from time to time. Usually it goes
X is growing up fast! Pretty soon you'll be beating the boys (or girls) off with a stick
The depiction of physical violence notwithstanding, I believe this moves away from the idea of protection as such. The beatings are primarily about the overwhelming throng of admirers X will have. But I can see how someone might mix that up and fumble the reiteration.
Anywho, it never seems creepy at the time, but then, it's not my kid.
76 me. I also agree with 77. I have heard it said about cute girls and cute boys. It's not about a fear of rape at all, more an 'omg, my girl is growing up and now I have to worry about pregnancy' or 'omg, my boy is growing up and now i have to worry about him impregnanting someone else's girl.'
What most infuriates me about the Wingnut War-Justification Olympics is that they so frequently take the form of "look at me play my clever word game, like a crossword with a body-count!" Then they seem so proud of themselves for it, like now they hope they get a cookie or something, like they're kind of annoyed that no one is rushing to pat them on the back for thumbing their nose at "the other side" and just accidentally and not at all intentionally, of course, at the same time trying to justify murder by discussing its market benefits. Even a response that points out that there's not a bunch of extra capacity lying around not being used, even something factual like that, is the wrong response because it's a response that engages the argument they claim they are making as opposed to the real reason their jaws are fucking flapping in the first place, to whit: they get their jollies from war and dominance and thinking themselves clever.
Cala,
I'm not sure I would go as far as 78. My impression is that it is merely an attempt to say "cute kid" in a humorous manner. It is almost never humorous, and, in my experience, usually insincere, as they say it about the ugly kids too.
This may be a class issue, but I still find it revolting, however innocently intended.
You callin' me trash, IDP?
Sam, I think it depends on how old the kid is, and whether it's to a mom or a dad, and the speaker. To a mom, with a younger kid, it's 'aww, isn't this kid cute?' and usually flattering and insincere. To a dad, or to an older brother, it's a knowing look about t3h s3x0r.
What most infuriates me about the Wingnut War-Justification Olympics is that they so frequently take the form of "look at me play my clever word game, like a crossword with a body-count!" Then they seem so proud of themselves for it, like now they hope they get a cookie or something, like they're kind of annoyed that no one is rushing to pat them on the back for thumbing their nose at "the other side" and just accidentally and not at all intentionally, of course, at the same time trying to justify murder by discussing its market benefits.
Well, exactly. I just spent the last couple of days losing my shit all over the Go Read Yglesias thread because I was under the (mistaken) impression that baa was doing something similar. We're talking about killing people here -- whatever you have to say about it isn't cute, and it isn't funny.
77: Right, because they'll be trampling the lawn and eating everything in the refrigerator, like in an Archie comic.
But i once worked with a guy who went on and on at great creepifying length about what he would feel when his daughter started to date. i'm sure he thought he came off as protective but i thought he sounded like incest waiting to happen.
See, maybe I'm naive, but I don't think incest; I think this guy is just making up shit to show us that he is a Danny Tanner Dad who will not let DJ date till she's 37. Just making it up as he goes along to get across a sentiment.
Same with LB's pit bull guy. I would've thought, "Gee, this guy really fucked up an old saying and would sound like a real creep if I didn't know he had merely fucked up an old saying."
But, again, I'm not a parent.
Majikthise just had a post about the creepy protective fathers joke. She was playing off this post at happy feminist which I never bothered to read.
The post that launched this thread had a new, even more nonsensical ending:
But while you do, ponder the fact that an arrangement that subsidizes fatcat dictators is sanctioned -- and even defended -- by people on the left, while even the idea of doing anything about it is condemned. That's not about practicalities, but philosophies.
Is that an oblique complaint about not drilling ANWR? Otherwise, I think the word arrangement would have to mean paying for things on a market rather than taking them by force. I don't know what else he's talking about.
I think the 'arrangement' in question is 'not invading their countries' - I can't quite see what else he could mean by it.
"What most infuriates me about the Wingnut War-Justification Olympics is that they so frequently take the form of "look at me play my clever word game, like a crossword with a body-count!" Then they seem so proud of themselves for it, like now they hope they get a cookie or something, like they're kind of annoyed that no one is rushing to pat them on the back for thumbing their nose at "the other side" and just accidentally and not at all intentionally, of course, at the same time trying to justify murder by discussing its market benefits."
This is an excellent, excellent point. This is a case where I really do thinks blogs have hurt our public discourse. The culture of linking has tended to make everything about thumbing your nose at the other side, rather than, you know, the world outside that blogosphere that we are ostensibly arguing about. It's like campus politics at the worst, where the conservatives are only interested in offending the leftists and the leftists are only interested in being offended. My favorite example of this was in (I believe) the summer of '03 when conservative bloggers were repeatedly speculating that their boy George Bush was only pretending not to have found the WMDs so that he could goad the Democrats into embarrassing themselves.
