sigelphoenix (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
sigelphoenix) wrote2005-11-14 04:35 pm
sigelphoenix) wrote2005-11-14 04:35 pm
Entry tags:
Arghitty arghitty argh
Oh, the stupid. It burns.
I found an article (once again, through![[insanejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/ij-userinfo.gif)
feminist) from a Penn State campus paper entitled "Feminist society would dissatisfy many women." Yeah, I know, I should have stopped right there. But the one useful thing I might glean from this is that it encompasses many of the standard person-on-the-street arguments against feminism, which focus on the "benefits" that women enjoy in the current society.
Among other things, these arguments display a basic misunderstanding of what feminism actually is, and what feminists want to do.
Let's start from the beginning, shall we?
Although possible, it seems impractical for women to be a part of a revolution to do the same things as men, yet sustain a position of independence.
This may be nitpicky, but, hey, this is the first thing that came up. Let's lay aside the fact that I don't even know what this sentence really means (equality with men would impede women's independence?). What he's saying is that women doing the same things as men is "impractical," an opinion which I can only imagine is based on outdated notions of women's mental/emotional/physical capabilities. Condescending, too.
Feminism encompasses connotations and often misrepresents the voice of every woman.
This is somewhat true. Feminism, like any social movement, contains sub-movements that do not always mesh. Non-white women, for example, are often drowned out in (academic) feminist discourse. Queer feminists, poor feminists, all sorts of groups have a legitimate beef with how feminism has been practiced in the Western world. It's sad, but not surprising when you think of the way various oppressions intersect -- women who are victims of sexism are still capable of perpetrating racism or classism. However, this is something that feminism has been working on for decades.
Somehow, I don't think that's what this guy was talking about. My guess is that this is the standard line about feminism being populated by wild radicals who aren't in touch with what "real women" (whatever that means) want. Riiiight. Forgive me for being skeptical about what this guy thinks feminism means. I'm going to toot my own horn for a bit and offer up my own attempt at an explanation.
And now we get to the good stuff.
The day men and women have the same level of power is the also the day when chivalry dies.
So. Anyone who read my reaction to Finding Serenity knows my feelings on chivalry. :P In a nutshell: it's condescending, stifling, and based on ideas of women that reduce them to pretty ornaments or two-dimensional embodiments of so-called virtue. But let's see where the writer is going with this:
Many women enjoy visiting bars and having men buy them drinks in exchange for a casual conversation [...] Other women appreciate a man paying for dinner or movie tickets. But in a world where men and women see each other as equals, a man might not open his wallet and show a level of gallantry toward an intriguing woman.
Oh noes! In a feminist world, I might not get a free dinner one night a week when I happen to go on a date! Hold on, let me return my feminist membership so I can get some free eats!
Ahem.
Sure, it's nice to not have to pay for a meal. And yes, I know that there are women who participate in this practice. I'm aware that I could also enjoy this benefit just because I'm a woman. Just because I'm a woman, I also have a 1 in 4 chance of being sexually assaulted in my lifetime.
Paying for dinner. Sexual assault. Let us pause for a moment and consider which one is the greater fucking burden, shall we?
I don't even need to make that extreme of a comparison. Let's go back to the idea that yes, because I'm a woman, I could expect my male date to pay for my meals and drinks every time (although, funnily enough, I've never done that, and neither I nor my date imploded as a result). Let's also assume that, after a date with a new person, I decided to have sex with him. The morning after, my date would be considered a stud, whereas I would be a slut for having "given it up." I would be so, so happy to give up the possibility of having a man treat me for dinner if it meant that we would be judged on equal terms for our sexual conduct.
And, also? Hello, heterocentrism. Not all women date men, thank you very much. (Interesting that he would assume that feminists are straight, though. I guess he must have missed the memo about us all being man-hating lesbians.)
Many of life's common courtesies would disappear if men and women were the same.
Fortunately, most women agree that these little courtesies, which may affect us once or twice a day, are worth exchanging for equality within society, which incidentally affects the courses of our lives.
Women would have to protect themselves and a lot of women would find themselves walking home alone instead of being escorted home by a man.
