Wednesday 31 July 2013

Field Archery

As I said the other I was on vacation recently, and while away I went to a field archery site.

target

For those that don't know, field archery is a bit of a confusing name for the sport, because the name implies standing in a field and shooting at set targets - like you might have seen on the Olympics. If you thought that you would be wrong, that's Target Archery.

Field Archery is the closest you can get to bow hunting while in the UK. It usually takes place in woodlands, over a course (I used to think it was called 'Course Archery' for this reason) of twenty or so assorted animal-shaped targets at varying ranges.

It's illegal to hunt / kill ANYTHING with a bow and arrow in  this country - unless you're in the City of York, within the city walls, and your target is a Scotsman who happens to be carrying a bow and arrow...

Aside from that one bizarre law hunting and shooting at anything living will land someone in the UK with a hefty fine and / or imprisonment. So no bow-hunting and no bow-fishing for us Brits.
Now we've cleared that up...

We started with a couple of hours on the 'practice butts'. This got us used to the bows and how to shoot at varying distances. The targets on the practice butts were typical target archery targets, with markers every 5 yards from 15 yards out to 70 yards.

It was during this warm up that our tutor / guide, Ryan, told us that the rings on the targets were trying to put us off; the centre ring being gold / yellow calls for your attention, but the ring adjacent to it being red was causing the instinctive part of our brains to react to danger.

This appears to be backed up by pschology where tests have shown that in cognitive tests the colour red showed reduced responses. In other tests red has shown to boost adrenaline levels - another sign of the more primal fight or flight response. Both of these could (I couldn't find anything to back this part up)  add to innaccuracy in some circumstances for target shooters.

We took a break for a genial chat, Ryan is quite a talker, and I got to know the other half dozen guys with us. They have two 20 target courses on their site, and we were told it was probably the toughest course in the UK. This did not fill me with confidence for not losing any arrows.
However off in to the woodland we went, and I managed to mail the first target with my first arrow. This deffinitely bolstered my confidence for the rest of the course.

The course wan't just single targets; there 'Herd' targets - two or even three of the same type (Boars, Hares etc) where the idea is to hit the furthest one and while the others are looking away from you (at the one you hit) you take out the others, then there are 'predator - prey' targets where ou have to shoot the predator before you shoot the prey (so the targets are like a mountain lion and a turkey and you have to shoot the mountain lion before you can shoot the turkey).

Then to complicate things, this site (I don't know about others) has replicated a couple of 'Tree Stands' - elevated shooting platforms similar to those used by American hunterrs, which add another level of difficulty to the shot because you're well above your target.

We finished the 20 target course and thankfully I didn't lose a single arrow. I didn't score on every target but I was close enough to satisfy my ego.

Then to finish the day we did some ranging shots, or what Ryan called 'war shots' - whereby we'd go to their open field and shoot the bows angled up at around 45 dgrees to get maximum range on the arrow. given that their field was spattered with target dummies in medieval get-up it was easy to see how archery affected the battles of that era - it wasn't accuracy of shot that won the day - it was volume of arrows, and the fact that before the batle the archers had time to pop out to the field and drop range markers on the ground so they knew where to aim for any given target.

Interesting (well I found it interesting) trivia:
- You do not 'fire' a bow, you shoot it.
- Arrows are 'Loosed'.
- Medieval arrows didn't have the tips glued on, so if the tip didn't come out the other side of the target, it would stay in the target when the arrow was removed.
- Before battle archers would dip their arrow tips in their army's latrine holes to ensure infected wounds in their enemy.

Monday 29 July 2013

Big Brother's watching Your Internet

I've had enough of Sun, Sea, and Sand, I'm back from vacation; back to the dull, grey, humdrum of office life.

What a week it's been though, so much news, so much to talk about. I'd best get started really hadn't I.

s-e-x-1

Biggest thingin the news for me, being a Brit, isn't the new Prince, couldn't really care less about him to be honest and I'll blog about him seperately, it's the new internet securities that our government wants to impose on our ISPs to 'protect children from violent and pornographic images'.

