(This comment ignores Mr Diablo, being that he is a special character himself who could spawn several pages of discussion)

I love the vegan freak podcast, but I do have to say that they spend too much of their time being divisive.

They spend more time griping about Peta and HSUS than being helpful.

Vegans need to come out together and MAKE CHANGE, instead of posturing on moral high grounds and staying at home paralyzed by angst!

I also love Isa's books and what she does for veganism, but I gotta call bullshit.

That girl flaunts her bosoms at many photo ops.

Yes there are ethical and sexism and relative career opportunity concerns with stripping.

I think there's a immeasurable difference between voluntarily stripping and having your skin pulled from your body while you're still alive.

I've known people who have stripped for one day & quit.

The animals can't do that.

I think people also think much less of the origins (Slave, or near slave labor conditions) of the products they use.
 

What's new, pussycat? The wo-o-o-o-oes of feminism

March 31, 2007
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/whats-new-pussycat-the-woooooes-of-feminism/2007/03/30/1174761748769.html

When a term such as 'hot pussy' can be seen as empowering for women, you know it's still a man's world, writes Jim Schembri.

WHEN most people consider the state of modern feminism they think of equal rights, respect in the workplace, political influence, social change, stuff like that. I used to, too. But now when I consider the state of modern feminism I think of just two words: "hot pussy".

Tap "hot pussy" into a search engine and you pretty much get what you expect — hardcore porn. "Hot pussy" is also the term Channel 10 is using to advertise its new reality TV program, Pussycat Dolls Presents: The Search for the Next Doll. The show chronicles the talent quest to fill a vacancy in the popular girl group whose main claim to fame is off-the-chart sexiness. Nothing wrong with that.

The "hot pussy" hardcore porn reference is just a bit of cheekiness. It's nothing to take seriously. Not any more.

Time was when this would have been a five-alarm example of "objectification", an archaic term from the 1970s referring to the demeaning practice of portraying women as mere sex objects. But today "hot pussy" doesn't raise a murmur. Three reasons: (1) we've loosened up; (2) "objectification" has been rebadged "empowerment"; and (3) women are complicit in much of this "empowering".

Here's the thinking: when women take control of their own sexual exploitation it "empowers" them. This is perfectly true. But it "empowers" them to basically do just one thing, which is to extract money from the men who are watching them "empower" themselves.

This is how popular culture has defined the power relationship between the sexes. Male power is economic. Female power is sexual. To witness this role play in stark fashion visit any men's club, which perhaps should be renamed "empowerment parlours".

Feminism began to falter in the late-1980s when the media-driven hysteria over sexual harassment bolstered the fallacy of sexual empowerment. Fuelled by the landmark Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill case in 1991, which Hill lost, it shifted the focus of women's place in the work environment from where it belonged — equal opportunity, professional respect, recognition of merit — to where it didn't — sex.

The issue ushered in long-overdue legislation protecting women from office wolves. The downside, however, was that it lodged into the culture the notion that a woman was empowered, there's that word again, more by her sexuality than her ability.

The megalithic pop phenomenon of Britney Spears and the countless clones it spawned further ingrained to a new female generation the message that it's not how smart you are that really counts, but how hot. And this quality is determined chiefly by men and their money.

This would rile feminist pioneers such as Gloria Steinem, the late Andrea Dworkin and Germaine Greer. But Steinem and Greer don't talk the talk much any more. Ironically, they now reflect the state of modern feminism — too tired, too complacent, too irrelevant to make a fuss.

The sad truth is that most young women have no idea who these women are or what they stood for. But they sure know about Paris, Lindsay, Naomi, Anna Nicole, Jessica, Christina, the Pussycat Dolls, Britney and the rest.

These are the icons that condition them to do the very thing feminism opposes, which is to define themselves by what men want, and then call it "empowerment" as though they are doing themselves a favour.

It was a man's world in the 1970s, when modern feminism got into gear. Today, more than 35 years later, it is more of a man's world than ever. Men rule. Still.

And I'm fatigued by it. All men do is start wars. I want Hillary to be the next leader of the free world. It needs a good cleaning. Bring on matriarchy. You think men would mind? The Amazon concept of keeping men alive solely for the purposes of reproduction is an idea most men would have no complaint with, so long as they got free beer and a decent new-release movie channel on cable.

