Your Own Daughter!?

1 Comment

I’ve been asked before, “Would you want your daughter to grow up to be a prostitute? ”

I think it’s worth answering considering I’ve stated in other channels that I’m in favor of legalization.

Right now, the answer to that question is a resounding “NO.” That may sound hypocritical, but here’s why I say that:

The key word here is “want.”
I wouldn’t want my daughter to be in ANY situation that presents a significant danger to her health, happiness, or well being.
I wouldn’t want to be the one to constantly worry about her well-being.
Assuming she’s not being forced against her will, or drugged…
The working conditions for people in that line of work are atrocious, and society offers very little protection for them. She’s likely to be beaten and taken advantage of physically and financially. Not to mention the emotional toll, most of society looks down on them as either evil or dupes, and will not approve.
And/or imprisoned… for example I’m all for weed legalization too, but I don’t want any kids of mine going to prison for it. That’s a whole new batch of worriment.
Obviously I wouldn’t WANT that for any kid of mine.

Of course I’d feel the same way if my kid grew up to work in a sweatshop, became a political prisoner, got involved in a relationship with someone emotionally unstable, if my son became an altar boy, or if my daughter joined the military. This is the reality right now.

At the same time I’d like to make strides away from this reality, but it will be this way for some time. None of those things HAVE to be the reality for people in these situation, but they are. I think things should be better for people who do these things, but they aren’t. I’d like to be in place where I didn’t have to worry about these things. This is NOT that place…

…but it could be.

Just a Male Power Fantasy…

Leave a comment

(This was written in response to a piece about male privilege in the comic book world.)

Keep in mind the entire superhero genre sprung from the unfulfilled romantic yearnings/self defeating masochism of young men.

Clark Kent (Superman) was the first superhero and carried a torch for Lois Lane.
Lois Lane was inspired by “Lois Amster.”
When asked half a century later, she indicated Jerry Siegel was a strange guy who had no friendship or conversation with who occasionally stared at her.

I thought: “the bastard never worked up the courage to approach her at ALL!”

In 1983, Siegel said, “Clark Kent grew not only out of my private life, but also out of Joe Shuster’s. As a high school student, I thought that someday I might become a reporter, and I had crushes on several attractive girls who either didn’t know I existed or didn’t care I existed. So it occured to me: What if I was really terrific? What if I had something special going for me, like jumping over buildings or throwing cars around or something like that? ”

My point is driven home by what Lois said to Clark in the original Action Comics #1…
Lois has to defend herself from a thug while Clark does nothing (to hide the fact that he’s Superman), but tells him: “You asked me earlier in the evening why I avoid you. I’ll tell you why now: Because you’re a spineless, unbearable coward!”

Talking to himself, much?

There’s a happy ending, though!

Siegel eventually married the original model for Lois Lane, who’s beauty, intelligence, and determination also inspired Lois’s personality.

After her husband’s death, and for most of her remaining life she continued to hound DC comics for to ensure her family got every penny that was rightfully theirs.

Following her death, Siegel’s lawyer noted, “All her life she carried the torch for Jerry and Joe — and other artists. There was a lot of Lois Lane in Joanne Siegel.”

How does this translate to how the comic book industry should operate?
…Idk … I lost my train of thought.


Leave a comment

So let me get this straight:
When men measure their own self-worth by their sexual competence, then women are reduced to sexual capitol… okay, sure.

And when they measure a woman’s worth by her sexual competence, then she’s being reduced to a sex objection… sure, whatever.

if THIS is wrong… then let me ask:
What objective basis do we have for determining the right or wrong way to measure human worth?

What is the RIGHT way, then?

Money? Athletic prowess? Contribution to society? Job title? Level of education? Their ability to make you laugh? How well they adhere to your concept of morality?
Whatever you decide you run into a similar and different set of problems.

Wouldn’t we be better off scrapping the concept of esteem altogether?

Sex, Biology, and Orientation

Leave a comment

Only very recently have a fully accepted the “theory” of evolution as fact. (A little slow, I know.) Since then, just about everything we can observe around us in regard to life can be contextualized as a part of that. Still, though, don’t take this to mean I’ve adopted some sort of individualist, survivalist, reductionist, or Freudian standpoint to gender, and everything else. Actually, beginning with evolution leaves the door open for endless expansion and possibilities, not reduction.

The following is the content of miniature “rant” on facebook in my attempt to put an end to the chicken and the egg question:
What came first, the chicken or the egg?

Neither. The process of laying eggs evolved from cellular asexual reproduction. 