In short the whole thing is, to borrow a phrase from one of my favourite TV show characters, 'Absolute Horse Hockey'.

By the end of the year broadband users in the UK will be required to go through a compulsory opt-out system which will decide what they can and cannot see on the Internet.

In essence it doesn't sound so bad; the default configuration will, as far as we've been told, will block the offending content (such content being defined by the powers that be as sites promoting porn, thinspiration, suicide, bullying etc), but that we as users can turn it all off. No problem there right?
Well, that simple act of turning off the filters will be recorded somewhere in a database, it  has to be for it to work, otherwise yo'll bet setting that filter every time you logon. This means that the government will have created a simplistic database of what could be seen as 'porn users'. That would be misleading though.

Picture a hospital, they use a lot of computers and have IT staff and everything that goes with it. I know from friends and colleagues in the healthcare industry that the IT Security Officers in these places are already fighting a constant battle with firewall softwares blocking sites that contain useful reference material used by the nurses and doctors in these hospitals.

I would imagine schools and other educational facilities would have similar issues in subjects such as Biology, Art, and English. Why English?  I hear you cry, well, a lot of literature contains harsh language and abusive scenes; The Twilight series and 50 Shades series are both handbooks on abusive relationships.

The best internet filter to protect our children from the evils of the internet are the parents, but in this nanny state no one's got the spinal fortitude to stand up and take the responsibility for that, so it falls to the government to try and be the parent.

What's motivating the 'war on porn' as our tabloids are calling it? (Oh and don't forget, despite the crackdown on porn, The Sun will retain it's Page 3 Girl). Well, it seems that the news agencies are tying it in to the fact that in the case of two recent child murders, those of April Jones and Tia Sharp, the perpetrators had both viewed child porn online.

Now, it was my understanding that Child Porn was illegal, so would these new internet filters have stopped these distressing crimes? Probably not, but it gives the government an easy way to ease in another level of control over its citizens and censorship.

On the news were played soundbytes of tearful relatives of April and Tia who were overjoyed at the new of these measures, but in reality it would have mnade no difference, neither girl had been watching porn or thinspiration or anything else covered by the filters online, and the perpetrators would likely have done this anyway.

 My feeling here is that the government is wheeling these poor people out to be the emotional trigger to encourage people to let this censorship pass unabated, making them victims for a second time.
There is also the possible stigma of anyone opposing this being a child-porn supporter. No one wants that, it's not even funny to consider it.

However once it's all in place, it would be easy for the government, especially in the light of the internet and phone snooping the US have been revealed to be doing, for our government to spy on our own internet habits based on this.

The internet habits of me and my family are my concern, until such time as someone breaks the law, but until that time I have a right to privacy over that, and as in other areas the government must go out of their way to even be allowed to investigate it. This new policy would make it all too easy to achieve this end by means of stealth. It needs to be to stopped.

Please go to this link and sign the petition.
https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/51746

Also this one for a wider catchment

http://www.change.org/petitions/eu-leaders-stop-mass-surveillance?utm_campaign=signature_receipt&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition

It does not just affect the UK, but Eurpoe and the rest of the world too.

