Monday, June 04, 2007

oh, my achin' sacroiliac

So, I've been suffering some back pain for the past couple of weeks and I'm afraid that I must therefore prove to those of you who believe in God, that there is, in fact, no God, which I shall prove as follows:
Hopeless Theorem 2007
There is no God
Proof
1. I am a good person
   a. I recycle
   b. I volunteer
   c. I love the creatures of the forest
2. I have been kicked in the balls repeatedly by the universe in the past year
   a. mostly too personal and agonizing to into in my blog
   b. aforementioned back pain

If 2 occurs when 1 is correct, then the theorem is proved.
Q.E.D.

Ah, I like math with just words, not numbers.

Speaking of my metaphorical balls, last night I had a silly but interesting conversation with a certain husband about the agency placed on the male genitalia and the lack of agency given to the female genitalia. All this sprung from an earlier conversation that, if given bagels and cream cheese as an incentive for coming in to work early (long story) M. should put them down his pants. Anyway, I remarked, wouldn't it be something if agency were placed on the female genitalia, such that putting bagels in a woman's pants would be as insulting as putting them in a man's pants. Theoretically. I've just been thinking about language a lot recently, and gender, and gendered language. I've been reading some great articles on a blog I recently discovered called Objectify This - check it out if you're similarly interested. I also address this issue also over on my book blog.

All this reminds me of a nifty little book called That Takes Ovaries, which champions brave acts by women, and seeks to give agency to the ovary, rather than the ball.

4 comments:

Kathy said...

Thanks for these links; amaazing stuff.

Devin said...

A couple of addendums,

I would posit that your theorem would merely prove God isn't fair (or possibly is one capricious jerk -tho I don't believe that), and most religious types say you get your reward for being a good person in the "hereafter." Except those sumbitch Calvinists. Jackasses.

2ndly, I think the thing that differentiates putting stuff down a guys' pants vs. gals', is that it is much more insulting to the stuff. Putting something in a guys' pants is guaranteeing that that thing is going to touch some junk- most likely ballsweat too-no avoiding it with a guy. With a gal, it'll probably touch pubes, and is thus not as denigrating to thing itself (non-Kantian).
So, I don't think "teh funny" comes from it being insulting to the person, as to the object, and I don't it's due to anything but the actual protruberance of the male genitalia.

Far too much time was just spent theorizing all this. *sigh*

kbmulder said...

Keep icing and stretching! Hang in there my friend.

Devin & Special K - the discourse on stuffing items in pants is too funny!!!

Special K said...

Yes, D. that's what I meant - that the insult to the "thing" (the bagel) is perceived to come only from the (exterior) male genitalia (with the perceived agency) rather than the (interior) female genitalia - because, I think it would still be as gross.

Yes, yes, is true - have spent way too much time thinking about bagels and pants at this point - but I do think it perfectly illustrates my point, anyway - about the lack of agency, and how it's unwarranted.