Yet women are so compliant. Why? Where are the firebrands? I don't want to hear Pink or the Spice Girls yabber on about "girl power". I want to see it. Why aren't workplace child-care centres mandated by law? Why don't they build enough toilets for women at concert venues? Why do women wait patiently in line? Why aren't they stomping on the venue manager's head?

Feminism has changed society, sure, but only in bits. I look around and despair. Corporate boards are still stacked with balding heads and bad moustaches.

Politics, film, TV, literature and other media are still male domains. And where are the feminist action heroes? We got Ripley in Alien and Sarah Connor in Terminator, but there's been no follow through.

But for the ultimate sign of feminism's failure to gain traction in pop culture go to any newsstand. For there, staring back at you, will be the latest batch of homogenised, robotic females doing their utmost to fullfil the male ideal of what they should look like.

Feminism is in such a poor state you could even say "Hey, hot pussy!" and nobody would take offence. Nobody, that is, except maybe the young woman behind the counter who wishes you were talking about her.
 

"The Amazon concept of keeping men alive solely for the purposes of reproduction is an idea most men would have no complaint with, so long as they got free beer and a decent new-release movie channel on cable."

Wow.

Although I can agree with a few points -

The sexism implied here is so refined as to be against basic human rights.

Wow.

What happens when you google "hot dick"?
 

Sorry to take up so much space on the thread but I really think we should invoke Francione here.


Postmodern Feminism and Animal Welfare: Perfect Together
by: Gary L. Francione

Recently, there was a debate on the excellent and always lively Vegan Freak Forums between what may generally characterized as “postmodern feminists” and “radical feminists.” Postmodern feminists acknowledge that a woman’s choice to commodify herself sexually may represent an act of empowerment and cannot be assessed in any definitively negative way. These feminists are often pro-pornography, or are at least not anti-pornography. Radical feminists are more inclined to reject the commodification of women as inherently problematic. They are generally anti-pornography and are particularly opposed to pornography in which women are depicted as recipients of violent or abusive treatment. They regard most gender stereotypes as harmful to both women and men and seek to undermine these stereotypes. Postmodern feminists often argue that “feminine” stereotypes can help to empower women.

This debate has some interesting and important parallels with the debate on abolition vs. welfare. Indeed, postmodern feminism and animal welfare are the same theory applied in different contexts.

I. “Happy” Commodification: The postmodern feminist position has the effect of making people more comfortable about the exploitation of women. If a woman decides to become a sex worker, that is regarded as an empowering choice that feminists should support. Postmodern feminism rejects making any negative normative judgments about these exploitative institutions or how they affect women in lower socio-economic classes who do not have the privileges of the postmodern feminists, who are, by and large, white, middle-class, and well-educated.

Given the stamp of approval that is placed on self-commodification by the postmodern feminists, it is easy to understand the reaction of men when the issue of pornography or other forms of exploitation comes up: “What’s wrong with it? The feminists say it’s okay.” Last week, I was told by a postmodern feminist on the Vegan Freak Forum that I was an anti-feminist because of my “vocal disdain” for strip bars. Anyone reading that thread who was thinking about whether to go to such a place received the approval of someone who calls herself a “feminist”—one who claims to be a graduate student in a women’s studies program no less. Indeed, the message was clear: patronizing a strip bar is a way of showing that you respect the decision a woman makes to engage in that sort of activity. It’s not only okay to go to strip bars; it’s a feminist thing to do. Remarkable.

I want to emphasize that no one is talking about criticizing or judging individual women who make such self-commodifying decisions. The issue is only whether those opposed to sexism should oppose these exploitative institutions. The postmodern feminists say that we should not do so; the radical feminists maintain that we should.

It is not surprising that PETA embraces the postmodern approach to feminism and encourages women to engage in exploitative actions “for the animals.” We have had decades of PETA sexist stunts ranging from “I’d rather go naked than [fill in the blank with just about anything]” to a “State of the Union Undress” with full frontal nudity. The postmodern feminists can always be counted on to serve as PETA’s cheering squad in the event that radical feminists point out that a movement that opposes the commodification of nonhumans should also object to the commodification of humans.

