REFUTEDYOUBLEEPS.TXT -
GENERAL LINKS:
http://www.rense.com/general38/men.htm
http://www.backlash.com/content/gender/1996/7-jul96/news07.html
http://www.angryharry.com/esMenlovetobashpregnantwomen.htm
http://www.angryharry.com/esmenbearastrikingresemblancetoslugs.htm
http://www.angryharry.com/esstevejones.htm
http://holysmoke.org/fem/fem0036.htm
http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/forums/about228.html
http://www.houghtonmifflinbooks.com/catalog/authordetail.cfm?textType=interviews&authorID=8016
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4326999.stm
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/evolution_of_the_x_chromosome/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4355355.stm
http://www.menweb.org/stifmaul.htm
http://www.freewebs.com/antifeminist/antifeminismwhy.htm
http://www.angryharry.com/reAndTheLawProtectsHer.htm
---
"Streaky, this is true - but on the other hand, if you're a man and too aggressive, there are plenty of ways people can and will refer to that aggression as a negative trait without the implication being that you're not a proper man because of that. On the other hand, when a woman is called a bitch (in an insulting way, ignoring attempts to reclaim the word for now), there's always an undertone of, "You're not a REAL woman because you're too loud/determined/unwilling to deal with BS."
The closest equivalent to "bitch" is "dick," which, while insulting, actually reinforces the man's masculinity rather than negating it."
No, the closest equivalent to "bitch" is "bastard", which has no positive qualities.
The female equivalent of "d*ck" is "c*nt". Does that "reinforce your femininity rather than negating it"?
So insulting a man using demeaning language that reduces him to his genitals is secretly a compliment. Great.
---
"Wednesday, August 23, 2006, 11:55 PM - Core Posts
In my day job, I tend to deal with the odd bit of statistical data here and there. Tonight's data analysis was looking at some research I'd conducted with a friend on Equestrian sport. What do horses and comics have in common?
Well, for one thing, sport and comics are often subject to the same gender blinkers. Motivations for sport participation are subject to gendered interpretation, and one noticable thing that stuck out tonight was the gender tinted goggles where "Men are more competitive than women, therefore women are not competitive".
Except that the data quitely clearly showed that women have a competitive streak, and can be competitive. Which got me thinking - a lot of what is said about why super hero comics aren't for girls is based on assumed roles and attitudes. Girls aren't into super hero comics because they're not aggressive / assertive / boys / spandex addicted / [insert word].
So I have an idea.
Help me generate a list of the character traits that allegeldy make comics okay for boys and bad for girls. Y'know, the usual half assed excuses generated by people wanting to say "No! COMICS NOT FOR GIRL. GIRL NOT SPEECH IN CAPS! GIRL NOT SMRT ENOUGH FOR COMIC!" type of jackassery.
The problem I know I have is that I have that whole power/priviledge (sic.) position, so essentially, I'm quite blind to materials I'm seeking. As much as I want to see where the gender barrier lies, I'm on the wrong side of the invisible barrier. This is why I'm requesting the help here, and why now, and why I'm needing it as feedback/comments to the blog post. Because I went looking, and damn it, I know it's there, and I'm having trouble seeing it (stupid trees are in the way of me seeing the woods).
Because once I can see it, I can measure it, analyse and dissect it. (Data will also be available for analysis by other GW bloggers. Your eyes and mine together make for shallower gender bugs).
So, peoples of GW, League of Substitute Superheroes, Take Back the Knight and Girls Read Comics, anyone. An assist to highlight what character traits are given gender roles and used as excuses for why you, the female reader, can't read superhero comics."
What's "wrong" with this picture (apart from the disgusting and quite misspelt musings on male "priviledge" blinding the self-hater to misogyny, and the fact that women are allowed to be anything they want to be, but there's an "invisible barrier" stopping men from, y'know, actually being GOOD PEOPLE.
Yes, it's another misspelling, just before he mocks the Neanderthal (hmm, sexist cliché any?) "jackassery" of the people trying to preserve the last pocket of society not infested by Sex And The City (not that I'm defending their misogyny). Yes, yes, that's it - "allegeldy". Am I just being picky? No. Look at that word again. I'll highlight the "wrongness" for you: alleGELDy. Ah, the truth always shines through.
---
""What if you just made your own non-sexist comics instead of demanding everyone else change the way they make their comics?"
Meet it head one and match the talk with the walk, and put your money on the table with a little bit of proactive action...
"In order to foster women publishing independently, with economy, and as owners of what they create, I will award FOUR grants annually, of a year's free hosting at WebComicsNation.com, to women making a regularly-updating new or existing webcomic of any genre or style"
...get this for a reponse [BrightRaven].
"Standing up for the rights of an oppressed group is an honorable thing, Ms. Hernandez. Unfortunately it can also be seen as self-serving, especially if you qualify as being part of said oppressed group. If you want to make a statement and be a true "Champion" for a cause in striving to improve the industry, then you can't simply pick to fight the fights that interest you. The Never-Ending Battle needs to be fought for us all.""
Hmm. Can anyone watching at home see the major logic deficiency here? The self-hater is trying to equate quote A: "your own non-sexist comics", with quote B: "In order to foster women publishing ... I will award FOUR grants annually ... to women". Let's see if that works:
A:
"non-sexist comics".
B:
"foster women publishing".
"grants annually ... to women".
A:
"(make) your own".
B:
"I will award four grants annually ... to women making a regularly-updating ... webcomic".
A:
"non-sexist".
B:
"of any genre or style".
Rather than making her own "non-sexist comics", or even rewarding the creation of "non-sexist comics" (which in order to avoid hypocrisy necessitates a gender-blind attitude to the author), Hernandez chose to hand out cash to people based purely on their sex, with no stipulation as to the message that must be carried by their comics. If a women took Hernandez' grant and proceeded to make a misogynist comic, there would be no problem. But a feminist man would be unable to obtain this grant. Therefore Hernandez is indulging in hypocrisy and a sexist double-standard.
But our self-hater is patently insane, which is why he thinks the statement "the Never-Ending Battle (against sexism) needs to be fought for us all" is oppressive towards women, so I guess he hasn't noticed that. He also hasn't noticed he's the only columnist on the site without a corresponding forum (and he just happens to be the only man - how odd).
---
On William Marston, creator of "Wonder Woman":
"Marston's original concept of "a feminine character with all the strength of Superman plus all the allure of a good and beautiful woman" is flawed in both concepts, since the "the strength of Superman" represents nothing except the patriarchal status quo that utilises physical violence (or the threat thereof) to dominate other individuals - be they women or other men."
'Nuff said.
And because no-one said feminists weren't horrific hypocrites: upon entry to the forums, you are invited to "pimp out your favourite titles". Oh I see. When a man uses that expression, it's a horrific cheapening of the thousands of women whose lives have been ruined by prostitution (except when a proud "feminist sex worker" is around, in which case he's just trying to OPPRESS her). When a woman (or "woman feminist") talks about "pimping something out", it's a fun, irreverent modernism.
---
Subtle:
http://www.askoxford.com/asktheexperts/faq/aboutwords/misogynist
"What is the feminine equivalent of a misogynist (a person who hates or dislikes women)?
The equivalent is misandrist (a person who hates persons of the male sex), a rare word but seemingly much sought-after. The corresponding noun for the attitude is misandry."
Note the sneer there: "a rare word (implying the attitude is rare even though it is evident in this two-sentence article) but seemingly (implying the writer doesn't believe it) much sought-after (implied - only by misogynists)". Wow.
Also, how can a "word" be rare unless it is "rarely used"? If it is "much sought-after", that means many people WANT to use it, implying the word is somehow being kept from them, preventing them from giving a name to their misgivings.
---
It's hard to believe this tame stuff used to disturb me as a child, but it did:
ON GUINEA PIGS:
"Alternatively they can live with another guinea pig. Two males will fight unless they're brothers and a male and a female will breed, so it is best to get two females, who will live agreeably together".
At my insistence, we got two males (sexist me). The more dominant one bullied the submissive one a bit, but it wasn't too bad. But when the dominant one died, we got a new one (obviously, from a different "batch"), and when he reached "puberty", he really started to hurt the submissive older one, so we had to move them into separate hutches. Of course, it was my fault for ever thinking those evil males could be kind to each other.
HEY, FEMINISTS, STILL THINK GENDER IS A SOCIAL CONSTRUCT? NO, OF COURSE NOT, YOU NEVER THOUGHT THAT, YOU ALWAYS KNEW "WE" WERE THE CRIMINALS, THE VIOLENT SEX. --BLEEP-- YOU, GUINEA PIGS, CAN'T YOU SEE WE'RE IN A WAR? YOU REPRESENT ALL MEN, BLINDBLINDBLIND, INFECTED WITH THE DISEASE, THE GENETIC PARASITE, NOT OF MASCULINITY BUT OF THE MEMEPLEX/GENEPLEX CONSTRUCTED BY X.
---
(emphasis mine) "Women are depicted in a quite different way from men - NOT BECAUSE THE FEMININE IS DIFFERENT FROM THE MASCULINE - BUT BECAUSE THE "IDEAL" SPECTATOR IS ALWAYS ASSUMED TO BE MALE AND THE IMAGE OF THE WOMAN IS DESIGNED TO FLATTER HIM."
W. T. F. This is INTERNALLY inconsistent!! If the "feminine" is identical to the "masculine", the spectator shouldn't make the blindest bit of difference because they will be "flattered" in the same way! Basically, this moron has just proved herself wrong.
---
--BLEEP-- THAT:
"I'm more or less okay with Frank Cho's mainstream superhero work, which I consider to be fairly pretty but more than a little bland. On the other hand, when I finally took a peek at some of his other stuff - pin-ups and Liberty Meadows - I got severely creeped out by the juxtaposition of noble, full-bodied Good Girls with small, weedy-looking men.
I can't articulate exactly why or how much this bothered me so. At least one aspect of it is that it feels very similar to the way mainstream hetero porn often has the extremely attractive (or "attractive") woman paired with a very average and often only half-shown man so that the man on the screen isn't a threat to the fantasies of the man on the couch. Obviously, in Cho's work it would not be half so extreme an example! But I get the vibe even so."
Yes, it's SOOO oppressive to women that men are portrayed as weak, incompetent, hideous dolts.
---
This is it. The end:
"androcide, for example, is fundamental to Russ's thinking, since it restores women's speech."
Just look at it.
---
"The statues and figurines of Allat were always naked with huge breasts and a very distinct vulva area. Some were simply a square stone with two great breasts at the top and a monstrous vulva beneath ... She had to give the male god his sexual power, and she doled it out as long as he satisfied her."
Can anyone say "the void and the seminal light?".
---
"And I really like Uma Thurman and Daryl Hannah, but all the talk about "Isn't it great that they get to play strong women in Kill Bill?" is a little meretricious. They get to play strong cartoon characters who are made to say stupid things by men (the screenwriters) who don't have respect enough for them not to make them silly caricatures. They're made to sound not like women, but like male Tarantino thugs."
So fictional women are oppressed by their male authors. Oh, and there are no differences between the genders but men are thugs and it's wrong to make fictional women like them. Dear God in heaven help us.
"The nerdier the fellow, the bigger the charge he seems to get from watching girls whomp guys."
Oh yes, we just LOVE being abused, hit, and raped in the mass media. We just LOVE it. YOU FILTHY (CENSORED).
"Deep down, male chauvinism stems from a fear not that females will act like males, but that they won't."
Ah, equality.
---
This guy (yes, another self-hater) has just been ranting on about how matriarchy is actually "equality". Then he drops this little bombshell (forgetting he is male in the process). The initial quote is from mensnewsdaily:
"Quote:
To put it bluntly and directly: when any two women can marry each other, marriage, children, and family will belong entirely to women. Men will have only two places in society: prison or as slaves to child support.
//
Yeah, it kinda sucks when you find that Biology 101 renders YOU the inferior one rather than them, dunnit? I mean, shit, you've been oppressing them because you thought you were superior for what, a couple millenia now? Bet you're feeling pretty damn stupid."
"Equality" apparently involves exterminating the 'inferior' male. Oh no, wait, I forgot:
"androcide ... restores women's speech." DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE. DIE.
(portion of copy and paste frenzy saved for posterity - censorship ed).
---
"Since the process of human development crosses all borders, it makes sense that Europe, too, now has more women than men heading to college. The disengagement of young men, though, takes different forms in different cultures. Japan, over the last decade, has seen the emergence of "hikikomori" - young men withdrawing to their rooms, eschewing social life for months or years on end."
No comment.
UPDATE: I will make a comment. Look at the sneering, patronising tone of this. It actually SOUNDS slimy. Who writes this stuff?
---
""Are Men Necessary?" - shouts Maureen Dowd in the title of her latest book, and a series of talk shows to promote it. The answer the author desires, of course, is that they are not. That is also the thesis of Mizz Dowd's latest OpEd column ("Fashioning Deadly Fiascos," NYT, Nov 5). She asserts in it that, "men are simply not biologically suited to hold higher office."
I can't say "die" anymore. I've run out. Of everything.
---
http://www.truthinmedia.org/truthinmedia/Bulletins2005/Husbands_Wives.html
Just. Read.
---
(Editor's Note: I really considered giving up at this point. I only came back to it months later. Of course, what you've just read is light, fluffy, bunny love. Things take a turn for the worse from here on in).
---
http://frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=7934
"Boys Are Becoming the Second Sex, But Affirmative Action Is Not the Answer."
Strange. It was when the opposite was true.
---
"Readers may recall this new, new math problem, which appeared in this column last month and was put before eighth graders in last year's California Learning Assessment (CLAS) test. As I reported, the test's scoring guidelines awarded a lesser score to a student who got the right answer (10 1/2 days) but did not explain his answer well than its score for a student who gave the wrong answer (450 days) but a pretty note to the principal accompanied by a happy face."
"his" vs. "a student" who sent a "pretty note". Any guesses as to what's really going on here?
---
"NY to allow legal gender reclassification
Posted by tiffany on Tuesday, November 7th, 2006 at 9:19 pm
This interesting bit from the New York Times: New York Plans to Make Gender Personal Choice ... no genital adjustments required.
//Separating anatomy from what it means to be a man or a woman, New York City is moving forward with a plan to let people alter the sex on their birth certificate even if they have not had sex-change surgery.
Under the rule being considered by the city's Board of Health, which is likely to be adopted soon, people born in the city would be able to change the documented sex on their birth certificates by providing affidavits from a doctor and a mental health professional laying out why their patients should be considered members of the opposite sex, and asserting that their proposed change would be permanent.//
I'm with some of the doctors on this one. I think it's extreme, and potentially problematic from a legal identification and social standpoint (affirmative action, population and demographics spring to mind)."
