Sunday, October 24, 2010

The Sunday Music Video: Slim Cessna's Auto Club - Pine Box

Sorry for the lack of posts. I have a couple of post drafts that I'm slowly working on. Might not get much out of me for another couple of weeks though.

Like last week, I wanted to pick something that was seasonally appropriate. This one isn't as obviously "Halloween-ish" as last week's pick, but I think it's a good choice. Lots of Slim Cessna songs would work, actually. This one has a really creepy, somber vibe to it that I think is perfect for these waning fall days:

I might add some more music videos and whatnot throughout the week, in celebration of this most awesome of holidays.

Sunday, October 17, 2010

The Sunday Music Video: Julie Driscoll - Season of the Witch

It's almost Halloween, so I picked a nice little number appropriate to the season:

I like both this and the groovy Donovan version. Just something about this song, man, makes it appropriate for this time of year.

Friday, October 15, 2010

When The Stranger Comes Along

An unpaid intern over at The Stranger recently "came out" as an anarchist and posted  a blawg entry about it. Interesting read, but maybe even more interesting are the comments. Remember, these are supposed to be be hep, tolerant libruls who groove on peace and equality. Instead, well, I think it's safe to characterize the bulk of these comments as slightly antagonistic. Hostile, even. Actually, even more than hostile I might characterize the tenor of the comment thread as something akin to a witch hunt. Anyhoo, I commented and figured I'd post my comment here, since a lot of it works fairly well as a stand-alone post (I redacted a paragraph of personal info from my there-anonymous post, otherwise the post is left as-is):
I just want to voice my appreciation for UI posting his original, er, post and then being willing to wade into these quite extensive comments to address the supporters and the detractors (and the detractors of both the respectful and the hateful flavors).

[redacted personal info]

There are many, many different threads of thought going on here but I wanted to throw my two cents in on a couple of more basic ones. The "hypocrite" train of thought seems to have been raised a few times and I'm always reminded of this little axiom: "do not blame the man whose legs are broken for accepting crutches." The state breaks our legs and then gives us crutches - and we're told that we should just be grateful for the crutches. I mean, yeah, I'd rather have the crutches than not have them but what I'd really like is for my legs not to be broken in the first place. It's not hypocrisy to use the crutches given to you by the state which first breaks your legs.

I'm also mildly intrigued by how statists in this comment thread are engaging with social contract theory. The majority actually just seem to basically reject it - there seems to be a tacit admission running through a lot of these comments that, no, no one actually REALLY consents to give up their sovereignty to a government authority in order to receive the benefits of the rule of law. Many comments seem to be in the vein of "it happens against our will to all of us, just get over it." Which, okay sure, but you're ceding the argument of legitimacy to the anarchists by going that route and - I guess - just postulating that arguments of legitimacy are basically pointless. I dunno, I think it's an important issue.

The other way people engage with the social contract theory issue is a two-fold approach to suggesting that - at some point - yes, we do actually cede our sovereignty to the state willingly. Usually, this is formulated by suggesting that at some point we choose to "love or leave it" (which, as an aside, is not only a great catchphrase but was turned into a wonderfully snotty punk song called "My America" by the F.U.'s - not anarchists at all, but I love 'em) and by NOT leaving the country we're willingly ceding your sovereignty. This is, by any common sense appraisal, completely and utterly absurd. Besides the fact that most statists assume you're not a rational actor until the age of 18 - and thus not really capable of being responsible for whatever conditions you find yourself in when you reach 18 (most 18 year olds do not have sufficient resources to just pack up and leave the country) - it ignores the fact that in order to leave this country you have to engage in a system designed by states to simply transfer you from state to state. No matter what, you have to cede your sovereignty to SOME state or another, one cannot simply go without.

Here's a thought experiment for people who actually believe in social contract theory: imagine what would happen if you opted out of the state. You say "you know what? I won't ask for any services, you can disconnect all utilities and services going to my piece of property. Electricity, water, fire protection, etc, etc. I won't ask for any services from the state, ever. I'll let the state keep what I've paid into social security and medicare so far. I won't ask any refunds for the wars I've helped finance against my will or the police force I don't believe in (or anything else). You, the state, will never have to answer my calls for police or hospital service, or anything else. I have my own well, my own garden and farm animals, my own power generator and my own stockpile of guns. You can totally ignore me, as long as I stay on my own land, and I'll just ignore you. As long as no one sets foot on my property I won't set foot on any state-controlled land." That sounds... pretty fair, to me. This hypothetical citizens refuses to give up their sovereignty and makes clear that they won't ever "leech" off the state or anyone else.

