I would like your dick so much better if I could redesign it: dick hate in women's media

A Kansas City-based grandma named Holly Stewart quilts giant, mainly erect, penises and paints them all sorts of vibrant colors. Priscilla Frank at Huffington Post wrote this:

Now that the exhibition is up and running, we can officially report that the massive, quilted man parts are more wondrous than we ever imagined. The works are as feminist as they are hilarious, as affirmative as they are transgressive. Sparkly, colorful, big and small, hard and soft, the penises on display truly capture the manifold possibilities of a phallic shape when separated from the shackling confines of human flesh.

"I really like them," a former UMKC student told the school's independent newspaper. "I wish real penises looked like this." So do we, anonymous former student. So do we.

Yes! If only dicks and balls weren't made of, you know, human male flesh! If only they could be redesigned by a feminist!  Then we could make them to look silly and playful. We'd make them detachable so men can only wear them when we wanted them to, and they'd ejaculate colorful Kool-Aid!

What the fuck is it with women's magazines and blogs and their derision of penises? It's getting to the point where it's thinly veiled dick hate.

Recently, fashion designer Rick Owens presented his Fall/Winter 2015 menswear show at Paris Fashion Week featuring a lot of loose-fitting, draped pieces -- and some of them featured strategic cutouts to expose bare male genitals. As silly and as absurd as it sounds (and seriously, no one actually wears the clothes these somber looking models don on fashion runways), MTV.com, for one, understood the purpose. "While Owens has become a kind of master of making memorable runway moments . . . —a true gift considering the fleeting nature of fashion shows—he truly outdid himself with this one." The purpose was to get in the news, and Owens succeeded.

But over at Jezebel, where they constantly rant about sexism and double standards and excoriate a culture that makes girls feel bad about their body image, a young writer named Ellie Shechet proceeded to make fun of the models' penises.

"I feel absolutely terrible for these models," Schechet wrote. "Yes, women show their breasts on the runway all the time—but boobs (okay, model-sized boobs) don't flap around. Boobs don't shrink in the cold."

Get it? Boobs are good, dicks are ridiculous and fair game to ridicule.

My guess is this outlet would never dream of ridiculing female body parts because that could tear down girl's self-image, but boy parts? Not a problem! (Boys need to learn to laugh about their ridiculous genitals sooner or later anyway.)

Jezebel shows a picture of one model whose penis is in a state of shrinkage. Maybe it was cold, maybe he was anxious, probably both, but that's a pretty common bodily reaction, as I understand it. Nevertheless, the Jezebel writer "apologize[s] . . . in advance" for even subjecting her readers to the sight of it, presumably because it is so pathetic and disgusting. (Of course, if Jezebel was really so concerned about subjecting its readers to the disgusting sight of a pathetic small penis, it could have opted not to run the photo but you and I both know this writer couldn't resist the chance to ridicule some poor guy's organ because it doesn't measure up to a social construct--you know, the sort of thing Jezebel screams about when someone does it to women.)

Over at Glamour, Ella Alexander pitied the "poor, poor models" forced to reveal their presumably disgusting male genitalia through penis flaps. My bet is Alexander would never pity a female model who showed a little tit. Over at Bustle, Olivia Muenter wrote: "Now I don’t know about you, but men’s genitalia is simply not something that comes to mind immediately when I consider high fashion." And over at Cosmopolitan, they introduced the dick photos by saying "we've got the uncensored images right here for your viewing pleasure/horror."

Get it? Penises are pitiful, the antithesis of high fashion, and a horror show. If only we could redesign them--maybe they wouldn't be so disgusting.

It's a scrotum, ladies--get over it!

In the UK, the young man in the robe had a testicular cancer check on live television the other day to raise awareness about the disease and to encourage young men to check their testicles. And, oh no! They actually showed his well-groomed scrotum! No dick, just balls, but this sent some viewers into orbit. Read these tweets:

"Omg.... Its WAY too early to be seeing a pair of balls on #lorraine #ballsinyourface," tweeted viewer, Leanne Ellen.

"All for a good cause but that put me right off my boiled egg!.. #Lorraine."

Under the story, there were these comments:

". . . crude and offensive."

"Many people had just thrw up their soft boiled egg breakfast."

"I think ITV are using shock tactics to get viewers."

". . . bit early to be seeing those wrinkled nuts!"

