Morons of the Internet: Everyday Feminism (14/11/15)

This is the segment where I scour my favorite forums around the internet and find some particularly interesting articles about current affairs told in the words of my favorite human beings.

In this edition we discover that feminism is evolving into new ways to try and demonise and oppress the average members in society. Admittedly this article was written last year, but I happened to stumble upon this pile of bollocks by chance, which turned out to be an unfortunate occurrence.
__________________________________________________________________________________
http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/03/everyday-cissexism/
__________________________________________________________________________________

Just when you thought you'd heard everything they come up with, 'cissexism' manages to be the new low. Have you honestly ever heard of such a stupid way to criticise the lives of ordinary people? Does it not occur to people that that the reason we might live in a society that assumes gender based on genitals is become the vast majority of people aren't transsexuals, and that actually genitals are a fucking accurate indicator? How much of a massive idiot do you have to be to think that genitals aren't a good indication on the gender of a person? As physical features go it's a pretty handy guide to what gender a person might be, so I don't know if the author wants everyone to have their hormones or chromosomes sampled, but if it's alright with me I'd rather live in a judgmental world. What hellish world would we live in if this 'cissexism' was taken seriously? The whole concept of biological sex would just be thrown out the window, which is a fucking dumb thing to try and remove.

But that wasn't enough for this author, who apparently believes that babies will have the ability to distinguish what gender they are even before they have any idea what the concept is. How dare doctors try and determine the gender of the baby just by looking at the genitals. No, the correct way to do it should be by asking the fucking baby who's yet to develop the ability to even speak. That's right doctors, forget all that biology stuff in your degree, it's the sociological aspects of childbirth that are most important. In my opinion there simply isn't a way to naturally change your gender since it's impossible to modify the set of chromosomes your parents gave you during development. I have nothing against people wanting to identify themselves as different genders, but their sex will always be the same, so these societal attitudes towards gender exist for a very valid reason; unlike anything in this article.

Yeah I wonder why society makes 'cissexist' assumptions? Is it because the majority of people identify themselves as the same gender they were conceived as? Surely you must be aware that transgender people do not represent any form of normality, and so it shouldn't be a surprise that 'cisgender' people are logically seen as normal or more natural than their apparently oppressed counterparts. You can't seriously be suggesting that being transsexual is in any way normal, since every bit of factual evidence shows that this section of society is anything but. The same goes with sex changes, which are in no way a natural construct. The desire to change gender is very much natural, but that's not enough reasoning to suggest that this leads to discrimination when you have absolutely no sources to back up society's apparently intrinsic hatred for this section of society.

So now parents aren't even allowed to have a say what gender their child is at birth. What fucking world do you want us to live in? Since when should making polite conversation over what gender the child is be seen as something to frown upon? I don't know if you would prefer if the parents were asked something less 'cissexist', like "has the child got any physical deformities?" But under this hellish system we shouldn't even be allowed to tell other people if our child has got a penis or not. If a woman is allowed to abort the damn thing, why the hell shouldn't she be allowed to determine it's gender? The argument then somehow gets worse by claiming that sonograms can't determine gender. I don't know if you wanted the damn things to predict the future as well, but what they are designed to do is give an indication of what gender your child will be born considering it's an infant coming out of the womb and not a fucking gender studies expert.

In your hellish future we would have to have politically correct sonograms that would have to censor the genitals to the parents because that would be making 'cissexist' assumptions. Not only does that make one of the most exciting parts of childbirth anticlimactic and confusing considering that the majority of names are gender specific, but it's also pretty stupid considering that it's over a baby who can't identify itself as different genders. Being as babies are essentially just shitting machines for the first year or so I think we can forgive the parents for assuming that their child with a knob is a boy. But I'm sure you can see reasoning behind this system of oppressing the majority for the sake of the minority. If you genuinely think that sheltering your child from the concept of gender is a good thing then I'm not sure your offspring will be able to function in the real world. Then again, I'm surprised you have.