OK, so there you have it. Gender is a social construct, but men self-identifying as women should still be punished by affirmative action legislation. NOTE TO TRANSGENDERED MEN: YOUR SURGERY WILL NOT SAVE YOU EITHER. THEY WILL STILL PUT YOU IN THE OVENS. Why imitate the gender that is trying to kill you?
---
http://www.tfcbooks.com/tesla/women.htm
Tesla was a female supremacist like sex-traitor Marston. He imagined a humanity based on a hive of bees, mindless drones coupling with the queen, their bodies falling apart in mid-air. Basically, he was a Satanist, but I could just as easily call him a prototype Tradd.
(Editor's Note: "Tradd" - a race from my --Zorian Saga-- setting who work conquered populations to death and, more crucially, forbid them from any "higher definition of love than fornication").
---
CONTEXT IS FOR THE WEAK: "Men! Read this book while there's still time!". Actually, there was no "context". No explanation for this frighteningly stark androcidal statement (it was the title of a review for a feminist utopian sci-fi book in which one of the characters comes from a future where men have been exterminated).
---
Even in a good, clean egalitarian context ... this stuff creeps in, almost as if they don't know what they're saying:
"My thoughts exactly. WHY would they want to find out (the demographic market for comics)? I think they would be scared. Not just of having to lose their excuse of "it's a men's market" (which still means nothing) but then, oh no, the girls are coming in and we can't be boys anymore!"
Look at that last sentence. Misogyny is clearly and unambiguously equated with "being male".
---
"Don't get me wrong, (BtVS is) probably the least misogynistic show in the genre, and Joss was really awesome with it, but it's by no token a reversal. Except in that the women were always the uber-powerful ones."
Wow.
---
Hubbard reveals his true colours:
"Love, if you have ever noticed, does not much care where it sites on the tone-scale as we find a young man deeply in love starving himself to death (a characteristic of apathy) and a young girl in love in dreamy enthusiasm which makes her bloom."
Of course, starving yourself to death for love taps into the same well of preconscious resonance as fasting (perhaps built up by Christ fasting in the wilderness), so that's his point right out.
---
"They promised gender liberation, now we're becoming dependents of the Nanny State. They averred no fancy for special treatment, now we have affirmative action. They said they only wanted to give women a voice, now we've got speech codes. They claimed to be for gender equality, now boys are struggling just to keep up in school."
True that.
---
"As a child growing up as the son of a preacher, I saw the inner workings of the Church quite well. There was a male preacher, but the piano player, song leader, and most of the Sunday school teachers were all women. Women couldn't be deacons, but they served all the pot-luck dinners, poured the kool-aid and taught the Bible Schools, did church fund raisers and kept the church nursery. Women served as church secretaries and treasurers -- every vital job other than pastor was filled by women. But women weren't allowed to be spiritual leaders of the congregation, just slave labor. Disgusting."
Has it occurred to this self-confessed "self-hating man" that the preacher was the last tentative finger-hold of men on the church hierarchy, held there only by the advice of Paul (who he goes on to bash?), who was addressing the female-dominant religions of the day?
---
Apparently Marston just isn't feministic enough for our Internet androcides, who say that because he wanted women to control men he was misogynistic because then women would be "to blame" for all male crimes (the same way men were "to blame" for all female crimes until fairly recently in history - odd that). Of course, if a woman had said the same thing she would be applauded as radical and empowering, but let's skip to the real insanity:
"The manifestation of this attitude in the Wonder Woman comic series was the tokenism of Steve Trevor, always being "rescued" by his girlfriend, much the same way as Lois is always caught by Clark after plummeting through the air for a bit as she is so often found doing. Both cliches are two sides of the same misogynistic coin."
Female helpless, rescued by strong, heroic male = misogyny.
Male helpless, rescued by strong, heroic female = misogyny.
Something doesn't feel quite right here.
---
Random quote:
"This subtle, comic misandry at the heart of the old Archie stories was essential to their charm."
Hilarious.
---
""MALE:...represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. The first males were mutants...the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female."
"MAN:...an obsolete life form... an ordinary creature who needs to be watched...a contradictory baby-man..."
'A feminist Dictionary', ed. Kramarae and Triechler"
Erm ... it's called EVOLUTION, you brainless morons. You know, the thing YOUR SIDE is pushing? You might as well say:
"HUMAN:...represents a variant of or deviation from the category of ape. The first humans were mutants...the human race represents a degeneration and deformity of the ape."
The fact that our (supposed) "descent" from the ape endowed us with superior intelligence (unquestionably demonstrated by greater brain size), spacial perception, and the dignity and imagination to reshape our world image notwithstanding. And were I not an egalitarian and a Christian (believing that women were a later creation), I could say the same thing about the "descent" of men from women. The fact is that were the male sex not dependent on females for reproduction, they would already have eliminated them through simple natural selection - something like 105 boys are born for every 100 girls, a significant advantage in the breeding stakes. Why? Because jettisoning the duplicate genes in the X-chromosome (a much older mutation that accidentally copied the first sex chromosome, creating a slight immune system advantage at the expense of metabolic rate and reproductive viability) makes XY sperm faster and hence more competitive. They are also likely to be healthier as the remaining non-functional vestigial chromosomes on the Y-chromosomes absorb any radiation, acting as a sacrificial shield against damage. Of course, men pay for this initial advantage in later life, as they don't have a back-up in case their primary X-chromosome goes wrong. However, they are also the principle movers of Darwinian evolution, as mutated genes are not expressed in female offspring unless both parents carry the mutant gene (because their non-mutated backup will always take over, even if the mutation is a "good" one that would give the offspring an evolutionary advantage). Men express both negative and (if you are an evolutionist) positive mutations, yielding much greater diversity. A purely phenomenological expression of this is that boys lead the way both in learning disabilities and in genius. Of course, the latter is what feminists seek to deny, inadvertently jumping on the IC (information sciences creationist) bandwagon, which states that positive mutations can't occur (I disagree - a son can be taller and brighter than both his parents - the issue is whether height and intelligence are also expressions of specialisation which close off options later by cannibalising other useful DNA).
---
HAHAHA(DIE):
"Women are brighter than men, according to the Labour chairman of the Commons education committee. Huddersfield MP Barry Sheerman said there was a "danger" of being obsessed about how boys were doing at school.
His comments followed a committee discussion about whether girls or boys found it easier to learn to read.
"My own personal view is that women are brighter than men," the MP said, adding that women now earned on average more than men as middle managers.
He said: "We should celebrate this, shouldn't we? The brightest kids are coming through and they happen to be women."
In recent years girls have consistently outperformed boys at all levels of the education system."
Just ... no comment.
---
Again, presented without commentary:
"we all know that males are parasites on females because they force females to copy their genes, males like all parasites in the end degenerate into another kind of decaying structure, a sac of guts and genitals like tapeworms."
This, by the way, is taken from an official BBC science article.
---
"...there is nothing fundamental preventing the nuclear chromosomes coming not from a sperm but from another egg. We know from ICSI that sperm can be injected into eggs, and there is nothing to stop the nucleus from a second egg being injected instead.
But would it develop normally? At the moment the answer is no..."
Woops. Yet (male) stem cells transformed into both sperm and eggs reproduce naturally, and we only need an artificial womb to wholly make the female obsolete.
---
"Women's changing lives have been examined closely by academics, the media, and even the Pope. But, argues Richard Reeves, it is how men cope with these changes that will shape the future. Men, eh? One minute they are throwing flour-filled condoms at the Prime Minister; the next, they are being appointed equal opportunities commissioners. One day they are ascendant, dominating the commanding heights of society; on the next, they are redundant, with withering skills and withered chromosomes. They spend time with their children - but then more time helping to fuel a boom in lap-dancing clubs."
I can't do this any more. This is obscene.
---
Ah, I'm back.
Here:
http://www.likelike.com/pollcommentary.php?poll_id=892
(all sic.):
"Women are smart, strong, and sexy. Women have made major strides and now have proven to the world that women are superior to men. Face it guys, we are the weaker sex - shawn"
"After a lifetime of denial I've finally realized and accepted the fact that women are superior to men - Frank"
"I love it when I'm with a woman who is physically superior than me... all of them seem to be intellectually my betters - jason"
"I think that the mens are the weaker sex and not the women. I Was beat by a lot of girls in the past , I must admiat that girls are the stronger sex and now they role the world. It is so embrassed to be the weaker sex - andy"
"I think female superiority has become a generally accepted fact, although most men are reluctant to admit it. But if you look around, the evidence is undeniable - Sarah"
"As I was growing up, the male was known to be the stronger sex, and no one ever questioned it. These days everything has changed, and women have the advantage over us. It is a hard thing to accept - Bill"
"Women posess power and will along with overall superior endurance and physical health. Men are declining, while women continue to get stronger - Natalie"
"When a woman is stronger it can be demoralizing for a male. Women are already more intelligent, biologically stronger, emotionally stronger, and better looking than men. They get to experience things a man never can like chlidbirth and recent studies say women have far better orgasms than men as well. So if your a man standing next to a woman who is stronger than you physically than she is superior to you in every way and you are a just another perfect model of the weaker sex - anonymous"
"The same testosterone which gives the male brute strength also renders him vulnerable in many ways. Women have superior endurance. Overall fitness should be the criteria in determining physical strength, after all, what good is a man's strength if he's so exhausted he couldn't move a feather, while at the same time the woman is still going strong. It does not come as any surprise that some men can't face the fact that women are the stronger sex - Nancy"
"Science has proven without a doubt that women are the stronger sex. We men are so weak its pathetic. Nikki, Maggie, I bow to your superiority. Thank nature for making you a woman and for making you strong and sexy. Nothing is more powerful than a strong sexy woman and everyone knows it. There is no question that women rule - Anonymous"
And for a beautiful finish:
"Anyone who reads the news knows that modern science has determined female are by far the stronger sex. Women also have more sophistocated and efficient brains. And according to the X/Y chromosome studies, women are genetically superior overall. If you watch everyday life, you will notice evidence of this fact - Anonymous"
Let's do this thing. How would that last comment look if gender were replaced with race?
"Anyone who reads the news knows that modern science has determined whites are by far the stronger race. Whites also have more sophistocated (sic.) and efficient brains. And according to the latest genetic studies, Aryans are genetically superior overall. If you watch (sic.) everyday life, you will notice evidence of this fact - 'AH'"
The difference between now and 1930s Germany is that the "Jews" are coming out in praise of "Aryanity" and marching of their own free will into the ovens.
"The Truth, let's look at the truth a little more. Men seem to have one advantage over women in that they are generally larger so they are generally stronger. most polls on this subject favor women as the stronger sex, but why? Let's look for evidence. Women have stronger muscles, NASA finds that women are not as effected by extended space flight. Men weaken and muscles atrophy very fast, women are not as effected and are able to walk off under their own power after returning to Earth. Only women can do this, men are in a wheel chair. Not long after you are in space, you may need the physical strength of a woman to do a job that requires muscle. More evidence? Women athletes in this last generation have made more gains in strength, speed, & endurance than men have ever in recorded history because they are free to do so in much of the world. Women are now a fraction of a second off men in sprints, they have narrowed the gap in distance runs from two hours behind in 1963 to what is just minutes now or in some cases the women win. Women now hold deep diving records, their bodies withstanding great pressure with less harm. Women are making gains in weight lifting at a faster pace then men. Women athletes have gained more muscle than males in this last generation. Research shows that women have greater endurance over men and the efficiency of female muscle is greater. It is logical to conclude that (if the trend continues) the female athletes will pass men up at some point. That's the truth and just a small bit of it. Men are loosing wrestling matches at home because more women are working out and building their muscles. Men are on that athletic raceway watching that female hot rod getting closer and closer in the rear view mirror and in a very short time right on the bumper. We don't have just one or two laps left either. She will prove to be stronger if she is not stopped by men who are afraid of that truth. The biggest influence on women "being the weaker sex" seems to be culture manufactured by men and not what we are made of - Brahmin"
"As it slowly becomes acceptable for men to admit being battered, you will see and hear many more stories come out of the woodwork about men being humiliated at home. Men fight to end the fight and win while women fight to inflict pain and hurt their opponent. If women gain the upper hand, men are in serious trouble, especially if the woman is in a rage - J.B."
So ... because women are sadistic monsters men are the crueller sex. Because men are abused more than women men are the abusers. Women inflicting pain and hurt is just great because it proves they are the superior sex. This is it. This is the future writ large on the human race. This is your (censored) future you pieces of (censored). Look at it. You've done it, you've made it.
AND THIS:
"I always here predictions that women are catching up with men in size and strength. And at the peak of our evolution, women will surpass men in size and strength. It would be a role reversal of sorts and raise alot of intersting (sic.) issues. Would women create the majority of homocides? Would the vast majority of domestic abuse deaths be men? Would men take up the majority of domestic abuse shelters? And would the typical rape victim be a male? I dont`t think so. First of all what drives male aggression is testosterone. And in this future world. Women will be bigger, stronger and smarter. They will be the prime nurturers for the weaker male race (sic.) and the world as a whole. It will be a far more of a common place to see a man being rocked like a baby on a womans lap. and domestic abuse perpetrated by women would be nonexistant - Dan"
How is this not racism in its purest form? This is exactly the same as what the Nazis said about the Jews (just replace strength with intelligence).
"I know a few men, and YES, they are smaller than average, and YES, physically weaker than most women. I know some women who are larger than the average, and YES, they are stronger than most men. Dan made an interesting point. I find those categories I pointed out as growing at an alarming rate.There used to be men who might be weaker than some women, but now there are men who are actually weaker than most women. Likewise, you find more women who are stronger than most men.This leads me to believe that women are catching up with men. AND I predict WE will surpass men. In the end the gender dynamics might be like the black widow spider. She captures her little man, has sex with him, then overpowers and EATS him, and she lives happily ever after :=) - Stephanie"
The future. You will be eaten. Literally. This isn't a joke. The local group of NOW will hunt you down, kill you, and dine on your flesh.
"No statistically smaller men don`t rape larger women. In fact I have heard of cases of larger women beating up and raping smaller men. It`s all based on size. But yes women have made strides."
Strides. Towards rape. I am actually sitting here and crying, and hyperventilating, because I realise what is coming. In the 1930s there was no Internet, no way of gauging mass sentiment beyond biased opinion polls. Now I see the coming androcide and realise I will probably be killed before I turn 40. Worse, I realise everything I have ever done will be burned and laughed at. No-one will understand that what they have done is wrong. There will be a world-wide holocaust, and a little over half the world's population will be killed.