This makes me want to SCREAM. Does the writer even realize that the reason that women, more often than men, need protection on a dark street at night is because women, more often than men, are victims of nasty crimes? Feminism aims to increase the punishment of crime, especially sexual crime, against women, and also to help prevent it by increasing respect for women and preventing their portrayal as objects to be used according to someone else's whims. The point is, feminism would make "escorts" unnecessary because we wouldn't have to be afraid (or, at least, not as afraid) of being attacked at all.
This is like saying, "You better not try to end crime, because when you do, you won't get police officers to protect you anymore!" You know, that would actually be okay, in my book. I would give up the "benefit" of being escorted if it meant there was no longer a rampant threat of rape.
A man's reflex to open a door for a woman would be replaced with the thought of her being comfortable enough to open the door for herself.
Yes, I know. And? What's wrong with a woman being comfortable with opening her own damn door?
I feel like this is beating a dead horse, but I'll say it again: I don't care if someone opens the door for me, as long as they don't care that I'm female. If a man opens the door for me, that's great, so long as he isn't leering or saying something condescending or otherwise implying that he's doing it just because I'm a woman. On the other hand, I won't be offended if a man does not open the door for me. Same goes for other women. I would just like people to open the door for anyone who looks like they need a hand -- they're injured, have their hands full, what have you. (Ideally, whoever got there first would open the door for the people behind them, but that assumes a level of politeness we don't always practice.) Just don't make it a condescending gesture based on assumptions of frailty. If a man opens the door for me, the penis between his legs better have nothing to do with the hand holding the door.
If both sexes were equal, love would become awkward as well.
*sigh* Yes, I know. So rich. Just wait.
Marriage, or even deciding who should propose or pay for the ring, would be a different experience.
Different? Awwww, I haaaaate differeeeeent. Change is baaaaad.
The days of a husband pulling out his wife's chair would be over because men wouldn't want to risk hearing a reminder about how women can do things for themselves.
Oh, I'm sorry -- is your privileged male self tired of hearing about the shit women have to go through? Should we not try to correct you when you're being condescending, or slap you upside the head when you're being harmful, because it would be a bother?
Also, please note how this sentence implies that a woman's complaining is annoying. A man complaining is assertive; a woman complaining is a shrew.
It seems that if men and women acted as equals, dating would be pretty boring. The chemistry created between two people is not defined by strong similarities, but by the differences and struggles for power that some feminists seek to destroy.
..................
Oh jeebus.
At this point, I honestly wondered if the guy was being satirical. I mean, really. But my guess is that he's trying to sound smart by pointing out that power dynamics make for interesting interaction. However ... maybe this is just me, but does anyone really want a fight-to-the-death struggle for power in their romantic relationships? Myself, I generally prefer a milder, yet still dynamic interaction of dominance and submission that fluctuates according to the situation and ability of the respective partners. This system, however, is predicated on a generally equal relationship that would allow for a little unpredictability.
(And, of course, we see the implication that in the writer's "good" power struggle, the man would be strong while the woman would be weak. I somehow don't think he's suggesting we make women the strong ones to sustain our interesting dating lives. "Be weak so it'll be interesting for me!" Yeah, uh-huh.)
Where there are equal rights, there should be equal responsibilities. In a fair world, both men and women would have rifles in hand, ready challenge the enemy on the battlefield. Yet few feminists are yearning to fight wars or work blue collar jobs with long hours. Comparatively fewer women than men work grueling hours on the assembly line. Instead, many want to be key players in powerful companies or work for widely viewed media outlets where their voices can be heard.
Oh, yes. The noble men are throwing themselves into the horrid responsibilities of soldier and blue-collar worker left and right, all for the sake of women. Clearly, that is the way all men of society are thinking, and they are adjusting their life paths accordingly.
Look, no one wants to work difficult and/or dangerous jobs for crap pay. If a man does this, it's not because he's shielding us poor, frail women from the hard work -- it's because that's all that he can get. This is part of the reason feminism intersects with activism on the behalf of the lower economic classes, to prevent both types of oppression. Of course women want to work in good jobs -- how is that a bad thing? And who ever said that we wouldn't work to get the opportunity? We just want to be able to work through the same challenges as men, without the added obstacles of sexism. As for the military -- yes, some women actually do want to serve. Some other women do not want to serve, but most of us are not chickenshits who would throw men in front of us as shields -- we oppose the draft, or entire military engagements, for both men and women.
