“If somebody else says that running like a girl or kicking like a girl or shooting like a girl is something that you shouldn’t be doing, that’s their problem. Because if you're still scoring, and you’re still getting to the ball on time, and you’re still being first, you’re doing it right. It doesn’t matter what they say. Yes! I kick like a girl, and I swim like a girl, and I walk like a girl, and I wake up in the morning… like a girl. Because I am a girl, and that is not something that I should be ashamed of.”

Let’s make #LikeAGirl mean amazing things. Why can’t running like a girl also mean winning the race?


Now, I don’t care to discuss the alleged complaints American Indians have against this country. I believe, with good reason, the most unsympathetic Hollywood portrayal of Indians and what they did to the white man. They had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages. The white man did not conquer this country. And you’re a racist if you object, because it means you believe that certain men are entitled to something because of their race. You believe that if someone is born in a magnificent country and doesn’t know what to do with it, he still has a property right to it. He does not. Since the Indians did not have the concept of property or property rights–they didn’t have a settled society, they had predominantly nomadic tribal “cultures” – they didn’t have rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights that they had not conceived of and were not using. It’s wrong to attack a country that respects (or even tries to respect) individual rights. If you do, you’re an aggressor and are morally wrong. But if a “country” does not protect rights – if a group of tribesmen are the slaves of their tribal chief – why should you respect the “rights” that they don’t have or respect? The same is true for a dictatorship. The citizens in it have individual rights, but the country has no rights and so anyone has the right to invade it, because rights are not recognized in that country; and no individual or country can have its cake and eat it too–that is, you can’t claim one should respect the “rights” of Indians, when they had no concept of rights and no respect for rights. But let’s suppose they were all beautifully innocent savages – which they certainly were not. What were they fighting for, in opposing the white man on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence; for their “right” to keep part of the earth untouched – to keep everybody out so they could live like animals or cavemen. Any European who brought with him an element of civilization had the right to take over this continent, and it’s great that some of them did. The racist Indians today – those who condemn America – do not respect individual rights.

Ayn Rand, when asked, “When you consider the cultural genocide of Native Americans, the enslavement of blacks, and the relocation of Japanese Americans during World War Two, how can you have such a positive view of America?” at West Point Academy in 1974.

because there is some clueless white tool in my ask box trying to defend Rand to me and I am tired and not even remotely in the mood to deal with your nonsense. ayn rand is a revolting racist, end of story, and that’s 1 of a billion things that is wrong with her.


Check Your Definition

Stills from a video I threw together recently, based on a post by Brainpolice that I shared some time ago. As this is a remix, feel free to use the image files from the zip file below to remix into your own work. You could also download the video file from Vimeo and add a music or voice track if you wanted. Just be sure to credit Brainpolice and myself. I would also appreciate a message if you do make something out of this as I’d be interested in seeing it.

Download: Check-Your-Definition.zip

Objectification literally means to hold oneself as subject and everything and everyone else as object, the object of one’s actions and thoughts. According to this definition, traditional feminists objectify strippers. This paradox grows increasingly obvious considering the us/them construct such discussions inevitably employ. “Those strippers undermine our ends.” Are not strippers and their patrons the objects of these women’s disapproval ?
Or maybe they mean “object” as a thing devoid of humanity. But a stripper’s humanity, including her sexuality, is intrinsic to her profession. In my experience, few men would talk to me at length and grow aroused by my personality while simultaneously denying my personhood.
I maintain that a man isn’t denying a woman’s humanity if he admires her breast and not her intellect in the appropriate context. Human phyisicality takes precedence in many arenas. As long as theses instances remain free of sexuality, no one complains. Few people argue that Martine Navratilova and Mary Lou Retton, much less men such as Michael Jordan or Mikhail Baryshnikov, are dehumanized when others admire their physical prowess.
—  Stacy REED, “All stripped Off”, in Jill NAGLE, Whores and other feminists, Routledge, 1997, p.  182

… Ayn Rand’s arrogant, misinformed pseudo-intellectualism carries to the very title of her most famous work. The idea behind the title “Atlas Shrugged” is that Atlas unfairly carries the weight of the world on his shoulders, and if he just shrugged he could be free while condemning those who relied on him while giving back nothing. The problem? Atlas carrying the world was a latter-day revision when it became clear the original cosmology didn’t work. Atlas was supposed to be holding up the heavens, to maintain the gap between the heavens and the Earth that everything currently alive lived in. If he shrugged, he’d crush his damn fool self because, even if it was inconvenient or onerous, he needed the same support as everyone else. Which is a more accurate metaphor, but not the message Rand was trying to convey.

Hey, you know Steve Ditko, the guy who co-created Spider-Man, Dr. Strange, Squirrel Girl, the Creeper, the Question, and the Ted Kord Blue Beetle? Well, at some point Ditko took a headfirst dive into the philosophy of Ayn Rand - and the Objectivism-spouting vigilante Mr. A is that particular passion of his given ultimate comic book form.

I’ve never expended much effort trying to track the stories down, but a friend of mine did, and… well, they’re about as subtle as a packet of Chick tracts, except they star a guy wearing a Destro mask and a matching pair of oversized steel mittens. Still, I can’t fault the sense of graphic design on display here; if ever there was an artist born to draw men in business suits punching the hell out of gangsters and/or abstract philosophical concepts, it was Steve Ditko.

(Amusingly, this exact page was later parodied in an issue of DC’s Ambush Bug, but “Corrupt” was replaced with “Pittsburgh.”)

(Also amusingly, spell-check thinks “Objectivism” is a typo.)

Original splash page art for the Mr. A story “Debaters,” first published in Comic Crusader #4 (1968). Scan taken from Heritage Auctions.