Oh no, I hate those assumptions that are based on the truth; what is the world coming too? There may well be a chance that the child will turn out to be transgender, but there's also a chance that it will turn out to be a mass murderer, so should we just imprison it on the spot? What a stupid argument. Imagine the horrific life being this woman's child. She'd tell me as a boy that it was perfectly normal to walk into the ladies toilets and that the women's clothes that I unknowingly chose will not in any way get me bullied at any social gathering. This denial of reality might be justifiable to the author, but what about the others that this madness will unfairly effect? I would recommend that if parents do want to make themselves less 'cissexist' then sterilising yourselves would be my advice. But oh god not women, no saying women need to be sterilised in sexist and oppressive. The white heterosexual male that is myself needs to check his privilege.

That's right, criticise that fucking education system for stupidly trying to teach our kids about safe sex and avoiding STD's. I too don't understand why the curriculum just wouldn't cater for the minority. I have nothing against your ideas being brought up in a sociology class, as nothing in sociology classes is ever taken seriously, but to try and force this sort of nonsense into a factually based subject is a symbol of how stupid this argument is. Biology will factually inform children that men have penises and women have vaginas thanks to centuries of research and common fucking sense, and that will indeed rightfully conflate gender with genitals, because unlike your bullshit this side of the argument is based on facts alone.

With your less 'cissexist' education system children are just going to be alienated by learning from a young age that two reproductive systems exist for either gender, which will in turn lead to a lot of sexually confused adolescents. Not only does this defeat the whole purpose of sex education, but it will also detach children from how their own bodies work, all so you can cater for the possibility that an imaginary child might want to switch genders. Essentially this article is just a big middle finger to the factually based discipline of biology, replacing these facts with illogical feelings. But hey it's not as if life sciences are good for the transsexual community anyway. No, aside from making the process of gender reassignment possible they're all a bunch of 'cissexist' assholes.

'Teaching generalisations can be harmful' No, I can see absolutely nothing hypocritical about that statement. I can't recall one single generalisation in this whole article. Maybe that quote should be altered to 'teaching bollocks can be harmful'; that would be more appropriate for this article. Unfortunately in a scientific argument like this we have to talk about generalisations, and at no point in the article do you ever prove how they can be harmful. Call me blind but I've certainly seen no evidence that telling me I have a penis has been detrimental, nor how that fact is even related to the number of female presidents. Surely that's like comparing apples and oranges. Since when did teaching children about biological theories held for hundreds of years become the same as a current gender related issue about politics? But no apparently these generalisations are harmful, and so sheltering children from the reality is obviously the best method. If you want the instances of females becoming presidents to be higher I can assure you that labeling these generalisations as 'harmful' is not the way forward. I think your version of logic is different to everyone else's darling.

What brilliant factual reasoning we get to end the argument. "Many men can fall pregnant." That may be true if we were talking about pipefish, but unfortunately for you they don't understand gender constructs. The fact is that in a human male that's unfortunately biologically impossible. I don't care how you identify yourself, if you have the visceral organs of a human male then you cannot give birth, nor have you ever been able too. The only way a 'man' can fall pregnant is if they still contained female reproductive organs at the time of conception, but giving birth is still an impossibility, so why the fuck should men have birth rights? I like how this article concludes by trying to claim that sexism is present in the abortion debate, and then blatantly ignores that observation by trying to exclude men who identify themselves as men from the argument. Doesn't that strike you as a bit hypocritical? How dare those selfish men have an opinion? This sort of attitude to the debate might reflect 19th century society, but how could I possibly know that? I'm a white heterosexual man and so therefore can't have an opinion on the matter. Especially as I would try and turn this argument towards a factual debate rather than focus on my feelings.

Are Humans Meant to Eat Meat?

The issue of natural human diet is one that when researched on the internet leads to lots of articles about how humans are 'naturally' herbivores. This is a an interesting point considering the issues that intensive meat farming has over the natural world, and so I went onto the 'PETA' website to find out about what apparently is a 'natural' human diet and whether that should include the consumption of meat.
__________________________________________________________________________________
http://www.peta.org/living/food/natural-human-diet
__________________________________________________________________________________

Ah PETA, let's see if we can actually construct a plausible argument for once instead of just blatantly lying. Apparently you couldn't keep away from the generalisations though, as for some reason one of your points assumes that humans who eat meat should therefore logically start salivating over a decomposing corpse at the side of the road. Yeah just foolproof, I guess that's why all vegetarians instantly salivate over every blade of grass they see. I don't suppose that vegetarians dream about picking and subsequently killing cabbages either, but for some reason PETA only think the inverse applies. Now I'm a biology student, and at no point have I ever heard that humans are not designed to eat meat despite taking a course on human physiology that heavily referenced the dietary aspects of the human body. I have been taught however that diet is dictated by evolution, which is a constant process, so to try and dictate the 'natural' diet of an organism is naive since every food source is a natural construct.