Wednesday 17 July 2013

Lies, Damned Lies, & Statistics


I wanted to look in to things on this score because people in the media always put the spin on that they feel furthers their views. This is one of the things that the BBC has tried to hold true to (and sometimes failed) in so much as they claim to maintain an unbiased view point, unlike any of their American counterparts. Which statistics am I looking at? Crime. Specifically violent crime, and firearms. Why? Well, gun laws to be truthfull. You see, while America has currently one of the highest firearms ownership rates in the world, all the stats we see coming out of the American Media compare firearms crime with firearms crime rates in countries with much tighter gun laws, like the UK, who have probably the most draconian and restrictive firearms ownership laws in the world, and Australia who in the space of about 3 months following a mass shooting enforced a buy-back on firearms. Sounds fair really doesn't it? Well, I'm not sure, you see, to my mind if someone is going to commit a violent crime, they will pick the most efficient weapon available to them; in America that is undeniable a firearm, but elsewhere the MO may be a little different, so I'm planning to look at 'Violent Crime' rather than 'Firearms Offences' as seen in Australia, mainand UK (that's Scotland England and Wales for anyone who's unclear on the difference between UK, England, and Great Britain), and Australia. First, some back story for each country. So, in the UK there's been a number of 'famed' mass shootings; Hungerfood in 1987, Monkseaton in 1989, Dunblane in 1996, Cumbria in 2010. Following Hungerfood and Dunblane the UK restricted ownership of firearms so much that no pistols could be owned (except for some sporting pistols that due to their length classify as 'long arms') and restricted ownership of rifles such that farmer and shooting clubs were largely the only people to have access to them. So outside of sporting situations (incidentally the UK Government had to make exceptions for foreign shooters to be able to practice and compete in the Olympics - UK shooters still had to practice overseas) the only weapons available in the UK are basically .22 rifles and shotguns - which are used for pet control. Despite all of these restrictons, a licenced owner went on a spree killing in Cumbria in 2010. Over to Australia now. A recent 'report' (I put it in quotation marks because while it's intention was to make a point to the US gun lobby, it was so over the top as to be easily dismissed as nothing more than a skit) by John Oliver of the Daily Show (youtube link to part one : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9pOiOhxujsE) indicated that a complete firearms ban had been brought about in Australia following the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996. The fact is that as of 2007 around 5% of the population still own (legally I hasten to add) firearms for the purposes of hunting, pest control, and target shooting. That same report goes on to emphasise that since the buy-back following Port Arthur in 1996 there have been no mass shootings in Australia. In 2002 at Monash University two people were killed by gunman Huan Yun Xian. It is also worth noting that neither the UK, not Australia has any constitutional (or otherwise given) right to own a firearm, or any other weapon, for means of defence. These countries have no parallel to the much vaunted Second Amendment. I promised statistics, but to be honest I dislike statistics - as the title and the old addage says "there are lies, damned lines, and statistics." What this means is that a good statistician can use numbers to say anything, and that's what's been happening in terms of the gun control debate in the US, especially whether other nations crme figures are brought in. Populations: Australia - 22.32 Million UK - 63.2 Million USA - 313.9 Milion Reported Violent Crimes Australia - 200,880 (approx number calculated by figures per 100000 people) UK - 2,074,000 (number as provided by uk govt) USA - 4,856,510 (from stats published by the US Govt) In Australia, the number of cases of violent crime have risen since the firearms buy-back, but still it has the lowest numbers both in absolute and percentage of population than either the US or the UK. The US has, unsurprisingly the highest absolute number, but then check their population. they may have double the violent crime numbers, but they have well over double the population. % of Population Australia - 0.9% UK - 3.2% USA - 1.5% Now, that's general across the populations, but as with all statistics, there's so much more it doesn't take in to account, population demographics, geographical factors, a whole slew of other things that could impact the numbers. What is does show is that the rates of violent crime would seem to be removed from the rates of gunownership and the legality of carrying firearms in everyday situations. the UK, the nation with possibly the tightest firearms ownership laws, has the highest rate of violent crime, more than double that of the United States.

Tuesday 16 July 2013

What's your ideal job?

My boss asked me this question,and I'm really glad he didn't ask it at the interview - I might not have got my job if he did.

"If money was no object, what would you do for a job?"

When he asked me the question I really had no idea how to answer, it wasn't something I'd ever considered, my life's path had gone a certain way and that led to certain jobs, which gradually led up the managament ladder to where I am now; a middle management corporate wage slave - hence the title of this blog.

The reason that I'd never considered it, is because I don't truly believe that I'll ever be in a 'money is no object' situation. I play the lottery, so every week I have a 1 in 13 million chance of this becoming a reality. Of course the odds of being struck by lightning are something like 1 in 575,000, and that hasn't happened yet either, so I'm not exactly waiting for that ridiculously slim chance to actually happen becaus eI'm pretty safe in the assumption it won't.

