Txt Spk

When reflecting on last night, I cannot and will not share the emotion if:

a) You tell me I’m “sxy,” and

b) You describe it as “Awsme! :-)”

Um, SRSLY?

Holy crap. Grammar nazi twitch! Er, intelligent being twitch.

Gender Differences in Extraversion

The following is an observation lab I completed with a partner for third year Research in my Psychology B.A. Personal information and details have been excluded; if you require this information for referential purposes, please contact me for use.

Extraversion and Gender Differences in College Males and Females
October 2005

Extraversion affects the public’s perception of a person and their wages, social status and level of personal fulfillment. If levels of extraversion differ among males and females, can it not be said that gender has some greater bearing on one’s personal life than being simply their sex? That is, men or women may be treated differently in certain social circles due to their extraverted or introverted tendencies.

Recent research by Nyhus and Pons (2005) states that wages and types of employment can be directly affected by the Big Five personality types. This includes extraversion, which they define as a preference for human contact and awareness, along with the want to encourage others (Nyhus & Pons, 2005). Their study discusses interesting information not pertinent to their topic; for instance, there was found to be a strong gender difference with test subjects of the age of 10 when specific traits were compared to their wages at age 26 (Feinstein, 2000, as cited in Nyhus & Pons, 2005). It has also been documented that men in the workplace are punished for withdrawal, whereas women are punished for aggression (Osborne, 2000, as cited in Nyhus & Pons, 2005). These two traits are closely related to extraversion.

Further research by Rubinstein (2005) suggests there is no significant difference between males and females with regards to extraversion. However, some of the behaviours measured were associated more strongly with men than women and vice versa (Rubinstein, 2005). This suggests that there is either no relationship between gender and extraversion, or that different methods of research are required.

In the present study, natural observation will be used on a frequency-event scale. Trace behaviours were measured due to the difficulty in finding strong behaviours associated with personality (Salgado, 1997, as cited in Rubinstein, 2005). The hypothesis proposed is that males will score higher on a scale of trace extraversion than females.

Disconfirming this hypothesis will require that there are no differences observed, or that females will score higher in extraversion. Extraversion is defined in terms of scoring two or more on an event sampling scale that measures three behaviours: smiling, gesticulation (“hand-talkers”), and clarity of speech. A smile is defined as upper molar (teeth showing). Gesticulation includes leaning toward the assistant (demonstrating outgoing body language), using visual representation to clarify needs (i.e. pointing), and hand-talking. Clarity of speech is determined on the basis of whether the observers are able to hear the library patron from their position (see Appendix B for photograph).

Method

Participants

Observed participants were 40 patrons of the _____ _______ Library (21 males and 19 females) who approached the Access Desk, where most questions are directed and check-outs are processed. Most of these patrons ranged in age from approximately 18-24 and were students of ______ University, though a few adults (estimated in their mid-40’s) were included in the observations. Results cannot be generalized to certain groups that were excluded from observations, including: friends or acquaintances of the observers, people who appeared to know the desk assistant personally, people who had flamboyant style (such as bright pink hair), or people who had a friend present. The purpose of this was to control for extraneous variables to our data; specifically, experimenter bias (preconceived notions or formed judgments), friendliness due to familiarity, and peer pressure that might create changes in interaction.

Materials

The data was collected by means of event sampling and frequency coding on the basis of nominal categories (extraverted or not). Coding sheets were developed that recorded gender, the three events (behaviours) being observed, whether the patron qualified as ‘extraverted’, and comments, if necessary (see Appendix C). Inter-rater reliability was calculated using percent agreement and Cohen’s Kappa (calculations can be found on Appendix D).

Procedure

The observers were positioned in the waiting area at the entrance of _______ Library, with a direct view of the Access Desk. All observations were recorded over two days, tracking patrons served by one particular assistant. This controlled for differences in observed behaviour due to potential differing interaction styles of library employees. It also ensured that observations were recorded in the same order for reliability purposes. The coding sheet used can be found in Appendix C.

