31 January 2017

How men lost the upright micturition war

This post will prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the emergence of the whole unisex/multi-gender/inclusive toilet (or so called "toilet war") issue was a clever subterfuge, secretly advanced by militant feminists*. The subterfuge, that eventually succeeded, resulting in the appearance and proliferation of such toilets, was meant to circumvent the resistance of the male population that protected their right to upright micturition (or pissing while standing, in simple words). All this, of course, due to shortsightedness and general slowness of the male population.

A bit of history. Frontal attack.

The war against the male habit of upright micturition started a long time ago. At the beginning (mid-nineties of the previous century) the militant feminists didn't hide the reasons for their irritation with this habit:
Young women in Sweden, Germany and Australia have a new cause: They want men to sit down while urinating. This demand comes partly from concerns about hygiene -- avoiding the splash factor -- but, as Jasper Gerard reports in the English magazine The Spectator, "more crucially because a man standing up to urinate is deemed to be triumphing in his masculinity, and by extension, degrading women." One argument is that if women can't do it, then men shouldn't either. Another is that standing upright while relieving oneself is "a nasty macho gesture," suggestive of male violence.
Of course, the real reason for this attack was the ancient and unabating irritation of the women by the long lines at every public restroom for the better gender. The urinals that cause lack of similar queues at the men's restrooms, in other words.

But the war, started at such high and aggressive tones, obviously couldn't be won. The males as a whole stood firm against such crude accusations and didn't budge. Several years later the approach changed and, instead of the crude frontal attack, a note of care was inserted:
Known as a socialist and feminist organization, the party claims that seated urination is more hygienic for men — the practice decreases the likelihood of puddles and other unwanted residue forming in the stall — in addition to being better for a man’s health by more effectively emptying one’s bladder, The Local reported.
Of course, there is more than a grain of truth in the mention of puddles, although the "other unwanted residue" crack will be never explained, I'm afraid. And thus cleanliness and health angle appeared, being more acceptable to some of the men, whose unity started to unravel, if this Guardian article is to be the witness.
If you’ve ever wondered how men achieved their cultural dominance in the world, I’m pretty sure I know what happened.
Yes, of course, it is all due to that accursed upright micturition. You bet. Anyway, even the softer approach failed to rid the world of the urinals.

Change of direction.

Viewing the obvious defeat of the frontal attack, the feminists started looking for other ways to tackle the problem. At its low point, the "if you can't beat them, join them" approach was briefly considered.

But of course, such defeatist attitude couldn't be accepted by the majority of the feminist public and was rejected by all, except fringe pacifist elements, whose survival rate is exceedingly low nowadays. New approach to the permanent abolition of the much hated men's urinals was urgently needed.

And it was found in the swiftly raising self-awareness of the hitherto ignored and oppressed genders. I am, of course, not talking here about the more established and venerable lesbian, gay or bisexual folk, but of more exotic varieties, such as questioning, flexual, asexual, genderfuck, polyamourous etc. If you really want to know how many genders are out there, good luck to you. Googling will show you anything between 31 and 97 possibilities, depending on the source.

And how the emergence of all these genders is linked to the Great Urinal War, you might ask - especially if you are naive or male (which is, apparently, more of a synonym than previously considered). The answer is: by complicating the issue of who is allowed/entitled/wants to use which toilet to the point when it might be simpler to micturate on the spot where you are currently located than to figure out which restroom is a better fit for the gender you currently identify with.

As usual in a complicated situation like this one, the powers that be responded by a simplest possible solution:

Which solution while being touted as inclusive, surely doesn't include the beloved urinal, you can take it to the bank.

Of course, the urinals weren't the main target of the multi-gender awareness campaign, rather a side benefit, but don't let yourself into a false belief that it was an unintended one. Surely some genius was busily at work behind this move, coldly and rationally calculating all the possible and desired outcomes of the campaign. And, as we can see now, winning it.

What is left?

Frankly not much. In a short time all the existing urinals will be a memory. Of course, desperate measures like pissing on the walls, are still out there, but only for the hardcore folks, whose life expectancy is short anyhow. Some of us might count on secluded areas like forests, deserts, swimming pools etc. But technology and roaming gangs of vigilantes will put an end to all such attempts to micturate anywhere but it specially designated facilities. And these gangs will be equipped with all the required technology, no doubt.

And what, you might ask, will prevent the male user from micturating upright in the seclusion of a private stall in these facilities? Ha! - is the most fitting answer to such naivety. Surely these facilities will be soon equipped with enough electronics to prevent such attempts and make the outcome as painful as possible. Not to mention the obvious: enforced addition of needed sensors to your all-seeing and all-hearing smartphone, which will squeal to the authorities the moment you even think of...

So, ze / zir - please join the line**, with all the other LGBTTQQFAGPBDSM... people, and wait patiently for your turn in the stall. And yes - sit down, please!

Or else.

(*) Just to make sure you understand that "feminist" is not a gender designation in any way, sense or meaning in this text.
(**) Unless, of course, you are Brian Eno.

26 January 2017

Secret Service vets shocked. Me too.

Since I pledged to refrain from politics for some not strictly defined time, here is a non-political post, caused by this Fox article:

Secret Service vets shocked at agent's claim she won't take a bullet for Trump

I totally understand the Secret Service people. I am shocked too. After all, why would a person disclose publicly what everyone is thinking? Shame.

And, to illustrate that it is nothing new, here is an old Soviet era story:

Two bodyguards, one of the American president and one of the Soviet premier, meet in the after hours over a beer (a vodka, if you will). "Will you take a bullet for your Man?", asks the Soviet bodyguard. "What, do you think I am crazy? Why would I?", answers the American, "I have a family, children,... And what about you?"

"What, do you think I am crazy? I sure would. I have a family, children,... ", answers the Russian.

As for the public acts that should be shamed, here is another old joke, this time an Israeli one.

Swimming pool lifeguard shouting at a customer: "Sir, I know that everyone pisses in the pool, but why do it from the diving board?".

So there.

19 January 2017

Man, do your duty! Or else...

The notorious State Duma Deputy, Yelena Mizulina, has already appeared on these pages. Twice, and I've used the same picture of her twice, which is really doing an injustice to the lady. So here is another one:

This time Ms Mizulina turned to a new domain for her unerring sense of problem solving: the male performance in their marital beds. Here is the article, translated mostly by Google, with some nudges here and there from yours truly.
State Duma Deputy, Yelena Mizulina from the party "Fair Russia", Chairman of the Duma Committee on Family Affairs, Doctor of Jurisprudence proposes to introduce a penalty for men for failing to perform their marital duty.

- The family is a social unit, - says Mizulina, - evasion of execution of marital duty is an evasion of duty to the community. If a man for no apparent reason (eg health-related.) systematically fails to fulfill his conjugal duty, or executes it carelessly to get done with it - he must pay a fine to the State. This measure will further strengthen the family and improve the morale in the country. And adultery must be punished as treason - by imprisonment. It is proposed to set the quota of execution of marital duty in Russia for men aged up to 45 years - to 1 time per week. For older people, this rate can be reduced.
The idea looks good, but I would suggest that for the public to get into the spirit of the thing, a few public executions here and there, from time to time, would be helpful.

So there.