This citizen will be allowed to terminate their social contract. right? Of course not. If a citizen of the USA (or any other country) tried this, they would be arrested. And if they resisted, they would be killed. Any "social contract" you enter with the state is entered into through coercion and, as the state itself actually recognizes, contracts entered into through coercion are not valid.

Thirdly, I've seen anarchists called "extremists" regularly in these comments. What is the more extremist position to take, that society can only exist under one particular model of organization (and anyone who disagrees is a "sociopath"), or that there may be a multitude of ways for people to live and organize and interact with each other? I don't know about you, but the former seems the markedly more rigid, dogmatic and, yes, extremist position to take.

As I said, lots of issues worth discussing here. Those criticisms just raised my eyebrows in particular because they seem so obviously wrong.

My only real criticism of UI - other than that he probably prefers a different flavor of anarchism than the one I would endorse (which is more critique than criticism, and I'm not much for internecine anarchist debate anyhow) - is the use of the term "rape". Yeah, I've heard the arguments for why it's appropriate in that but I still don't agree with them - there's just too much social baggage for it to be an effective word to use in this instance. So, just something to think about for anyone trying to present anarchist positions in a way that will engage non-anarchists.

So, yeah. That sure is what I wrote.

Wednesday, October 13, 2010

Superman and Batman are Friends, Y'all

This might be the best portrayal of the Superman/Batman relationship ever.

Sunday, October 10, 2010

The Sunday Music Video: Solomon Burke - I Can't Stop Loving You

Well, word is that Solomon Burke passed away this morning, at age 70. So, it seems appropriate to enjoy some footage of him performing "I Can't Stop Loving You" from a live broadcast performance in 1987:

Burke was one of the greats, he'll be missed.

Thursday, October 07, 2010

Burn, Baby, Burn: A Link Roundup

The buzz this week seems to have been the Tennessee Firefighters who let a home burn to the ground whose owners hadn't paid a 75 dollar service fee. Now, I side with the majority whose opinion is that it was wrong for the fire department to do, but I don't share the opinion I've seen voiced by a number of pwogessives and libruls that this is an example of some future Libertarian existence or the Free Market gone awry. Look: there's a government-mandated monopoly on firefighting services which a) create a monopoly on potential service providers, and b) make it basically impossible for community-oriented local solutions to take hold except in some specific parts of the country. I think that when the state creates an environment where it mandates that it's the only game in town, it has a moral obligation to respond to an even like the one that took place. That said, it's not hard to imagine a myriad of alternatives one would find preferable to the current situation. Anyhow, I just wanted to share a few links on the subject that I found interesting.

First, Radley Balko over at The Agitator asks his readers what they think about the subject and the comments section is (unusually, for a libertarian blog) fairly interesting. Also included is discussion of a Puppy Mill ballot question that is appearing in Missouri.

BroadSnark mentions the incident in one of her news roundups.

Finally, Roderick Long over at Austro-Athenian Empire has an in-depth and insightful post which examines both issues surrounding the incident as it happened as well as potential alternative approaches to firefighting and how a freed market may have responded in this scenario. Definitely a must read.

Of course, there are plenty of other places all over the interwubs where this issues has been discussed, but these were just a few from folks who I find particularly interesting (even if I don't endorse every point being made in all cases).

Super Friends/Office Space Mashup Video

I guess this is kinda old, but I've only just now seen it and it's one of the funniest things I've seen in quite awhile:

The Aquaman moment is sheer brilliance.

Tuesday, October 05, 2010

Flex's Mix for Your Musical Pleasure - Edition #11

I made this a couple weeks back but forgot to crosspost it here. So, er, here it is. For your musical pleasure:

Monday, October 04, 2010

Stroking the Nerdfan's Lizard Brain, Part II

Just a short followup of a couple news items which seem related to the previous post, dealing with nerdfan entitlement and misogyny. A short excerpt from Newsarama on the recent Superman/Batman: Apocalypse release:

Superman/Batman: Apocalypse is adapted from the Jeph Loeb/Michael Turner Superman/Batman story arc, “Supergirl,” where Kara Zor-El made her triumphant return to the DCU after crash landing on Earth and fighting Darkseid and his minions on Apokolips. But don’t let the title fool you, Romano told Newsarama this is Supergirl’s story completely.