89: I'm sorry, I'm young, but I thought subsidizing dictatorships was a longstanding Republican policy, too. I seem to remember something about that back in the 1980s. I mean, I was only six, so I could have it wrong, but I remember some sort of high-profile scandal. Maybe involving a war between Iran and Iraq and some hostages, and ooh, maybe some arms deals?
And let's be clear: there are no 'future potential bad economic result' just wars. We cannot go around killing people because otherwise our economy might falter and then some people might not be able to replace their iPods. If that's the case, someone should have invaded us in 1929 to keep us from fucking up the stock market.
OK, I'm now very confused about what people object to about LB's family friend's comment. I think it's creepy because it sounds like it's sexualizing a kid. Other people seem to think that the problem is that it's reaffirming the patriarchy, right? I'm not seeing the latter problem, here.
Just taking the opportunity to say, Ghod I hope nobody else comments on the Go Read Yglesias thread because LB's 256-7 are such a marvelous thread-winning pair of posts.
94 -- 'sexualizing a kid' and 'reaffirming the patriarchy' are not completely distinct sets.
(A) Sexualizing a kid. Jesus Christ, she's six.
(B) Reaffirming the patriarchy (or, whatever. Fucked up sex/gender stuff) in that with respect to women and girls sex=only fear and danger: "Hmm, that's a right attractive little girl you have there. Better get a pit bull to protect her from teh s3xxx!!1!!"
94: I think it's both. For the second, girls are to be protected from anyone who might date them. This is never said about boys.
It is somewhat hinted that the boys have to learn to control themselves ('Oh, he'll be a heartbreaker.') It's totally patriarchal, but the thought isn't 'Your daughter will be a rape victim! Fear! Danger!' but more 'Your kids aren't just innocent little kids any more.'
Still, at six, it's creepy. It usually kicked in around 11 or 12 where I was, a bit later for the boys as they're still sleeping with frogs at that age.
98: But, but, but.... Usually, I think the second's not even a joke; it's part of pre-arranged patter that we use to get through the day. "How did she end up with a mutt like you" etc. We don't even really register what we're saying or even that we're saying it. It's closer to, "How are you?" Probably telling about the society; not so much the individual.
But it also seems appropriate about girls, specifically. AFAIK, the second (as well as the first) is the sort of thing that's mostly said by men. And men know what a significant percentage of their male associates, and even friends, are or have been unbelievable creeps. Not the majority, but not a tiny number either. And you worry that your daughter (or someone else's, I suppose) will date one of those creeps. And that bad things will result.
Maybe there are a significant percentage of women who are seriously sick fucks when they aren't around men. But most men aren't aware of that; if we were, we'd probably say the same thing about boys.
subsidizing dictatorships was a longstanding Republican policy
Cala, if the GOP stuck to longstanding Republican policies I would just about be a Republican. These people are not Republicans. They're (pseudo-, neo-, Goldwater, whatever)conservatives who happen to run the Republican Party now.
(How are both these conversations happening on the same thread?)
I'm sure the observation signifies nothing more than that the child has properly symmetrical features.
Still, at six, it's creepy.
I can tell you, you hear the comments when the kids are younger than six.
the child has properly symmetrical features
Aesthete.
Younger than six it doesn't seem to be as sexual, though. It's usually only if the kid has a very striking feature, like beautiful blue eyes or long eyelashes, or something that will make him a 'heartbreaker.'
only if the kid has a very striking feature
Like horns or a tail.
At my house, every day is Halloween.
100: I don't think this "protecting your daughter from creeps thing" is innocuous, even if it reflects a widespread social pattern. bphd said it in 60, but here's another way, maybe: If your kid is a boy he's going to be hanging around with those creeps. As per the Happy Feminist post Rob H-C linked in 88, boys are at a lot more risk from creepy kid behavior than girls are. Girls will be spending less time with creep boys than boys do, even if they're dating one (and, as you said, boys will be on their worst behavior when girls aren't around). So why isn't it part of the standard repertoire to say "Pretty soon you'll have to be opening some whup-ass on your son's delinquent friends"? Seems to be about teh sex.
sleeping with frogs
Paging Mr. Emerson. Mr. Emerson, thread 4888 please.
Well, it is about the sex, and it isn't. I imagine that what triggers comments like these are striking features, and although I offered it up less seriously before, proportionate or symmetrical features. I think it's an acknowledgment of beauty. Like SCMT says, it's just patter, it's just the way that we've determined to be the appropriate one for saying, "Your child is beautiful."
Well, when I say it's about the sex I mean it's about our creepy sexual attitudes, even if it's not supposed to be actual sexual ideation. I mean, the question is why have we determined this and not "Your daughter is beautiful" to be the appropriate way of saying "Your daughter is beautiful"? Because our messed-up attitudes about women's and girls' sexual agency lead us to think "Sex: danger for girls." This I condemn.
How can you protect your daughter when boys think about sex 652 times a day!
boys are at a lot more risk from creepy kid behavior than girls are.