---
And Nietzsche (I knew that guy was bad):
"Someone took a youth to a sage and said: "Look, he is being corrupted by women."
The sage shook his head and smiled. "It is men," said he, "that corrupt women; and all the failings of women should be atoned and improved in men. For it is man who creates for himself the image of woman, and woman forms herself according to this image."
"You are too kindhearted about women," said one of those present; "you do not know them."
The sage replied: "Will is the manner of men; willingness that of women. That is the law of the sexes - truly, a hard law for women. All of humanity is innocent of its existence; but women are doubly innocent. Who could have oil and kindness enough for them?"
"Damn oil! Damn kindness!" Someone else shouted out of the crowd; "women need to be educated better!"
"Men need to be educated better," said the sage and beckoned to the youth to follow him.
The youth, however, did not follow him."
--BLEEP-- YOU.
---
Listen - can you hear it?
"I was in a class of nine- and 10-year-olds, girls and boys, and this young woman was telling these kids that the reason for wars was the innately violent nature of men. You could see the little girls, fat with complacency and conceit while the boys sat there crumpled, apologizing for their existence, thinking this was going to be a pattern of their lives."
Oh, it will be.
---
The left-right hook:
"Given the disparities, should there be affirmative action programs for men? Absolutely not. Affirmative action programs were a lousy way to try to compensate for statistical disparities when they favored men and they would be a lousy way to compensate when the statistical disparities favor women."
Left benefits women, right stops benefits for men. Simple, but very deadly.
---
"she insisted that teaching kids to read initiates them into the patriarchal construct of the family unit and society at large. This initiation is, according to her, a brutal and painful rite of passage. It is so painful, she added, that people don't even recollect learning to read. The memory is repressed, said Kamuf, because the act is violent."
Well, if this line of thought becomes prevalent, we don't need to worry about feminism.
"The Alphabet Versus the Goddess: The Conflict Between Word and Image"
"men are inherently "left brain", logical, abstract thinkers while women are inherently "right brain", holistic, creative, visual thinkers."
Or maybe not. They're going to destroy everything, aren't they?
---
"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 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."
Yes, they are, aren't they?
---
"Barbara Wilder-Smith, a teacher and research in the Boston area, was recently quoted in several newspapers on how deeply anti-male attitudes have affected the schools. When she made "Boys Are Good" T-shirts for boys in her class, all 10 of the female student teachers under her supervision objected to the message. (One, she said, was wearing a button saying "So many men, so little intelligence.")."
Time, I think, to stop pretending.
---
Context is for the weak: "Our youngest (in 6th grade at the time) was made to stand in front of the room while the entire class was told that "this is the kind of person who bombs abortion clinics"" (any guesses on the gender? Come on).
---
"The film industry's current criminal du jour is Aileen Wuornos, a female serial killer who was executed in 2002 after admitting she murdered seven men in Florida ... Theron's movie gives the fraudulent impression that Wuornos initiated her killing spree in self-defense against several of her victims, who she claimed were rapists. In truth, the rage-filled, publicity-seeking Wuornos acknowledged manufacturing all but one of those claims."
"She fantasized about a Bonnie-and-Clyde-style life of crime, cunningly covered her tracks, and nonchalantly made off with her victims' belongings to bring home to her lesbian lover. The entertainment media routinely lump Wuornos' victims together as her "johns." But Russell concluded that "it's just as likely that some were simply good Samaritans lending a helping hand, since Aileen's modus operandi was to hitch rides, claiming her car had broken down. These men have been demonized in a way in which we would rarely demonize female homicide victims..."
Unsurprising.
---
http://www.likelike.com/pollcommentary.php?poll_id=2603
"It is only fair for women to assert themselves to even the playing field after hundreds of years of being treated unfairly by men. It seem the boys can dish it out, but can't take it - Anonymous."
All men are grouped into the same category. Regardless of whether I "dish it out" or not, I still have to "take it".
---
"You're so naive. In the ovary tower of post-modern journalism, the nexus between text and author is delegitimized, removing the tumescent "authority" of the now decentered "author." To suggest that (Ariel) Sharon did not "authorize" these quotes just because he did not "author" them, is to live in a phallically dominated world in which unambiguous meaning can only be penetrated by the dichotomous model of (f)authorly "objective" vs. (m)authorly "subjective" truths. Long live the vaginocracy!"
Parodic but true.
---
However oppressive, note the assumptions made by Mahomet's religion:
"And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what must ordinarily appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands' fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers, or their brothers' sons or their sisters' sons..." (Quran 24:31)
Wow.
---
And it gets more and more blatant with every passing day:
"Howard Dean, the Democratic National Committee chairman who was the hero of his party's anti-war wing before his gaffe-prone 2004 presidential candidacy crashed and burned in Iowa, still doesn't think the Iraqis are better off with dictator Saddam Hussein out of power and in prison.
Appearing on CBS' "Face the Nation" yesterday, the fiery former Vermont governor said, "It looks like today, and this could change, as of today it looks like women will be worse off in Iraq than they were when Saddam Hussein was president of Iraq."
Iraqis = women. Great.
---
Note: It actually seems this has become a dumping file for gratuitous wrongness quotes rather than a "refutation" per se. I'm content.
---
Another Net Commentator: "after reading these posts (most of them) I gotta say I hate MEN. and I don't care if u men don't like this. i'm gonna cut u up in some dark street one night and I'm NOT afraid' one angrier (sic.) wimmin (thats me) WILL get her revenge for all the shitty things MEN have done to her. Hmm think I'll go read SCUM manifesto again. I don't care what u say, men are the problem in the world today".
Please note that the other posts were not hateful towards women, although some expressed a negative opinion of feminism. Most simply pointed out the stupidity of using the highly prejudiced and gendered term "male violence" in Take Back The Night rallies, since that would imply that you would have to be violent to be a man, thus fuelling the cycle of abuse, and furthermore, the majority of domestic violence is, contrary to media perception, initiated by women (although it seems likely that if you factored in "provocation", violence would be more or less equal).
---
"So I woke up in a bad mood today. And I lay in bed and thought about hate (yeah, I'm in a pretty bad mood). Do you know what's really, really not funny about hate? That, apparently, feminists all hate men, and yet all the evidence points to the opposite: men hate feminists. Not only that; men hate women. Men hate me."
LOGIC!
"2. Men hate me when they use porn. They hate me when they come to my sisters being abused and raped. They hate me when they reduce me to two hands and three holes. They hate me when they use porn as a manual for sex, when they equate my worth to my ability to act like a porn star. They hate me when they deny the harm that porn does to women. They hate me when they see the harm and rejoice in it. They hate me when they cause that harm. Men hate me when they use porn."
What about feminists who think pornography is "empowering"? What about feminist "sex workers"? Are they contributing to the hate? Why aren't you sorting your own house out first?
"4. Men hate me when they harrass women in clubs, on the streets, in the park, in bars, on the beach, at the bus stop. They hate me when they leer and make lewd comments and pinch arses and grab breasts and stare down tops and drive by in their cars beeping their horns at any tits and arse they go past and when think (sic.) they have the fucking right to tell me to smile."
AH, and it was so close to being a valid statement as well, but it just failed at that last hurdle, when she implied that telling someone to smile is worse than sexually violating them.
"8. Men hate me when they question women's right to equal pay / to have an abortion / to have sex without getting pregnant / to do anything that they have the right to do."
Men have the right to get an abortion? WTF? They don't even have any say legally over what their partner does with their DNA. Apparently men hate women for pointing out they are committing murder when they have an abortion. Women are the only ones capable of having abortions, so they are the only ones who can commit this sort of murder (unless, of course, the abortion is forced on them, in which case the forcer is the murderer).
"14. Men hate me when they attempt to justify/ deny /defend any of the above."
Woops.
"And the funniest thing is, I still don't hate men. I still believe that men are not all engrained (sic) with natural hate for women, that a lot of it is learnt, and that if something is learnt, it can be unlearnt, or at least we can begin to teach something else."
How kind. And how the --bleep-- can one be "engrained with natural hate"? I know, let's put this into a racial context and see how it sounds:
"And the funniest thing is, I still don't hate Jews. I still believe that Jews are not all engrained (sic) with natural hate for whites, that a lot of it is learnt, and that if something is learnt, it can be unlearnt, or at least we can begin to teach something else."
Wow, how magnanimous, you racist (censored).
"And I think this is why people like the charming Mr John Turner accuse me, accuse us, of hating men: because they know that we damn well should."
"And I think this is why people like the charming Mr Elie Wiesel accuse me, accuse us, of hating Jews: because they know that we damn well should."
A comment on the same:
Anti-feminist: "...I am not hating I am reacting to hatred of my sex, the fact that you have men reacting badly and the author mocking them and brushing them off reveals so much".
...And the article writer's reply: "Hey Happy, I hate you. In fact, I hate you and I don't give a shit about hating you.
I hate you because you hate us, I hate you because you are a sexist pig and you know what? I don't feel an ounce of fucking shame for hating a person as nasty, sexist and misogynist as you are.
*shrug* quite frankly I don't need you, nor do I need people like you in my life. I'm tired of telling jerk offs like you that I don't hate you. I DO hate you, I hate what you represent and I hate the lies you spread.
Get over it. You don't want more radical feminists? Then fight sexism. Because every single time some asshat like you comes along with your MRA tag lines you make another one of me".
Nice.
"The fact that these guys feel they have some entitlement to come to a radical feminist blog and tell women about what it's like to be REALLY oppressed says volumes about how little it takes to make some white male assholes feel oppressed."
One commentator on this article denies the existence of male victims of domestic violence. When one of the anti-feminist commentators claims to have been abused himself (a compelling reason for him to become an anti-feminist):
"You either hit her first, or you're exaggerating."
Also: "...They (anti-feminists) demand to be helped, tey (sic) demand that we do not hate them...and if that is not male entitlement I do not know what is".
Bwahaha...oh. God, that is evil.
When pointed out that the post in question promotes hatred against men: "Faulty analogy. You are putting Laura in the role of the KKK member: the member of a dominant class attempting to oppress a minority...".
GAH.
---
POETRY IN MOTION:
""I've asked for feminism to look into male issues and gave a few incidences where they should start."
Point of education here.
Femi = FEMALE
Why on Earth should feminism - a movement devoted to issues that specifically affect women look into "male issues"? And why the fuck "should we start" to do so because some (male) anti-feminist says so?"
...Because your fellow feminist liars already claim feminism is an egalitarian umbrella movement despite its obviously gendered brief. Congratulations, now I have a quote I can chuck at feminist "egalitarians".
---
http://www.menandfathersforjustice.org/content/view/45/57/
---
http://michaelbogar.com/pages/posts/the-myth-of-partriarchal-religion6.php
"In the Bible, the name Eve is from the same Hebrew root word as hut or dwelling. Her name is usually defined as 'the mother of all living'. But this is an extension of the image of the female as being the hut, or Hilary Clinton's 'village'. Eve is the tamer. Adam was out naming the animals in the garden, until Eve called him to the tree and coaxed him to eat of her fruit. After that, Eve dressed him in fig leaves, had children with him and he then worked by the sweat of his brow from dawn to dusk to support his family. Goodbye garden, goodbye to his animal buddies. In common parlance, we would say Adam lost animalistic independence, got a job, got married, became a husband and father."
NO! How is this person a doctor of theology? This is as nightmarishly WRONG as you can get!
BUT:
"I once facilitated an all male workshop. Approximately 30 men gathered, privately. They candidly discussed their feelings about being expected to work 40-80 hours a week, often in jobs they tolerated or detested. A high percentage admitted they felt enslaved to their roles as providers in order to supply an expected standard of living for their wives and children. One man, a medical doctor, shared that he had recently cut his work week back to 3 days so he could spend two days a week at a volunteer clinic to help the poor. His wife left him because their standard of living changed so radically.
Another man began weeping. When asked to share what was occurring in his soul, he tearfully said, "I just realized that my wife took our children and left three years ago because I had to quit a high paying job for health reasons. I took a 50% cut in pay in order to avoid serious medical problems. I had never connected the fact that she left shortly after I changed jobs." The man then lowered his head in shame and said, "Do you suppose she had stayed with me because of the money?""
Frightening, isn't it? This you call superior?
"More and more single women or gay female couples are turning to sperm donors in order to have children. In my view, there is nothing intrinsically immoral about this, but it is revealing. It has become a sort of modern joke that men are needed only to provide sperm to begin a family. A friend of mine who lived in Japan for several years said the Japanese women have a less than affectionate term for their husbands, "cockroach", because they are always underfoot. They prefer that the men go to work and remain there as long as possible. The husband"s most significant contributions are sperm and finances. Beyond that, they just get in the way."
Lovely.
"Men need to be as sure as they can that the female is not going to place socio-economic bondage on her husband over his soul's calling. This aspect of cultural oppression is rar ely (sic) addressed, or even recognized. Many women just expect that when they marry, they can quit their jobs or move to part time work so they can have their children, expecting the man to be the pack mule until he either dies or retires. The irony is that these women force men into higher and higher positions of power, prestige and economic success to support their families, and then turn around and label them patriarchal oppressors!"
---
http://www.fathersforlife.org/health/anorexia4.htm
Check out the 1995 statistics for causes of death in the 15-24 age bracket. Either men are inherently inferior, being just more fragile, or there's a holocaust going on that dwarfs any "rape epidemic".
Back to the "Male-Bashing" article:
"Statistics reveal that men die 5-7 years earlier than women. Research is now revealing that one of the reasons for this is that men spend years working in jobs they detest or tolerate. This daily grind of soul denying work weakens immune systems and leads to strokes, heart attacks, cancer and other diseases."
Woops. So much for the inherent inferiority.
---
What's that? The BBC is ranting on in its usual misandric way about men being obsolete now they've made a mouse with two mothers, combining their DNA to produce normal offspring? Think you can have a child with your lesbian partner? Think again:
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=16
It seems that mouse didn't have two mothers at all - it had a mother (XX) and a father (XY). They just tweaked the father (removing the SRY that made him develop male) so he expressed only female genes. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY CHEATED, USING MALE FLEXIBILITY (all men have a potential for hermaphroditism because they have the full genetic code - women don't have the sperm-making genes on the Y, so they can LOOK male using the male genes on the X chromosome but will never be a functional hermaphrodite) TO MAKE THE FATHER LOOK LIKE A FEMALE. Claps slowly.