Results

All calculations were completed by hand and Figures 1 through 4 were drawn with Microsoft Excel (see Appendix A).

The results indicate that, according to the created measure, 40% of the overall sample was extraverted, thus the mode of the sample itself was ‘not extraverted’. This is illustrated in Figure 1. Out of the total amount of extraverted samples that were taken, 56% were female, with the remaining 44% being male. This is illustrated in Figure 2. The sample proportion of female (p_f=.48) and male (p_m=.33) extraverts further points out the differences in each respective group. This is illustrated in Figure 3. Through gathering information on the coding sheet, observed differences in the amount of time females and males “upper molar smiled,” “spoke clearly,” and “gesticulated” were recorded. Females smiled and spoke more clearly while males were observed to gesticulate more often. These differences are demonstrated in Figure 4.

Discussion

The present experiment observed and compared the prevalence of extraversion among males and females. It was hypothesized that men would demonstrate more of the extraverted behaviours, as measured by a frequency event-sampling scale, than women.

Previous research on the relationship between gender and extraversion has generally been inconclusive with insignificant results. Rubinstein (2005) found that, while there were no significant differences, certain behaviours scored differently between the genders. With similar results, the present study’s hypothesis was not supported.

An interesting finding that we could expand upon was how many more females smiled than males. This suggests some differing characteristics that full under the label of extraversion. To a lesser degree, females tended to speak more clearly than their male counterparts. Males, on the other hand, gesticulated more often then females, though the difference is negligible.

Some of the reasons why our sample proportion of extraverts was so low (p_E=.40) could be attributed to the need-based atmosphere of the library, as opposed to a more social environment such as the ____, ______ University’s on-campus bar. Students with a higher need for academic success might spend less time engaging in social, extraverted activities and more time at the library, therefore our sample may not be representational of the overall student population.

References

Nyhus, E. K., & Pons, E. (2005). The effects of personality on earnings. Journal of Economic Psychology, 26(3), 363-384.

Rubinstein, G. (2005). The big five among male and female students of different faculties. Personality & Individual Differences, 38(7), 1495-1503.

Appendix A

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Feminists on Porn (not as fun as it sounds)

The following is a paper I wrote for my Sexuality class during the completion of my Psych B.A. If you intend to reference it, please contact me for documentation specifics.

Feminists Against Feminists: The Pornography Debate
November 2006

There is no doubt that feminists, a potent subgroup of the population, are often involved in social and legal controversy. When someone thinks of feminism, certain words typically come to mind: angry, activist, equal rights, and man-hater, for instance. Though all feminists certainly have the common goal of liberating women, they can differ greatly on the visions they hold as necessarily leading toward that goal; no ongoing debate makes this fact more obvious than the sex wars. This essay will focus on the feminist-versus-feminist battle over pornography, from its very purpose and existence to its potential in the liberation (or not) of women’s sex and sexuality.

For the sake of this paper, pornography will be distinguished from erotica, in which males and females are portrayed as equals in sexually arousing material; pornography, on the other hand, is often violent, degrading or dehumanizing. Both men and women are consumers of pornography; however, the industry is undeniably male-oriented, and the most common users of pornography have been found to be traditionally gender-typed, masculine males and androgynous females (Hyde, DeLamater and Byers, 2006). Despite the fact that controversial issues constantly surround it, pornography is a booming industry, bringing in between $4 and $10 billion per year in the United States (Hyde, DeLamater and Byers, 2006).