Anywho… lets apply my conclusion about “The Chicken and the Egg” to the “The Culture and the People.”

What came first, the culture or the person?

At once, people behaved in a way that was most advantageous for a certain circumstance, that “method” self-replicated when the group expanded, and remained and developed independently of the external circumstance.

Ideas, concepts, and systems, and processes are platonic, symbiotic life forms that use people to replicate.

When a species of “culture” evolves, it will condition the people within its sphere of influence for its own self-replication and expansion, but a culture can be killed, a culture can die…


…And most importantly, a culture can be an evolutionary dead end that will relentlessly drag the people into extinction with it.


That’s why the truth, rationality, communication, and education are so important to our survival…

Elsewhere, I joked that bacteria “masturbated to give birth to clones.”

And I put these labels on this process from a standpoint where all these concepts are divided. A-sexual presupposed a sex-centered worldview. Even puts brackets on the definition of sex.  Until now, I’ve defined “sex” as “interpersonal genital stimulation.” Now, I’m not so sure…

If life forms originally had no gender, and circumstances led to the aberration of sexual divergence, and subsequently gender. Then everything else makes sense… PERFECT sense.

I’m going to make a huge leap from asexual reproduction and homosexuality. My apologies. Whenever I speak on this matter, I always remember the identical twins that were of differing sexual orientations. IF orientation is biological, but not exclusively genetic, then this leads me to the conclusion that it may be hormonal, within the womb. Of course… I now contextualize sexuality to “biological predisposition to preferring…”

Think of it this way, if we’re biologically predisposed to reacting favorably to certain foods in terms of taste. Then similarly can be said for certain aesthetic tastes, then following its logical conclusion to sexual taste. However, over the course of out lives, we “learn” and “acquire” certain other tastes over time. Fundamentalists might site certain prison behaviors as an example that “homosexuality is a choice.” The action may be, but it doesn’t negate what they’re biologically predisposed to liking more.

Rape is a Horrible Crime, And…


Every time I listen to/ read the stories of rape survivors, it’s usually their cultural, sociological, legal, or religious setting that MAKES it more emotionally devastating, and as such, is considered the worst crime in the world.

But upon realizing this… it occurred to me that’s it’s really each of US that makes it into what is is.

Just about every other crime where an attack/violation/exploitation/threat of violence/coercion occurs… doesn’t have this much bullsh*t attached.

Do you SEE what I’m getting at here? It’s OUR faults.

WE turn it into the worst thing in the world, and in doing so, inflict the worst thing in the world to the victims of this crime!

Then in making the perpetrators guilty of the worst crime in the world, nobody can objectively or compassionately examine why it happens, thereby leaving the reasons unexamined by anyone doesn’t think of them as not quite human, or by someone who is not out for blood. And letting it go on, and on, and on… unabated.

Don’t you get it!?

We’re WORSE than rapists!

Feminism: Why the terminology?


The main argument I hear for why “feminism” shouldn’t switch to a more gender-neutral name is “it doesn’t emphasize what women (reformers/suffragists) have went through. Historically.

My question: Why should it?

What obligation does a movement for gender-equality have to emphasize the work/suffering of ONE gender over the other? And what qualitative basis do they have for deciding?

    • Where the movement originated?
      The were quite a few “Pre-Feminist” men, you know.
      Those women didn’t draw their ideology from thin air.The seeds were sown in ancient Greece (Plato) in speculation of a perfect society.
      You know… old guys with white beards talking to each other.

      Abolitionists didn’t name their movement after black people or Africans, they named it after their ideology.IF feminism does NOT begin and and with women. Then it should change its name.You did good, but your goal has expanded.
    • Same goes for masculinists.
    • Or… masculists. Whatever the Hell they call themselves.


Leave a comment

       “The smallest minority on earth is the individual.” –Ayn Rand


In the context of the rest of Ayn Rand’s teachings, this was to run parallel to the idea that the individual should be held in consideration above all else. She was of the idea that institutionalized equality necessarily kept the able in chains, stifling their progress. On the contrary, I believe the strength of the enlightened individual can generate tectonic shifts in the world directly around him, for ill or for good, once he realizes the society is a brick house of individuals. I don’t like Ayn Rand’s teachings; I wouldn’t quote her unless it was extremely important.


When division is present, privilege will always be subjective. America may be one of the most prosperous nations, but we’re also one of the least happy, unappreciative, close-minded, and insulated nations. If truth is the greatest virtue, then isn’t the one who possesses it privileged regardless of how long he lives, how he makes ends meet, etc. With an optimist’s eyes, there can be an advantage to just about anything.