But lookie here:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=%2Fchronicle%2Fa%2F2003%2F09%2F16%2FMN249380.DTL
"In May, scientists at the University of Pennsylvania broke the first barrier by growing eggs from mouse embryonic stem cells, and made the surprising discovery that eggs could be made from either male or female stem cells. That discovery stirred visions of a strangely altered future in which men could have their own children through sexual reproduction, with one man providing sperm and the other providing eggs made from his own stem cells."
"The newly announced creation of sperm from mouse stem cells does not raise the same gender-bending possibilities because sperm, it turns out, can be grown only from male embryonic stem cells. So even if the mouse feat is replicated with human cells, women would not have the capacity to make their own babies, since their stem cells won't grow into sperm."
The article reassumes women by pointing out they will still be needed to carry the babe to full term ... until we have an artificial womb, at least. Oh, look:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,648024,00.html
"'There are going to be real problems,' said organiser Dr Scott Gelfand, of Oklahoma State University. 'Some feminists even say artificial wombs mean men could eliminate women from the planet and still perpetuate our species. That's a bit alarmist. Nevertheless, this subject clearly raises strong feelings.'"
Hehee. Nice to see Solanas thrown for a loop.
---
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/164/1/259#CONCLUSIONS
Males do not mutate as a species faster than women, nor are we "dragging the human race down" - the rates are more or less the same when you factor in the fact that the X Chromosome does not recombine in men. Bah, I had a perfect argument putting a positive spin on the "men introduce more mutations than women", based around the evolutionary dogma that positive mutations are not just possible but have to outnumber negative mutations (in this view, you would have to concede that men are the prime movers of Darwinian adaptation).
---
http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/Vagina_Monologues_Rape_Scene_Fox_12FEB02.htm
Presented without commentary:
"Politically correct feminists want Valentine's Day to become V-Day, standing for Vagina, Violence (committed by men against women) and Victory".
---
A comics line "for girls", whilst an editor who says a comic is "for boys" has to resign? NOT ENOUGH.
"Well, I'd feel better about all of this if half the initially-announced Minx creators were female (like half the population and 100% of the targeted demographic), but I'd settle for maybe half a dozen, including at least three female artists. That the only women involved are front-office and ONE WRITER just tends to set off alarm bells. And that's nothing against the fine male creators named, many of whom I personally like, but I know there are tons of women out there who want to read books written and drawn BY WOMEN from a woman's POV (I was one of them when I was in my 20's), and no matter how talented these guys may be they just don't have double-x chromosomes so those potential readers won't be jumping on board."
Equality. Having said that, a line specifically targeted at women should at the very least have more female than male writers, not because they "have double-x chromosomes" but because they should be more socially qualified to write about womens' lives.
---
And again:
"I don't know if it's a purposely feminist story, but it's hard to read it any other way. The degradation of prostitution, rape by strangers, rape by family members, the cosmetics industry, the danger of the beauty ideal, anti-abortion activists, fear of female power and the enforcement of properly "feminine" roles are all depicted as utterly foul manifestations of a disgusting ideology."
Amazing, this is supposed to be a ringing endorsement.
---
"At any rate, what surprised me about Black Widow is not that it's directly feminist - after all, both Runaways and Young Avengers have the occasional directly anti-sexist moment - but that it's so unrelentingly angry about it. It's very much "I am getting this shit because I am *female*, and I am *sick* of it, and I'm going to kill people to make it stop.""
POL POT CALLED, HE WANTS HIS IDEOLOGY BACK.
"Natasha, throughout the book, is awesomely aware of the multitudinous sins of patriarchy. And she's fundamentally, gloriously angry. She explicitly rages against the misogyny machine: in internal monologue; in her conversations; with her fists, feet, knives and guns."
NO, IT'S NOT ENOUGH:
"Its true there was a feminist undercurrent but I think you're reading too much into this. And some might argue that the evil lesbian agent was a degrading presence."
"TREAT US LIKE REAL PEOPLE! STOP THE TYRANNICAL STANDARD OF BEAUTY! But you can't make us evil. Or ugly".
---
Changing video characters to make them less stereotyped/objectifying? NOT ENOUGH:
"As a gaming woman, I don't find Lara Croft's new proportions especially empowering or representative of me. It's another message of how I ought to look so I can be sexy, confident, and poised. The consensus was that Croft was ridiculous, even from those who found her aesthetically pleasing. Now, she's "realistic." I could, theoretically, look like the new Lara Croft; she's become within the realm of possibility existing."
"Realistic" women in media are apparently MORE oppressive.
---
"Anyway, that's just the background for my post. See, after that, then someone else had to make a "goodbye cruel forum" post which has since been deleted (so I can't link it), basically arguing that "it's not words that matter, but the intent." I see this defensive reaction a lot when people are asked to please examine their use of language and perhaps not use words which others find offensive."
Wow, could this be ... feminists understanding that words have meanings? Erm, no:
"While I agree that, sometimes, people unintentionally use language that can be offensive, once they have been informed that others find it hurtful, they should at least apologize. So "gay" and "lame" and "crazy" are often used as derogatory terms by people who don't realize the history behind those words. (Especially "lame".) Fine. Then, yes, intent is more important, and sometimes the language used does not accurately reflect it - but more often, intent is demonstrated through the word choice of the individual."
There I was thinking "lame" was a perfectly good description for arguments like this, for the simple reason THAT IT CAN'T STAND UP!
"Another point: just because the popular use of "crazy" as a slang word is different from the literal definition of mentally ill doesn't mean the word doesn't still have a history. Arguing that "the meaning has changed" so it's okay to use now is not a really good argument, because it's the same one people make for certain slurs, like the n-word. I'd rather just err on the side of caution and not say things I've been informed some of my allies find hurtful. It's basic courtesy".
That would make sense ... if "n*gger" didn't START OFF as non-derogatory (niger = black, the current preferred term for referring to the Africoid phenotype) and BECOME so later. The PRESENT meaning of "n*gger" is undeniably derogatory, so should not be used.
"This is one of the things I'm getting at, though. That isn't most people's intent, but why are we using a synonym for "crippled" as a negative descriptor for concepts, inanimate objects, movies? It doesn't make a whole lot of literal sense, for one, and it just serves to show that disability is so wrapped up with an idea of being lesser or bad that people don't even think about it. I think the fact that people use a lot of words while claiming they didn't literally mean to reference the actual meaning of the word is telling. (Like people who say, "oh, but I didn't mean gay THAT way.") It doesn't matter if people don't intend to evoke the connotations of a word which has in the past had a specific meaning referring to, in this case, a disability. That is what the word literally and historically means and the slang meaning is, I would argue, based on that original definition."
WHAT. THE BLEEP.
"disability is so wrapped up with an idea of being lesser or bad that people don't even think about it."
Might that be ... because it's PATENTLY OBVIOUS? I am extremely short-sighted. My eyesight is BAD. It is INFERIOR and LESSER to that of a person with 20/20, or even moderately myopic vision. I am INFERIOR to them when it comes to eyesight. A mentally retarded person is BAD at mathematics. Their mathematics skills are almost certainly INFERIOR to those of a person with an IQ of 160. They are INFERIOR to said genius in the realm of mathematics. A person with no legs CANNOT RUN. Therefore their performance in a race would be BAD. They are unquestionably INFERIOR in track-and-field events to ... well, a person with legs. The above makes the usual feminist tripe about gender differences seem absolutely sane.
---
"It all starts with one simple self-realization: you are privileged. Chances are, your reading that has made you feel defensive. While it's a perfectly natural, and common, reaction, don't let it get in your way of actually thinking about what the statement means. What you need to realize is that we all have privilege to some degree: white privilege, male privilege, heterosexual privilege, etc. The hardest thing is to do is to get over your instinct to fight and say, "But I'm not like that!" If you can do it, you've completed the first step towards being a nice guy in reality rather than words."
No, don't fight it, you're a filthy rapist, die, die, die.
"You Can Only Sympathize, Not Empathize."
In other words, you're cut off at dayadhvam. Enjoy being ruled over by your damyata (and bachiatari) masters.
(Editor's Note: "Datta, Dayadhvam, Damyata" means "Give, Sympathise, Control", and was quoted from the Upanishads by T. S. Eliot in "The Wasteland". The original meaning is "Charity, Sympathy, Self-Control", but I interpret it in my fiction to mean "genuine charity gives way to mere pretended empathy which gives way to power-seeking". "Bachiatari" means "damned" in Japanese, here playing off the fact that "damyata" sounds like "damnation").
---
Statistical equality in games? NOT ENOUGH.
"Like most of you, Chris Dahlen, the author, has his heart in the right place as far as I can tell. He says things like, "I have to believe any serious gamer would rather roleplay their characters than ogle them," and, "[f]or all our assurances that men and women have the same talents and potential, treating them exactly the same feels like ducking an issue, rather than leveling a playing field." I think he hits on what could be a very insightful argument, if you know, he had bothered to flesh it out. The myth of gender equality through equal stats is an issue that deserves attention."
Hmm ... is it me, or is this complete obfuscation? Look at that paragraph - what is the writer actually saying?
"The myth of gender equality through equal stats is an issue that deserves attention."
Remember, this is a feminist writing. What is being said here?
---
"Your first instinct might be to dismiss words like "herstory" and "womyn" as "that PC crap". If so, sit back and think about that. Your privilege gives you the power to dismiss the decisions of minority groups, and further deride them by turning "politically correct" into a slur. Part of engaging in a language of respect and equality is in recognizing the validity of a person's choice to use language, and "politically correct" terms, even if you may not understand or agree with them."
"WOMYN" denies that women are human, because "MAN" and "woMAN" are subclasses of "huMAN". That is, until you start, as some radical feminists do, referring to the "humyn" race, which excludes men ("MAN" vs. "MYN").
"HERSTORY", ironically enough, denies the existence of the past. It is absolute fact that "history" does not derive from "his story", nor does it have anything to do with the English male pronoun. It comes from a language where the masculine root word is NOT "he" or "his" or "hi" or anything like that*. Judging is not a bad thing if you judge righteously, and "herstory" is a heap of crap made up by people who don't actually believe words have meanings.
* UPDATE: "History" derives from the Greek "historia", meaning a tale or narrative. If you follow it back enough it derives from "eidenai" ("to know"). The closest it ever came to a masculine word was "wid-tor", or "wise man". The "he" or "his" part is noticeably absent.
---
"Standard language just isn't equipped to deal with the concepts that minority groups have to engage with on a regular basis. And why would it? The language we're taught is designed for the masses. But, just as you have to learn a bunch of new terms for things like science class, so to do you need to do so for minority groups. Not understanding terms can and will cause problems in the beginning - I know because I've been there. We all have. But just sticking it out and continuing to listen and learn will help. There are also places specifically designed for those who have no background in the area. In some, but not all, cases starting up a dialogue around a specific term is fine. What's not fine, however, is telling a minority group that their terms are wrong. You, as the privileged participant, don't get to define what is and is not appropriate usage in a minority space."
Equality ... "minority space". Hmmm.
Also, it appears being "privileged" suddenly means you can't use logic. To lift my previous argument, anyone with the slightest bit of objectivity can see that "herstory" is ludicrous - no-one used the phrase "his story" (except, perhaps as a religious reference) before feminists started claiming that was the true derivation of the word. The word "history" derives from another language where there is no link to the male pronoun. Would you refer to "myntal" or "womental" illness? (actually scrap that, a Google search reveals some groups do, as well as using "persyn" lest it suggest male offspring ... dear God help us all)
---
"We all need a rantspace sometimes. Whether it be to blow off steam at a friend, a collegue, a boss, or a group of people whose actions drive us up the wall, we will all whine, moan, and insult just to keep ourselves sane. In minority discussions, those rants will sometimes be directed at privileged groups. It's hard not to be hurt the first time you hear someone say something like, "Ugh, I really hate men/white people/heterosexuals/what-have-you today!" I know. I've been there, done that, but then learned that it's not about me, it's about my privilege. It is not me, personally, that is being attacked in those rages, but rather the privilege I have unfairly been given to the detriment of the ranter. Instead of getting angry, I now try to do my best to apply the underlying points to my privileged position and give support to the ranter."
Equality, again, doesn't apply to minorities. Of course, this only applies to the minorities THEY acknowledge. Let's put this into a less PC context:
"We all need a rantspace sometimes. Whether it be to blow off steam at a friend, a collegue, a boss, or *a group of people whose actions drive us up the wall*, we will all whine, moan, and insult just to keep ourselves sane. In WN discussions, those rants will sometimes be directed at minority groups. It's hard not to be hurt the first time you hear someone say something like, "Ugh, I really hate Jews/blacks/homosexuals/what-have-you today!", but it's not about you, it's about your privilege. It is not you, personally, that is being attacked in those rages, but rather the privilege you have unfairly been given to the detriment of the ranter. Instead of getting angry, you should try to do your best to apply the underlying points to your privileged position and give support to the ranter."
Post it to Stormfront and see how many call foul (remember - they think, often correctly, that minority groups are the privileged ones).
---
"We often feel that it's unfair to be judged by what others have done; for example, my family is Jewish and didn't come to America until the early 1900s, why should I be blamed for slavery? The problem is that we, as privileged groups, tend to get the benefit of the doubt on many issues (ex. the practically obligatory "not all men/whites/heterosexuals/etc. are like this!" type arguments that preface so many posts on minority issues) without extending that same benefit to minority groups who are speaking out against oppression. The facts are, there is a long history of bad behaviour of privileged groups towards non-privileged groups and because of that, we need to realize that the onus is on us to prove ourselves as allies, not on the minority group to disprove it."
Guilty until proven innocent ... hmm, I've heard that before. Here, the self-hater demands that Jews are included in the group forced to pay slavery reparations, even though the Jewish people have never kept black slaves in their entire history and he knows this. I'm sorry, how is this not anti-semitic?