And for that reason, we don't need much to protect them. They'll learn it gradually but deeply, and develop strategies to cope with it. Or maybe we should be warning each other about sons' future lives. You can't really be telling me you didn't know boys in middle school that were basically permanently bent over the toilet getting swirlies, can you?
Also, it doesn't have to be about sex. It could be that we just don't care that much about boys who can't take care of themselves physically.
I don't know, Matt. Don't most people worry more that their kids will be a victim of a crime rather than a perpetrator of it? Maybe they should be more worried that Johnny will turn out to be a corrupt politician, but they worry far more that corrupt politicians will ruin his life.
I mean, I'll grant that the comments are a bit creepy, and all, but it would be really fucking weird to have a parent just as worried that their kid would turn out to be a rapist (which presumably they have some parental teaching control over) than their kid would be a victim (which they don't).
115: Yeah, I was one. And the last sentence, gosh, that's kind of fucked up too isn't it? Gosh, I think it is.
116, I think that's contradicted by 115. Boys are a lot more likely to be victimized by other boys than girls are (the happy feminist, linked above, has the stats). But we don't seem to care as much about the possibility that a boy will get damaged by other boys; which is, I think, all part of a package with the fucked-up attitudes toward girls and sex. It's like boys are supposed to be crazy sadists.
Which fucks up the country not just on a micro-level but on a macro-level too. If the people in the press corps didn't love getting swirlies from the half-witted sadistic son of the biggest family in town, he wouldn't be President today.
It's like boys are supposed to be crazy sadists.
This is more or less the reason that we worry about girls. We know, as boys, that boys are supposed ot sadists. What they do to other boys, I suspect, is usually public. It can be addressed. It may not be, but it should be. With women, the assaults seem to be private. I had a female friend tell me that a former male friend of ours had raped her years ago. Really sad. But also - I had no idea at the time. If he'd beaten up a guy, I would have known.
And I should have been getting swirlies in middle school. I escaped it, but I couldn't swear to you how. I do remember fearing it, though.
Some people think girls are damaged by sex. Like Caitlin Flanagan:
I think this is the point of the weird comments. You really only hear this type of thing from people without daughters.
OK, the public/private distinction makes sense. Still, I think there's a considerable element of teh sex involved; a lot of the traditional jokes are clearly playing off the idea that the father doesn't want his daughter doing anything, consensual or not. See this (keep scrolling for happy feminist's take), and Meet the Parents too.
Also, I think the maker of the joke is in a dilemma here; either he's talking about the possibility of something nasty being done to your daughter, which is a very uncool thing to do, or he's reinscribing norms about how daughters but not sons shouldn't be forever pure.
(And of course not all children become straight teenagers, but that's not going to come up in these conversations.)
113: This is it -- I don't think there's anything particularly wrong with the guy who said it, or that he meant anything weird. It's just a creepy, although conventional, attitude.
What they do to other boys, I suspect, is usually public.
Boys get sexually abused too.
We don't even really register what we're saying or even that we're saying it.
That's often how reaffirming the patriarchy works. Also 118 shows how fucked-up the presumption that boys are going to turn into assholes is, even for boys. Not all boys will just grow up and get over it; some of them will end up, say, shooting up a schoolyard, or turning into passive-aggressive assholes towards women to make up for some perceived lack of masculinity. Neither are great outcomes.
And sure, there are fucked-up abusive women. Isn't that the complaint of every guy who claims he's only dated psychos? But no one worried that a little boy is going to have a string of psycho girlfriends.
Anyway, it's not like the parents of girls can't teach their girls how to say, "fuck no. Get away from me, creep."
B:
I'm not sure what you think I've said that disagrees with what you've said. I certainly agree that growing up can be brutal for boys and young men; we've previously had discussions to that effect, and I think I said as much there. I certainly am not claiming it isn't true here. I agree that background noise may be reaffirming the patriarchy; I just don't care about this specific instance because I don't happen to believe what's being affirmed, and I think fewer and fewer people think it all of the time.
As to fucked-up women - mmm, I've known a few, and I'm actively afraid of them. Sincerely. But what worries me here is that non-psycho guys, particularly when they're young, say, and perhaps think and do, really fucked up things about women. This is basically the bachelor party thing writ large. As I said, maybe women are the same way; I just rarely see it, perhaps because I'm a guy.
And I'm not worried about the guy who stops when a woman says, "No." I'm worried about the guy who doesn't.
re: Not enough attention being devoted to things I say
See, Bitch asked why a site wasn't on the blogroll, and I said it was because it wasn't congenial. That is funny.
Shorter Scott Adams: It's ok to rape Paris Hilton and take her money.
124: I was just responding to a way earlier comment where you said you didn't see how the "get a dog" thing reinforced the patriarchy, is all.
Girls do fucked-up shit too, but in slightly different ways. Boys perform machismo for other boys; girls perform giggly and stupid for boys. Although that might actually be changing, I dunno. It's been a long time since I was a girl.