"Is this really necessary."

"Ew no one wants to see balls whilst eating their breakfast!"

Fortunately, most people who commented were supportive of the demonstration, but the number of viewers who exhibited disgust was troubling. Even in this day and age, for too many people, "male" body parts are offensive.

Here were my two favorite comments:

"I survived (testicular cancer) too and would quite happily share the experience on TV if it meant one more man would be saved. Massive focus on female cancers and that's all good but when it's a mans cancer everyone becomes prudes. Hypocritical at best."

"I think that for those prudish women, and a few men, who see this as sexualised and wrong should probably be placed on some kind of register. I am sorry but if you can't see a testicle without thinking something is inappropriate then your mind might need examining...."

New York college bans 'Mr.' and 'Mrs.' salutations

Professors and other employees at the City University of New York’s Graduate Center have been forbidden from addressing students and prospective students with the title “Mr.” and “Ms.” because, campus leaders say, the terms may be offensive. School spokeswoman Tanya Domi told The Wall Street Journal  that the policy aims to work “within a regulatory framework to comply with Title IX legal principles.”

What about students who want to be addressed with a traditional salutation? “It’s difficult to find a principled reason why the perspectives of those who prefer traditional salutations should be valued less than the perspectives of those who favor their abandonment, and that is precisely why language policing is best avoided altogether—it always entails making distinctions based on subjective preferences for a particular viewpoint,” said free speech lawyer Ari Cohn.

The new policy is fraught with problems. For one thing, it will promote disrespect for older indiduals. Instead of calling the delightful preschool toy "Mr. Potato Head," children will start calling him "Potato Head." (Mr. Potato Head, by the way, is over 60 years old.) Worse, if the central character of the British television "Mr. Bean" came to campus, everyone would be forced to call him "Bean" since he has no first name. Kids' show "Mister Rogers" would become just "Rogers."

The problems are endless: "The talented Mr. Ripley," "Mrs. Butterworth," "Mrs. Miniver," "Saving Mr. Banks," "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town," "Mr. Belvedere," "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," "Looking for Mr. Goodbar," "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." On and on it goes.

The college is making a statement: no matter how offensive our in-your-face policy is to your sad traditional values, it's worth it, if only to prove what a backward Neanderthal you are.

Headline in article says girls were subjected to humiliating search--but it turns out boys were, too

Oh, no, no, no -- a good looking boy like Robby Soave (that's him in the picture) is sexist? Say it ain't so!

Young Mr. Soave writes for Reason.com, and he has a new article: "School Made 11-Year-Old Girls Pull Down Their Pants for Disgusting Inspection."

When I saw that headline, I was furious--but then I read the story and it turns out both girls and boys were subject to the same humiliating inspection.

I am still furious, but why did you leave out the boys from the headline, Robby Soave?

Tell us you didn't pick the headline, Robby. Tell us it was some sexist editor.

Here's a screenshot of the headline.

Boko Haram strikes again--but no big deal: they only killed males

You haven't heard much about this terrorist group for a while, have you? That's because they've learned how to  keep a low profile in the eyes of world news organizations: they single out males for most of their atrocities.

For two weeks, Boko Haram gunmen have sacked dozens of villages in close to the border of Cameroon, slaughtering male residents. http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/28/africa/boko-haram-raids/

Earlier this month Boko Haram militants abducted 40 boys and young men, ages 15-23, in a remote community in Nigeria. They seize young men during raids and force them to become foot soldiers in its uprising aimed at establishing an Islamic state in northern Nigeria. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2895299/Boko-Haram-seizes-40-boys-men-northern-Nigeria-witnesses.html

Boko Haram recently returned a large group of kidnapped girls, but not kidnapped boys. http://www.inquisitr.com/1786891/boko-haram-calls-girl-hostages-infidels-orders-them-to-return-to-village/

Nice of the First Lady to hold up a sign for the boys.

The brave lads of Texas Tech defend their snow penis against the forces of tyranny

New worldwide study: girls are outperforming boys in science, math and reading-

Researchers at the University of Missouri and the University of Glasgow in Glasgow, Scotland studied the educational achievement levels of 1.5 million 15-year-olds from around the world using data collected between 2000 and 2010. They have determined that girls outperform boys in educational achievement in 70 percent of the countries they studied—regardless of the level of gender, political, economic or social equality.