---
"thanks for the post, as I have been waiting anxiously since you initially said you were preparing a post on the seemingly ubiquitous "nice guy" and his general failings. As I mentioned in our initial discussion I had some annoyance at the term nice guy being synonymous with asshole, mostly because whenever I found myself reading about someone using the "nice guy defense" I consistently thought to myself "well that dude was clearly an asshole". Of course the fact that the statement in question invariably starts with the phrase "I'm a nice guy but..." or something similar leaves me more annoyed at people erroneously hiding behind the title. So it is obvious to me that my problem with the nice guy defense is not that it is called what it is, but rather that people engage in it. As a final less serious note, I have become enamored with the idea (unfeasible, possibly even stupid, yet entertaining) of reclaiming man as a neutral genderless form and reinstitute (something I realize never was instituted in practice) the proper prefix to denote maleness, namely wer. No longer would there be a difference between men and women, instead we would all be men (a non loaded gender neutral term for being homo sapien, like I said impossible, possibly stupid) and wermen and women would have different naughty bits (or sometimes the same naughty bits and different self identifying personality, or sometimes no naughty bits, or really all the different possible combinations of naughty bits and psyche that add up in such a way that a person feels they have to identify with one gender or another). Heck, I'm even open to jettisoning the word man, wermyn and womyn, just so the neutral state is inclusive, and the genders are parts of a whole rather than the current setup."
Great, I'm just begging for the privilege of being a "werman". Now, is that a jibe at male hairiness ("were-man") or is it more general misandry (if that's German, it would be pronounced "vermin")? Great.
---
Presented without commentary:
"Burton says:
March 11th, 2006 at 11:14 am
You mean give up such male privileges as:
1) Military conscription.
2) Child support for children that are not yours.
3) Getting to pay for dates, holding doors open for womyn.
4) Being at the short end of the VAWA act (i.e. violence against women is bad, violence against men is ok).
5) Loss of children in divorce cases.
6) Being jailed on false charges of paternity and rape.
I'll settle for the draft. How many women are ready to share in this male privilege. (sic.) Are you ready to be marched on down to your armed forces induction center, have your heads shaved and then be sent to Afghanistan to fight for women's equality?"
"tekanji says:
March 11th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
Burton: Your trollish behaviour breaks discusison (sic.) rules 4, 6, 8, and 10. If you are unable to comply with the rules ofthis blog you will be banned. I neither like nor tolerate trolls here..."
---
--BLEEP-- YOU:
"...girls are more photogenic, simple as that. Consider this: Guys in the most popular anime series look like girls. Kenshin Himura, for example, looks a lot more girly than a lot of the men in the series. They do this to make the "goodguy" look better, because girls generally look better. The standard male anatomy is like a mech, big, bulky, sinewy, and in general built for fighting and brute force. There are a lot of poses guys look good in, but they're still not as photogenic as girls. That, and girls are more flexible in the variety poses you can have them in without looking gay, so you cant (sic) go wrong".
Yet the male strength advantage is denied - now they even claim women have superior physical strength. So men are left hideous monsters, completely inferior in every way. Thanks.
UPDATE: Let's do this thing -
THE RACE TEST:
"...whites are more photogenic, simple as that. Consider this: asians in the most popular anime series look like whites. Kenshin Himura, for example, looks a lot more Caucasian than a lot of the other men in the series. They do this to make the "goodguy" look better, because whites generally look better..."
Post it on Stormfront. Who is going to complain? What's hilarious is that it's actually true (that is, the heroes in popular Japanese animation ARE often much fairer-skinned than the villains).
---
How far does "minority privilege" go? Far enough to allow a feminist blog to feature as its banner a beaver biting chunks out of a log shaped like male genitalia (since "beaver" is a slang term for the female genitalia, it is nothing less than an explicit portrayal of that "pathetic male fiction", vagina dentata). Here's a sample of the positive feedback:
"I must say the picture of that beaver gnawing made me smile.
Also reflexively try to protect my crotch, but smile too."
Would you be smiling if a MRA blog depicted a log in the shape of a female clitoris being pecked away by a flock of birds? Does "affirmative action" now extend to genital mutilation being fine if directed toward the "oppressor"? Oh no, I forgot. Bobbit.
UPDATE: Mentioned on another journal. The following flurry of flames is by no means uncommon -
""She's probably run into males like you. You seem to hate women."
Oh please, her website features a beaver gnawing through a wooden penis? That strikes you as acceptable?
How about a website that shows some animal gnawing on female genitals - but in a cute and cuddly way, of course."
~
"T, a lot of us have been following BB's work for a long time ... She has been the target of vicious abuse from crazy trolls, including people who tell her she doesn't deserve to live and send her recipes for suicide cocktails. These sick fucks won't just go after BB. They go after women who tell them things they don't want to hear. And so the next woman who doesn't get EC and thinks of sharing her story might remember what happened to BB and just be quiet. So it's important to send a public message of support to BB so that everyone realizes that the psycho trolls are a marginal minority."
~
""How about a website that shows some animal gnawing on female genitals - but in a cute and cuddly way, of course".
A lot of the porn that you jerk off to serves that purpose, t"
~
""A lot of the porn that you jerk off to serves that purpose, t."
Okey dokey I think I am done here. Congratulations Dr. Squid, you've succeeeded in being so offensive that I'm leaving.
Good for you.
What an excellent way to get your point across."
~
"Bravo, Dr. Squid! You really got your point across.
Can I put you on retainer? I promise you all the krill you can eat, plus residuals if you'll stick around and fight off the trolls with your fierce jets of ink. How 'bout it, doc?"
~
"Wooden sex organs seem to pose a real problem for t..."
~
"Wow. The amount of men out there who really seem to hate women absolutely takes my breath away..."
~
"S'ok. I work pro bono.
It does amuse me seeing men's-rights types whine about how put-upon they are when someone takes a symbol of male advantage and turns it on its head. As if we men don't have any advantages."
Waitaminute, so he is claiming the penis is a "symbol of male advantage"? Does he actually realise he is essentially abandoning the field of egalitarianism (or, y'know, SANITY) with that one little remark?
~
"...the true face of the anti-abortion movement is an ugly, single man embittered that he can't get laid."
Wow. Just ... wow.
UPDATE: Waitaminute. That doesn't make any sense. The hypothetic "true face" doesn't have sex with women, so he wants to stop them giving birth to his child? WTF?
~
""Oh please, her website features a beaver gnawing through a wooden penis? That strikes you as acceptable?"
I know you're gone, dude, but Jeebus -- it's a play on vagina dentata. A myth that *men* originated."
...And, bizarrely, is promoted by every feminist going.
~
"You WORSHIP abortions. If you didn't, you'd be desperately trying to legalize and disseminate every method of preventing them, including emergency contraception."
Waitaminute, so if you don't want people killing babies, you should be fighting for people's right to kill babies? You lost me.
UPDATE: It occurs to me she is actually saying pro-lifers should be fighting for people to use more contraception, so the pregnancy never actually starts. The problem comes when pro-choice advocate push methods of contraception that come close to abortion (e.g. the "morning after pill", which terminates the fertilised egg before it attaches in the womb - the Catholic church in particular ruled that "pre-quickening abortion" was still abortion, and life starts at conception, not the point where the cells start to multiply).
---
From an article where an ex-publishing executive recounts the humiliating experience of having to take a blue-collar job when a book deal fell through. Some sexist stereotypes are exploded:
"Richard showed how he closed the mall, bolting the entrances shut while keeping a few exit doors open to drain the building of remaining customers (who passively complied). Twenty minutes after that, all doors were locked, and Richard and I went upstairs to clean the restrooms. I went straight to the men's room.
"Naw," said Richard. "Do women's first."
"Really?" I assumed that men were much filthier than women.
"Man, you been in a women's room after a day? You ain't seen nothin'!"
He was right. Wet toilet paper covering red tile. Black hair stuck to the sinks. Phlegm on the mirror. Piss on the seats. Tampon bags stuffed with candy wrappers, used toilet paper, store receipts, and buried under it all, humid, soiled tampons."
---
You thought the church was on the side of the angels?
"When last week we heard again the story from Genesis about the creation of woman, the pamphlet editor, perhaps in keeping with her promise to provide "up-to-date scripture interpretation," used a translation that substituted "Creator God" for "The Lord God" throughout. Moreover, she went on to say, "Creator God" cast a deep sleep on the "human" before building one of his ribs into a woman.
I'm sure Sister Joan Mitchell ... did not mean to imply a contrast between woman and human, but in her zeal to sweep the dust bunnies of "patriarchal language" from under the bed, she managed to hide the lordship of God, mar the poetry of translated language, and demean her own sex. Perhaps "who's your daddy?" is a moot point in her world, because, after all, we really ought to credit mommy more."
Hilarious. Feminists end up declaring women sub-human.
On a more serious note, note how "equality" means you can talk about women but men must be erased altogether.
---
MUSLIMS ARE SO OPPRESSIVE TO WOMEN:
http://www.iwf.org/inkwell/default.asp?archiveID=1340
"In Saudi Arabia, an Australian man has been sentenced to 16 months in prison and 300 lashes for a crime his wife may have committed (stealing equipment from a hospital). His flogging, inflicted 50 strokes at a time, by a guard with a Koran under his arm, has already begun..."
RL Mahomet makes FATM Nabonaparti look like a chump change amateur when it comes to misandry.
(Editor's Note: "Nabonaparti" is the alternate timeline's version of Napoleon Bonaparte in my fictional setting FATM: The Beginning. He leads the alternate French Revolution under the slogan "Liberté, Inegalité, Maternité" and ceremonially defiles Notre Dame with excrement and menstrual blood to signify the penetration of the divine feminine into the last standing bastion of patriarchy).
---
Presented without commentary:
"I think colleges are justifiably nervous about this question of affirmative action for males. And in part it's because the women have worked so hard, and accomplished so much in preparation for college, that to think we might deny a space in college for a qualified and prepared and motivated young women just go get (sic.) another less well prepared, less motivated, less focused young man in college is rather disturbing to most people."
Olduvai, baby. Not thirty years ago you could have flipped the genders and this article would hardly have raised an eyebrow. If a gendered situation has had the genders REVERSED, then if patriarchy still ruled in the 70s, matriarchy must rule today.
---
"Women mature much faster than men. Most 17-year-old females can function as adults. Most 17-year-old males are still trading baseball cards and giving each other wedgies after gym class. This is why high school romances rarely work out."
God forbid. I would love to know their definition of "can function as adults".
---
Here it comes...
On a debate on "chemical castration" for sex offenders (where all sex offenders are assumed to be male and the castration's effect is to suppress the male sex hormone):
"afaik removing the testicles of a man will tend to make him easier to get along with, and better at expressing his emotions. the testosterone drop causes a female like behaviour change. many women who are married to men who have been castrated say it has radically changed their relationship for the better.
posted by asok at 6:50 AM PST on June 2"
"The state of California mandates either surgical or chemical castration (hormone shots that lead to impotence) before it will release certain sex offenders; in other states, convicts may voluntarily request that their testicles be removed in order to hasten their release."
Redefinition time...
---
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1474158.ece
"Urination will go to committee"
"Gjul told NRK (Norwegian Broadcasting) that the young boys are simply not good enough at aiming [their piss]"
Oh, is that the reason? I seem to remember something else. Oh, yes:
"Young women in Sweden, Germany, and Australia have a new cause: They want men to sit down while urinating ... a man standing up to urinate is deemed to be triumphing in his masculinity, and by extension, degrading women ... if women can't do it, then men shouldn't either ... standing upright while relieving oneself is "a nasty macho gesture," suggestive of male violence."
Or take a look at this sarcastic rant: http://chem.chem.rochester.edu/~jones/hmj/17.html
UPDATE: Or how about this? A feminist teaches women to pee standing up:
http://www.ampnet.co.uk/femorabilia/pee_standing.html
Left wing, right wing, same turkey. Left hook, right hook. Olduvai*. The end-point is women peeing standing up and men told they cannot and being forced to sit in the woman's piss (remember, lift-up seats are oppressive). Whether either party realises this is irrelevant.
Also note that she never mentions whether this is a unisex or female toilet ( "plonking yer ass down on the seat means exposing delicate flesh to the fluids of strangers" ).
* For the uninitiated (I've mentioned it before in this article), that's my application of Peak Oil Olduvai theory to any attempt to subvert society. Olduvai is a steep chunk of rock in the middle of a gorge which appears like a spike on a graph. Accordingly, Peak Oil theorists have adopted it to demonstrate that after peak oil production (the top of the spike) industrial civilisation declines (in terms of Joules/head) along a mirror image of the path it rose (falling precipitously at first then levelling out at Iron Age level). I have applied the same theory to gender relations (i.e. we are past "peak egalitarianism" and sliding back down to matriarchy) and leftism (we are past "peak freedom" and sliding back down to autocracy, except this time it will be left-wing). I invoke "Olduvai!" every time I see something spectacularly reversed by societal change agents (there is usually an unspoken charge of hypocrisy).
---
The good old, unbiased BBC:
"The tendency has sometimes been to dismiss flashers as "dirty old men"; sad and harmless. But the new law comes down hard on the raincoat brigade, threatening a prison term of up to two years. Research has shown a link between flashing and more serious sexual crime ... Under the new bill, the (relatively few) women who indecently expose themselves will be punished as harshly as the men."
Got to love those brackets. But what does the BBC think about the other proposals?
"The proposals represent a softening attitude to so-called "zoophiles"..." Bestiality - in!
"critics argue cases of necrophilia are rare and this is simply an opportunity for the government to reinforce its high moral authority..." Having sex with corpses - in!
Oh, you crazy BBC, you.
---
Nice (on the tabloids' name for a sick killer):
"Actually I like "The Uncle" which is what one of the suspects is called. Suitably sinister and original, unlike the hacks who can't think of anythng more original than "Ripper". Blimey, they must have been up all night thinking about that one. I'll also put my money on The Uncle being a man. Apart from the fact that the name makes no sense if he is a she, female serial killers of other women are confined to TV cop shows, I don't think there is any precedent for this in real life."
And there won't be if you call the killer "The Uncle" before anyone is even arrested.
---
DIE, ALAN MOORE, DIE: Not content with writing "erotica" about children and basing V For Vendetta on the motto of Aleister Crowley:
"The Ripper (in Alan Moore's "From Hell") carries out his killings as an occult ritual, designed to enforce the hegemony of the rational and the masculine over the unconscious and feminine."
In the words of the Bard:
"No
I won't let you take me to the end of my rope
While you burn it and torture my soul
No
No I'm not your puppet
And no, no, no, I won't let you go." (WILLIAM BLAKE GO TO HELL, ALL OF HISTORY HAS BEEN THE MASCULINE FALLING ON THE SOPHIA FEMALE-DEMIURGE GRENADE - THE ONLY "SANDBAGGING" YOUR PRECIOUS DIVINE FEMININE HAS BEEN DOING IS "ERECTING" THE BARRIERS SHE'S HIDING BEHIND).
Mr. Moore, I'm coming for you. You want to twist history to exalt the feminine above the masculine (you filthy sex-traitor), the unconscious above the rational (go to sleep you bastard and never wake up), fine. I'll twist it right back at you. Three words, traitor: Mesu. No. Kitsuné.
