C2Comics Blog

So prop 8, people!  Now, neither planning on getting gay-married myself anytime soon nor living in California, I have to admit I’ve been on the fringes of the issue.  I mean, sure, I’ll listen to Bernadette Peters any day!

But that aside there’s an issue that always drives me crazy when it comes to gay rights – and that is those gays who insist they were born that way, and that’s why they’re entitled to these rights.  First of all there is no definitive evidence that this is the case – there have been some studies that support this and others that oppose it.  Second of all whether someone is born to act a certain way should not guarantee them the right to go against the law.  Some individuals are “born killers” and have brains hard-wired for sociopathy – does that mean murder should be acceptable in their cases because they were born to be killers?  That’s utterly ridiculous.

Now I’m not saying that an individual cannot be born to an exclusively homosexual orientation or an exclusively heterosexual orientation (in all honesty it probably is in most cases), simply that it hasn’t been proven and that it shouldn’t matter.

Here in America, the best part of America, the part we all praise, is the freedom.  Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from having to quarter soldiers in your home….

So why is there such an insistence on proving homosexuality to be a pre-determined state before allowing equal rights?  We don’t require the same in other situations.  Preferring chocolate is genetically predetermined in some people – should people buying chocolate have to prove that before their purchase goes through?  Some couples – heterosexual couples – are attracted to each other on a genetic level, while others simply choose logically who would be good for them.  Are we to deny marriage to the second group because they are making a “choice”?

Even if being homosexual is genetically determined, what about the bisexuals (or anyone else not a perfect 6 on the Kinsey scale)?  Which marriage do they get?  Considering they could potentially “help” their homosexual urges are they confined to “opposite-marriage”?

The issue with gay marriage seems to be it will dissolve the sanctity of marriage.  What sanctity, though?  Heterosexual individuals can get married to their partner before they’ve even met – arranged marriages and mail-order brides occurring in America – yet gay couples cannot marry the partner they’ve been with for years.  It is argued they will not be able to produce children – but what of sterile hetero couples or couples who simply choose not to reproduce?  Does the lack of reproduction nullify those marriages?  It is worried that some same-sex individuals who are not actually a couple will take advantage of marriage benefits by posing as a married couple.  Well, I won’t even start on the inequality of those benefits (maybe a little – someone who is married is entitled to more money than someone who is single, why?  The single person is likely to need the money more!) but is their anything in place to stop heterosexual friends from doing the same thing (I’ve been asked multiple times to enter such a partnership)?

Whether an individual is born gay or not shouldn’t be an issue – and I wish the gays would stop focusing on that anytime there’s a debate involving gay rights.  The pure and simple truth is that homosexual activity is only a problem when it comes to religion – there is absolutely no call to politically ban it.  America is supposed to pride itself on freedom of religion – when we start making policy people’s private lives solely because they are doing something wrong based on our religion we can no longer say our country demonstrates that freedom.

And now an excerpt from Stephen Colbert’s “I Am America, and So Can You!”

I chose the urges that made my father stop talking to me; I selected the longings that led a group of morally stronger men to beat me up in a parking lot; I even picked the sense of contentment I felt during a three-year live-in relationship with an older man.

Okay, not to harp on this but after a super-fun trip to NYC for the Colbert Report Jon Stewart’s comments last night on John Oliver’s being “not quite feminine….but inferior” are driving me mad…. Not because I’m a huge fan of Oliver (he’s “meh” at best for me) but because he is basically saying women are inferior to men.  And okay, okay, dudes rib on each other for being girlie all the time – I’m not so idiotic to not know this is the norm in our society….but I just think Stewart would take a LITTLE more care in choosing his words after the whole Jezebel fiasco….

Then again, since most people who questioned the hiring practices were dismissed as jealous feminazis I suppose that’s given Stewart carte blanch to be more outrightly sexist.

All I can wonder now is Jon…. whatever happened to Th-hers-day?