Now when I say these things, I do not mean to say oppression is non-existent. It’s a real pervasive force within a society and between individuals. However, oppression can never be eradicated if it goes mis-identified. I am not of the belief that societal division necessarily equates oppression. Real oppression, I believe, is precisely the “exaggerated” model initially presented in “The 5 Faces of Oppression.” That model of the conquered having the others will involuntarily imposed upon it. Such a state, or state of being, is the only truly, absolute non-privilege.


I am not in such a state, but I’ve felt marginalized my whole life. I am an alien, somehow, someway, though my parents love me, they are relatively socially retarded. The basic hi, bye, please, thank you, excuse me was all gotten to a T. What else was there? I sometimes joke, I’ve FELT alienated, but Clark Kent actually IS an alien. Imagine how he felt.


However, in my later years, understanding the mechanisms behind my lifelong frustrations have left me immune to their assigned power. Free to chose or deny that power at will. One of the few things my mother taught me that I hold close to this day, is that a culture can be wrong. Cultural rules reflect underlying assumptions about the nature of reality. Just as I am under no obligation to obey an unjust, written law, same can be said for unwritten ones.


It’s also put me in a very unique position to play with the old tropes in creative and exciting ways.

I have been the subject of racism before in my kindergarten years. Fellow student. I didn’t quake in my boots at the prospect of being put down, nor did I boil over in some Pavlovian response. My child’s mind just dismissed the stupidity of the event. Now that I have historical context in my adulthood, I wouldn’t have had myself react any other way.


My general deprivation of companionship had nothing to do with my race, class, gender, religion, age, sexuality, location, level of education, language, or marital status. (One could make the argument that my relationship status was a result of the other things.) I have been put in my position because I’m an individual, and for no other reason. Not as a black man, but as a person.

It’s been a privilege.

My “letter” to DC about Wonder Woman, Supergirl, and Apocalypse (that I finally sent electronically)


Hello, my name is Daniel Ballow and today I’d like to talk to you about sexism. Especially regarding the release of Superman/Batman: Apocalypse. (Or as it should have been called, “Superman/Batman: Supergirl.”)
Before I continue I’d like to give some background information:

I do not readily identify myself as a “feminist,” but I am a gender egalitarian and opposed to sexism. I believe holding onto our fixed gendered perspective and focusing on what separates us, and what has been separating us is a barrier to true gender equality. I believe modern feminism often sabotages itself in this regard.

I believe that something is only a gender issue when the person performing the action or the observer contextualizes it as such. There is almost always an explanation for things that don’t necessarily have anything to do with these things.

I’m not one to cry “objectification” whenever artists tend to fall into the tendency to “idealize” female heroes. Most living creatures sexual objects alongside whatever else we are, and it would be dehumanizing to mask that fact (though this does not excuse nonsensical renderings, and poses that serve no storytelling purpose. I’d chalk that up to “bad storytelling, not sexism).

I give this context to set up that I firmly believe that something is only a gender issue when it is contextualized as such, and I am decidedly hesitant to label something as “sexist” for the aforementioned reason. But in spite of all of this, the more I thought about the title of Superman/Batman: Apocalypse, the more I realized how undeniably sexist this name-change was, and how it would be hypocritical of me not to object to it.

Superman/Batman: Supergirl (I read the story in paperback form) is one of my favorite Superman stories of all time. As far as I am currently aware, the original storyline aptly titled “The Supergirl from Krypton” sold very well, as well as the trade paperback. (Be sure to respond with any contrary data so my disappointment will subside, please.)

It was exciting news that the Superman/Batman: Public Enemies movie would be followed up by an adaptation of the “The Supergirl from Krypton.” But it was a peculiar move to name the movie “Apocalypse.” The movie itself was stellar, featured one of the best-animated fight sequences of all time with (ironically) Wonder Woman. The adaption from the source material was true to the spirit of the source material, so why the name change?

According to a newsarma interview:

“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 (fe)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.”

I spoke with my father about this some time ago before writing this. He asserted that chauvinism wasn’t the motive behind the name change, and that the decision was of pure monetary motivation. I would not argue that the decision was sexist, but the thought process behind the decision was sexist. Because according to the marketing people’s assertion, “female titles don’t sell.”

It became sexist when gender was contextualized as the reason behind Wonder Woman’s less-than-ideal sales. They made this a gender issue, and I will call them out for doing so.

