Please Insert your logical explanation.

I walked out onto the sky-walk.  the network of bridges connection the 2nd and 3rd stories of PSU's main buildings.  In the distance was someone yelling.  I pass the sign that prohibits painting on the sky-walk.  Is that a thing?  Following the sound to the intersection I see another section of the bridge parallel to me at the next light.  The adjunct teachers are demonstrating.  There are rumors about a strike.  The tenured teachers are supposedly behind them, roomers about a bigger strike.  The student union is also involved.  I'm a part of the union.  *Smile for the NSA.*

The air is brilliantly vibrating.  With finals, foreign tongues, and people trying to change things.  It's the kind of thing that makes the idealist crazy.  Contract season for teachers is like mating season for jumping gazelle.  A frenzy of want.  As if this week, of all weeks, the culmination of injustice leading us here could all stop soon.

The skeptic wants for hope.  But in a school of single mothers, two job holders, and foreign exchange, who has time to haggle tuition?  The teacher's union will demand fair pay, the administrative staff will demand bonuses, and the students won't show up to the rally, too busy paying for child care and your mothers SSI.

The Occupy-brand-name students will call and scream and refuse to shower. While others will borrow money from their parents to dye deep blue hair.  The rest will simply live in struggle.  They will not sleep until Christmas.  Their finals will count for only one small portion of life on the agenda.  All too well they know the world will not end.  Like a bike gear shifting up wards their legs will again buckle, they will stand to the peddle, to the hill, to the mountain.  They will go onward.  There's is indeed not to wonder why.  "Why" is a privilege for kids with free time.  There's is but to do, in ever onward hope for something better than today.

It's cold.  I retrace my steps.  From a window near by is a set of signs reading, "Please Insert Your Logical Explanation."  I follow it inside.  The room is bare with a few small art installations.  Some interesting techniques lacking difficulty.  All plain and seen and done before. I hear a banging sound from a small room adjacent to the room.  A TV plays on loop as the only item in the dim lit little space.  A man stands a moment on the film.  He, stark naked, begins hitting the walls and floor of the concrete room he abides with a giant bar of twisted mettle. Over and over and over.

Please Insert your logical explanation.

Why I think I might be done with talking about feminism.

 This week Redemption Pictures posted a blog satirically describing how feminism hurts men.  As a great internet person once said, 'to be convinced of the need for feminism one should look at the comments of a feminist blog post.'  And look we all did.  The startling group of people who thought that the post was serious was concerning but the miraculous numbers of people who felt it some calling to explain to Micheal Murray that men are oppressed too, was the real show piece.  It's frustrating because it really isn't about the poor oppressed men of the world, it's a rejecting of any responsibility and to own up to a system of power that we currently live in.

First take out the oppression men get along side their women and children, you know, shitty work conditions, discrimination because of race, or religious intolerance, and homophobia.  That should pair down most of the oppression experienced by men.  Oppression for just being a man and you're looking at 1. Higher car insurance, and 2. Feminist thinking you're a pig.  It's frustrating that these arguments get so much traction when it's simple inability to deduce clear conclusions.  Like algebra, social science looks at all the variables going on and tries to eliminate the universal experience to reveal the experience of some that is different from others.

This is frustrating.  because we're not even discussing anything.  I'm just trying to get to a baseline in which to have a coherent conversation.

In other news, apparently there's a big ol' theological leadership conference going on now which, out of 120 speakers, only 4 are female.  Rachel Held Evans made a comment on twitter and got this response.  It sucks, but does make one point.  At a certain level should we assume that people will not change their minds about women in church?  Should we then start to focus on having something to say to those who will listen?  I mean, is this the point I start revisiting Trinitarianism so I have something to say?  Because it looks as though I'm never going to get a fair fight over feminism, but under a pen name I'm likely to get a real conversation about missional theological ethics...

I don't know, I just don't know.