The pornography debate has been raging for over forty years and still remains a focal point of discussion. Feminists have had a strong influence on academic interest in sexuality since the 1970’s, when Catharine MacKinnon and Andrea Dworkin proposed an ordinance to outlaw objectionable pornographic images (those which could be proven as causing harm to an individual, whether male or female). This resulted in the first large divide among feminists, when feminists against the anti-porn movement (representing the anti-anti-porn side), such as Ellen Willis (1983), argued that pornography could be experienced by women as sexually liberating (as cited in Chancer, 2000). The two basic positions being argued to this day are dichotomous, emphasizing either the sexual colonization and victimization of women (anti-porn, sexual-subordination, or “victim feminists” side) or the sexual repression and passivity of women (anti-anti-porn, sexual-pleasure, or “power feminists” side) (Russo, 1987; Chancer, 2000). The resolution of this debate is of importance beyond the direct goals of feminism; not only has the recurrent divide unintentionally weakened the movement from within (Chancer, 2000), but it threatens to undermine the progress of other subgroups which have struggled for acceptance in society by denouncing their freedom of speech where sexually explicit material is concerned (gay and lesbian communities, women).

Schaeffer (2001) explored the works of MacKinnon, a feminist intent on changing the social conditions that prevent women from being independent individuals. According to her, a stereotype becomes what is real because women are damaged by it. She defines a true feminist as one who sees the male point of view as fundamental to the male power to create the world in its own image, rather than viewing sexism as a myth to be corrected. Sexism is a conditioned and socialized reality. Among other prominent issues at the time, pornography was identified as a crucial feminist issue because it harms women in three ways: in the making of it, in the perpetuation of the objectification and dehumanization of women, and in the conditioning of users to experience sexual thrills from the degradation of others, thus shaping sexual behaviour. MacKinnon said that, “to the extent pornography succeeds in constructing social reality, it becomes invisible as harm” (1992, as cited in Schaeffer, 2001). This debate is necessary in order to raise questions about the harm done to women and how it could be rectified without the conflict extending beyond the individual to the state.

Hyde, DeLamater and Byers (2006) describe the four basic reasons why some feminists object to pornography. First, pornography debases women and often portrays them as subordinates to dominant males. Second, pornography associates sex with violence, thus contributing to social attitudes that reflect desensitization to violence toward women. Third, pornography shows unequal power relationships between men and women. Fourth, the structure of the pornography industry is such that a significant number of workers within seem to be physically, sexually, and emotionally abused. In these ways, pornography is a likely perpetrator of traditional gender roles. The images presented in contemporary pornography reflect the desires and fantasies of a male-dominated society. Double standards of sexual morality condemn females for certain sexual activities that are socially permitted for men. In a review of men behind the media, Watkins and Emerson (2000) showed that screenwriting is dominated by males, which leads to the proposition that male direction of the camera is so influential that women are socialized into identifying and complying with the very patriarchal values that marginalize them.

Both feminist positions in this debate define sexuality as being socially constructed; the difference is in how they conceptualize sexual roles and practices in relation to power, and how they approach the interconnections between sexuality, sexual violence, male domination/female subordination and the pornographic industry (Russo, 1987). Anti-pornography feminists make connections between pornography and the negative treatment of women; their opposition agrees that pornography is sexist and male-dominated, but focus instead on the expression of women’s sexual impulses and desires, viewing pornography as a vehicle to achieving control over their own sexuality. In some cases, this is shown to be true; Shellrude (2001) reported on the writings of prostitutes who reported that their experience had taught them to have confidence in themselves, their bodies, and their sexuality. Furthermore, these sex workers advised readers to look beyond the demeaning objectification of sex to take charge of their own sexuality. While the anti-porn feminists agree that self-representation is a key part of liberating women from male sexuality, they believe that the intertwining of fantasy and reality in pornography only serve as a medium to condone violence and degradation of women (Russo, 1987).

Anti-pornography feminists tend to represent traditionally feminist attitudes, and characterize their critics as male-identified and anti-feminist. They are uncomfortable with pornography because they identify its function as the perpetuation of male control. It is not the act of sex itself that is discouraged by proponents of this group, but rather the acceptance by women to be victimized by sex in such a way as is demonstrated in pornography. One anti-pornography feminist was quoted as saying that “if you do not agree that pornography is wrong, then you are not a feminist” (as cited in Russo, 1987). They see women who are proponents of porn as perpetuating the view that females are sexual objects by nature, and as helping to reproduce gender inequality.