And we can see that the same thinking that is behind the postmodern approach is reflected directly in the animal context with devastating results. We have Peter Singer, PETA, HSUS, and virtually all of the major animal welfare groups, many of whom/which claim to represent the “animal rights” position, arguing that animal exploitation may be morally defensible if our treatment of exploited animals is “humane.” We can be “conscientious omnivores” and indulge in the “luxury” of consuming animal products as long as we are eating nonhumans slaughtered in abattoirs approved by PETA award-winner Temple Grandin or sold at Whole Foods, declared by PETA to have strict standards of animal welfare, or eggs produced in “cage-free” barns, etc.

Given the stamp of approval of Singer, PETA, etc., it is easy to understand why, when we are trying to promote veganism, we are often met with the response: “What’s wrong with eating meat (eggs, cheese, etc.)? The animal rights people say it’s okay.” PETA says that McDonald’s is “leading the way” in reforming fast-food animal welfare and the iconic Jane Goodall is a Celebrity Supporter of Stonyfield Dairy. The animal welfare movement makes people feel more comfortable about animal exploitation just as the postmodern feminists make people feel better about participating in the exploitation of women. You can be a “feminist” as you enjoy a lap dance at a strip bar; you can be an “animal rights” person as you eat your “cage-free” eggs or meat that is approved by animal protection organizations.

In sum, postmodern feminists have created a brand of “happy” commodification for women just as the welfarists have created the phenomenon of “happy” meat and animal products. The postmodern feminists often conveniently ignore the fact that women involved in the sex industry are raped, beaten, and addicted to drugs just as the welfarists conveniently ignore that animal products–including those produced under the most “humane” circumstances–involve horrible animal suffering. And both groups ignore that the commodification of women and animals, irrespective of treatment, is inherently objectionable.

Both the postmodern feminist position and the new welfarist position are steeped in the ideology of the status quo. They both reinforce the default position of animals as property and women as things whose personhood is reduced to whatever body part(s) and body images we fetishize. They both just put little smiley faces on what is in essence a very reactionary message.

Read More:
http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/?p=133
 

I understand a lot of these points.

I just don't appreciate people "piggy backing" more issues on top of what vegans already have to accomplish.

And I don't appreciate the Vegan Freaks Hosts/Authors for further dividing the .5 percent of the world who give a shit about animal rights.

It's almost as if some people want to create an impossible goal just so there's no way to begin tackling it so we will be satisfied to just sit back and grumble.

Well not me.

I can criticize and encourage improvement for PETA, HSUS, Jane Goodall, etc... and still see and appreciate what good they accomplish.

As people are working to stop Sea Lions from being killed, should we continue totally damning and protesting HSUS as they are the only group coming forward to start an injunction?

I don't give a flip where the help comes from, we need help, and we need change.

I have ultimate goals that are higher than HSUS's and PETA's.

But for instance - if you watch Earthlings, you will see a dog being killed with euthanol, and it's like a switch, then you see cats in terror being gassed to death over 20 minutes.

Animal welfare groups work to make shelters use 'humane' means to kill animals.

Yes, it is arguable whether any animals should ever be killed in a shelter, but if you want to tell me that we owe no consideration to at least making those animal's deaths better NOW, then I think you are plainly selfish.

Also - I hate fur, I fight against it, but if you watch the videos of live dogs having their skin pulled off and don't wish that the abusers would at least kill them with something like euthanol first, then you have lost consideration for the individuals who are suffering.

That's where the means to an ends of "absolute abolition now or nothing" fails.
 

isa has big boobs but i assure you she doesn't flaunt them for the attention. offer up some cleavage showing low cut photos and i'll change my tune. or maybe look at all the photos you've seen of her and ask yourself if big boobs are sometimes just big boobs.
 

http://b4.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/00727/49/86/727616894_l.jpg

Caption: "Smuggling raisins in a Food Fight t-shirt"

Not saying there's anything wrong, she's awesome!
 

First poster said:

"I think there's a immeasurable difference between voluntarily stripping and having your skin pulled from your body while you're still alive.

I've known people who have stripped for one day & quit.

The animals can't do that."

Actually when they have the skin pulled from their bodies, that tends to be a one-time deal as well.
 

There's a reason that no one has heard of Gary Francione, and that reason is he's ineffective as an activist. I commend anyone who at least reaches people outside of the animal rights movement with their work.
 