When I was asked, I think I replied something like, "I'd put my time in to music, maybe become a session musician or something." It wasn't necassarily what I'd do, but the first thing that I thought to say - after all, among my past hobbies does lie failed attempt at music stardom (needless to say I didn't anywhere further than the local pub circuit).

Apparently the answer to the question says a lot about the person answering.

Looking back on that question, today, I think perhaps my answer wasn't so far from the truth. Music and audio is something that has, forgive the pun, resonated with me. I've been a musician, I've written songs, I've recorded songs, I've played to crowds sometimes even fairly big crowds, and it's all a lot of fun. Let me tell you there is a buzz you get when you step up on to a stage to look outon a crowd of people there to see you perform. That buzz is unlike any other I've known, it really plays to your ego, However, money being no object doesn't dictate whether you can have a career as a musician, luck does, and plugging away as a session guy really doesn't do it for me in the way that being a part of an act would. So music is out.

Or is it?
There's more to music and the music industry than the guys up on stage; there's an army of sound guys, lighting guys, roadies, techs - all of whom do their utmost to make the band look and sound as good as possible both in the studio and live.
Then there's  the DJs the promoters, all working to get the band visibiilty.

Me? I like sound, Ilike messing with sound, I like to think that if I wasn't doing my current job and money was no object I'd be doing something somewhere related to sound.
Two 'heroes' one from a book, one from a movie, have always stuck in my mind; Jack Sorenson of the novel 'To Kill The Potemkin' and Jack Terry from the movie 'Blowout' are both experts in sound and both shine through in their field through the course of their respective stories. Neither of these guys are typical action heroes, and both of them stumble across the plot through being very good at their jobs.

Blowout

To Kill The Potemkin

Monday 15 July 2013

We're on Facebook

Yes indeed, I've been convinced to set up a Facebook page for this blog, so after some time umming and ah-ing over whether or not to do it, i've taken the plunge.

You can find us at:
https://www.facebook.com/moacws

'Murica, guns, and laws - Oh My!

Yes, I'm a Brit! Yes, I am interested in how things play out in America in respect of heir gun laws.
No, I'm not like Piers Morgan preaching for gun control.
Ok, now that's out of the way I can get on with things.
A lot has happened in the USA recently by way of prominent crimes and especially interms of Gun Crime, and what people want to see done to prevent more tragic happenings.
Today I'm looking at two of these instances; George Zimmerman and Marissa Alexander.
In case you missed it, George Zimmerman has been acquited of any wrong doing in the death of Trayvon Martin, and so walks away a free man.
Marissa Alexander fired warning shots at her abusive husband and is sentenced for 20 years.
I'm only talking about these cases now because it's only recently that he respective juries have passed their verdicts. My own opinions as toi the guilt of the parties involved is no irrelevent, as is everyone else's - the descision has been made (barring the appeals process).
So what I'm trying to look at here, is how one person can kill another and walk away almost untouched by it, while someone else spares a life by giving fair warning ends up in jail for 20 years. That to me seems utterly crazy.
Maybe both cases are from different states, so might have different laws affecting them? No. Both cases are in Florida.
Throughout the Zimmerman case people have been crying foul on race reasons - but I can't see how that's valid as Zimmerman is hispanic, and the race reasons cited are white supremacy. I'll classify that one as crazy talk.
Marissa is black, and female - it's possible that both her gender and her race counted against her. Possible, but based on the (lack of) media coverage given to the case it's impossible to judge.
My best guess - Zimmerman had a better lawyer behind him, and a more lenient Judge. Why do I say that? Well, Zimmerman waived his right to a 'Stand Your Ground' pretrial immunity hearing, when Marissa Alexander's lawyer made an appeal under the 'Stand Your Ground' law, the judge denied it.
the 'Stand Your Ground' law, according to the wikipedia, says:
"In the United States, stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense when there is reasonable belief of an unlawful threat, without an obligation to retreat first."
There's a lot more to it than that, if you want to read the whole thing it's here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
So, in short, ifyou feel you're in evere danger of harm or worse, you can 'stand your ground' and use force. To my uneducated eyes it seems that Marissa's mistake was to fore warning shots. The second she did that instead of shooting at her abusive husband, she lost the 'Stand Your Ground' backing because a warning shot shows premeditation rather than the instinctive self defence action of shooting her assailant.
In a country where a woman was brutally beaten, in front of her child, by a burglar, the fact that in a siilar situation an armed woman who fired a warning shot could end up with more jail time than the guy burgling her confuses and scares the heck out of me.
I would love to think that if a firearm was used in self defence or home defence you wouldn't face such stiff, if any, penalties.
I envy a country where people can legally use a weapon to defend their home, but the way the country implements its laws, and threatens their very existance in a highly violent modern age worries me.