And, to be perfectly frank? I'd rather not hear about the difficulties of blue-collar work from a white guy attending Penn State when it seems like he's only throwing it out in order to discredit feminism. It just ends up looking like he doesn't care about either.
A purely feminist society would dramatically change the family structure.
As divorce, abortion, and family planning did, and as homosexual marriage would ... What's your point? I'm not as mortally terrified of change as you are, apparently.
In nature, females develop an inherent relationship with their young by bearing, nursing, and protecting them at a young age [...] Most fathers have a desire to provide for the wife and the children, and are often expected at the bare minimum to put food on the table. Mothers nourish their children, and if these caring mothers were placed in the work force, we force traditional family standards to be the exact opposite of what they are today.
Ah, yes. The retreat to what is "natural" or "traditional." I'm trying to come up with a different reply than my last comment ...
How about: we've learned that a lot of traditional social/family practices are not good, such as sending children to work in factories, marrying girls off before they hit puberty, or making wives the physical property of husbands. I'm going to give this guy some credit and say that I don't think he wants to go back to the good ol' days in quite that way.
This is less an argument of feminism-or-no, and more of a general argument of traditionalism-or-no. I'm going to just cut myself off from a whole other rant and say, "no."
[I]n a world where feminism holds the reigns of society, we overhaul the design of the family unit [...]
See above.
[...] weaken the effect of feminine sexuality [...]
So, uh, who's sad about "feminine sexuality" being less potent or rampant? Women, or (heterosexual) men? Let's be honest, here.
[...] and introduce the possibility of having our daughters, sisters and mothers fight on the front lines and work grueling jobs.
Spare me the sentimentalism. How about the fact that "our daughters, sisters and mothers" are in danger of sexual assault and domestic violence, can be forced to bear children they don't want, often get the short end of the stick in divorce cases, face harassment on the streets, suffer from eating disorders and addictions to plastic surgery in order to look "sexy," have to choose between career and motherhood, are told they did something to "deserve" being raped or beaten, and face so many other ridiculous judgments day in and day out based on their sex? And that's just in the U.S. today. What about twenty years ago? What about outside our privileged borders? Sexual slavery, genital mutilation, forced silencing or confinement, the stigma of being female, or bearing a female child, the stifling of rights all over the place?
And I'm sorry, what? You think the "grueling jobs" you (and by "you," I of course mean someone poorer and probably less white than you) have to perform are a fair exchange?
Please try again.
And now for the big finish:
I'm not here to say what is right or wrong, but those who are fighting for equality need to keep in mind the changes that may occur if society adopted a true feminist perspective.
For those who think a feminist society would be utopia, the perfect society is anything but perfect. If women choose to fight for equality, they should be careful what they wish for.
I'm so very glad that you, Mr. Dimmich, are here to tell us what we "need to keep in mind" and to "be careful." It's so verypatronizinghelpful. And also, thank you for making sure I know what a "true feminist perspective" is.
*deep breath*
CHRIST ON A POGO STICK
See, this whole "feminists don't realize how haaaaard women would have it if they had to fend for themselves" load of crap stems from two major misconceptions. The first is the fact that the person who says this has no idea what privilege is. They think that the little so-called privileges that women get, such as (gasp) not having to pull a door open, are the only privileges that exist. They're completely ignorant of the massive advantages that men have, in everything from the economy to the traditional family unit to sexual interaction. But there's no need to rehash this -- see my previous post re: invisibility.
The other misconception is that women need to be taken care of. That's the implicit assumption throughout this entire article, and chivalry in general. It's also a form of the same paternalism that colonizers have used to justify their actions for centuries. White Man's Burden, anyone? "Look at the poor uncivilized/uneducated/un-white-like-us people. Naturally, it's our duty to take care of them and have access to their land and resources and perhaps slave labor too." Now how about: "Look at the poor weak/unintelligent/irrational/not-bearing-the-qualities-we-men-have-defined-as-good women. Naturally, it's our duty to take care of them and have access to their bodies and childrearing services and perhaps unpaid domestic labor too." Hell, you could even relate this attitude to the one slave-owners had, in which they said that they were helping the slaves by providing them food and housing, nevermind the fact they were being confined, beaten, exploited, and killed.
Do I need to be any clearer? The mean and scary feminist world is exactly what we want.