I don't know who was tasked with writing this piece for PETA, and nor do I really care, but they don't seem to have any awareness that an organism can be omnivorous. Is this line of thought ever explored? No, the whole thing is about trying to debunk the carnivorous tendencies of humans with some outrageous and inaccurate assumptions that show a true neglect for scientific integrity. A 'natural diet' is one that is derived from nature. I don't know in what universe eating meat isn't a natural construct, but in this one saying that eating meat is unnatural is a bit like saying homosexuality and polygamy are also unnatural. These three things may go against the principles of natural selection, but they are very much natural actions. The question should instead relate to whether humans have evolved to be herbivorous, and then explain why it would be impossible or unreasonable for humans to adapt to a carnivorous lifestyle.

Humans may well have different teeth from say a leopard, but then they looking nothing like a fucking elephant's either. Of course teeth are going to vary with each organism as they each evolved in different environments. Maybe we should instead compare the human anatomy to a closely related omnivore like a chimpanzee, and then surprisingly we'll find there are barely any differences. Of course there's always going to be differences if you compare drastically different animals separated by hundreds of millions of years of evolution. Parrots for example have fucking talons, yet tarsiers have nails; guess which one is the carnivore and which is the herbivore? Let's stop classing carnivores as one huge group of animals because there are obviously going to be differences in claws between humans, who do not bring down their prey by striking at them, and a lion or a bear, which do strike down their prey using their claws that are obviously going to be bigger.

Short intestinal tracts? They're fucking 30 foot long, which is roughly the same length as most omnivores. This is another example of a dreadful use of animal biology. Since when does meat rot in the fucking intestines? That would make the consumption of just a little bit highly dangerous, and so I'm amazed that you can make sweeping statements like that without giving at least a single source. What evidence do you have to suggest that meat behaves much differently during digestion than fruit and vegetables? You don't, nor have you mentioned that you can also quite easily get diseases from eating products that don't come from animals; not everything is grown in a sterile environment. It's true that the intestines are one of the most significant barriers against disease in the human body, but then why is there a high concentration of white blood cells to act as an immune barrier if humans are evolved to eat the apparently harmless vegetation?

You haven't seemed to grasp the fact that the human body can adequately digest meat, which isn't just a coincidence and is something that has naturally arisen over time. If not then please explain to me why there is a presence of specific protease enzymes that have the sole function of breaking down amino acids in far greater quantities than you would find in beans or similar foods. The theory of enzyme induction proves that without this natural source of meat in the diet these enzymes just wouldn't be synthesised, so there is still absolutely nothing in this article that demonstrates why humans physiologically shouldn't eat meat. 

Do we have the instincts to be herbivores as well? It's all very well stating some vague information when you can't prove the inverse. You also haven't provided any sources to claim that carnivores take pleasure in bringing down prey. To carnivores bringing down prey is a mechanism of survival, much like breathing or drinking water is to me, yet do I take pleasure in undertaking those vital tasks? No, but there are people that do take pleasure from bringing down prey; that's why the popular sport of hunting exists, which according to you is impossible to exist because humans don't enjoy 'the thrill of the chase'. Just because something is widely repulsive doesn't mean it's unnatural. The sight of somebody else having a shit is disgusting to me, but just like vomiting these disgusting processes are something entirely natural, and don't in any way indicate that vile things are not what humans are designed for.

If humans really aren't designed to be natural predators then would PETA like to explain to me why the eyes on humans face in a forward direction similar to most carnivores? Would they also like to explain how humans have a relatively high level of intelligence that's similar to the majority of omnivores? How about why humans have been selected to be bipedal, making them slower than predators that would have otherwise predated on our species? There's just so many physiological arguments that PETA fail to address, and that's because when you look at how humans are evolved it becomes apparent that we're most adapted to be omnivorous. But PETA don't understand that, so now we're going to go through why meat is such an evil creation.