Actually advocates of animal abolition are familiar with Francione. And, he reaches many people outside the movement. He is a professor of animal rights law at Rutgers. He's written many books- if you haven't read any I suggest you get up to date in the animal abolition movement and read his books.

http://www.abolitionistapproach.com/
http://law.newark.rutgers.edu/facbio/francione.html
http://www.abolitionist-online.com/interview_gary.francione.shtml
http://www.animalvoices.ca/gary_francione_text
http://cup.columbia.edu/book/978-0-231-13950-2/animals-as-persons/reviews
Francione & Marcus Debate: http://www.gary-francione.com/francione-marcus-debate.html

If you don't know much about Francione then you probably don't know about Joan Dunayer- highly suggested reading:
http://www.lanternbooks.com/detail.html?id=0970647565
 

One thing I couldn't help thinking when Gene Baur was doing his presentation, is that people who are hardcore abolitionists would call him a "Fucking Sellout" for working with welfare groups and pushing laws that were not absolute.

Sure, they would applaud his rescue of animals, but take that away and they would abhor his other activities.

I personally appreciate all of what he does, but I don't let any one person or organization become cultish icon of the entire movement.

Beyond criticizing any individual or organization, each of us who cares enough to become passionate about these ideals owes it to our selves and the animals to get out and take action however we can fit it into our lives.

Punditry and moral posturing are fun, but it is in no way a substitute for actual work for the animals!
 

Silly Questions and a Lack of Balance
by: Gary L. Francione

Among the many notices that I receive about various events and conferences focused on animal issues was an announcement about a conference sponsored by the welfarist group, United Poultry Concerns. The title of the conference is: “Cage Free, Animal Friendly, Go Vegan -What’s the Problem?”

According to the announcement, the conference will ask:

Should activists work to reduce the suffering of billions of chickens and other animals who will never live to see a vegan world, or is such work counterproductive—a moral betrayal of animals?

This question assumes that animal welfare reforms significantly reduce the suffering of animals and will lead us along incrementally to a vegan world. There is no support for such an assumption.

As I discussed in my essay, The Four Problems of Animal Welfare, animal welfare reforms do not provide significant protection for animals, animal welfare measures make the public feel better about animal exploitation and this encourages continued animal use, animal welfare does nothing to eradicate the property status of animals, and time and money spent on animal welfare reforms mean less time and money spent on promoting veganism. There is no empirical evidence that animal welfare reform leads incrementally to the abolition of animal use, or even to significantly reduced animal use. The animal welfare ethic has been the dominant moral paradigm, and we have had animal welfare laws, for more than 200 years. And we are using more animals in more horrific ways than at any time in human history.

This question also assumes that abolitionists, who oppose welfare reforms, have no program for reducing animal suffering as we move incrementally toward abolition. This assumption is also wrong.

The abolitionist approach is to move full steam ahead in promoting veganism explicitly and without reservation as the only acceptable baseline of the animal rights movement. The more people who embrace veganism, the less is the demand for animal products; the fewer animals produced for human consumption, the less animal suffering. And unlike the welfarist approach, which reinforces the property status of animals and makes the public feel good about animal use, the vegan approach makes clear that we have no moral justification for exploiting nonhumans—however “humane” the treatment. The abolitionist approach seeks to shift the paradigm; the welfarist approach remains steeped and enmeshed in the status quo.
-------------------------------------

The Four Problems of Animal Welfare: In a Nutshell
by: Gary L. Francione

A number of readers have been asking me to write something that they can download and use as a short response to those animal advocates who promote the welfarist approach and who do not understand why this approach is inconsistent with the rights/abolitionist position.

I hope that this is useful.

There are at least four problems with the welfarist approach to animal ethics.

First, animal welfare measures provide little, if any, significant protection to animal interests. For example, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) campaigned to get McDonald’s and other fast-food chains to adopt Temple Grandin’s handling and slaughter methods. But a slaughterhouse that follows Grandin’s guidelines and one that does not, are both hideous places. It borders on delusion to claim otherwise.

A number of animal groups are campaigning for alternatives to the gestation crate for pigs. But, on closer examination, these measures, which involve costly campaigns, really do not amount to very much in that there are considerable loopholes that allow institutional exploiters to do what they want in any event. I wrote a blog essay, A “Triumph” of Animal Welfare?, about the gestation crate campaign in Florida, which illustrates the limits of such reforms.