The main issues for anti-anti-porn feminists are first amendment freedom and the right to sexual pleasure. The function of pornography is to introduce women to, and allow them to enjoy, different ideologies of sex that undermine the traditional values which had previously constrained them, such as purely procreative sex. The basis of their disagreement with anti-porn feminists is that identifying pornography as the enemy will cause shame and guilt among women who had otherwise come to terms with their sexual feelings, repressing women under the guise of feminism itself. This would only perpetrate the victim stereotype that women are innocent virgins who possess less sexual aggression than men (Russo, 1987). Feminists who do not believe in the censorship of pornography believe that if traditional restrictions about sex are removed then women can truly be sexually emancipated (Shellrude, 2001); in this perspective, individual sexual defiance is valued just as much as critiques of sexist institutions.

Baumeister and Twenge (2002) performed a thorough literature review to examine and attempt to understand the origins of suppressed female sexuality. It was assumed that socializing influences such as parents, schools, peer groups and legal forces cooperated to alienate women from their sexuality. Two competing hypotheses were explored: either men (male control theory) or women (female control theory) act as the main source of suppression on female sexuality. Other factors were considered, such as the greater cost of sexual mistakes for women (pregnancy), and the idea that women naturally have a lesser sex drive. Before the findings are discussed, these theories will be explored in more depth.

Male control theory is supported by the fact that men have held superior political and social power throughout most of history, therefore they could benefit from the suppression of female power in order to maintain their current positions. However, there are other explanations to this theory. Evolutionary theory, for instance, says that men control women because they require certainty about paternity; stifling their mate’s sexual desire is a small cost for ensuring that they are the legitimate father of their child. Feminist theory states that patriarchal social arrangements reflect the view that women are possessions that must be managed to prevent social chaos, because in fact women have a stronger natural sexual desire and are “insatiable.”

Female control theory is less instinctive because of the inferior positions females have held in the past; however, social exchange theory sets a promising stage to explain the reason that women would attempt to control the sexuality of other women. According to this theory, men desire sex, and so sex becomes a bargaining chip for which women compete to attain desired resources. Women therefore punish other women who make sex too easily available because this lowers every woman’s value (the author uses an analogy of the man who does not buy a cow because he already gets free milk). Pornography, as an outlet for a portion of a male’s desire for sex, threatens a woman’s negotiating power, so she feels the need to stifle its influence.

Female control theory predicts that women would be particularly opposed to pornography; evidence for this is long-standing, and contemporary results continue to demonstrate a fair amount of female opposition to alternative sexual gratification for men. In fact, all empirical evidence in this review repeatedly favoured the female control theory; mothers and female peers were found to be the main sources that teach adolescent girls to refrain from sexual activity, and women tended to support the double standard more than men. In other words, women were the main supporters of a moral system that condemns acts by women more severely than identical acts by men. Male control theory was overwhelmingly contradicted, to the point where any male influence found usually pushed in the opposite direction of predictions (i.e. a boyfriend who pushed toward more sexual activity). What these findings mean for women is that jealousy and competition only results in the suppression of their peers; this could be a valuable lesson for feminists who compete against other feminists, thereby distancing themselves from their goals. The positive side is that Western women have vastly reduced the gender gap, hence their reliance on sex to yield an exchange is lower than in the past, and may decrease favourably in the future.