Yeah it's an obvious scientific fact that tumors are a physical impossibility in animals. The reality is that cancer has roughly the same rate of fatalities in wild animals, which is thought to be around 10%. I don't understand how all of these conditions arise from just consuming meat. Admittedly there are well known health risks with overindulging in meat, but that's the same with everything. If health risks really are the issue then why not discourage cigarettes or alcohol for being unnatural, as these luxury items are far more dangerous to a person's health than a slice of meat. And anyway just because something is unhealthy doesn't mean that it's not part of the natural diet. Just look at the giant panda; that's a species that should naturally be a carnivore but has adapted its diet to bamboo. Admittedly that adaptation isn't particularly healthy, but evolution isn't a perfect process. Humans however have successfully adapted to their diet which you even decide to admit in the next paragraph.

No the process of eating meat didn't turn our ancestors into carnivores, rather omnivores, but they sure as hell weren't herbivorous even by your own admission. What you've done is fallen on your own sword there, as you've openly admitted that humans have evolved to become omnivores; why can't you just fucking admit that humans are omnivores? But no, you keep on throwing up bollocks such as how apparently humans were predominantly vegetarian throughout their existence. Bullshit. Studies suggest that the reality is almost certainly the inverse. A leading anthropologist at the University of California states that "I disagree with those who say meat may have been only a marginal food for early humans. I have come to believe that the incorporation of animal matter into the diet played an absolutely essential role in human evolution." (http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/99legacy/6-14-1999a.html) Turns out that not only are humans perfectly adapted to eating meat as a natural food source, but it's been vital to our very survival. That one piece of evidence alone is enough to prove that this idea of a naturally herbivorous diet couldn't be further from the truth.

Farmers of course are unanimously famous for being millionaires. What a distorted view of history we have here. Just looking at those rural Inuit tribes in the barren arctic landscapes and you can instantly see that despite their diet high in protein, they actually have low incidences of cardiovascular diseases. I like how we've now had to revert to sociological arguments to try and justify what was originally an argument about the natural behaviour of humans. The natural world has nothing to do with socioeconomic conditions, so why PETA are hurling this bullshit at us all of a sudden is an indication that they're out of fabricated lies.

Overall I think it's pretty clear that humans are perfectly fine to eat a diet of meat thanks to thousands of years of evolution. To say that humans are naturally vegetarians completely undermines the mechanism of evolution, and bringing in ethical issues as evidence is irrelevant in a purely scientific debate. Humans are adequately evolved to be omnivorous, and so are perfectly capable to survive without eating meat. To then claim that eating meat is unnatural is a misguided viewpoint that relies on manipulating the truth to carry any weight. So yes, it's perfectly natural for a human to eat meat. It may be true that humans are more adapted to eat a diet consisting of predominantly vegetation, but to say we're not designed to eat meat at all would be a stupid thing to say in a species that can quite clearly flourish under an omnivorous diet. If you really are obsessed with what humans should be naturally doing then please feel free to sell your house and walk around with your bollocks hanging out, because our bodies aren't evolved for housing or clothing either.

Top 10 Alien Races in Movies

It's no secret that I love the sci-fi genre, and over the years they've been a constant source for my top ten lists. I just find the concept of other worlds being inhabited by various life forms fascinating, even if the film industry likes to portray the inhabitants as bloodthirsty savages half the time. Here is a list of my ten most memorable aliens that created some great movie moments.

#10 The Blob (The Blob)

Not really an alien race exactly, more like a living blob thing that eats anything in its way, but over the years it's become the iconic centerpiece to a decent horror film. Whether there's any conscience activity in this alien species in unknown, but that doesn't really matter when your sole purpose in the film is to eat random people in suburban America. I honestly don't end up caring if it can feel pain as the film presents this creature as something bizarre and dangerous from outer space, and the mere thought of it even existing is terrifying enough for me to stop asking pointless existential questions. The original film from the 1950's was just a simple horror film, but the 1980's remake was one filled with political messages and themes to hide the fact that the antagonist was a simple blob that had now evolved to divide, rather than just expanding at a rapid yet predictable rate. It's a concept so simple yet still scary, using the unknown as an effective device that supersedes the poor visuals and basic acting. 'The Blob' is proof that when you have a strong concept the results make for an interesting film that portrays an alien race that's both terrifying and hilariously simple at the same time.