Thursday 11 July 2013

Internet Famous ...


Is it in the human ego to want to be known wide and far?
Is the apparent desire for internet fame an off-shoot of the cult of celebrity that we see in every day lives, just expanding in to the virtual and infinite medium of the internet?

We all have hobbies, and to each person another's hobbies might seem odd or strange. As a hobby that seems to have come across from Japan, Cosplay has been gaining momentum and popularity over the last few years and is often seen 'geek' events like Dragon-Con in the US, and the MCM and LFCC Expos in London.

For those not in the know, the word Cosplay is a portmanteau of Costume and Play. The hobby itself in it's simplest description consists of dressing up as yoru favourite character(s) and exploring your fandom through the medium of costume, while hanging out with like-minded people

Costumes and fans come from all corners of fandom; Anime & Manga (Japanese animation & comics), Super Heroes, TV Shows and Movies, even Computer Games.

The communities around cosplay seem to be freequent and, for the most part, helpful and collaborative, with facebook groups and dedicated forums.

Possibly the best known group of cosplayers, although they may distance themselves from the term, it is very much what they do, is 'The 501st' - an international group of Star Wars costumers who don Imperial / Dark SIde related costumes (their Rebel / Light Side counterparts being 'The Rebel Legion') and attend events, parades, and rallys for charity. What these guys do with their hobby is tremendous and is to be commended, so much so  that other groups have sprung up doing similar things.

For the time and money that these people spend on their costumes and props, to then go and give their time to raise money for charity is a wonderful thing to see hear and read about. These guys use their internet fame to try and make a difference to people, they try to be a force for good.
http://501stlegioncharity.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0GtiE3kAWQ

However, there's another side to the hobby; one that I'm less happy to see, and the one that this post is most about - the people who seem to be looking to gain fame, and to some extent fortune, from their hobby.
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Tabitha-Lyons-Cos-Play-signed-Posters-/111106322393?pt=UK_Collectables_AnimationCharacters_Anime_SM&var&hash=item5f810d4d70
http://jessicanigri.storenvy.com/
http://cottoncandycosplay.storenvy.com/

It may be that I'm too old to understand, but when I was younger the people I wanted signed posters of were rock stars, the emphasis for the purposes of this post being 'stars', but here we have people who are selling signed posters of themselves dressed as someone (or something) else.
I can understand why cosplayers would set up Facebook 'fan' pages for their hobby, some may be in day jobs where they wouldn't necassarily want bosses or clients they connect with on Facebook to see their slightly unusual hobby, or some may use the page to connect with the myriad of people they connect with at conventions without having to use their personal page, all of this I understand, and is reasonable, but I have noticed some people hawking their fan page trying to hook in more 'Likes' for their page simply because they have less 'Likes' than their peers, other have (as in the links above) used their fan pages to promote their online-stores where people can buy signed photos and prints of themselves.

It's at this stage that I can't help feeling that the cosplayers involved have stepped out of being a cool part of the community and in to profiteering, self promotion, and internet fame. This in turn, to my humble way of seeing things, poisons the well of the hobby giving people outside the hobby a skewed view of what the people in the hobby are like.