The passion involved in this debate indicates the ever-important role of sex and sexuality in our society. Because of the divisions regarding views on pornography, legal restrictions on sexually explicit material are not the solution. The first step is to outlaw general statements regarding the experiences of women, and start with the experiences of individuals themselves. Shellrude (2001) argues that if people stopped denying that sexuality is a key part of getting what they want, then the stigmatization associated with sex could be reduced. Chancer (2000) suggests that feminists should consider why men are still largely in control of pornography’s profits and production. Indeed, the development of a feminist erotica has not only been proposed but has been put into action as female-oriented pornographic videos (directed by women for women) attempt to equalize power relationships between men and women. Hyde, DeLamater and Byers (2006) report on a study in which it was found that both male and female university students responded positively to arousing videos designed for women, while only the males responded in this way to videos intended for men. This is an encouraging step forward for the maturation of female sexuality, and may very well succeed in more female sexual freedom and less perceived victimization.

If anything has been demonstrated by this discussion, it is that the division between feminists on this issue is only serving to distract their energy from true progress, resulting in the ultimate weakness of the social movement. Feminists must focus instead on their commonalities, and achieve a middle-ground point of view. In other words, they must target sexism in the pornography industry itself rather than arguing over whether individuals are proponents of it; this debate has led to the illusion of a “false dichotomy,” as proposed by Chancer (2000). Struggle over sexual oppression and repression is only weighed down by the baggage of labels, when feminists could use their shared interests and mutual respect for individual diversities to produce social change. As concluded by Shellrude (2001), the best forward-thinking feminism is one in which a woman’s sex, sexuality, and libido work together with her intellect to transform the world.

References

Baumeister, R.F., & Twenge, J.M. (2002). Cultural suppression of female sexuality. Review of General Psychology, 6(2), 166-203.

Chancer, L.S. (2000). From pornography to sadomasochism: Reconciling feminist differences. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 571, 77-88.

Hyde, J.S., DeLamater, J.D., & Byers, E.S. (2006). Understanding Human Sexuality. (3^rd Can. Ed.). Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson.

Russo, A. (1987). Conflicts and contradictions among feminists over issues of pornography and sexual freedom. Women’s Studies International Forum, 10(2), 103-112.

Schaeffer, D. (2001). Feminism and liberalism reconsidered: The case of Catharine MacKinnon. The American Political Science Review, 95(3), 699-708.

Shellrude, K. (2001). Coming between the lines: A fresh look at the writings of anti-porn and whore feminists. Canadian Woman Studies, 20/21(4/1), 41-45.

Watkins, S.C., & Emerson, R.A. (2000). Feminist media criticism and feminist media practices. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 571, 151-166.

A How To, In Reverse

Hello, officer? I’d like to report a crime. Chivalry has gone missing. (Paula Cole about sums up my current sentiments with her song, “Where Have All the Cowboys Gone?”) Equality doesn’t mean romance has to be sacrificed, people!

When I texted you complaining about how I a) missed the last bus and b) had to walk 30 minutes home, c) through the sketchier part of town d) just as all the bars were closing, I certainly did not expect you to rush over and rescue me on your white horse (or in whatever Toyota you drive). But I sure as hell wasn’t expecting you to simply reply lol’ing at my use of “effing” instead of “fucking.”

What I would expect from a friend: maybe an offer to talk to me on the phone during my walk home, or at least a few decent texts back to make sure I will still alive and kicking.

What I would expect from a guy I’m dating: NO LESS. Absolutely. Definitely. No. Less.

I know I’m tough for a chick. I know my biceps are more impressive than yours. I know I can scream, swear, charm my way out of a tough situation. But goddam it, be a man! It’s the very least you can do to expect your lips ever to meet mine again.

You’ve officially bored me :) I don’t really mind, because it didn’t take long to figure out you weren’t going to wow me. 

For once, I don’t mind having great expectations.