#9 E.T. (E.T. the Extra Terrestrial)

This one's slightly less intimidating than most of the aliens on this list, but there's no denying the impact this weird thing has had on the film industry. This Spielberg creation is not a bloodthirsty species, instead enjoying gardening, phoning home and having the ability to heal humans with a single touch. Yet despite all this 'E.T.' still has no place on planet Earth, which is a bit out of order considering he doesn't have the natural desire to murder everything. The original concept was designed by legendary alien creator Carlo Rambaldi, who decided to spend 1.5 million dollars to make the puppet, so it's a good job the guy knew what he was doing. Rambaldi created a unique alien species that for once the audience could actually empathise with. Admittedly 'E.T.' still looks pig ugly for 1.5 million, but the ugly charm of the thing certainly helped propel the film into the list that includes some of the all time greats. In fact 'E.T.' became the highest selling film in history at the time of release, so this brown skeleton must have done something to please global audiences.


#8 Zabrak (Star Wars)

'Darth Maul' is a Zabrak. 'Darth Maul' wields a double handed lightsaber. 'Darth Maul' has fucking awesome looking facepaint. What else do you need to know to justify including a species this brilliant on the list?


#7 Bugs (Starship Trooper)

Yeah I wouldn't want to get into a fight with one of these things. Whether they're called 'Bugs' or 'Arachnids' these bastards can easily take down an armored tank, or even a whole human invasion force for that matter. In fact these things are only susceptible to radiation, which when you think about it makes the thought of meeting one pretty damn frightening. However 'Arachnids' are not just content with murdering everything in their path as they will also fire spores into random planets in space to start a new population there. Not surprisingly this leads to a conflict with many humans on many different planets leading to many different deaths in many different places. I would say the film was about other things, but really it's a feeble excuse to show a lot of death.

The original novel on the other hand is one that doesn't just show these things mindlessly mowing down platoons of humans. Admittedly they do mow down a lot of humans, but this is overshadowed by a fascist undertone that never makes its way into the film. It's a shame really as the original book was one with a strong message, but only a relatively small amount of dark satire and political context ever crops up in the film. But hey, who doesn't love watching bugs as scary as these getting brutalised? Well not many critics actually, but that's not the fault of these social insects that remind me of a giant ant colony from hell. The thought of millions of these things charging at me is enough to make me soil myself, especially when the visual effects are properly good, allowing these simple bugs to become quite powerful antagonists.


#6 Prawns (District 9)

Not a sentient species that allows the film to explore different worlds, but actually a bunch of refugees on Earth who are used to showcase the failings of human society. These unnamed aliens are put into a shanty town by the bastards in South Africa after their ship lands on Earth. 'Prawns', as they are sometimes referred to, are named after a local species of cricket, and combine this with their ugly complexion and isolation from human society and they provide a perfect symbol for systematic human oppression. For once a film actually gave aliens with weird complexions a voice, and as a result 'District 9' became a cult hit with its strong messages on apartheid and poverty. The irony of the 'Prawns' is that they're the only race in the film to show any compassion, which is a drastically different attitude to most other aliens on this list, making them one of the more interesting constructs in the heavily populated world of sci-fi.


#5 Rancor (Star Wars)

If I could have anything in my house it would be a giant lever that connects to a trap door that would allow me to choose who gets to fight the 'Rancor' in my basement. It would be amazing how much less double glazing I would get sold on my doorstep if they had to face this beast each time. Let's face it, this alien is yet another awesome creation from the people at 'Star Wars'. The actual 'Rancor' in the films was a puppet, and that legendary and fearsome roar is just the recordings of an angry dog, yet despite these small shortcomings the 'Rancor' is the best pet a giant worm thing could ever have. Over they years it's become one of the most poignant characters of the mediocre sixth 'Star Wars' film, but then there's not much else about that film that gets me terribly excited.  