According to, the “consumer spending for Wonder Woman was listed as $6,974,613. Batman: Gotham Knight was listed as $8,059,255. Superman: Doomsday was listed as $9,442,880.

At face value, this data would back up their claim, but there are other reasons for this.
First, the Batman animated movies were riding off the success of the ’89 film all the way to the Joel Shoemaker movie, the award winning animated series (airing around the time I was first cognizant, contributing to me becoming the DC fan I am today), The Batman, and Batman Beyond.
When you generate movies and television shows in such a way, it generates nostalgia for young viewers. You create “comfortable memories” associated with the character.

Superman has the success of the Richard Donner/Christopher Reeve film series, The Lois and Clark tv show, Superman the Animated Series, Superman Returns, and Smallville.

If you look closely, there is a direct correlation between the success of the animated movies and the legion of fans generated by different media.

Wonder Woman has not had a solo television series since 1979. To expect her animated movie to perform as well as Gotham Knight or Doomsday is like asking Batman to rely only on the success of the Adam West tv show. There are not many young fans left that have grown up with Wonder Woman outside of her “Superfriends” and “Justice League” appearances.

Wonder Woman has not had an award-winning animated series, another animated series, a romantic comedy, a primetime drama, a beloved classic that’s generated more comic book writers than any other, or a highly successful reboot.
She’s only had her solo comic book series for decades, and Lynda Carter. On that alone, however, the sales of her animated movie outsold Green Lantern: First Flight ($6,070,921), Justice League: The New Frontier ($5,232,076), Justice League: Crisis on Two Earths ($5,220,061), Batman: Under The Red Hood ($6,656,692), and Superman/Batman: Apocalypse ($5,847,410).

Superman/Batman: Public Enemies had the advantage of featuring both Superman and Batman, making it to ($7,996,266). Yet, that by itself apparently was not enough to guarantee the success of the sequel. “Supergirl” was consciously removed from the title because “girls don’t sell.”
(That’s right… the Catwoman film featuring Halle Berry movie did poorly because she’s a woman…*)

The title of the project was affectively changed on a dubious, gender biased decision.
How could you let this happen?
The title was not “just changed.” A poor business decision was made. Not everyone knows Supergirl even exists. The potential, interest in the origin of this prospective character may have been lost because the title
As it is, a passive observer might interpret:
a) a vague reference to the Fourth World by Jack Kirby, something that even less people know about, or…
b) indicating the name of another disaster movie.
I was fishing through back issues one day, as a couple walking into a comic book store for the first time, apparently. The girl was presently surprised by the amount of female heroes there were (as she should be). Then remarked at astonishment, that a “Super-woman” existed (referring to the Supergirl statue she was eyeing.)

The thing that upsets me more than sexism is hypocrisy. I would prefer to think that DC comics to take the principles their beloved icons fight for very seriously.

I’m not asking anyone’s resignation.
I would like this letter, or the summarized contents thereof, to be drilled into the skulls of whoever is responsible for this.
I would like some kind of public indicator that this ought not to have happened at all.
I want nothing like this to EVER happen again.


Some statuses/tweets on gendered topics worth discussion…

Leave a comment

What other people call “objectification,” I call “a lack of compassion overlapped with sexuality.” I SINCERELY doubt that necessarily entails the most epic taxonomic failure of all time…. Recognizing a homo-sapien.

“So, will you think of women sexually or with respect?” is a false dichotomy.


I don’t know WHERE girls get this idea that super skinny automatically = sexy. Not from any guy I’VE associated with…


It’s interesting to note that I’ve personally encountered more Pro-Life females than males in my life.

My Favorite Superbowl AD (scroll to bottom first)

Leave a comment

A.) The only way the Superbowl could be more masculine is by playing it in their Dodge-mobiles. B.) I don’t drive a Dodge Stratus or even own a vehicle, but my masculinity is just fine. Thank you very much. C.) Don’t some of the issues transcend gender even though this ad is clearly flaring the ills between them? The ad in question features a voice representing the frustration of modern society’s supposedly increased repression of masculinity. With a “slideshow” of diverse-looking men with broken, lifeless expressions on their faces.  Even though the voice is clearly talking to females, the ad is marketed to adult male counterparts. This is made clear by usage of phrases like “your vampire romance movies”, “your lip balm” and “your mother.” There have been a number of response videos from the opposite gender. With the overall message of usually being “we have it bad too” or “we have it worse.” I am in favor of equality, but I do not identify myself as a feminist, so I prefer to keep things from becoming “boy-girl” issues to begin with.

