Blogger hates me.

I'm convinced. I've had to around Robin Hood's barn to get the create post page to load, and even now, I'm not sure that the thing will update. Ah well, this is why we have cut and paste, and I save entries on word.

In refernce to my last post: The evil cabana boy position has been filled. I am looking forward to many years of dedicated evil service from my evil cabana boy, and suggest he learn some monster foot rubbing skillz. Also, by agreeing to be my evil cabana boy, he's agreed to all sorts of nookie-ish things. Heh.

Applications for a supplimentary not-so-evil cabana boy may be taken in the future, but I doubt it.

Okay, I started this blog entry yesterday, but never got a chance to post it, so here goes:

You know, some of the stuff that I thought would bug me when I came back to college actually is, although I got a great compliment today. One of the psychology profs is looking for study subjects, and since it looks like I'm not gonna be working this semester, I though I'd volunteer. Ten bucks is 10 bucks, after all. However, most of the studies want subjects who are between 18-25, and I asked about studies with older participants. The prof looked at me. "You're over 25?" I guess I really don't look 31. Just ignore that portrait in the attic.

Taking notes on the computer is actually a lot easier than I thought it would be and it's improving my typing skills like crazy. I still tend to switch letters around, and I don't know if that's just fat-fingering stuff, or if it's because my brains have been scrambled and my brain moves faster than my fingers. If I'm thinking faster than I'm typing, I tend to put words together, and it's a bit of a pain in the butt. So far, I've put brain and fingers together, since I was writing about them, and had to go back and correct them.

Like I said, I actually like the US history prof, since he's just really in to the subject and seems to actually enjoy teaching. Okay, off to take notes!

Back dring the break. I wish that more teachers were like this guy. He makes it interesting and manages to make it accessable.

Okay, this is sort of a musing that started with John's blog, and my gradual change over the post few years.

One of the guys I read on LJ was talking about South Korean culture. Men can smoke, but women are looked down if they do. Men can drink, to the point that they're drunk in public, but it's disgraceful if a woman does the exact same thing. Things that I expect as a common courtesy, such as my door being opened, or proceeding through a door before John would embarass a South Korean woman, probably because it shows them a deference their society deems them unworthy of. Tom finished up this post by expressing his happiness that the culture is so conservative.

I happened to object, since I don't think that's a conservative society. It's a sexist society in my opinion, because women are held to a higher standard than men are, the the consequences if they fail to live up to that standard are probably much harsher than they would be for a man. In Korea, businessmen who have had a bad day can go visit a hooker. What do you want to bet that a Korean woman would be a pariah if she did that and it were found out? It's pretty much overlooked in Korean society, as it is in (from what I can tell) every Asian society. Men get away with bloody murder and women are stifled by rules that expect a much higher, more disciplined life.

Tom likes to blame the destruction on the nuclear family on the feminist movement, because feminist agitated for brith control and the ability to obtain a divorce more easily. His opinion is that it breaks up the home. How do you see this? Men have been able to get divorces at the drop of a hat, but now that women can, suddenly it's end of western civilization? I'm just not seeing it.

Birth control means that a woman can control the number of children she has, allowing her to take control of her health. So, now, instead of having child after child after child, the woman can suddenly decide that maybe having nine or 10 or 11 children is...well...too hard on her body. Pregnancy is hard on a woman's body. Yes, it's a huge part of what we are designed to do, but it's not easy on our bodies. It takes a huge amount of resources, and having multiple children very close together can just wear a body out. Also, if a woman isn't raising children for forty years, she can do something like get more education.

I happen to like the feminist movement, since it did nice things like overturn marital rape laws. I'm all in favor of that because I don't happen to believe that if I get married I give up control over my own body BY LAW. Fine, you want to get into an esoteric, private, non-legally-binding contract dealing with dominant/submissive sex or which position you have sex in, or any of your other relationships, that's your business.

Personally, I don't care if you and your lover/wife/husband/guy-you-see-seven-and-a-half-times-a-year decide that you're going to have sex in monkey suits on the top of the local ice cream stand, and you write a contract about it, but if you decide you don't want to wear the monkey suit one day, no one should be able to force you to.

I have no clue where I'm going with this, excpept to say that people have been screaming about the end of western civilization as we know it for umptyfratz years now. I'm not sure that the feminist movement is going to usher it in any faster.

There was something else...oh now I remember.

I happen to love the movie "The American President." I realize that it's a movie and I don't agree with some of the stuff the characters do, but the speech at the end kicks ass, mostly. I'll pick on the parts of the movie I don't like in a minute. I happen to like most of what he says, as I am against a flag-burning amendment, and I happen to think that the ACLU has their hearts in the right place, even if they do make me nuts with their second amendment inaction. I do happen to think that the president should be able to be articulate, and should be a strong presence. I don't particularly think our current chief executive is either of those, but that's as far as I'm going.

Now, to the parts of the movie that drive me a bit bonkers.

"For some reason, people do not relate guns to gun-related crime." Actually, most people are too stupid to realize that you can't equate legally owned guns to gun-related crime, for the most part. Criminals aren't the ones who are purchasing those guns that are used in your nifty surveys and figure games. If you take away my .45, Joe Thuggy down the street will still have his, and he will still hold up the local Stop-N-Rob, and then what?

These arguements and such always sound so much better when I'm thinking of them in my head. Gah.