If this is Supergirl’s journey, why doesn’t her name doesn’t appear in the title? “I think the main reason why they didn’t call this piece Supergirl is because for some reason the Wonder Woman home video that we made, which was very, very good and filled with male characters, didn’t sell well,” she told us. “And so marketing people said, female titled pieces don’t sell well. So this is a female piece, it’s got a very strong feminine character in it but they called it Superman/Batman: Apocalypse just to get people to come into the video stores and buy them.”
Well played, nerds. The allergy the nerdfan community has towards even a hint of a leading female character is amazing. Basically, comic book creators have to trick their fanbases into reading stories where women are lead characters. That is awesome.

Next up is a piece Laurie Penny at The New Statemen about the recently released film The Social Network. I'll quote a few bits here, but the whole thing is worth reading:
The Machiavellian machinations of modern capitalism become a lot clearer when one realises that much of it is built, owned and run by people who couldn't get a girlfriend in college. The Social Network, David Fincher's new film about the founding of Facebook, is an elegant psychodrama of contemporary economics: flash, fast moving and entirely founded on the principle of treating other human beings as hostile objects.

The film's basic formula is the familiar blogs-to-bling-and-bitches redemptive parable of male geek culture, with the added bonus that it happens to be based on real events. The protagonist, Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg, is a brilliant nineteen-year-old coder. His painful social ineptitude, as told here, gets him savagely dumped by his girlfriend, after which, drunk and misunderstood, he sets up a website to rate the physical attractiveness of the women undergraduates of Harvard, thus exacting his revenge upon the female sex that has so cruelly spurned his obvious genius.

We know by now, however, that unappreciated nerds eventually grow up to inherit or at least aggressively reappropriate the earth, and so it is for Zuckerberg: his website becomes the prototype for Facebook, a venture which will eventually make him a billionaire, mobbed by beautiful groupies and hounded by lawsuits from former friends and business associates desperate for a share of his fame and fortune. It's a fairytale happy ending, as imagined by Ayn Rand.


The only roles for women in this drama are dancing naked on tables at exclusive fraternity clubs, inspiring men to genius by spurning their carnal advances, and giving appreciative blowjobs in bathroom stalls. This is no reflection on the personal moral compass of Sorkin, who is no misogynist, but who understands that in rarefied American circles of power and privilege, women are still stage-hands, and objectification is hard currency.


There is a certain type of nerd entitlement that is all too easily co-opted into a modern mythology of ruthless capitalist exploitation, in which the acquisition of wealth and status at all costs is phrased as a cheeky way of getting one's own back on those kids who were mean to you at school. As somebody whose only schoolfriends were my dungeons and dragons team, I understand all too well how every socialist and egalitarian principle can pale into insignificance compared to the overwhelming urge to show that unattainable girl or boy who spurned your dorky sixth-form advances just what they were missing.

The narrative whereby the nerdy loner makes a sack of cash and gets all the hot pussy he can handle is becoming a fundamental part of free-market folklore. It crops up in films from Transformers to Scott Pilgrim; it's the story of Bill Gates, of Steve Jobs, and now of Mark Zuckerberg. It's a story about power, and about how alienation and obsessive persistence are rewarded with social, sexual and financial power.
As I said, the whole thing is worth a read. Nerd culture, increasingly, seems like a particular reflection of an increasingly atomised contemporary society. From warfare - where unmanned killer drones are launched into countries like Pakistan to kill terrorists and innocent civilians with a practical detachment that turns actual human lives into totally abstracted statistics ("only 20% of the people who die in our unmanned attacks are civilians? That's a great percentage!"), to any of the zillions of issues covered in your feminist blog of preference, to the transformation of the citizenry into both a consumer group and a commodity itself.

What's so lame about the nerd community is that they seem to not only be succumbing to these trends, but embracing them.