In other news, it has been remarkably sunny today. I certainly hope that we get some more of this respite before being sucked into the soggy grayness of winter, because I really enjoyed the bit of sunshine. It put me in a good mood despite the asshattery. :P
I found an article (once again, through
feminist) from a Penn State campus paper entitled "Feminist society would dissatisfy many women." Yeah, I know, I should have stopped right there. But the one useful thing I might glean from this is that it encompasses many of the standard person-on-the-street arguments against feminism, which focus on the "benefits" that women enjoy in the current society.Among other things, these arguments display a basic misunderstanding of what feminism actually is, and what feminists want to do.
Let's start from the beginning, shall we?
Although possible, it seems impractical for women to be a part of a revolution to do the same things as men, yet sustain a position of independence.
This may be nitpicky, but, hey, this is the first thing that came up. Let's lay aside the fact that I don't even know what this sentence really means (equality with men would impede women's independence?). What he's saying is that women doing the same things as men is "impractical," an opinion which I can only imagine is based on outdated notions of women's mental/emotional/physical capabilities. Condescending, too.
Feminism encompasses connotations and often misrepresents the voice of every woman.
This is somewhat true. Feminism, like any social movement, contains sub-movements that do not always mesh. Non-white women, for example, are often drowned out in (academic) feminist discourse. Queer feminists, poor feminists, all sorts of groups have a legitimate beef with how feminism has been practiced in the Western world. It's sad, but not surprising when you think of the way various oppressions intersect -- women who are victims of sexism are still capable of perpetrating racism or classism. However, this is something that feminism has been working on for decades.
Somehow, I don't think that's what this guy was talking about. My guess is that this is the standard line about feminism being populated by wild radicals who aren't in touch with what "real women" (whatever that means) want. Riiiight. Forgive me for being skeptical about what this guy thinks feminism means. I'm going to toot my own horn for a bit and offer up my own attempt at an explanation.
And now we get to the good stuff.
The day men and women have the same level of power is the also the day when chivalry dies.
So. Anyone who read my reaction to Finding Serenity knows my feelings on chivalry. :P In a nutshell: it's condescending, stifling, and based on ideas of women that reduce them to pretty ornaments or two-dimensional embodiments of so-called virtue. But let's see where the writer is going with this:
Many women enjoy visiting bars and having men buy them drinks in exchange for a casual conversation [...] Other women appreciate a man paying for dinner or movie tickets. But in a world where men and women see each other as equals, a man might not open his wallet and show a level of gallantry toward an intriguing woman.
Oh noes! In a feminist world, I might not get a free dinner one night a week when I happen to go on a date! Hold on, let me return my feminist membership so I can get some free eats!
Ahem.
Sure, it's nice to not have to pay for a meal. And yes, I know that there are women who participate in this practice. I'm aware that I could also enjoy this benefit just because I'm a woman. Just because I'm a woman, I also have a 1 in 4 chance of being sexually assaulted in my lifetime.
Paying for dinner. Sexual assault. Let us pause for a moment and consider which one is the greater fucking burden, shall we?
I don't even need to make that extreme of a comparison. Let's go back to the idea that yes, because I'm a woman, I could expect my male date to pay for my meals and drinks every time (although, funnily enough, I've never done that, and neither I nor my date imploded as a result). Let's also assume that, after a date with a new person, I decided to have sex with him. The morning after, my date would be considered a stud, whereas I would be a slut for having "given it up." I would be so, so happy to give up the possibility of having a man treat me for dinner if it meant that we would be judged on equal terms for our sexual conduct.
And, also? Hello, heterocentrism. Not all women date men, thank you very much. (Interesting that he would assume that feminists are straight, though. I guess he must have missed the memo about us all being man-hating lesbians.)
Many of life's common courtesies would disappear if men and women were the same.
Fortunately, most women agree that these little courtesies, which may affect us once or twice a day, are worth exchanging for equality within society, which incidentally affects the courses of our lives.
Women would have to protect themselves and a lot of women would find themselves walking home alone instead of being escorted home by a man.
This makes me want to SCREAM. Does the writer even realize that the reason that women, more often than men, need protection on a dark street at night is because women, more often than men, are victims of nasty crimes? Feminism aims to increase the punishment of crime, especially sexual crime, against women, and also to help prevent it by increasing respect for women and preventing their portrayal as objects to be used according to someone else's whims. The point is, feminism would make "escorts" unnecessary because we wouldn't have to be afraid (or, at least, not as afraid) of being attacked at all.