Went to Michael’s to buy some stuff for class.  While I was there I decided to grab some colored canson paper and ink!  So now I have this:

Lots of flaws, but I’m still pretty happy with it, especially as it was done in the last 8 hours of my 45 hours without sleep.  It was my first time seriously working with ink and brush (contemplated doing it in charcoal, but figured I wouldn’t get what I wanted) so I learned a lot of what I shouldn’t do in the process….also picked up some yellow paper…maybe Faye will come out better.

Couple of in-progress photos from this under the cut.

Read more »

I remember a time when I could understand enough HTML to write a simple blog post.  In those days, goils were goils and men were men.

MESSAGE REDACTED

Okays, so I temporarily unpublished yesterday’s pissy post. ….I will put it back up, but after I’ve had the meeting and everything is settled one way or another. I don’t want the student finding this site and being all, “look – the teacher hated me and that is why I got an F!” So.

Thanks for your comment M – it did brighten my day, and you are right – all schools have their issues. My concerns with community colleges though is that they are much more of a community – not just with their physical locale but with other cc’s. When one does poorly it tends to reflect on the entire cc establishment in a way that, say, Harvard acting badly would not reflect on UCLA.

As a dual user and Google-lover I’ve noticed that Google tends to imitate Apple.  Sometimes it’s good, like the formating of g-chat to appear like the intuitive ichat, but sometimes it’s bad, like releasing a product that is innovative but contains multiple flaws and then not actually listening to the people who want those flaws fixed.  Unfortunately, unlike Apple, Google does not have a rabid fan-base that will use and defend its products against accusations of the minorest of flaws to those that will burn your house down.

Nooooo!

And thus Google Wave is no more.  Well, it’s still here, but it soon…. won’t be ….no more…. Anyway!  I’m not a tech geek but when I first saw Google wave (as I say, gWave….pronounced “guh-wave”….okay, no I don’t) my jaw dropped.  I needed it!  I had to have it!  It seemed perfect for someone like me who wants to be able to consolidate more of the things I do into one application.  Honestly, not to give away how un-geeky I am, it seemed like it could be a more mature version of Facebook.  Not sure if that makes sense, but…. anyway.  Since I am always about a year behind on these things I lucked out and probably less than a month after I saw the initial presentation, it went on limited release to the public  and I finagled myself an invite.  I spent most of my invites shortly after on friends who hopped on to try it….and promptly hopped off again.

I have to admit, so did I.  I played around on it a little bit but didn’t find myself checking it regularly.  The list of problems I found with the interface were minor (what the hell was up with that scroll-bar?!) but numerous.  I tried to do my part and added my comments to the feedback site and checked out others’ ideas (hey – as minor as it was at least I know I wasn’t alone on the scroll-bar issue).  About once a month I’d go back and check Google Wave, wondering what improvements they’d made.  As months rolled by I saw zero improvements to the app.  Maybe there were things going on behind the scenes but personally I couldn’t see it.  So where’s the incentive to stay?  Not only does the interface kind of suck it appears they aren’t addressing the hundreds of concerns that people are writing in about.

Additionally, why such a limited release?  Sure, it was the way they handled g-mail at first, but e-mail is different – you could exchange e-mail with someone with a yahoo account even if you had a g-mail account – there was no limitations in communications.  With something like this, however, how many people have a Wave application that’s not by Google?  The initial individuals who received their accounts had few people to interact with, and likely had become bored with sitting in front of an empty window by the time the public release came out.  Even when I invited my friends it wasn’t as though I could say, “hey, join me on Google Wave RIGHT NOW!” and then have crazy zany chatjinks.  Nope, it was, “hey, I’m on Google Wave and I’m going to send an invite for you but then it needs to be approved which could take a day or two and then maybe we’ll both be on!  ….but it is unlikely….WOO!!!!!”

Okay, so I’m a little pissy.  I liked Google Wave.  I wanted it to catch on – but I don’t think Google handled its release very well.

Or maybe it’s because they named it after a Joss Whedon concept.  Now THAT is a recipe for an untimely cancellation.