People like this, from what I can see do it all for themselves; for profit, to be 'cosplay famous' or 'internet famous', whatever the reason, it leaves a bad taste in my mouth and it wouldn't surprise me if it puts others off the hobby.

That said, and self promotion drama aside, I'll admit it's a lot of fun to rock up to a con in costume, if nothing else a great costume can help you feel like a real badass! I also won't deny that it's an ego boost when people identify who you're dressed as and ask for pic - it makes all the hassle in getting the kit together totally worth while.

Monday 8 July 2013

Women Don't Count as Wimbledon Champions?

I didn't plan to write gender based blogs when I set this up. Actualy I didn't plan anything, but I wasn't expecting to do so much around gender.

However, her we go. In all the media Murray's victory at Wimbledon yesterday is heralded as the end to a 77 year draught of Wimbledon Champions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/wimbledon/10165707/After-77-years-the-wait-is-over-for-a-Wimbledon-champion-as-Andy-Murray-beats-Novak-Djokovic.html

So, the Telegraph, one of our higher quality news papers completely ignores Virginia Wade winning the Championship in 1977.
The Telepgraph isn't alone though, The Times also headlines the 77 year wait for a Champion, as does the Daily Mail.

This is probably just carelessness on the part of the writers and editors - Virginia Wade won the Women's Championship in 1977, but we haven't had a Men's Champion since 1936. Obviously they're meaning Men's Champion, but thet're not saying that, and that's a high level of carelessness.

In this day and age when people take offence at the slightest perceived slur or oversight news writers editors can't afford mistakes like that, and deserve every piece of complaint that comes their way

Wednesday 3 July 2013

Police Shoot Dog in California

It's all over the news sites now; a police officer, in California, shot, and killed, a man's dog while the man was being arrested.

The thing is, pretty much all of the sites of seen it on have been critical of the officer's handling of the situation. I don't believe that's correct.

I won't link the video, because it is brutal and disturbing, and to be honestI don't want to be doing with that. It is easy enough to find in various formats on youtube though.

Before we look at the video, let's have a little background; the dog in question is a Rottweiler, these dogs are known to be strong and have a great capacity for causing harm - sure, a well trained Rottweiler is as passive as any other dog, until the owner is under threat, like with any other dog. Rottweilers, however, are built to be lethal, unlike a lot of other dogs, when they bite, they lock on, their muscles are increbibly powerful, and their teeth deadly and sharp. Make no mistake, a Rottweiler is a lethal animal.

So, back to Sunday's scene in California; at least four squad cars at a police incident, later we're told it was an armed robbery, and Leon Roseby walks past, with his dog, and makes an absolute show of filming the incident in progress while shouting very loudly about making sure no one's civil liberties are violated. This was, is, and always will be, a damned stupid thing to do because whatever else it may achieve, it guarantees aggrevation of the police and is clearly going to goad them in to action of some sort.

He puts his dog in the car (the windows are rolled right down) and approached the police who are walking towards him, and offers himself for arrest. This is also dumb - the police didn't even have cuffs out until a few seconds after they got to him.

This is where it all really starts to unravel for the poor dog. Seeing it's owner in trouble it does what any loyal dog would do, it goes to it's owner's aid. A lot of shouting is never going to calm a dog down, the dog won't let the police near itself or it's owner. All credit to the police here - they clearly do what they can in the situation and show a lot of restraint. Why do I say that? The dog lunged at the officer twice, and the officer didn't shoot it on the first lunge.

Anyone who's had a dog of that size and fabled ferocity go for them will know how pant-wettingly terrifying that is; it's all bark, and teeth and slobber and coming for you, and th epolice officer here tried to calm the dog not shoot it on the first  lunge.
Second time around he had no choice because he'd already tried peaceful means.

Why did he shoot it four times? To be humane to the animal. It was clear that the first bullet didn't kill it outright, so maybe he saw it was the humane thing to finish it off, or maybe he wanted to make sure that a wounded and enraged animal didnt make a third lunge. Don't mistake the the second, third and fourth shots as overzealousness, they were needed.