75 Books Every Woman Should Read

A list of books that are essential for the heart and soul of every woman. Jezebel called on everyday readers to help with its compilation and came up with the following, in no particular order (books I’ve read in italics):

1. ‘The Lottery (and Other Stories)’ by Shirley Jackson
2. ‘To the Lighthouse’ by Virginia Woolf
3. ‘The House of Mirth’ by Edith Wharton
4. ‘White Teeth’ by Zadie Smith
5. ‘The House of the Spirits’ by Isabel Allende
6. ‘Slouching Towards Bethlehem’ by Joan Didion
7. ‘Excellent Women’ by Barbara Pym
8. ‘The Bell Jar’ by Sylvia Plath
9. ‘Wide Sargasso Sea’ by Jean Rhys
10. ‘The Namesake’ by Jhumpa Lahiri
11. ‘Beloved’ by Toni Morrison
12. ‘Madame Bovary’ by Gustave Flaubert
13. ‘Like Life’ by Lorrie Moore
14. ‘Pride and Prejudice’ by Jane Austen
15. ‘Jane Eyre’ by Charlotte Brontë
16. ‘The Delta’ of Venus by Anais Nin
17. ‘A Thousand Acres’ by Jane Smiley
18. ‘A Good Man Is Hard To Find (and Other Stories)’ by Flannery O’Connor
19. ‘The Shipping News’ by E. Annie Proulx
20. ‘You Can’t Keep a Good Woman Down’ by Alice Walker
21. ‘Their Eyes Were Watching God’ by Zora Neale Hurston
22. ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ by Harper Lee
23. ‘Fear of Flying’ by Erica Jong
24. ‘Earthly Paradise’ by Colette
25. ‘Angela’s Ashes’ by Frank McCourt
26. ‘Property’ by Valerie Martin
27. ‘Middlemarch’ by George Eliot
28. ‘Annie John’ by Jamaica Kincaid
29. ‘The Second Sex’ by Simone de Beauvoir
30. ‘Runaway’ by Alice Munro
31. ‘The Heart is A Lonely Hunter’ by Carson McCullers
32. ‘The Woman Warrior’ by Maxine Hong Kingston
33. ‘Wuthering Heights’ by Emily Brontë
34. ‘You Must Remember This’ by Joyce Carol Oates
35. ‘Little Women’ by Louisa May Alcott (I knooow, how have I not read this yet?)
36. ‘Bad Behavior’ by Mary Gaitskill
37. ‘The Liars’ Club’ by Mary Karr
38. ‘I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings’ by Maya Angelou
39. ‘A Tree Grows In Brooklyn’ by Betty Smith
40. ‘And Then There Were None’ by Agatha Christie (one of my all-time favourites!!)
41. ‘Bastard out of Carolina’ by Dorothy Allison
42. ‘The Secret History’ by Donna Tartt
43. ‘The Little Disturbances of Man’ by Grace Paley
44. ‘The Portable Dorothy Parker’ by Dorothy Parker
45. ‘The Group’ by Mary McCarthy
46. ‘Persepolis’ by Marjane Satrapi
47. ‘The Golden Notebook’ by Doris Lessing
48. ‘The Diary of Anne Frank’ by Anne Frank
49. ‘Frankenstein’ by Mary Shelley
50. ‘Against Interpretation’ by Susan Sontag
51. ‘In the Time of the Butterflies’ by Julia Alvarez
52. ‘The Good Earth’ by Pearl S. Buck
53. ‘Fun Home’ by Alison Bechdel
54. ‘Three Junes’ by Julia Glass
55. ‘A Vindication of the Rights of Woman’ by Mary Wollstonecraft
56. ‘Sophie’s Choice’ by William Styron
57. ‘Valley of the Dolls’ by Jacqueline Susann
58. ‘Love in a Cold Climate’ by Nancy Mitford
59. ‘Gone with the Wind’ by Margaret Mitchell
60. ‘The Left Hand of Darkness’ by Ursula K. LeGuin
61. ‘The Red Tent’ by Anita Diamant
62. ‘The Unbearable Lightness of Being’ by Milan Kundera
63. ‘The Face of War’ by Martha Gellhorn
64. ‘My Antonia’ by Willa Cather
65. ‘Love In The Time of Cholera’ by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
66. ‘The Harsh Voice’ by Rebecca West
67. ‘Spending’ by Mary Gordon
68. ‘The Lover’ by Marguerite Duras
69. ‘The God of Small Things’ by Arundhati Roy
70. ‘Tell Me a Riddle’ by Tillie Olsen
71. ‘Nightwood’ by Djuna Barnes
72. ‘Three Lives’ by Gertrude Stein
73. ‘Cold Comfort Farm’ by Stella Gibbons
74. ‘I Capture the Castle’ by Dodie Smith
75. ‘Possession’ by A.S. Byatt 