This is like saying, "You better not try to end crime, because when you do, you won't get police officers to protect you anymore!" You know, that would actually be okay, in my book. I would give up the "benefit" of being escorted if it meant there was no longer a rampant threat of rape.
A man's reflex to open a door for a woman would be replaced with the thought of her being comfortable enough to open the door for herself.
Yes, I know. And? What's wrong with a woman being comfortable with opening her own damn door?
I feel like this is beating a dead horse, but I'll say it again: I don't care if someone opens the door for me, as long as they don't care that I'm female. If a man opens the door for me, that's great, so long as he isn't leering or saying something condescending or otherwise implying that he's doing it just because I'm a woman. On the other hand, I won't be offended if a man does not open the door for me. Same goes for other women. I would just like people to open the door for anyone who looks like they need a hand -- they're injured, have their hands full, what have you. (Ideally, whoever got there first would open the door for the people behind them, but that assumes a level of politeness we don't always practice.) Just don't make it a condescending gesture based on assumptions of frailty. If a man opens the door for me, the penis between his legs better have nothing to do with the hand holding the door.
If both sexes were equal, love would become awkward as well.
*sigh* Yes, I know. So rich. Just wait.
Marriage, or even deciding who should propose or pay for the ring, would be a different experience.
Different? Awwww, I haaaaate differeeeeent. Change is baaaaad.
The days of a husband pulling out his wife's chair would be over because men wouldn't want to risk hearing a reminder about how women can do things for themselves.
Oh, I'm sorry -- is your privileged male self tired of hearing about the shit women have to go through? Should we not try to correct you when you're being condescending, or slap you upside the head when you're being harmful, because it would be a bother?
Also, please note how this sentence implies that a woman's complaining is annoying. A man complaining is assertive; a woman complaining is a shrew.
It seems that if men and women acted as equals, dating would be pretty boring. The chemistry created between two people is not defined by strong similarities, but by the differences and struggles for power that some feminists seek to destroy.
..................
Oh jeebus.
At this point, I honestly wondered if the guy was being satirical. I mean, really. But my guess is that he's trying to sound smart by pointing out that power dynamics make for interesting interaction. However ... maybe this is just me, but does anyone really want a fight-to-the-death struggle for power in their romantic relationships? Myself, I generally prefer a milder, yet still dynamic interaction of dominance and submission that fluctuates according to the situation and ability of the respective partners. This system, however, is predicated on a generally equal relationship that would allow for a little unpredictability.
(And, of course, we see the implication that in the writer's "good" power struggle, the man would be strong while the woman would be weak. I somehow don't think he's suggesting we make women the strong ones to sustain our interesting dating lives. "Be weak so it'll be interesting for me!" Yeah, uh-huh.)
Where there are equal rights, there should be equal responsibilities. In a fair world, both men and women would have rifles in hand, ready challenge the enemy on the battlefield. Yet few feminists are yearning to fight wars or work blue collar jobs with long hours. Comparatively fewer women than men work grueling hours on the assembly line. Instead, many want to be key players in powerful companies or work for widely viewed media outlets where their voices can be heard.
Oh, yes. The noble men are throwing themselves into the horrid responsibilities of soldier and blue-collar worker left and right, all for the sake of women. Clearly, that is the way all men of society are thinking, and they are adjusting their life paths accordingly.
Look, no one wants to work difficult and/or dangerous jobs for crap pay. If a man does this, it's not because he's shielding us poor, frail women from the hard work -- it's because that's all that he can get. This is part of the reason feminism intersects with activism on the behalf of the lower economic classes, to prevent both types of oppression. Of course women want to work in good jobs -- how is that a bad thing? And who ever said that we wouldn't work to get the opportunity? We just want to be able to work through the same challenges as men, without the added obstacles of sexism. As for the military -- yes, some women actually do want to serve. Some other women do not want to serve, but most of us are not chickenshits who would throw men in front of us as shields -- we oppose the draft, or entire military engagements, for both men and women.
And, to be perfectly frank? I'd rather not hear about the difficulties of blue-collar work from a white guy attending Penn State when it seems like he's only throwing it out in order to discredit feminism. It just ends up looking like he doesn't care about either.