#4 The Thing (The Thing)

Well there's absolutely zero chance that watching this alien appear for the first time didn't make me shit myself at all. Yes, okay I may have given myself brown pants on multiple occasions when seeing this classic horror creation, but I can't be the only one to have been given nightmares by this thing that can quite literally takeover bodies after brutally murdering them. The results are like the picture above, and if that isn't horrifying then you're a much braver person than I ever will be. It almost doesn't matter that the idea of this creation ever existing isn't plausible in any way, but I'd be lying if I said I wasn't suspicious of any random organism being controlled by 'The Thing' for years after first watching the film. That's what makes the concept so terrifying, it just doesn't matter that the whole idea is ridiculous because when you have a garish beast inhabiting an Antarctic base mutilating everything it sees then the result is a horror classic. Fair play to director and makeup artists involved; they are the ones that made this monster look as nightmarish as possible. 'The Thing' is like watching 'Alien' with a lot more gore, but we'll get to that later on. 


#3 Wookiee (Star Wars)

Of all the amazing races in 'Star Wars', and there's a lot to choose from, the 'Wookiee' was the one I just had to let win. George Lucas' now iconic creation helped lift the original 'Star Wars' film to such wide acclaim, breathing life into a now legendary universe with their central role in the narrative. The design may well just be a giant hairy carpet, but nobody cares about the simple design when you have a character as awesome as 'Chewbacca'. Nowadays 'Wookiees' can be found littered throughout the 'Star Wars' franchise, but it was that original representation as Han Solo's trusty sidekick that forced everyone to love this alien race. It was that on and off relationship with Han Solo that fueled not just tonnes of slash fiction for nerds everywhere, but also the start of one of the biggest selling franchises of all time.


#2 Predator (Predator)

A species so deadly that only someone as awesome as Arnold Schwarzenegger could ever have a chance at taking one down. Admittedly they do look a lot cooler with their masks on, as without them they look like a Rastafarian scrotum, but that weird look has certainly not hindered this thing's fearsome status in the sci-fi community. Originally the role of 'Predator' was supposed to be specifically designed for Jean Claude Van Damme, although that was later adapted for the seven foot 2 inch tall Peter Hall, who's size definitely makes this iconic role all the more intimidating. It also makes this monster even more terrifying when you realise something seven feet tall can swing through trees and outmuscle any human; even Arnold Schwarzenegger.

However that's not enough for these super-evolved killing machines as they also posses thermal imaging sensors, shoulder mounted laser guns, active camouflage and a fucking massive bomb that goes off when they die. What a pleasant creation these things are. They are at the pinnacle of evolution for mutilating humans and stripping down their corpses to collect their skulls. Just the thought of these monsters being trophy hunters is one of the most disturbing thoughts imaginable, but that's what made the original film so successful.


#1 Xenomorph (Alien)

It's no secret that I love the 'Alien' franchise, and central to this love is the awesome antagonists that terrified cinemagoers like myself in the first two installments. Just a single 'Xenomorph' was enough scares for a great horror film, so when you saw countless more in the sequel, including a fucking monstrous queen, then you have enough action to give me an orgasm. I don't know who the guy responsible for the design of these things was, which is a bit of a lie considering it was quite famously Swiss artist H.R. Giger, but fair play to you mate; you did a fucking great job. Every little detail from their massive foreheads to that carnivorous tongue and acidic blood is just designed to perfection. Nothing interesting ever comes out of Switzerland often, but these are one of the most interesting and menacing things to come out of anywhere. Just a shame we have to kill every single one of them when they look so fucking cool.

However this is just the adult stage of the complex 'Xenomorph' lifestyle. Not content with some fucking cool aliens, the creators behind the 'Alien' franchise decided that to make these things even more horrifying they needed to start out in life as parasites. The method; hugging people's faces. For me the thought of a 'Xenomorph' latching onto my face and laying eggs inside me whilst I'm still alive is the stuff of nightmares. It's not as if you can just peel them off either as they have a stranglehold so tight that it will rip your face off, and cutting it loose will just spill that highly acidic blood everywhere. Just the sight of their nests with all those eggs being laid was one of the biggest 'nope' moments I've ever experienced in cinema, yet alone when the fucking parasite decided to quite literally burst it's way out of the human's chest. If all that wasn't enough then James Cameron thought a fifteen foot queen was enough to steal the show in 'Aliens', quite rightfully giving these aliens a legendary status in film history. A deserved status when the inclusion of these things made the original such a disturbing and unforgettable experience.