Perhaps good gifts for the important women in your life. Many of these titles are unfamiliar – do any happen to hold a fond/significant place in your reading history? (List via Jezebel.)

Hard to Please

(Scroll down for “10 Simple Rules for Dating my Daughter”)

Womanspeak

You want = You want
We need = I want
It’s your decision = The correct decision should be obvious by now
Do what you want = You’ll pay for this later
We need to talk = I need to complain
Sure… go ahead = I don’t want you to.
I’m hungry = (a) Make me something to eat (b) Stop what you are doing, scrape together your last $5, and go drive across town and get me something to eat. I don’t care if what you are doing is important.
I’m not upset = Of course I’m upset, you moron.
You’re certainly attentive tonight. = Is sex all you ever think about?
I’m not emotional! And I’m not overreacting! = I’m on my period. (offensive!)
Be romantic, turn out the lights. = I have flabby thighs. (offensive!)
This kitchen is so inconvenient = I want a new house.
The car is empty = Go fill it up
The trash is full = Take it out
The dog is barking = Go outside in your underwear and see what is wrong
I heard a noise = I noticed you were almost asleep.
Do you love me? = I’m going to ask for something expensive.
How much do you love me? = I did something today you’re really not going to like.
I’ll be ready in a minute = Kick off your shoes and find a good game on T.V.
Is my butt fat? = Tell me I’m beautiful.
You have to learn to communicate. = Just agree with me.
Are you listening to me!? = Too late, you’re dead.
Please walk me home = Let’s go make out. (This assumption has gotten some guys into trouble…)
It’s all right, dear. = You’ll pay for this.
Yes = No
No = No
Maybe = No
I’m sorry. = You’ll be sorry.
Do you like this recipe? = It’s easy to fix, so you’d better get use to it.
I’m not yelling! = Yes I am yelling because I think this is important.
All we’re going to buy is a soap dish = It goes without saying that we’re stopping at the cosmetics department, the shoe department, I need to look at a few new pocket books, and OMG there’s a sale in lingerie, and wouldn’t these pink sheets look great in the bedroom and did you bring your checkbook?

In response to “What’s Wrong?”:

The same old thing. = Nothing.
Nothing. = Everything. (So true.)
Everything. = My PMS is acting up. (offensive)
Nothing, really… = It’s just that you’re such an _______.
I don’t want to talk about it. = Go away, I’m still building up steam.
What makes you think there is something wrong? = I’m going to kill you.

*****

Ten Simple Rules for Dating My Daughter

Copyright 1998 W. Bruce Cameron 

Rule One: 

If you pull into my driveway and honk you’d better be delivering a package, because you’re sure not picking anything up. 

Rule Two: 

You do not touch my daughter in front of me. You may glance at her, so long as you do not peer at anything below her neck. If you cannot keep your eyes or hands off of my daughter’s body, I will remove them. 

Rule Three: 

I am aware that it is considered fashionable for boys of your age to wear their trousers so loosely that they appear to be falling off their hips. Please don’t take this as an insult, but you and all of your friends are complete idiots. Still, I want to be fair and open minded about this issue, so I propose this compromise: You may come to the door with your underwear showing and your pants ten sizes too big, and I will not object.  However, in order to ensure that your clothes do not, in fact, come off during the course of your date with my daughter, I will take my electric nail gun and fasten your trousers securely in place to your waist. 