The Green Fields of the Mind

Another baseball season ended this weekend for all but a handful of teams. My own teams were not among them. Here's the perfect piece of writing to close a baseball season:
It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone. You count on it, rely on it to buffer the passage of time, to keep the memory of sunshine and high skies alive, and then just when the days are all twilight, when you need it most, it stops. Today, October 2, a Sunday of rain and broken branches and leaf-clogged drains and slick streets, it stopped, and summer was gone.

That is why it breaks my heart, that game--not because in New York they could win because Boston lost; in that, there is a rough justice, and a reminder to the Yankees of how slight and fragile are the circumstances that exalt one group of human beings over another. It breaks my heart because it was meant to, because it was meant to foster in me again the illusion that there was something abiding, some pattern and some impulse that could come together to make a reality that would resist the corrosion; and because, after it had fostered again that most hungered-for illusion, the game was meant to stop, and betray precisely what it promised.
Of course, there are those who learn after the first few times. They grow out of sports. And there are others who were born with the wisdom to know that nothing lasts. These are the truly tough among us, the ones who can live without illusion, or without even the hope of illusion. I am not that grown-up or up-to-date. I am a simpler creature, tied to more primitive patterns and cycles. I need to think something lasts forever, and it might as well be that state of being that is a game; it might as well be that, in a green field, in the sun.

From A Great and Glorious Game: Baseball Writings of A. Bartlett
Giamatti, © 1998 by A. Bartlett Giamatti.
Full article.

Sunday, October 03, 2010

The Sunday Music Video: Laurie Anderson - O Superman

I'm gonna switch my old "Friday Music Video" feature (which I was terrible about actually posting) with a "Sunday Music Video" feature, which I'll hopefully be better about remembering to post. Let's kick it off with Laurie Anderson's classic "O Superman":

I think the first time I ever encountered this song was when it was used in an early episode of Northern Exposure. It stuck in my head, but I didn't really familiarize myself with the actual track until I picked it up in some Newbury Comics compilation or another. I really dig this track and the little else I've heard of Laurie Anderson. I should track down more of her material sometime.

Housecleaning and Links

If you haven't noticed, I finally revamped the layout of the blog a little. It's basically the same, but uses a more contemporary template which is a little cleaner looking and allows for a little more customization. Hope you like it.

You'll also notice I've added links to the sidebar. I'll go over some of the additions here:

Folks I Know:

The Uncarved Bloc [eumaas] - My good friend eumaas' blog, a discussion of mysticism, philosophy and anarchism. Thoughtful pieces well worth a read.

Political Blogs:

BroadSnark - Anarchism from a female perspective, which is relatively rare in anarchist circles.

Empire Burlesque [Chris Floyd] - Floyd's tagline for the blog is "High Crimes and Low Comedy in the American Imperium". Writings in a similarly morally consistent vein as Glenn Greenwald.

Lawyers, Guns & Money - Partisan, statist blogging but in a usually thoughtful vein and with some interesting non-political commentary (including baseball and drawing). Also, super awesome blog name.

Tiny Revolution, A - More pretty quality statist blogging. Jonathan Schwartz offers insight and a decent dose of snark.

Who is IOZ? - Extremely snarky libertarian/anarchist commentary, usually of the meta-blogosphere variety.

Wish You Orwell - Yossi Gurvitz's blog about life in Israel, including contemporary commentary as well as writings on his time in the army, history of the country, etc.

Geek Life Blogs:

Invisible Jetcast - Combo blog and podcasts focused on Wonder Woman (who, if my last post didn't make clear, is a comic character I like quite a bit). Great stuff.

jBlum's Journal - Jon Blum's livejournal. Great (positive) commentary on Doctor Who, various other nerd interests, and life in general.

Nerds Ruin Everything - Well they (we) do.

Red Carpet Superhero - Fashion advice on dressing reminiscently of various superheroes. Don't question it.

I also added some webcomics and such but don't feel like going over any more, so check out the column for what interests ya.

Saturday, October 02, 2010

Stroking the Nerdfan's Lizard Brain (Part 1 of an Ongoing Series?)

I was thinking of writing a little post on why I consider myself a "DC Man" in the comics world and some of my personal experiences in how I grew up with comics characters, but that's gonna wait for now. Instead, I'll point readers to this bit of news that David E. Kelly is going to be adapting a new Wonder Woman television series. Now, I never really watched enough of The Practice or Ally McBeal to have an opinion on either show, but I watched Boston Legal regularly while it was on the air and thought it was an excellent mainstream comedy/drama with well-realized (if imperfect, male and female) characters. Does this mean the new show is a guaranteed success? No, but I do think it's at least an intriguing enough combination of talent and franchise to warrant some interest.

