I need to rage.

There's a number of things I want to rage about, and I'm having a hard time deciding, so I think I'll go rage about rape. It is very rage-able.

I know it's old, but did you hear about this case? There is a fairly recent (and not positive) update, though. In a rape trial, the victim was slapped with a gag order preventing her and the prosecutors from using the words “victim,” “assailant,” “rape,” “date rape drugs,” “sexual assault kit,” and “sexual assault.” The only terms she was allowed to use in her testimony to describe what happened were "sex", "sexual intercourse" and "intercourse".

Where does a woman even start with the rage here? Can you imagine a burglary case where the judge banned the use of the words "theft", "stole", and "crime scene investigation", and only allowed the words "transaction" and "property transfer" to define the crime? Can you imagine that judge keeping his job? Can you imagine the media not being all over that? But put "Tory Bowen" (the woman's name) into a news search at Google, and only 6 results come up!

I will never be allowed on a rape jury. Why? Because I know the mere fact that I'm there means there's a 95% chance the guy is guilty, and about a 5% chance he'll be convicted, and about a literal 1% chance overall that he'll do any time for it.

A little look at the statistics shows why justice for raped women is almost an impossibility. You know what statistics I want to see shoved down our throats as much as the one-in-four? I want everyone to be told just as often that at least 1 in 8 men is a rapist, and that 1 in 2 think it's OK "under certain circumstances" (which are typically everyday things -- spending a lot of money on her, she's wearing the wrong thing, they've been going out for a while, etc.).

Now, assuming you have a rape trial jury that's only half male (I suspect they're typically more than half male), that means there is a 55% chance that there will be a rapist on the jury. And a 98% chance that at least 1 of the male jurors will think rape is OK. When you consider all the men that are involved in a rape trial -- maybe police officers, maybe doctors, maybe lawyers, maybe the judge -- it's practically a guarantee that a rapist will be in at least one key position in the trial.

How can we ever expect justice in that sort of environment?

There is something seriously wrong with the way rape is presented to men as opposed to women. As I've ranted before, I was taught that rape was the absolutely worst thing that could possibly happen to me, far worse than even being murdered. That's so fucked up. And yet I think that my upbringing was pretty typical in this regard. I'm quite certain it wasn't terribly atypical.

I do not believe that half of all men are monsters. I don't believe that even 12% of them are.

Therefore I must believe that large portions -- no, humongous portions! At least half, as a matter of fact! -- of the male population is not taught to view rape NEARLY as severely as women are.

This needs to change.

Worse, somehow we need to lessen the way women as a group view rape while strengthening the way men as a group view it. I'd like to see both genders view rape as an assault. If someone gets stabbed, few people ask what they did to deserve it, or blame the victim for it happening, or expect the victim to be ruined for life. Likewise, few people think that it's OK to stab someone "under certain circumstances" (and certainly not under fairly everyday ones), and I'm almost certain that the number of men who have stabbed someone is significantly less than 1 in 8.

Sometimes other people embarrass me.

First and foremost, I'm fed up and so I'm just going to say it.

If someone's opinion depends on the idea that science has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, they are not worthy of serious debate.

If their opinion depends on the idea that science has a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and that religion does not, they don't deserve to be talked to like an adult unless they've shown critical thinking skills elsewhere.

Ditto on that last part for governments or corporations.

---

Not related to that last part, but have you ever read something so stupid that you are embarrassed for the writer, even though you don't know them?
I've been getting that every time I see an article by Grace Hutton on Fiber Femmes. Every time she has one, she sounds like a flaming moron. Her articles are poorly researched, poorly thought out rants.
Take Predator Friendly -- Not Me. There are organizations out there that encourage livestock owners not to kill naturally occurring predators. There are areas with a near-natural wildlife balance where this is practical. She doesn't live in one; she apparently lives in an area where the black bear population is greater than the natural wildlife can support. Fine, predator-friendly livestock management is not a viable option for her. There's nothing wrong with that. But no, she has to go off on how the very concept is stupid, and makes herself look like a complete moron in the process. Some representative, but non-exhaustive examples:

1. She complains that yearly elk calf survival in Yellowstone is 14 calves per 100 elk cows, and obviously this horrible number must be because of predators.
1. Problem: Wild elk have an average lifespan of 10 to 13 years, which means the sustainable replacement rate is 7 to 10 elk per 100. So, depending on the number of males in that population and the adult lifespan for same, that could very well be a sustainable number.
2. Problem: Predation is not the only cause of death. There's also disease (sometimes transmitted, interestingly enough, by livestock), human hunting/poaching, lack of correct food, and so on.
2. She says that the Pennsylvania Game Commission advised her to bait her electric fence with bacon so that bears will learn this is not a place they want to be, and then states "Bear baiting and dog fights are regarded to be cruelty of the worst sort."
1. Hold on, so she's in Pennsylvania. Then what in the world does Yellowstone, a completely different ecosystem 1500 miles away, have to do with her situation?
2. 'Bear baiting' was the practice of using a bear as bait for dogs, not of baiting the bear. The term is sometimes used for a hunting practice of leaving bait for a bear until it has established a pattern of taking it, and then waiting for the bear to show up and shoot it. It has nothing to do with developing a negative association in the bear against your property.
3. She attempts to redefine predator to include parasites, so she can then dismiss the idea of predatory-friendly as ludicrous because it protects parasites. *eye roll*
4. And at the end of the article, we have a nice little appeal to tradition. Killing predators was good enough for her ancestors, dammit, so it's good enough for her, and anyone who "ignores the lessons of history" must be a moron. Ma'am, I'd like to point out that one of the lessons of that exact same history and those very same ancestors is that if you eliminate the natural prey sources and provide an alternative one, you're going to have closer encounters with predators, while at the same time if you eliminate all of the predators you're going to have a terrible time with destructive, unchecked prey animals.

That was bad enough, but then I looked through some of the archives at the site, and found an article that made me want to curl up and whine, and then take her hand and say "Honey, you're making a complete ass of yourself. "'Ethical' Issues with Wool".

The very first sentence: "Lately what is making me so mad my hair is about to catch on fire is the notion that there are “ethical” issues with using wool."

The article argues that there are absolutely no ethical issues with wool. That's ludicrous! I've previously ripped PETA a new one for their misrepresentation of the issues, but going to the other extreme is just as insane and irresponsible. Again, let's take some key, but non-exhaustive, points from this article.

1. "Most of the plant and man-made fibers require some powerful chemicals to dye them pretty colors. Wool on the other hand can be dyed permanently with food safe colors - - think Kool Aid and Easter egg dyes plus diluted vinegar." This one's my favorite.
   
1. Yes, you heard it here. There were absolutely positively NO dyed cotton or linen ever before the invention of industrial aniline dyes in 1856. Except, um, there were. Even today some of our cotton jeans are dyed with indigo. Plant fibers can be dyed very well with natural dyes and safe mordants.
2. Food safe dyes on wool do not produce results that most people would call "permanent". They are infamously fragile and prone to fading, not to mention generally starting in very pastel shades.
2. She brings in the cattle industry, and then denies that existence of factory farms that never pasture their cows. Not only is that delusional, it's not even remotely topical. Last I checked, cows don't produce wool.
3. Because short-tailed sheep exist and there is an "ethnic market" (her term) that desires uncastrated lambs, the issues of tail docking and castration without anesthesia simply do not exist. She's not arguing that they aren't as cruel as they seem to an uninformed outsider; she's saying that because it is not an issue in all cases, it is not an issue in any case.