A purely feminist society would dramatically change the family structure.
As divorce, abortion, and family planning did, and as homosexual marriage would ... What's your point? I'm not as mortally terrified of change as you are, apparently.
In nature, females develop an inherent relationship with their young by bearing, nursing, and protecting them at a young age [...] Most fathers have a desire to provide for the wife and the children, and are often expected at the bare minimum to put food on the table. Mothers nourish their children, and if these caring mothers were placed in the work force, we force traditional family standards to be the exact opposite of what they are today.
Ah, yes. The retreat to what is "natural" or "traditional." I'm trying to come up with a different reply than my last comment ...
How about: we've learned that a lot of traditional social/family practices are not good, such as sending children to work in factories, marrying girls off before they hit puberty, or making wives the physical property of husbands. I'm going to give this guy some credit and say that I don't think he wants to go back to the good ol' days in quite that way.
This is less an argument of feminism-or-no, and more of a general argument of traditionalism-or-no. I'm going to just cut myself off from a whole other rant and say, "no."
[I]n a world where feminism holds the reigns of society, we overhaul the design of the family unit [...]
See above.
[...] weaken the effect of feminine sexuality [...]
So, uh, who's sad about "feminine sexuality" being less potent or rampant? Women, or (heterosexual) men? Let's be honest, here.
[...] and introduce the possibility of having our daughters, sisters and mothers fight on the front lines and work grueling jobs.
Spare me the sentimentalism. How about the fact that "our daughters, sisters and mothers" are in danger of sexual assault and domestic violence, can be forced to bear children they don't want, often get the short end of the stick in divorce cases, face harassment on the streets, suffer from eating disorders and addictions to plastic surgery in order to look "sexy," have to choose between career and motherhood, are told they did something to "deserve" being raped or beaten, and face so many other ridiculous judgments day in and day out based on their sex? And that's just in the U.S. today. What about twenty years ago? What about outside our privileged borders? Sexual slavery, genital mutilation, forced silencing or confinement, the stigma of being female, or bearing a female child, the stifling of rights all over the place?
And I'm sorry, what? You think the "grueling jobs" you (and by "you," I of course mean someone poorer and probably less white than you) have to perform are a fair exchange?
Please try again.
And now for the big finish:
I'm not here to say what is right or wrong, but those who are fighting for equality need to keep in mind the changes that may occur if society adopted a true feminist perspective.
For those who think a feminist society would be utopia, the perfect society is anything but perfect. If women choose to fight for equality, they should be careful what they wish for.
I'm so very glad that you, Mr. Dimmich, are here to tell us what we "need to keep in mind" and to "be careful." It's so very
*deep breath*
CHRIST ON A POGO STICK
See, this whole "feminists don't realize how haaaaard women would have it if they had to fend for themselves" load of crap stems from two major misconceptions. The first is the fact that the person who says this has no idea what privilege is. They think that the little so-called privileges that women get, such as (gasp) not having to pull a door open, are the only privileges that exist. They're completely ignorant of the massive advantages that men have, in everything from the economy to the traditional family unit to sexual interaction. But there's no need to rehash this -- see my previous post re: invisibility.
The other misconception is that women need to be taken care of. That's the implicit assumption throughout this entire article, and chivalry in general. It's also a form of the same paternalism that colonizers have used to justify their actions for centuries. White Man's Burden, anyone? "Look at the poor uncivilized/uneducated/un-white-like-us people. Naturally, it's our duty to take care of them and have access to their land and resources and perhaps slave labor too." Now how about: "Look at the poor weak/unintelligent/irrational/not-bearing-the-qualities-we-men-have-defined-as-good women. Naturally, it's our duty to take care of them and have access to their bodies and childrearing services and perhaps unpaid domestic labor too." Hell, you could even relate this attitude to the one slave-owners had, in which they said that they were helping the slaves by providing them food and housing, nevermind the fact they were being confined, beaten, exploited, and killed.
Do I need to be any clearer? The mean and scary feminist world is exactly what we want.
In other news, it has been remarkably sunny today. I certainly hope that we get some more of this respite before being sucked into the soggy grayness of winter, because I really enjoyed the bit of sunshine. It put me in a good mood despite the asshattery. :P