The same may be said of most animal welfare “improvements.” They may make us feel better but they do very little for the animals.

Second, animal welfare measures make the public feel better about animal exploitation and this encourages continued animal use. Indeed, it is clear that people who have avoided animal foods because of concerns about animal treatment are returning to eating them after being told by animal welfare organizations that animals are being treated more “humanely.” I discuss this issue in my blog essay on “Happy” Meat/Animal Products.

Ironically, animal welfare reform may actually increase animal suffering. Assume that we are exploiting 5 animals and imposing 10 units of suffering on each. That’s a total of 50 units of suffering. A welfare measure results in a reduction of 1 unit of suffering for each animal, but consumption rises to 6 animals. That’s a total of 54 units of suffering—a net increase. There is no question that this phenomenon occurs. For example, in Europe, veal consumption has increased as the result of regulation about the confinement of veal calves.

Third, animal welfare does nothing to eradicate the property status of animals. Animal welfare standards are generally linked to what is required to exploit animals in an efficient manner. That is, animal welfare generally protects animal interests only to the extent that it provides economic benefits for humans. This explicitly reinforces the status of nonhumans as commodities, as property.

For example, The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) promotes animal welfare reforms based explicitly on the economic benefits that will result from the more efficient use of animals as economic commodities. Take a look at the HSUS report on The Economics of Adopting Alternative Production Systems to Gestation Crates, which argues that alternatives to the crate will increase productivity and producer profits, or the HSUS report on The Economics of Adopting Alternative Production Practices to Electrical Stunning Slaughter of Poultry, which argues that gassing “results in cost savings and increased revenues by decreasing carcass downgrades, contamination, and refrigeration costs; increasing meat yields, quality, and shelf life; and improving worker conditions.”

This approach is not confined to the traditional welfarist groups like HSUS. The new welfarist groups, such as PETA, have also adopted it. In Analysis of Controlled-Atmosphere Killing vs. Electric Immobilization from an Economic Standpoint, PETA argues for the gassing, or “controlled-atmosphere killing (CAK)” of poultry, claiming that the electric stunning method of slaughter “lowers product quality and yield” because birds suffer broken bones and the process results in contamination dangerous to human health. The electric stunning method also “increases labor costs” in various ways. PETA argues that “CAK increases product quality and yield” because broken bones, bruising, and hemorrhaging are supposedly eliminated, contamination is reduced, “shelf-life of meat” is increased, and “‘more tender breast meat’” is produced. PETA also claims that “CAK lowers labor costs” by reducing the need for certain inspections, reducing accidents, and lowering employee turnover. CAK provides “other economic benefits” to the poultry industry by allowing producers to save money on energy costs, reduces by-product waste, and reduces the need to use water.

In other words, HSUS, PETA, and others have, in effect, become advisers to assist the meat industry in identifying ways to increase the profits from animal exploitation. Even if this results in minor improvements for animal welfare, it does absolutely nothing to challenge the property paradigm. Indeed, it reinforces the status of animals as nothing more than economic commodities. And it makes people feel better about animal exploitation.

Fourth, it is a zero-sum game. Every second of time and every cent of money spent on making exploitation more “humane” is less money and time spent on vegan/abolition education. Think about it this way:

Assume that you have two hours tomorrow to spend on animal matters. You have a choice. You can distribute literature urging people to eat “cage-free” eggs, or you can distribute literature urging people not to eat eggs at all because “cage-free” eggs still involve excruciating suffering and eventual death. You cannot do both, and even if you could, your messages would contradict each other and be hopelessly confusing.

Educating people about veganism is a much more effective way to reduce suffering in the short term and to build an abolitionist movement that can advocate for and support significant change in the future. Animal welfare continues to treat animals as commodities. And welfare reform does not provide significant protection for animal interests, makes the public feel better about exploitation, may actually increase net suffering, and diverts resources from vegan/abolitionist education.

The sooner people see that the new welfarist groups have nothing to do with an abolitionist perspective, the better off we will be. The new welfarists have become partners with the institutional exploiters to sell animal products. It is nothing short of obscene that that the new welfarists are developing labels, such as the Certified Humane Raised and Handled label, the Freedom Food label, and the Animal Compassionate label, to help the institutional exploiters to market animal corpses and products. These efforts have nothing to do with the animal rights or abolitionist approach. Indeed, this is exactly what the abolitionist movement opposes.