I'm sorry, I think I'm actually having a mental breakdown. I look at what I've just written and it doesn't make any sense unless you're immersed in the same memes as me. I have this horrible image of myself degenerating into the same cacographic wordplay as the samliquidation guy ("Isrealhell" for "Israel") or that horrid anti-semite who kept making up words like "deholohoaxifiction" (read: Holocaust denial).
(Editor's Note: Just a quick explanation of the frustrated nonsense I scribbed above. "In the words of the Bard" is an ironic phrase I use before quoting a random rock or rap artist. The quote in question derives from the Reanimation remix of Linkin Park's "With You". I interpret the lyrics to refer to my conception of the feminine principle as a great sun. Without the binding force of the masculine principle, personified as a giant hugging the sun, the sun would explode and destroy the universe. The giant is tortured by his contact with the feminine principle, but holds on out of love for Creation. William Blake argued that the universe was created by an evil male demiurge, a flawed god who was himself the creation of the divine feminine Sophia. Just to be contrary, I invert the morality of the deities but not their gender, which produces a heroic Yaltabaoth trying futilely to hold back Sophia, who is consumed by hate for Her Creation. The Romantic poets have also historically argued that woman are far superior to men, and that any evidence to the contrary is produced by the fact that Woman has been holding back to avoid pathetic little man getting his ego bruised. I refer to this theory as "sandbagging through history").
---
And you thought Dave Sim was incoherent at times - take a look at this male feminist commentator:
"If by "get" you mean accepting that you are currently perpetuating sexist through to misogynist attitudes through the storylines, porn still trace art work, utterly stupid costumes, and you will attempt, and succeed despite the occasional setback, mistake or other problem to create an industry welcoming to both genders, then yeah, you might "get" the girl. By "get the girl" I mean "understand the girl"."
Yeah, but you've lost me.
---
And it gets worse (all of this is sic, by the way):
"At 7:11 AM, A.C.George said...
women are lovely creatures and should be loved as Goddesses.They aremothers,workers,executives,wives and so on.they deserve the best and I love totreat every woman as a unique human being.BUT...this is a general rule.I have seen mothers leaving their 2 year old for a lover.Women who married guys for their money,women who asked me what kind of car I drive before they asked me my name. Women who are bitching for their best girlfriend, they cry and waste other people's time with pety-talk. On the other side we have to recognize that men are not all abusers,rapists,filthy pigs who harash women.there are fathers,people who work hard to support their families,who are judged mercillesly from the day they were born.They are judged by men and women..for their sport performance, their school grades,their careers, the money they make,the size of their penis. If he does not perform in bed he gets the blame...and in bars and parties I have seen silly drunk women no less than drunk silly men. In the ancient world there were Gods and Goddesses.Women deserve love as much as men.Being submissive does not mean that we have to be unfair and sexists against man.This does not help WOmen.It creates resentment.When I see TV programs and everybody loves Ray and married with children and all these male-bashing commercials,or I read Elise Sutton I am getting angry...All people live under the same sun and deserve love and care.Men (if they are hetero)should treat women as Goddeses and women should treat their man as God as well.In Tao and Tantra there are practices for sacre union between male and female energies.There are no superior energies and no superior beings based on a group.Believing that one group is superior to another we do not provide service to them. Dignified women need dignified men, not doormats.A woman is thrilled when a dignified man submits to her, not a self-reducing male."
...
"At 10:24 AM, submissive dion said...
i do not think that A.C. understands very well the point.He still thinks with the old-male macho mentality.In the new world we "males" have to develop an attitude of lowering ourselves to the Woman because She is SUPERIOR than the man.Nature made these rules not me.Elise Sutton, Paige-Harrison and Abernathy are all for Female Supremacy.i am too.all males should struggle to make themselves better and more humble submissives.Lately i created a code of submissive behaviors which a male can develop to become irreversibly and permanent submissive."
This, by the way, is the endpoint of the "equal rights" movement. I feel like killing myself.
---
Primary school exercises in Michigan. Can you see the common thread?
"1) Decorate the school Christmas tree with symbols of equal rights, peace, cooperation, justice, etc. Use nonflammable paper, plastic or other media (21).
2) Organize a People Scavenger Hunt, using a worksheet to have students find classmates who do unusual or nontraditional things for their sex. Tabulate the results and calculate percentages for selected items on the worksheet (22).
3) Have each student create a personalized kite. Leave plenty of room on the kite tail for students to add a bow anytime they feel they have done something nontraditional for their sex-- "My kite tail grows as I do," (23).
4) Listen to a song from the women's movement. Discuss the images of women as they are presented in the song (24).
5) Capitalize on the holidays to challenge students' sex-biased expectations. Examples: Recognize women in the military on Memorial Day, make snow people at Christmas and Jack and Jill O' Lanterns at Halloween, parenting as a (unrecognized) job forgotten on Labor Day (25).
6) Setup some problem-solving scenarios that deal with common playground problems. Example: The girl who wants to play soccer with the boys but is refused, the boy who dislikes being chased by girls, the girl who kicks and screams all the time (26).
7) Make/purchase some visible symbol... and award it for the day/week to any student who intervenes when he/she hears a friend putting down the opposite sex (27)."
The awful thing is, I could almost agree with items 4 (assuming actual academic freedom), 5 (maybe), 6, and 7. But item 1 is satanic, item 2 is (in the context) blatant propaganda, and item 3 forces children to behave as the opposite sex and REINFORCES the idea of intrinsic differences, as there is no reward for doing something "traditional" for their sex (and don't you just know eventually the children with few bows on their kites will be punished).
---
EQUALITY:
"In your statement above, it seems that you're implying that it is unequal parental attention that is responsible for young boys increased rate of fatality. Is my inference incorrect?"
...
"If you think the 105:100 ratio for babies is skewed, consider the ratio of fertilized eggs. There are many more fertilized male embryos than female --something like 115:100 (though forgive me for not providing a reference -- I got bogged down in articles about sexism and China). Most of these end up being miscarried or they never implant. Males also suffer disproportionately from developmental delays and disability as children.
So the answer is that CLEARLY, males are the weaker sex."
[When the 115:100 split is explained genetically and in a way that does not denigrate 50% of the world population]:
"I appreciate your taking the effort to offer an explanation, however the error was mine in that I should have ended the question with a [/rhetorical] tag, in that I wasn't fishing for an answer in order to satisfy my ignorance."
The awesome comeback:
"For a biological determinist, you have a striking lack of curiousity about biology."
...
[When challenged about this jaw-dropping hypocrisy:]
"Are you asking why might humans have evolved to produce male offspring who were more likely to be genetically fragile (i.e. miscarried or disabled) or are more likely to do risky things that end in death? I think that is a really interesting question."
[Men, you're going to die because you are genetically inferior. Great].
Woops: "Personally, I am leaning towards biological determinism as the origin of the rape culture".
[Biology ... is ... destiny? --Bleep-- ].
How about this lovely exchange?
"No one has actually detailed what parental behavior is teaching young men to think that date rape is A-OK."
"People have, repeatedly, but you'd rather play bait-the-feminists than address that."
"No, they haven't. Link me up."
"Ugh, yes we have. You're just waiting for empirical, peer reviewed statistics, right? Numbers, and science, and FACTS! None of the postmodern stuff! [sarcasm]."
I guess this is a left brain/right brain thing...?
---
Crowley: "...embodied the destruction of Egoic Self structures as Choronzon, the Devil 333."
Who is Choronzon?
"Choronzon, we are told, is the all-devouring guardian of "the Abyss"."
Ah, so it's a "devouring void". Any more info?
"Choronzon is the female half (333) of the Beast (616, 666) described in the Book of Revelation and goes, like so many demons and demonesses, by many different names."
Ah. Sim, you bloody genius.
---
"Because femininity is infinitely less delicate than masculinity, feminist women and nonfeminist women alike can afford to be women in any sense they see fit when it's convenient; they can burn a bra, stand by their man, defame physicians, insinuate like Nurse Ratched, flirt coyly, or take some purportedly sacred cause to their bosoms. While men have to be men all the time, only Hillary Clinton may say, "Look at my husband. I'm a helpless spouse. Please vote for me so that I can get on the Senate Armed Services Committee and tell the Pentagon what to do." In Dowd's case, it's talking about the dwindling Y chromosome and then going and batting her eyes for Bill Mahr and Tim Russert and Charlie Rose."
Wow. "Femininity is infinitely less delicate than masculinity". The author actually means "women have no shame and see nothing wrong with being deceitful hypocrites", yet somehow (he?!) manages to re-spin it so it sounds like it is the fault of "delicate" masculinity that men have morals and values.
---
The logic here floors me:
"Nestle claims to be taking a stand for the "British bloke" and says that by making a chocolate "just for men", they are offering men something just for them in a changing, confusing world. They have actually used the word "reclaiming", as if women have "taken" chocolate away from men - despite the obvious fact that chocolate is mainly marketed to women by the people who create it."
And who the (censored) do they think those "people" are?
(Note: I actually agree the "Not For Girls" Yorkie Bar is unacceptable. My "Golden Rule" of placing any gendered argument into a racial context clearly shows it is discriminatory - would one market a chocolate bar with the slogan "Not For Blacks"? That is clearly racist, so "Not For Girls" is blatantly sexist. However, and this is important, SO ARE ALL THOSE "POUR LA FEMME" PERFUME ADS, etc. The only time a product may be specifically marketed to one sex is if it is specifically designed for them (like a leg vs. facial shaver) - and a "chunky" chocolate bar does not fulfill this requirement).
---
Estrogen contamination reducing male fertility? Forget about it:
"The Atlanta-based Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which tests the "body burden" of chemicals every two years, finds the average American now has 116 synthetic compounds in her body, including dioxin (produced by burning plastic), polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (found in auto exhaust) and organochlorine pesticides (found in farming areas).
...
Scientists say women are especially sensitive to synthetic chemicals because these substances can interfere with female hormone cycles and because they adhere to body fat that is more prevalent in women than in men."
No actual statistics, of course, are given. Also note that the default American gender is female. This report, hilariously, came from a blog called "Our Bodies, Our Blog", and a report called "Our Toxins, Our Selves" (Dave Sim, of course, way ahead of them).
(Note: I do NOT believe in using the male gender as the neutral, I have always used the third person plural where the gender of the individual is unknown. A truly unbiased report would read: "...the average American now has 116 synthetic compounds in their body...").
---
Mainstream media lies about male vs. female language to make it seem like women are better communicators with a larger vocabulary? It's oppressive to women! (Oh, and it's also a LIE):
"After noting that the jacket blurb for Louann Brizendine's book, The Female Brain, said: "Brizendine reveals the neurological explanations behind why [a] woman uses about 20,000 words per day while a man uses about 7,000..." as was mentioned in this post last September, linguist Mark Liberman wrote:
I looked through the book to try to find the research behind the 20,000-vs.-7,000-words-per-day claim, and I looked on the web as well, but I haven't been able to find it yet. Brizendine also claims that women speak twice as fast as men (250 words per minute vs. 125 words per minute). These are striking assertions from an eminent scientist, with big quantitative differences confirming the standard stereotype about those gabby women and us laconic guys. The only trouble is, I'm pretty sure that both claims are false."
Oh yes, OBVIOUSLY it's an attempt to stereotype women as having "verbal diarrhea". That was so totally my immediate impression on reading "[a] woman uses about 20,000 words per day while a man uses about 7,000" .
The absurd interview with the author:
"Q: Your book cites a study claiming that women use about 20,000 words a day, while men use about 7,000.
A: The real phraseology of that should have been that a woman has many more communication events a day - gestures, words, raising of your eyebrows.
Q: Are you concerned that you are rehabilitating outdated gender stereotypes that portray women as chatterboxes ruled by female hormones?
A stereotype always has an aspect of truth to it, or it wouldn't be a stereotype. I am talking about the biological basis behind behaviors that we all know about."
This you call equality?
UPDATE: Again, it's anti-truth:
"Reader, did you know that, on average, there are 23 different versions of this phony comparison published every day in the world's media? Well, that's not true either - but I think this is the 11th different pair that I've come across so far, ranging from a high of 50,000 vs. 25,000 to a low of 5,000 vs. 2,500. (And in case you're coming late to this discussion, all of these numbers seem to have been made up or copied from someone who made them up - the many studies that actually count words and correlate the counts with sex find no group difference, or a relatively small difference. When a difference is found, it's usually in the direction of more words from men.)."
All their other claims, are, unbelievably, based on non-double-blind experiments on University students with no attempt to account for societal/learned behaviour. "How filthy, how like animals you are, in your ghettos".
(Editor's Note: This is a rough translation of a German propaganda piece after they had rounded the Jews up and crammed them into tiny urban neighbourhoods with no food, fresh water, or amenities for weeks on end. My point, I think, being that it's hardly fair to attribute a lack of communication skills to all men on the basis of one tiny group (participating University students) who are expected to conform to the sexist stereotypes Brizendine is attempting to legitimise in the first place).
Read the whole article here: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003621.html
Oh, and don't you just LOVE the way the BBC compare the blonde, white, 'superior' female with the black, short-haired, 'inferior' male? They're giving up, can't you see that? They're retreating on the race front so they can use racist imagery to push their "final solution to the male problem".
UPDATE: Was Brizendine really pandering to male stereotypes? READ THE BLURB YOU MISANDRIC --BLEEPS-- :
"Every brain begins as a female brain. It only becomes male eight weeks after conception, when excess testosterone shrinks the communications center, reduces the hearing cortex, and makes the part of the brain that processes sex twice as large. Louann Brizendine, M.D. is a pioneering neuropsychiatrist who brings together the latest findings to show how the unique structure of the female brain determines how women think, what they value, how they communicate, and who they'll love.
Brizendine reveals the neurological explanations behind why:
• A woman uses about 20,000 words per day while a man uses about 7,000.
• A woman remembers fights that a man insists never happened.
• A teen girl is so obsessed with her looks and talking on the phone.
• Thoughts about sex enter a woman's brain once every couple of days but enter a man's brain about once every minute.
• A woman knows what people are feeling, while a man can't spot an emotion unless somebody cries or threatens bodily harm.
• A woman over 50 is more likely to initiate divorce than a man.
Women will come away from this book knowing that they have a lean, mean communicating machine. Men will develop a serious case of brain envy."
This book is on a par with the pseudo-scientific trash published by the Third Reich. And note the word "excess". Don't you just love that?