Every industry and every fiber has ethical issues. Cotton is usually raised with massive amounts of pesticides and fertilizers. Even organic cotton requires massive amounts of water, which is not a problem in some areas but could be in others. Hemp is illegal to grow in the U.S. Synthetics produce pollution. Corn can use genetically modified plants, with the issues that come with them. Soy fibers are a biproduct of a food industry that pumps them into foods as cheap filler with no regard for the long-term health effects of the extra plant estrogens. Cashmere can be made finer by underfeeding the goat from which it comes, and overgrazing is leading to widespread desertification. Sheep can be treated poorly, their waste can be managed poorly, or wool can be imported from countries with serious human rights violations. Any and all fibers can be harvested or produced and processed with dangerous chemicals, and by child labor, political prisoners, or underpaid workers.

It's up to each individual to determine what the ethical issues are with each fibers, and which best align with their values. Thus for some people acrylic is preferable to leather ethically, and for others the reverse is true. By all means address and, if possible, correct the ethical concerns with your own fiber of choice. But pretending that those simply don't exist is flat-out delusional.

Men's Crafts versus Women's Crafts

OK, first off, apologies for the title. Naturally there's no such thing as a "man's" craft or a "woman's" craft. I don't know of a single craft done with the use of a penis, and you could probably use a dildo if there was. Likewise female genitalia is not used in any craft I can think of. So properly speaking, the title should be "Predominately men's crafts versus predominately women's crafts." But that's not as pithy and doesn't fit in the subject line as well. And certainly doesn't let me share the mental image of penile and vaginal craft projects.

Anyway, what I'm actually hear to talk about are attitudes towards intellectual property rights in scroll sawing and wood carving (traditionally male-dominated crafts) and knitting, crocheting, and sewing (traditionally female-oriented crafts). For some reason, women seem to be a LOT more stingy about the IPRs. You would be hard pressed to find a modern fiber craft book that does not have a "patterns may be made for personal use only" disclaimer in the front. I've seen ones that try to put limits on how many copies you can make for yourself to mark up as you work -- copies no one else ever even sees.

On the other hand, you pop open a scroll saw book or magazine, and there's good odds that there's advice on how to sell what you've made from the patterns. (For example, Scroll Saw Scandinavian has a nice little section on how best to display the items it's giving you patterns for.) Not to say I've never seen the complaint about someone making money off of a designer's work. I did once, from someone who walked into a Hallmark store and saw hundreds of lasercut ornaments made with his pattern and without a license.

Ladies, what are we doing here? They're worried about mass production; we're worried about a church raffle. Why is this?

I know it's not that the men's crafts are harder or slower. I've been knitting and crocheting since I was a kid, but give me a choice of making a coaster with an elaborate design with yarn or on the scroll-saw, and I'll be down making some sawdust. It's so much faster.

Are men more secure in their IPs? I'll be the first to admit that men's crafts are more respected; it's much rarer for a woodworker to be told "you know, you can buy one of those" compared to a yarn artist. The hypothetical coasters: I strongly suspect the scroll-sawed one will get more wow's than the yarn.

I don't think the men's crafts have a larger customer base, and I'm quite certain that's not the cause in any event. In the 1980s, when knitting was a terribly niche market, many American patterns had a limited license (allowance to make 100 items/year for sale, or for 'pin money', or some other non-mass-production commercial use OK).

Is it related to the way women are taught to hate each other and view each other as competition? This is the one I always suspect, although I wouldn't try to say whether it's an effect or part of a cause. Is it really that horrible for your work to help another woman ease her financial burden? It's insanely rare for a crafter to be in direct competition with the designer selling the finished article, and the sort of person who would buy the pattern is not the sort to buy the finished article. (Otherwise we wouldn't be in this knitting thing; it's faster and cheaper to buy sweaters from the store.) So why not let other women sell what they've made?

I'd really like to see women's crafts open sharing back up. I mean, isn't it cool to think that the thing you designed has helped pay for another woman's car, or a meal, or a doctor's visit? Or even just a couple of balls of yarn? Designers don't have to close it off to individuals in order to prevent mass manufacturing. Heck, you will almost never see me suggest this, but grab a Creative Commons license. Instead of worrying about small losses, let's think about the big helps we can provide.