Nerds, of course, being nerdfans do not seem to share this opinion. The comments in this news article are a par-for-the-course exercise in rampant sexism, overwrought hysteria, cultural conservatism and fanboy entitlement. Let's pick some low hanging fruit and look at some highlights (all quotes are [sic]).

Right off the bat, "lyle" is concerned that Wonder Woman will reflect lowest-common-denominator-culture and, impressively, manages to get a swipe in at the new WW uniform:
Please, Lord, no industry skrags as WW. No Snooki.
Please, Lord, no bolt on 21st century implants, anorexia, lip injections, ‘attitude’ – Lynda Carter is memorable because she played her virtuous part totally, with no ‘winking’ – and no updated failure of a uniform. Spend lots of money on effects and bras.
I guess I'd rather not have Snooki play Wonder Woman either, but probably wouldn't mind it if she had 21st century "attitude" (which I assume is code for contemporary feminism).

The comments roam into a discussion of the relative attractiveness of Lynda Carter. "Neil" weighs in:
I was in my teens and early twentys in the 70’s and WW wasn’t watched by anyone I knew. Way too wholesome and bland for my tastes. Lynda Carter? As far as I knew, she didn’t have a vagina. So there you go, here’s hoping they get someone with a vagina this time.
So, there you have it. Lynda Carter didn't have a vagina, the new Wonder Woman should. Get this man a job in casting.

Commenter "ert" decided someone's gotta tell it like it is:
it’ll never work. never in a series and never in a movies. the bar is set way to high and a female hero would never be worthwhile. yea, i said it. not that this needs to be dragged on but anjelina jolie would be joke.
Yeah! Female characters don't work, because they're all concerned about, like, feminine hygiene products and stuff. Hold me.

"Tom" see an opportunity to bring a little political commentary to the table:
Hey how about casting Nancy Pelosi as Wonder Woman? I can picture her in the Lynda Carter outfit. She fits the bill in that she is ancient, knows what is best for us and here to save humanity. Come to think if it, didn’t we just by her a jet?
HAHA! Oh man, it's funny because Nancy Pelosi is a powerful political figure in Washington AND SHE'S A WOMAN! That's the joke! Also, apparently she is "old".

"Steinmetz" is more concerned with the lifestyles of other commenters:
Why don’t you go outside and find a life for yourself that will be worth dying for instead of waiting for the next television show to come on.
Oh man, it's almost not even worth mentioning, but I just love people posting comments telling other commenters to get a life. It's so deliciously un-self aware (and yes, I am aware of how ridiculous it is to make fun of internet comments on a blog).

I'm gonna show a comment tree of folks replying to each other. "Sorry" starts it out:
The new Wonder Woman costume is terrible. The classic costume is part of the character – what makes her recognizable. If you put her in a black leather jacket, why bother buying the rights to Wonder Woman? Just write a show about some woman in a black jacket if you want to throw everything that’s unique out the window.
 Okay, fair enough. I don't really agree with his point - if the only thing that makes a character different from other nameless, generic characters is a costume, then that character is probably in trouble regardless of a clothing change - but "Edwin J" decides to opine on said costume change:
I must agree. Unfortunately we live in times where the leftist propaganda machines of the world have been very effective in teaching “hate America”. Having a red white and blue uniform doesn’t serve that purpose very well….not so much a conspiracy as a “movement”. Just the same Linda Carter was both HOT and virtuous, two qualities no longer valued – Hey, girls just want to have fun not be responsible because that’s not “fun”…..:-(
 Yikes, okay, someone watches Fox News. Anyways, I don't have much to say about this comment except that just because DC changed Wonder Woman's costume, it probably doesn't mean they "hate America". Also, of course, we have some creepy commentary on Lynda Carter's "hot"-ness and "virtuous"-ness and some totally unconnected (or at least, it's not a connection I've been able to make yet) point about how women have too much fun, I guess? Which I'm pretty sure means "stay in the kitchen and don't have casual sex." Anyhow, Cinda responds:
Since when did men like virtuous girls, part of teh reason girls are so “easy” now days is because men/boys and our society (run by men0 have taught girls they have to be sexy and give up their “virtue” to get a guy, which is a shame. But its a fact most guys will drop a girl unless hse “gives it up”.
 Now, of course I think men who try to pressure women into having sex with them when they'd rather not are sleazeballs. And there are some pretty screwy cultural expectations placed on women when it comes to sex and relationships. That said, this comment seems to veer dangerously close to "slut shaming" with its interchangable use of virtuousness and not engaging in sexual activities. Our friend from earlier, "Neil", closes things out:
Sorry, Edwin J, ‘hot and virtuous’ is an oxymoron. Besides, how hot can a mannequin be?
I don't even know what this means. Attractive women are always sexually active? Women who aren't "hot" never have (pre-marital, presumably) sex? I don't know what mannequins have to do with anything, either.