Research showing that “men will compensate when masculinity is threatened” will inevitably be slanted in regard to this issue. Not disputing the facts of the case, but MOST people will defend something that is attached their self-worth. For example, listing reasons for why ones parents don’t love them will often trigger a stream of reaffirming behaviors, especially if arguments are reasonably sound. Threaten an athlete’s ability to play well triggers more practice. But the defining factor is how they relate the thing in question to their self-worth. The study will also test if females compensate when femininity is threatened, though it is yet to be posted.

Why would the ad fail to appeal to women if the genders and complaints were reversed? The ad used complaints of mostly simple tasks men had difficulty with. What made them so difficult is that they were things seen as compromising on one’s masculinity. For a guy, this is understandably a key piece of one’s identity. The main reason why the same ad wouldn’t work for women is that cars are not generally associated with femininity. The female response ads usually list off more challenging things, but not many things that compromise on their femininity as far as I know.

Personally, I consider masculinity to be an objective fact that doesn’t have to be proven with certain behaviors or attitudes. When both men and women suffer from road rage, when cut off by that omnipresent “so-and-so” at the intersection, we can see men’s reactions have been statistically more extreme when faced with a challenge to their identities or something attached to their self-worth.

With these things in mind, I’d like to re-examine seemingly unrelated behaviors. Recall several instances of “media hogging.” Celebrities’ are considered what they are because they are so widely “celebrated.” When popularity is interchangeable with attention, their celebrity status attached to their identity, and their identities attached to their self-worth, as it is for most people, it becomes the perfect storm for outrageous, attention-seeking behaviors that leave the populace scratching their heads.

For the last demonstrating exercise, imagine an artist being forced to make increasingly more changes to some work of his, and demanding a more creative freedom in the same format: “I will get up at 6:66AM to and stay awake at non-applicable “bored meetings.” I will skip breakfast. I will substitute coffee for my breakfast. I will suffer from the crash as a result of the coffee for breakfast. I will make changes to my ongoing series’ overall plot to tie into a shoddily written crossover event. I will draw the female protagonist to appeal to the male audience, in a market that already too often ignores its female audience. I will retroactively change my protagonist’s back-story in light of recent changes in the fictional universe’s cosmology. And because I do all of this, I write the story I want to write.”

“It’s not so difficult” complaint is too subjective to be of any use in a complaint about the ad in question. The same argument can be, albeit haphazardly, applied to anything women of historically protested, apart from outright physical or emotional abuse. Abuse is certainly not restricted to gender. People have always abused those considered to be worthy of it, a fact principally ignored when we get caught up on particular societal manifestations. Coming from ethnically diverse schools, I can confidently say that when one reason for abuse is undermined, there can raise another in its place.


I will get up and walk the dog at 6:20AM.
I will eat some fruit as part of my breakfast.
I will shave. I will clean the sink after I shave.
I will be at work at 8:00AM.
I will sit through two-hour meetings.
I will say yes, when you want me to say yes.
I will be quiet when you don’t want me to say no.
I will take your call and listen to your opinion of my friends.
I will listen to your friend’s opinions of my friends.
I will be civil to your mother.
I will put the seat down.
I will separate the recycling.
I will carry your lip-balm.
I will watch your vampire tv shows, with you.
I will take my socks off before getting into bed.
I will put my underwear in the basket.
And because I do this…
I will drive the car I want to drive.
Charger, Man’s Last Stand.





Female’s Response:

I will get up and pack your lunch at 6:30AM.

I will eat half a grapefruit for breakfast.

I will get the kids ready for school.

I will ignore your smelly loser friend who is crashing on our couch.

I will make 75¢ for every dollar you make doing the same job.

I will assert myself and get called a bitch.

I will catch you staring at my breasts and pretend not to notice.

I will put my career on hold to raise your children.

I will diet, Botox, and wax…everything.

I will assure you that size doesn’t matter.

I will be a lady in the street, but a freak in the bed.

I will turn a blind eye to your ever-encroaching baldness.

I will humor your fantasy baseball obsession.

I will pretend not to notice when you cry at the end of “Rudy.”

I will watch shows where fat, unattractive men have beautiful wives.

I will allow you to cheat on me with younger women.

I will see “Paul Blart: Mall Cop”…twice.

I will elect male politicians who will make decisions about my body.

I will listen to ~Rash?~ and tell you “Yes, if there was a gold medal for air drumming, you would win it.”

I will get angry and you will ask if it’s that time of the month.

I will watch Superbowl commercials that depict men as emasculated and oppressed and I will feel SO f*cking sorry for you…