Leon Roseby is now looking to sue the police for killing his dog. I hope to heck he fails. He engineered the situation in which his dog died. It's come out that the police had asked him to turn down the music in his car as it was interfering with their operation, he said he was complying. I have to say I can see no compliance of that nature in the video; he goes to the car ... puts the dog in it, but doesn't secure the dog, doesn't make an effort to turn down the music, then leaves the car to go to the police.

He could have avoided this outcome at a number of junctures, but he didn't. He only has himself to blame here; he goaded the police, he did not comply with their request to turn his music down, he did NOT secure his dog in the car.

It seems that two investigations are now ongoing in relation to that incident; one investigating Roseby for interferring with a plice scene, and another for the police officer shooting the dog.

I hope the police officers in question are cleared of any wrong doing.

Monday 1 July 2013

Is Equality really what activists want?

Increasingly in recently months there's been a lot of ... well, a lot of everything around equality: 'I need feminism because ...", the red square avatar containing the '=' symbol, assorted political debates on equality of varying types, and newspapers seemingly promoting hate.

None of these really seem to me that they have the necessary gravitas to actually drive anything towards equality.

Now, here's where it all risks going decidedly un-pc. I'm not a feminist, and I don't want to be one. Ever. I'm prefectly happy being who and what I am.

Allow me to explain.

I don't think people should label themselves and risk isolating themselves because they choose to label themselve as some subset of humanity. We're all people, can't we leave it at that and be equal?
Apparently not.
If I offer my seat to a woman on the train I'm a male chauvenist pig, if I open a door and hold it open for a woman to pass through ahead of, or behind me, I'm a misogynist and degrading women.
There I Was thinking I was being nice.

So a little research, some ballbusting comments from 'feminist' 'friends' later and I've come to the conclusion that the stereotypical man-hating feminist of media portrayal isn't actually too far from the truth.

Let's delve a little deper, and look at some example situations that don't revolve around me:
A large number of 'I need feminism because...' pictures have circulated around the 'net. Of the ones I've seen only a fraction make a good point other are like this:
control

Actually this is the most bluntly NOT feminist one i've seen, and has been countered by this one

dontneed

So, those two counterpoint each other nicely, what about the others ... well, fortunately there's a tumblr just for these pictures:
http://whoneedsfeminism.tumblr.com/
So here's a couple of gems:

http://whoneedsfeminism.tumblr.com/image/20912132531
".. because I Still hold gender biases and I don't want to"
Nothiong to do with feminism - just to do with that guy's own prejudices that he wants to blame on society ... other people .. anyone but himself

http://whoneedsfeminism.tumblr.com/image/20911631385
".. because I am more then the sum of my parts"
It's a nice pithy statement, that anyone could apply. It has nothing to do with equality.

http://whoneedsfeminism.tumblr.com/image/20911110653
".. because being black does not negate my womanhood"
Nor does being a woman negate your being black, but you just labelled yourself in to two groups. You're a human, a person, don't isolate yourself in persecution of what someone else might say to or about you.

http://whoneedsfeminism.tumblr.com/image/20950009989
".. because basic rights have no gender"
Sir, you are doing it right!

http://whoneedsfeminism.tumblr.com/image/20971963121
".. because I dream of a world where rape is finally in the history books."
Somneone needs to tell this lass that men can be raped. Not only can men be raped, they are, and should that act produce a chid they can be sued for child support maintenance. Rape is not a feminism issue. In fact, female rape victims actually are better off than male ones.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m2dnlp3axb1rtcur5o1_500.jpg
".. because because people of all sexes, sexualities and genders deserve equal rights and freedom from the fear of violence."
Someone else getting it right.

http://whoneedsfeminism.tumblr.com/image/20967305589
".. because experience with livestock DOES NOT translate to women’s reproductive health!"
OK, I'll admit it, I don't understand this one at all

I really could go on forever with these, therhe's a wealth of them across the intenet, but hopefully this little crossection has illustrated my point.

In short, don't lebel yourself in to a group then expect to be treated like everyone else, just go out there and be human, and treat everyone else like humans.