But a commenting feminist thinks it means: "Knowing that they had to pretend to believe in equality, sexists then simply sculpted a myth of the taciturn man to shame women with so we'll shut up".
Yeah, that totally fits in with:
"A woman knows what people are feeling, while a man can't spot an emotion unless somebody cries or threatens bodily harm."
You sick, sick (censored). How can you lie like this? The blurb alone approaches actual incitement to murder, memetically speaking (ORs will kill men because they naturally want to exterminate the inferior and believe anything they are told, male NOTs without sufficient restraint will kill women because they hate the uberhund and will perceive this as a direct attack on their IN).
(Editor's Note: These are all psychological terms invented by me. A quick rundown (I really have to write an article on this):
ORs: Super-enablers. Fanatics who convert to any meme as soon as they learn of it.
NOTs: Super-resistors. Reverse any meme imposed upon them, just to be contrary.
Uberhund: The overdog. Opposite of the unterhund (underdog), with which everyone subconsciously likes to identify.
IN: Your in-group. You identify with your IN and cannot bear to think of it as uberhund).
UPDATE: More material refuting this tripe:-
"Sex on the brain" - http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2006/09/24/sex_on_the_brain/?page=full
"The Female Brain" - http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/languagelog/archives/003419.html
Some tasty excerpts:
"according to James Dobson's book "Love for a Lifetime", "research tells us" that God gives a woman 50,000 words a day, while her husband only gets 25,000." Right wing, left wing, both attached to the same turkey, etc.
""The Female Brain" has made quite a splash since its publication last month, and this word-count claim is one of the most striking facts supporting her argument that the female brain is "a lean, mean communicating machine". The 20,000 vs. 7,000 numbers have been cited in reviews all over the world, from The New York Times to the Mumbai Mirror."
"Whatever the average female vs. male difference turns out to be, it will be small compared to the variation among women and among men; and there will also be big differences, for any given individual, from one social setting to another."
"Brizendine reveals the neurological explanations behind why ... A woman remembers fights that a man insists never happened [note the language used - it leaves no doubt that the woman is right, and the man is covering up for his own brutishness] ... Thoughts about sex enter a woman's brain once every couple of days but enter a man's brain about once every minute [yeah, that - one word, you sexist (censored): yaoi] ... A woman knows what people are feeling, while a man can't spot an emotion unless somebody cries or threatens bodily harm ... Men will develop a serious case of brain envy."
"With respect to the speech rate claim, I've just run a script on a corpus of 5,202 transcribed and time-aligned telephone conversations, involving native speakers of American English with a wide variety of ages, regions and backgrounds. The average speech rate for the males was 174.3 wpm, and the average speech rate for the females 172.6 wpm." Woops.
A transcript of the misandric author. Wow, she seems so erudite:
"We have a lot more sensitivity and emotional awareness than the typical male, and- and- and hugely better ability to read facial expressions, um and also tone of voice. At birth, baby girls are able to hear a lot more um um in a lot larger range uh in the human voice range of frequency in the human voice than boys are able to. So ((you)) remember that story that I told you about "Don't touch"? Sometimes a- a mother will be yelling at their boy or at least- sh- how many mothers in the room have had to like scream at your boys to stop doing something? He may not have heard you! I mean, real- he may not just be being bad, or whatever -- he may just not literally have heard you when your voice was a little bit quieter. So he may just *need* a louder voice. Um and there are more talking and listening circuits [W.T.F.] in the female brain."
Even using the sexist figures:
"If you pick a man and a women (or a boy and a girl) at random, the chances are about 6 in 10 that the girl's hearing will be more sensitive -- but about 4 in 10 that the boy's hearing will be more sensitive."
And oh, look, Brizendine is a radical feminist who believes the male brain is geared solely to "sex and aggression":
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/languagelog/archives/003541.html
"A huge testosterone surge beginning in the eighth week [of fetal development] will turn this unisex brain male by killing off some cells in the communication centers and growing more cells in the sex and aggression centers. If the testosterone surge doesn't happen, the female brain continues to grow unperturbed."
The above article does an excellent job of ripping Brizendine's arguments to bits without resorting to bias. Most notably, it seems she pads out her footnotes by completely misrepresenting, or even fabricating, sources. Incredibly, she misquotes the titles of the books she cites, confuses their author with that another book entirely (published 20 years later, even), and cites a paper which not only expressly contradicts her, but assumes the genders are equal for the purposes of statistical representation!
---
BUT THEY JUST LOOOVED THIS:
http://www.adforum.com/preview/subscriber/reel_detail2.asp?ID=45173&TDI=VDlw0uGj&PAGE=2&CA_ID=0
Scrap that. I couldn't tell if they were laughing because they thought it was "true" or were angry because it demeaned men rather than talking about how oppressed women are.
It's an advert for "Supercuts". Here's the misandrotastic transcript, by yours truly:
~
FEMALE RECEPTIONIST: "Hi, can I get your name?"
UNKEMPT MALE CUSTOMER: "Cheap Lazy Remote Control Hog".
FEMALE RECEPTIONIST: "Gotcha. Have a seat".
FEMALE HAIRDRESSER: "Never Asks For Directions?".
UNKEMPT MALE CUSTOMER #2 (raises his hand): "Ooh!".
FEMALE HAIRDRESSER: "Hey!".
V.O.: "Male stereotypes are hurtful. Unfair".
FEMALE HAIRDRESSER #2: "Sooo, Never Listens To Women, what'll it be today?"
V.O.: "And often true".
UNKEPT MALE CUSTOMER #3: "Whu...?".
V.O.: "That's why there's Supercuts".
FEMALE RECEPTIONIST (?): "Always Leaves The Seat Up?"
V.O.: "Because even if he's a..."
FEMALE HAIRDRESSER #3: "Non-Committal Momma's Boy?"
MALE CUSTOMER #4: "Yah".
V.O.: "A guy still deserves to look good".
FEMALE HAIRDRESSER #4: "Sex Obsessed Procrastinator?"
(Five men, including the only black man in the entire commercial, and one woman rise to their feet)
V.O.: "And so do women".
(The men, visibly embarrassed, allow the "lady" to go first).
Buzz of razor serves as a musical sting.
V.O.: "Supercuts. We know how it is".
Sound of scissors.
~
SOME EXCELLENT INTERNET COMMENTARY (FROM A RACIAL PERSPECTIVE): "As an American of Hispanic descent (I hate the term 'Hispanic-American'!), I've found that in our society there's a school of thought that says that since white people have passed segregational laws and acted in racist and bigoted ways in the past, it's perfectly ok and reasonable to turn the tables on them now. The clearest case I've seen so far are the commercials airing in California for SuperCuts, where white males are called to their haircuts with the cries of "non-committal mama's boy" or "lazy remote-control hog". Imagine if they said "lazy watermelon-eater" and a black man stood up, or "over-achieving bookworm who can't drive" and an asian man stood up. You can bet your bippy that those commercials would be pulled and the tapes buried in a landfill somewhere".
(Personally, I think the demeaning gender commentary is far more worrying, but as always, replacing the gendered context with a racial one would yield a terrifically offensive product. I also note that the only black man [one of only two non-white actors in the commercial] is placed in the "sex-obsessed procrastinator" group, hitting not one but two offensive racial stereotypes about black people).
Read the feminist feedback here: http://www.suburbanbliss.net/suburbanbliss/2006/12/maybe_i_should_.html . Note the absence of any form of disagreement with the ad.
---
Excelsior:
http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=1268
It looks like live-action dramatic television may soon be impossible. Why? Because "equal rights" legislation is being applied to prevent directors specifying an age, gender, or race for actors. If the lead character is a white male, and a black woman turns up to audition, the director could be prosecuted if he turns her down on the grounds of her gender or ethnicity, because an audition is an employment interview, and any kind of discrimination in hiring people is a no-no.
Delightfully, the mass media will no longer be able to portray women or non-white ethnic groups as victims. Why? Because even if they find some way to stop men and whites playing the victims, their oppressors will also be played by non-whites and women*.
* At least in theory - in practise, I'm sure they'll get away with bending the law because their cause is "worthy".
Guess which genre will be able to hold out the longest (at least until more legislation mandates diversity of characters)? Animation, baby. A director auditioning for voice actors can legitimately discriminate based on "talent" (i.e. can you "sound" like a young man, old woman, etc.) without actually requiring a certain gender or ethnicity.
(Editor's Note: The genre in which I propose to work and, God willing, direct).
---
No comment: "I agree with Catharine MacKinnon that the treatment of animals is a feminist issue".
Actually, I will comment, using a previous quote.
"Femi = FEMALE
Why on Earth should feminism - a movement devoted to issues that specifically affect women look into "male issues"? And why the fuck "should we start" to do so because some (male) anti-feminist says so?"
Feminism specifically keeps men off the platform, but lets in animals? Dear God.
---
Of course, when the mass media caves in and portrays men as vicious brutes, it's still oppressive to women:
"There are, of course, equivalent moral panics about boys and technology (boys taking cues from violent video games and planning attacks on classmates, for instance); these panics tend to paint boys as aggressors and victimizers rather than victims. The stories about boys focus on their power and the damage they can cause to society. The stories about girls focus on their weakness and the damage that society can cause to them."
---
"I. Does XYZ (where XYZ is "wearing lipstick" or "my job as lap-dancer-in-chief at the Bada Bing" or "eating bacon" or "pleasing my man with some humiliating sex move") make me a bad feminist?
The answer to the question is "no". Doing XYZ (i.e. femininity) does not make you a bad feminist. A bad feminist is someone who pulls wings off flies, promises to take the kid to Disneyland but gets drunk instead, gives LSD to the dog, bombs abortion clinics, steals from grandma to buy dope, forces men at gunpoint to put women's underwear on their heads, etc."
Wow, quite apart from the "humorous" playing-down of real radical feminist violence (apparently the worst men have to fear is being made to put women's underwear on their heads - tell that to Andy Warhol), note the equation of lap dancing and "humiliating sex moves" with "femininity". These people are their own worst enemies.
---
The long-term effects of "femininity":
http://www.sciencephotogallery.co.uk/gallery/detail.php?code=P116/472
Are there actually any men who find this terrible, foot-mutilating crap attractive (and I don't count eunuch/submissives who are turned on by the idea of having their genitals impaled by a high heel as men)? If I were even remotely close to considering marriage, anyone I was going to give my life to would have to wear sensible shoes. I've never understood foot-binding either. You like your women MUTILATED? You sick (censored)s. I seriously can't understand this.
---
THE WORKPLACE IS SO PATRIARCHAL AND OPPRESSIVE: "Also, there is the issue of navigating the delicate feminine tapestry of social control, which is so unbelievably painful - like pouring burning acid into one's eyes - that my brain screams, my heart loses its will to pump and the world recedes from me. I will never make another attempt in my life to get along in a workplace which is regulated by delicate feminine mores."
This, by the way, is a female, FEMINIST commentator (albeit one who rejects traditional feminity and is an amateur boxer, which is just fine with me).
---
http://wiki.mensactivism.org/index.php/Radical_Feminist_Quotes
Yay.
Read some rationalisations of the above here:
http://elsewhere.radgeek.com//2005/05/01/
(It's actually better to link to a feminist REFUTATION of your chosen quotes, because it makes you look fairer and more balanced. This set of rationalisations is pretty darn weak, making arguments like "Well, maybe she didn't agree with the main character in her ideological novel when she said all men were rapists" and "Shucks, no-one takes that loon seriously, even though her screed is praised by mainstream feminists and required reading on most Womens' Studies courses").
---
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/%7Emyl/languagelog/archives/003284.html
More 'misogynistic' studies, this time claiming that men are emotional children (no, that's literally the title). Oh, and female default pronouns? Check:
"In young children, these researchers found that negative emotional activity in response to unpleasant or disturbing visual images seems to be localized in phylogenetically primitive areas deep in the brain, specifically in the amygdala. (A phylogenetically primitive area of the brain is one that hasn't changed much in the course of evolution: it looks pretty much the same in humans as it does in mice.) That may be one reason why it doesn't make much sense to ask a seven-year-old to tell you why SHE is feeling sad or distressed" (emphasis mine).
---
Meanwhile, the latest oppression to hit womynkind:
http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=1043
Apparently, when a women dines with a man, the waiter will frequently give her a less concentrated (alcoholic) beverage, or expect the man to approve a wine. OH NOES! Surely, we must rally to the aid of these poor alcohol-deprived...
"In the new world we "males" have to develop an attitude of lowering ourselves to the Woman because She (absolutely sic.) is SUPERIOR than the man."
Oh no, wait. Let the Superior Being fix Herself.
---
In Japan, men now constitute a third of all battered spouses, and the figure is rising (consider that their society is even more absurdly strait-laced about masculinity, and it's not hard to see that 1/3 reported cases might actually translate into well over 50% in real terms). But the mass media is redefining abuse: if a man raises his voice, that's rape; if a woman breaks her husband's jaw, it is "discipline", and humorous.
http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/waiwai/news/20061229p2g00m0dm011000c.html
"Glass-jawed guys cower as the 'weaker sex' comes out swinging"
"Growing numbers of Japanese women are punching their spouses, lovers and male co-workers, according to Yomiuri Weekly (12/31).
Mitsuko, a woman in her late 30s, freely admits to being just such a case.
"I punch guys for the same reasons people 'discipline' their children. I've got expectations in love and I want them to improve. I never do it to relieve stress," she tells Yomiuri Weekly
Mitsuko says she'll give a guy three chances to mess up on something she's told him about -- and if he errs again, she'll take a swing at him.
Mitsuko's violent streak developed during her marriage to a no-good bum, who lazed at home playing games all day while she slaved away at an office job and moonlit as a hostess at nights. The husband also left Mitsuko to look after the kids and do the housework.
After a few months of this, Mitsuko cracked; and instead of dinner one night, she served her deadbeat spouse a knuckle sandwich."
Men who advocate hitting their wives as a form of discipline are JAILED. But this is portrayed as light-hearted and hilarious. And, of course, in every case she is justified. The husband isn't violent - in fact, his behaviour would be perfectly acceptable if he were a Western woman. But remember:
"It has become a sort of modern joke that men are needed only to provide sperm to begin a family. A friend of mine who lived in Japan for several years said the Japanese women have a less than affectionate term for their husbands, "cockroach", because they are always underfoot. They prefer that the men go to work and remain there as long as possible. The husband"s most significant contributions are sperm and finances. Beyond that, they just get in the way."