"[C]onnie" has more on the anti-American sentiments that pervade DC Comics:
No, they did it to take the Red White and Blue stars and stripes off her costume. God forbid she represent the wonderful spirit of America since we are so awful. Remember the reason she had the costume made that way was because the Americans were for Truth and Justice and all that is good. Apparently that isn’t true anymore.
First, let's remember that this is an article on an announcement of a new television series, not an article on Wonder Woman's new costume. Second, this argument is so stupid it makes my brain hurt. Third, we are pretty awful.

Folks like "TimeTraveler" just can't get over the new costume:
The new wonder woman is a giant fail. Women aren’t going to support her because she looks like the hooker version of wonder woman and despeite the new boobs even red blooded real American males are going to have reservations because of the anti American sentiment expressed by changing her all American image.
 Slut-shaming, references to "red blooded real American males" and braindead jingoism. In other words, the classic nerdfan.

This one from "..." actually isn't too bad:
Have they learned NOTHING from Bionic Woman, Knight Rider, etc.? This will be horrendous. It’ll be cancelled by sweeps.
There's sort of a good point here: remakes can often be not as successful as original source material. That said, this still reeks too much of the twin tendencies among nerd fans to a) assume everything news is going to fail, and b) to glorify one particular iteration of a character or franchise as the "One True Definitive Version" which all others will fail to live up to. These two themes more or less run through 95% of all nerdfan comments on all nerd-related properties in any medium.

Again the comments turn to Lynda Carter, and "fred flintstone" decides this must be known to the world:
adolescent fantasies? Dude she still embodies my fantasies now. Had a stiff one the whole time watching. Wished I was the one in her Lasso, I’d tell her the truth for damn sure!
Why would someone write that and post it? Did they, like, look at the comment before they hit the "submit" button and think "damn, this one is gonna be a game-changer, folks minds are gonna be fuckin' blown, bro-dawg". I hope so.

Don't think we've had any totally blatant racism yet (a raison d'etre of the true nerdfan), so allow me to post this comment chain. "allseingi" starts with:
With the exception of Batman, all those golden age DC characters are way past their prime and are jus not reverent.
Okay, a stupid point but nothing terrible. "Anonymous" decides to correct a spelling error:
Did you mean “relevant”
Fair enough, "allseeingi" probably did. But "Mel" needs to add:
Dude’s Asian.

Anyways, it goes on in that fashion for a while longer but since I'm only a third of the way through the comments (and I was judiciously skipping many) and I already want to hang myself, I'm stopping now. Other common comments include "Wonder Woman in a bikini!!!!" and more blathering about how unpatriotic the new costume is. Also included are healthy doses of "comic adaptations always suxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxb;larggbsh" and approximately 99% of the comments are all virulently sexist. By my estimate there are about, say, five non-brain dead comments that actually discuss the relative merits of a Wonder Woman television show as-concept and whether having Kelly attached is a good idea.

Anyhow, it should be completely obvious that whatever pretensions to alternative culture nerds have the truth is that, a) they're completely terrified of female sexuality (particularly the notion that females could be in control of their own sexuality), b) they're also terrified of contemporary ideas of female independence, c) an ugly nationalistic and conventionally macho view of the nation-state runs deeply through nerd culture, and d) nerds fear and loathe change almost as much as they fear and loathe female autonomy.

This is why, despite being extremely nerdy in many ways, I usually want little or nothing to with nerd culture.