Yes, it’s “better” in one sense not to torture someone that you murder. But that does not make torture-free murder “compassionate.” It’s “better” not to beat someone who you rape. But that does not make rape without beating “humane.” The animal welfare movement supports the notion that more “humane” exploitation is morally acceptable exploitation. That is not the abolitionist approach.

Gary L. Francione
© 2007 Gary L. Francione
 

Wow you people like to paste the articles!

So, you're saying - Gene Baur is a fucking sellout?

No, the answer - for those who have a heart, is to work both angles.

If you notice, that's what many organizations do.

- Absolute welfare as the end goal, "happy meat", etc... is unacceptable.

- Absolute abolition or nothing is also unacceptable , it leaves animals in the worst kind of suffering now.

For the record - I'm not talking about inviting "happy meat" producers to animal rights conferences or any other such 'bull'.

And if you want to only work abolition, that's fine.

Just don't waste this tiny (but growing) movement's attention, time, and energy by denigrating the efforts of groups you don't agree 100% with.

In every movement, you will get those who will gain fame by declaring their views as pure, and calling for the culling of those who do not agree.

Infighting will bring down a movement faster than any oppressive agency or seemingly impossible odds.
 

To start with, you are the only person even talking about Gene Bauer. Personally, I have deep respect for Gene and I contribute regularly to his organization.

"Infighting" is an easy dismissal of the much needed attention to consolidate the movement. We need to unite and spread the concise message of abolition with the precious few resources we have, the animals deserve nothing less.

In case you haven't noticed, animals are still subjected to the worse living conditions imaginable. The most important point being they are murdered. Abolition sends a clear message that the exploitation in any degree and the murder of animals is unacceptable.

Take a look into history at the women's suffrage movement and slavery. They won by fighting for total abolition!
 

up the alf!!!
 

Hey, now you can actually respond now instead of just pasting articles.

I am mentioning Gene because:

A: His legal accomplishments would in no way be considered abolitionist.

B: He spoke against this divide at his presentation.

So I would think that you would either have an ideological divide with him, or be contradicting yourself.

You don't know me, or maybe you do, but I'm purely a vegan activist.

I don't believe in promoting any animal product, but I do think that we should work and support the work of people who are truelly working to help animals.

Once again, criticism is fine, but just flat out making them an enemy is another thing.

And of course you would believe that it's not causing a divide to say that everyone needs to simply get in line with what you believe so that we can just move forward. EVERYONE believes that!

A few questions:

- Answer the example I gave of killing in shelters.

- Being a pure abolitionist living in the time before the end of legal slavery in the US, would you tell a slave that you would not work for their freedom, only toward the day (still not realized) of their complete acceptance and equality in society, leaving them in chains while lesser abolitionists sought to just steal them to safety?

- What if a group got fur banned right out, but all other animal products still existed, therefore falling entirely short of complete abolition?

Seriously, making vegan and vegan activism a more and more elite club helps meat packers and animal research labs, but not the animals.

I'm tired of hearing vegan people complain more about animal rights groups than meat hunters.

So seriously, philosophical theory aside, please put your rubber to the road, help the animals!

So sorry, maybe this got a little more heated than I meant, it's 3am & I'm writing this on my phone. :-P
 

Ha! I said meat hunters, like elmur fudd in safeway with his sawed off stalking ground beef....
 

I notice there's a group of people involved with Vegan Freaks/Francione who are very dogmatic about an idea of total abolition - such that almost no action or protest is ever good enough. The people I've seen who really get into the podcast and VF boards and such aren't activists, and they end up doing nothing for animals but preaching to actual activists how they're not good enough. It's almost cultish. Definitely an excuse to do nothing.

One of those folks said he would never protest fur, because it sent the message that leather is o.k. Meanwhile fur stores are closing because imperfect activists shut them down.

I think it's best to advocate for animals directly however we can, as imperfectly as it will be in this world.
 

"Hey, now you can actually respond now instead of just pasting articles."

I didn't read past your first sentence because you are just rude and boring. So, in return- Hey, you can kiss my ass.