Let’s play pretend for a few moments.  Let’s pretend you own a business.  People in general like your business and you like those people.  Some people, however, have noticed something about your business.  Let’s say it’s that you don’t seem to employ many individuals of color.  There are lots of white people making money from your business, you employ some nonwhite individuals but really it’s mostly whites – let’s say a 5:1 ratio of white:nonwhite.  Well, okay, maybe that’s not your fault – maybe your business is just situated in an area where there are just more whites than not!  I totally understand that diversity for diversity’s sake is bullshit and you should reflect your consumers…. So we could assume that they’re all mostly white, too, right? Oh….crap.  It’s a 3:2 ratio of white:non-white?  That’s…not really reflective of what you employ.  Maybe someone brings up the idea of getting the numbers of whites:nonwhites you employ closer to your consumer target?  In addition, a few nonwhites have mentioned that working for you was pretty awkward – they never felt comfortable.  How would you handle that?

To me, there are three options:

a. acknowledge the disparity, maybe make some claims that you’d never noticed it until now, and assure people you will take whatever steps necessary to bridge the gap as long as they don’t jeapordize quality.  Maybe you decide to take steps to make as many people as possible welcome in the workplace.

b. acknowledge the disparity, but realize you don’t care.  In fact, why is the ratio of whites:nonwhites working for you 5:1 – it should be 5:0!

c. refuse to acknowledge the disparity.  Despite the concrete numbers to the contrary deny there is any gap at all.  Ooh, also, grab a couple nonwhites whose paychecks still depend on your opinion of them and ask them to talk about how much they love working for you!

…Which one did you choose?  Well, if you chose b you’re probably a conservative asshole, and proud of it.  What are you doing here in the first place?!  If you chose c, well you’re still an asshole but either you don’t know it or are more concerned with convincing people you’re not an asshole than actually trying to become less of an asshole.

Oh, and if we replace “nonwhites” with “women” you’re also The Daily Show.  Wow.  I can’t believe TDS is reading MY blog!  …and….and that it’s a singular entity…

Anyway, a few weeks ago I flipped on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.  Interestingly enough, I idly wondered if I was going to see any females on that night…I say it was interesting because during that show Jon mentioned how Jezebel thought he was a sexist prick.  Although a nightly viewer of TDS (the 11pm and 1am showings…) and a rare reader of Jezebel I couldn’t help but think that maybe Jon had it wrong.  I went to the original article and found that pointing out flaws in how things are currently working is an insult.  Seriously.  ”The Daily Show has not hired a new female correspondent in seven years” =/= “You, Jon Stewart, are a sexist prick.”

What do you mean there is a male:female ratio disparity? Can you not count? ARE YOU BLIND?!

The irony of the situation has to be TDS’s ability to call bull on everyone else.  It is why I love the show so.  I love logic and TDS takes those swings at logic that other news shows seem to miss.  And yes, I will call them a news show – they report on the news.  It just so happens the news that’s presented is given a sharp, intelligent, and often humorous critique.

So imagine my surprise when they decided to turn a single Jezebel article into news but it lacks that sharp, intelligent, and humorous critique.  TDS, Jezebel called you on your bullshit. You rarely have female guests on (this year it’s been about 67:15 male:female, I believe -roughly 5:1 – and the majority of the female guests are actresses….nothing against actresses, but can we please get on a woman of substance?), you have only just hired another female correspondent (bringing the male:female ratio up to a whopping 7:2 – although if history has taught us anything, TDS hiring a new female correspondent means the old one’s on her way out!) after seven years.  Onstage it is clearly a boys’ club, and the only way for something to be so clearly a boys’ club onstage is for it to be a boys’ club offstage.  No “secret loalty oath” you have your current female workers can disuage that concept.

Seriously.  The old “we aren’t sexist because we had all the females whose paychecks depend on us sign an oath saying we’re not” is just ridiculous.