Rule Four: 

I’m sure you’ve been told that in today’s world, sex without utilizing a “barrier method” of some kind can kill you.  Let me elaborate, when it comes to sex, I am the barrier, and I will kill you. 

Rule Five: 

It is usually understood that in order for us to get to know each other, we should talk about sports, politics, and other issues of the day. Please do not do this. The only information I require from you is an indication of when you expect to have my daughter safely back at my house, and the only word I need from you on this subject is “early.” 

Rule Six: 

I have no doubt you are a popular fellow, with many opportunities to date other girls. This is fine with me as long as it is okay with my daughter. Otherwise, once you have gone out with my little girl, you will continue to date no one but her until she is finished with you. If you make her cry, I will make you cry. 

Rule Seven: 

As you stand in my front hallway, waiting for my daughter to appear, and more than an hour goes by, do not sigh and fidget.  If you want to be on time for the movie, you should not be dating.  My daughter is putting on her makeup, a process that can take longer than painting the Golden Gate Bridge.  Instead of just standing there, why don’t you do something useful, like changing the oil in my car? 

Rule Eight: 

The following places are not appropriate for a date with my daughter: Places where there are beds, sofas, or anything softer than a wooden stool.  Places where there are no parents, policemen, or nuns within eyesight.  Places where there is darkness.  Places where there is dancing, holding hands, or happiness. Places where the ambient temperature is warm enough to induce my daughter to wear shorts, tank tops, midriff T-shirts, or anything other than overalls, a sweater, and a goose down parka – zipped up to her throat.  Movies with a strong romantic or sexual theme are to be avoided; movies which features chain saws are okay. Hockey games are okay. Old folks homes are better. 

Rule Nine: 

Do not lie to me. I may appear to be a potbellied, balding, middle-aged, dimwitted has-been. But on issues relating to my daughter, I am the all-knowing, merciless god of your universe.  If I ask you where you are going and with whom, you have one chance to tell me the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.  I have a shotgun, a shovel, and five acres behind the house. Do not trifle with me. 

Rule Ten: 

Be afraid.  Be very afraid.  It takes very little for me to mistake the sound of your car in the driveway for a chopper coming in over a rice paddy near Hanoi.  When my Agent Orange starts acting up, the voices in my head frequently tell me to clean the guns as I wait for you to bring my daughter home. As soon as you pull into the driveway you should exit your car with both hands in plain sight. Speak the perimeter password, announce in a clear voice that you have brought my daughter home safely and early, then return to your car – there is no need for you to come inside.  The camouflaged face at the window is mine.

V.P. Candidate Sarah Palin

I agree with the stance of this article, although I have more to learn: voting for Sarah Palin may not be voting for women (via Jezebel).

Choose wisely, America. Read between the lines, know your choices, and then vote. This is your future.

I consider myself apolitical, and don’t align myself with any specific party as a rule; you won’t find real political discussions on this blog. Unfortunately, a lack of interest won’t excuse neglecting to exercise your constitutional freedom with responsibility, so do your research and say no to ignorance!

http://www.votesmart.org/

http://www.ontheissues.org/

UPDATE: Musical artist Pink on Palin: ”This woman hates women. She is not a feminist. She is not the woman that’s going to come behind Hillary Clinton and do anything that Hillary Clinton would’ve been capable of … I can’t imagine overturning Roe vs. Wade. She’s not of this time. The woman terrifies me.” (Link.)

UPDATE 2: Lindsay Lohan and Samantha Ronson, semi-open lesbian couple, have released THIS joint statement against Sarah Palin, not as a woman or mother, but as a candidate to be the second most powerful person in the United States. And I agree with them.

I couldn’t be more supportive of a woman in office, but let’s face it, it comes down to the person, and their beliefs, male or female.

…Women have come a long way in the fight to have the choice over what we do with our bodies… And its frightening to see that a woman in 2008 would negate all of that. (Link.)

UPDATE 3: Enough said, already? Video footage as proof. (Link.)