It’s the actions we’re looking for, TDS.  For example, tonight’s episode with no female correspondents and no female guests was the first step in….um….  well, okay, see that, there?  THAT’S what you want to change!  And no, I’m not looking for diversity for diversity’s sake, but I do think that you should at least TRY to match your audience.  The viewership is 3:2 male:female but the guests and correspondents are about (or over) 5:1.  It is a disparity that should not be ignored (which is what TDS seems to be doing).

Interestingly enough Jon Stewart was really the one to open this can of worms by mentioning it on his show.  It is unlikely the general public would have known about this without his “Jezebel thinks I’m a sexist prick!” remark as soon after that was mentioned news articles went up all over the web.  …note, these reposts were all made after the airing of the Daily Show that mentioned it, not within the WEEK between the original post and TDS’s mention of it.

So what is there to assume?  That TDS actually played a role in its own downfall and controversy….or that the ugly bitches at Jezebel (so, so jealous of Olivia Munn!) used TDS to boost their page count?  Seriously, I shit you not – Emily Gould is accusing Jezebel of trumping up charges against TDS to get publicity, because there is obviously no sexism or disparity at TDS!  Those numbers that clearly indicate disparity?  Well, um, let’s pretend they don’t exist, shall we?  And, oh!  Those women who said that while they worked at TDS they felt they were treated unfairly – well, let’s not count that because we’ve got a couple of chick’s over here who will say the opposite (according to the secret loyalty oath they signed, anyway).  Did we mention that any woman who doesn’t like TDS is ugly and jealous of Olivia Munn?

A point that was also made was that not liking the women that did appear on the Daily Show (for example, being skeptical of Olivia Munn’s comedic chops) is somewhat cat-fighty.  Which raises an interesting point – this must be about women backstabbing the women who did make it (see above: “jealous”).  It’s totally not about opening up more spaces for women so they don’t HAVE to fight and backstab for the one “female correspondent” role (because there would be a roughly 3:2 ratio of male:female correspondents).  Oh wait, you idiots, it IS.  And that brings us back to “catfights”.  One woman, Ann Begler, replying to the Slate article writes:

“Robin Morgan refused to debate Lucy Goldberg stating she would not participate in a public setting that fostered the old stereotype of women always being in ‘cat fights.’”

Yes, a simple female-female debate must be a cat-fight.  Shying away from any such debates must be the only way to dispel such myths!  ….Seriously.  Women must always present a united front of womanhood and never disagrees with one another – even is one is doing something incredibly stupid. Anyway, if such is ever the case then their menfolk will ridicule the woman and the other women can just agree with their man.  Which is not the same as disagreeing with another woman.  Because that would be “cat-fighty” and involve taking off the White Gloves*.

*which is tonight's** Word!

This article was fantastic…

http://www.comicsalliance.com/2010/05/06/the-racial-politics-of-regressive-storytelling/
I used to be a Marvel fan then got into DC a little after zero hour occurred.  Big Flash fan, enjoyed Young Justice….

The Johns started writing Flash and it lost its pizazz (I was especially sad to see Linda sidelined).  YJ was reformed into the Teen Titans which was interesting for the first three episodes until Johns had the characters undergo drastic, unreasonable character changes in order for it to fit the TT of his youth.

I stopped buying any DC-proper comics around that time.  I wanted something new.  If I wanted to see the old adventures of the old TT, that’s what back-issues are for.  I still occasionally buy Vertigo titles because they are new.  Comics really need to get with the times, and move forward.

So any time I watch the History channel and they go on about human origins, they invariable take the same track. It is something like:

“One of our forefathers developed the unique ability to (use tools, make fire, explore, etc.) which he then passed to his offspring.”

Now I wasn’t around five millions years ago, so I do not scream “it was a woman!” but usually the mere concept of women even existing and contributing in any way, shape, or form to current society, is almost completely ignored, even in the most basic of biological terms (“it is thought that Australia was first colonized by about 7 different men with their unique ability and thirst for exploration.  Oh, and a couple chicks.”), so I usually do get annoyed.  It could have been a female.  That’s all I want acknowledged.

Now as a biologist I did think there would be more of a push for a male to develop these traits over females. As humans are mammals it could be assumed that before the birth of religion human reproduction occurred similarly to other mammals – males competing for females.  Usually the biggest, best few males of the year have access to most the females that year.  The following year those males are usually replace by younger, fitter male who then have access to the females.  So pretty much all the females would reproduce but only the biggest and best males would be able to reproduce, thus creating a pressure for new advantageous mutations.

But apparently I totally overlooked another pressure.  Since male mammals tend to be larger than females (to allow for better competition between other males) it turns out they hog the best food spots and so females have to becomes more clever.

Turns out that the use of tools, once thought to be a solely human adaptation has been seen in other animals – birds, dolphins, monkeys, and apes.  That isn’t news.  What’s becoming news is that it is mainly females in these groups that are using the tools.

Dolphins?

Chimps?

Weird, but makes sense.

So all this time when I make stuff by hand I used to feel all masculine.  Turns out I should be feeling feminine.

Well, January resolutions!  I feel I am more prepared for work!  I am also feeling more uncomfortable with my chosen profession.  Teaching at a community college is absolutely ridiculous.  There is a myth that community colleges are only for students who can’t get into 4-year schools.  That is totally a myth.  But there is also a myth that community college classes that transfer to 4-year schools are equivalent.  That is also totally a myth.

There is a drive in the community colleges to keep coursework intensive, to keep it somewhat at the level of 4-year schools, but even if it were (which based on my cc intro-level coursework and what I saw as a TA for university intro-level coursework is not actually the case) the emotional rigor is not.  Community college profs are supposed to be emotionally supportive of their students, but much of the emotional stress comes from the intellectual work, work that many of these students are not prepared for becuase community colleges are so reluctant to require students to complete prerequisites for many classes.  These prerequisites are viewed by students and administrators as a punishments and the real reason for them – foundation for future studies – is conveniently ignored as well as the requirement for them (something which does not occur in a 4-year college).  The result?  The majority of students don’t have the skills they need to succeed in their coursework, which stresses them out, which leads to them wanting special treatment, special treatment that has come to be associated with community colleges.  What kind of special treatment?  Well okay, here’s a story:

I assigned a paper.  It was a two-page paper based on an experiment the students had done in class.  They didn’t even have to do any research, it could have easily been typed up in half an hour.  I gave my students three weeks to complete it.  THREE WEEKS.  I told my students if they were planning anything on the due date they needed to hand the paper in early.  If a student doesn’t hand in their paper by the due date, they’d better be in the hospital.  A week before the due date I get an e-mail from a student saying there is no possible way he can get his paper in on time because he has to go on a two-day trip.  I tell him he has to get his paper in early.  He says there is no possible way he can set aside a half an hour in the next few days to write the paper.  So anyway, it turns out the two-day trip was not actually overlapping with the due-date – he was present in class that day.  The result?  The administration said I should accept his paper late at absolutely no penalty (by the way, this was a policy originally approved by the administration to keep high standards!).

Also by the way, the trip the student went on?  He was being an ambassador on behalf of the school on how to be a good student.  ….gosh, if he weasels his way out of all his due dates, of course he’s going to have a 4.0.

What pisses me off the most is there are students that don’t complain, the good students, the ones that negate the “communit college is for losers” myth.  They take responsibility for their actions.  These students don’t complain (as they shouldn’t) and as such don’t get the same advantages as the students who do complain.

In the long run, does it work out?  Sure.  The good students will do well in their jobs and the poor students will not.  The good students with their good work ethics will get raises and better jobs the poor students who like to scam out of work and deadlines will get passed over for promotions and fired.  But in the short term it does hurt.  Currently the poor students scam high G.P.A.’s and passing grades.  They’re able to get into classes sooner and programs and jobs more easily.  It waste employers’ times and clogs up the works for good students.

What a pain!