More Japanese misandry:
"Another hubby on the receiving end [would they use this language to describe a battered wife?] is Nobuo, a freelance writer, whose wife was in an accident that left her dependent on drugs whose side-effects have affected her mental capabilities. When Nobuo tried to stop her from jumping off an apartment building, she slugged him in the face.
"It was so hard going home, but I just couldn't dump my wife when she was going through such mental trauma," Nobuo says"
"Going home". In other words, this isn't a minor booboo, as the grammar of the commentary seems to imply. If a drugged-up man "slugged" his wife in the face when she tried to stop him committing suicide and sent her to hospital, he would be jailed.
"Nobuo is one of the increasing number of Japanese men who are owning up to getting knocked around by their wives."
"Knocked around". Yeah.
---
"Swedish Women To Overtake Stupid Men"
And just when you think things can't get any more blatant:
http://www.thelocal.se/5862/20061220/
"Swedish men are less intelligent, lonelier and fatter than their female counterparts, a new study claims. Boys have fallen way behind in school, and there are more women than men studying some traditionally male university subjects.
"In twenty years men's dominance will be broken and women will have more power in society. There will be more female CEO's and the wage gap will favour women," researcher Ingemar Gens told magazine Att:ention."
Of course, this is oppressive to women:
"Experts have also observed that smart women are struggling to find common ground with members of the opposite sex."
Blatant discrimination against men? Ignore it - the PATRIARCHY is still the enemy!
"The power of the patriarchy is so great that education and similar factors are not so important.
"Other things play a bigger role, such as short-cuts and networks for example," said Malena Rydell, managing editor of feminist magazine Bang."
No, men have all the networks and shortcuts, says the editor of a widely distributed feminist magazine.
Anyway, the inference is that inferior males will now rule over superior females. Wait a minute - an admitted minority depicted in the mass media as intrensically inferior and subhuman, yet allegedly still holding the reins of power by means of conspiracy? Erm, yeah. Heil Solanas?
---
Note the use of language, which makes female superiority seem more concrete and male virtues seem apocryphal:
"MORE WOMEN -- 46 percent -- than men -- 41 percent -- PLAN to turn over a new leaf in 2007 ... THE SURVEY FOUND 71 percent of men and 57 percent of women SAID they stuck to their resolutions of last year" (emphasis mine).
---
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20975555-1242,00.html
"A recent study shows". And it just keeps getting more blatant:
"A COMMON parasite can increase a women's attractiveness to the opposite sex but also make men more stupid, an Australian researcher says."
"Infected men have lower IQs, achieve a lower level of education and have shorter attention spans. They are also more likely to break rules and take risks, be more independent, more anti-social, suspicious, jealous and morose, and are deemed less attractive to women."
"On the other hand, infected women tend to be more outgoing, friendly, more promiscuous, and are considered more attractive to men compared with non-infected controls."
"In short, it can make men behave like alley cats and women behave like sex kittens."
Is this anywhere near true? Erm, no, the researcher is extrapolating FROM THE EFFECTS ON MICE:
"How to put a misandric spin and gain a place in the citation index. A Sydney (Oz) female 'researcher' takes 'research' on mice from the Czechs and applies it to 8 million Australian humans. The women 'infected', according to the woman reporter, are sugar and spice sex-kittens and the men are slugs and snails thicko alley cats. Just what are the sex kittens doing in the back alley? Being Salvation Army worker cats?
And is Britney infected too, poor little sex kitten?"
UPDATE: Feminists are, naturally, complaining it's misogynistic. Shame their analysis is misandric. Proof:
"Um, this study sounds suspiciously like something out of the 1967 version of Casino Royale. The Woody Allen character creates a bomb that will make all women beautiful and kill all men over 4 foot 6."
What. The. Bleep. Yup, that's some misogyny right there. That's totally misogynistic.
AND the report is a load of crap in the first place:
"The evidence for behavioral effects on humans, although intriguing, is relatively weak. There have been no randomized clinical trials studying the effects of toxoplasma on human behavior. Although some researchers have found potentially important associations with toxoplasma, it is possible that these associations merely reflect factors that predispose certain types of people to infection (e.g., people who exhibit risk-taking behaviors may be more likely to take the risk of eating undercooked meat)."
---
Feminists taking castration into their own (literal) hands? TOTALLY FICTIONAL:
http://rdu.news14.com/content/headlines/?ArID=97276&SecID=2
"LILLINGTON, N.C. -- A woman was charged with malicious castration for allegedly attacking a man during a Christmas party, police said."
"Dawson, who was released from jail Wednesday on $50,000 bond, also was charged with assault causing serious bodily injury, malicious conduct by a prisoner, and damage to government property for damaging a police cruiser. She also allegedly spit (sic.) on an officer, Stevens said."
Astonishingly, the media cannot even muster up the slightest suggestion she was attacked first, which to me immediately suggests she was the instigator (no, it's not fair, but the way our media is currently slanted it's the only REASONABLE course of action). And oh, look:
"Famed lawyer... Mike Nifong*, is rushing to this small town to defend the woman, an unknown spokesperson said.
He will subpoena Mr Badger as a witness for the prosecution (and treat as hostile) for the (sic.) remarks made on a blog which have totally and utterly poisoned the woman's ability to get a fair hearing(astonishingly sic.) , and show that she was 'acting soley (sic.) to defend herself from just this sort of misogyny.'
The woman herself has been advised not to say anything after her court outburst when she declared "all men's cocks should be ripped off by empowered women". [woops] The Judge declared that her testimony cannot be admitted as she was under duress at the time she said it. [yeah, right] ."
* Somewhat infamous for a previous case where he pressed rape charges without actually possessing any evidence, and in which he deliberately withheld evidence from the defence:
"On December 22, 2006, Nifong dropped rape charges against the three Duke University lacrosse players after the stripper who accused them changed her story ... a few days after it was revealed in court that Nifong had withheld evidence from the defense concerning the DNA tests performed."
---
Women possess majority control over the Canadian economy:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20061205.wstwomen1205/BNStory/SpecialEvents2/
Some of the excellent commentary on this eye-popping article:
"S W from Canada writes: Re: Yesterday's article about rising consumer debt... Are these savvy smarties the same women that have maxed out credit cards and are in houses with HUGE mortgages with deceptiviely affluent/solvent creature comfort lifestyles? IF women are making most or half the decisions, then they are the ones making the irrresponsible decisions and purchases of yesteday's article. IF women are 'in control' of the family finances today, by yesterday's article, they are the reason for the 'out of control' rising debt in yesterday's article. So much for the 'women are good with money...' At least no better then men. Looks to me as if men don't like shopping, doing or, going... because.... they can't afford to after the Missus cleaned out Home Depot. LOL!!! And I don't see many marriages where the women's job is truly considered equal. His job is more important and protected first at times of crisis or when child rearing problems require missing work."
"al wonders from Canada writes: Yes of course women are a powerful lot of consumers. Go to any mall and count the clothing and shoe stores dedicated to women as compared to men, it borders on discrimination. Look in any womans closet and count the shoes and coats and purses and clothing items. Hardware stores are waking up and becoming much more diversified in recognition of this. If I go to get a box of screws I get a box of screws. If I take my wife with me I am probably not going to get out of there without some kind of 'whim' purchase be it a large mirror, and new coloured toaster oven, or, heaven forbid, another shoe rack.
"Winston Churchill from London, Canada writes: Tell me something I didn't know! A walk through any mall, or a comparison of floorspace devoted to men's vs women's clothes, or men's vs women's shoes tells the whole story. Nor is this new: who's grandfather didn't give his pay cheque to his wife? Remember that next time the national action council trots out the figures about earning differences between men and women. There's a name for somebody who makes more most of the money, for somebody else to spend. 'Oppressor' wouldn't commonly be identified as that name."
...and the flipside:
"R. Carriere from Canada writes: Thank God! Common guys, you know your woman is much more organized and smarter than you ( I do, and just scored major points...if you know what I mean!)..."
"Mike Charters from Calgary, Canada writes: She is the superior being, why shouldn't she be in control..."
--Sigh--
---
Gender differences: Now they're admitted, most are defined as being in favour of women.
http://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/brainsx.html
"...results also show that men tend to be literally blinkered..."
"This superority [of women] in so many of the senses can be clinically measured - yet it is what accounts for women's almost supernatural "intuition". Women are simply better equipped to notice things to which men are completely blind and deaf. There is no witchcraft in this superior perception - it is extra-sensory only in terms of the blunter, male senses. Women are better at picking up social cues, picking up important nuances of meaning from tones of voice or intensity of expression. Men sometimes become exasperated at a woman's reaction to what they say. They do not realise that women are probably "hearing" much more than what the man himself thinks he is "saying". Women tend to be better judges of character."
Just kill yourself now. They couldn't even spell "superiority" right.
The inane, "default female" lie? Check:
"...naturally female brain structure..."
Oh, and not only do women hear better than men, blacks hear better than whites. In fact, the darker your skin, the more acute your senses:
http://www.drkoop.com/newsdetail/93/533357.html
How inutterably curious, it just happens to support a trendy political philosophy!
A nice bit of Internet commentary:
"I sent this in because I was struck by the matter-of-fact way this was reported in my local paper. A report of a study finding that blacks are superior, genetically, to whites in hearing ability is ho-hum, plain old news just print it.
If these same researchers found that blacks, genetically, are less proficient than whites in some way, say in brain power, I think the papers would not publish the racist tract."
And the inconsistencies keep piling up. This commentator points out that the racist and sexist claims by these researchers actually contradict each other:
"Interesting, but questionable. If it's melanin-based, men should hear better than women, as men have more melanin. Perhaps men have developed hearing loss from all the female chatter? (grin)"
And a defender of the "research":
"...Blacks are actually naturally superior to their white genetic counterparts in every way. Knowing this, their white genetic mutations (sic.) , who lack an inate (sic.) moral compass (possibly as a matter of evolutionary necessity), had to develop political and social mechanisms to suppress the development of these natural abilities, thus creating an artificial advantage. Whenever these white (melanin-deficient) humans failed this (sic.) approach, they were rendered horribly outmatched. Evolution had produced it's (sic.) most perfect specimen of a human in Africa, mutations and deviations were either consumed, their genetic distinctiveness contributing to the world's most robust genome, or expelled and forced to develop (melanin) deficient replicas elsewhere."
Hmm. I've seen that argument before, in the mouths of both Nazis and feminists. Sandbagging through history? Check. Inferior, immoral race still somehow gets into power by cheating, should be torn down and herded into the gas chambers, etc? Check. I repeat myself for the hard of hearing (no pun intended), tweaking a few words:
~
"The inference is that inferior whites somehow rule over superior blacks. Wait a minute - an admitted minority depicted in the mass media as intrensically inferior and subhuman, yet allegedly still holding the reins of power by means of conspiracy? Erm, yeah. Heil Farrakhan."
~
---
This, by the way, is supposed to be male advocacy:
"Even though there are more male than female embryos, there are more miscarriages of male fetuses. Males are three to four times more likely than girls to have developmental disorders like autism and dyslexia; girls learn language earlier, develop richer vocabularies and even hear better than boys. Girls demonstrate insight and judgment earlier in adolescence than boys, who are more impulsive and take more risks than their sisters. Teenage boys are more likely to commit suicide than girls and are more likely to die violent deaths before adulthood. Men die earlier than women. Twice as many men as women die of coronary artery disease Of the 10 most common infections, men are more likely to have serious encounters with seven of them."
Great. With "mens' rights advocates" like these, who needs feminists?
---
RL ENCOUNTER (SORT OF): I had a lecture on that liberal sacred bovine, "performance poetry". The examples we were given were terrifying and exhilarating at the same time, because I was able to perceive what they were really saying whilst everyone else was clueless. Here's a rundown of the insanity:
Performance poetry is "not contained" by any actual definition (i.e., words don't have meanings).
Performance poetry is "not introverted" (i.e. if you don't have 'friends' you have 'schizotype disorder').
Beowulf was "Anglo-Saxon performance poetry" (not true, and at least Beowulf alliterated).
Performance poetry is never written down so as not to be "confined by the written word" (i.e. Word vs. Goddess).
Performance poetry is "political" - tackling "gender" and "minority ethnic" issues (i.e. newspeak).
"Traditional" poets are evil for observing "it's all just noise, there's no form" (i.e. god of confusion).
Excerpts from a female irish poet - her "poem" supposedly had a "song-like quality". Actually, it WAS a song. I could have added a bassline and guitar without disturbing the rhythm or tune in any way.
"I'm coming to fight the sun-god ... I've swallowed him up" (i.e. void vs light, female vs male).
"We'll burn the waste on my father's face" (ah, lovely).
"Take what you made and divide what you need" (a restatement of Marx's most famous principle).
Next, a "poem about an abortion. It's very long". By female poet Ally Wade (?).
"This isn't about life. It's about rights" (yeah, the right to kill)
"misogynist landlords" (next to this I've written PATRIARCHY ALERT!!!!)
"a state that requires the production of sons" (viewed as evil)
"I wish to prevent her [Wade's aborted fetus] from growing up in this ... world without rights [for women] " (yep...)
After a few reasonable poems by a duo of black men, we got to Tim Gibbard, a self-hating man who produced the poem "The Gun". I have not transcribed any quotes from this piece. It is enough to know that he equates possession of a penis with gun ownership and murder, and claims a tube of vascular tissue usually well under a foot in length is more lethal than a device which ejects pellets of lead faster than the speed of sound. He proceeds to argue all sex is rape, because the man is "armed with a penis" , which is the same as raping her at gunpoint (which only "works" as long as you don't think about it too hard, because the metaphor is completely mangled).
After another two male poets, the lecturer proclaimed she couldn't find enough decent women performance poets, speculating that this is because "men don't mind making twats of themselves" (because that's not a demeaning, gendered insult, oh no). According, she delivered her own poem. It was actually pretty good, because she didn't sing it or rap it, and it actually sounded like a free verse poem. But what it SAID was just ... as I said, terrifying and exhilarating.
In each "verse" she repeated the same pattern:
"And this is a new year!
But I wrote this in winter,
And the sky was [insert new description here] ...
So here's to the..."
And in each case it was a description of a supernatural lover. The framework, for me, was set by the off-hand line about "friends come knock-knock-knocking, but no room" (I shouldn't have to explain that). So:
Verse 1: "So here's to the Prince of Darkness". She describes a black-clothed male lover with immaculately manicured hands carressing her and tempting her to commit suicide.
Verse 2: "So here's to the angel of light".* She describes a radiant presence who comforts her and tells her she is a divine being. By this point I realised in each verse the lover is Satan, and waited for verse 3 with baited breath.
When I heard "And the sky was black", I thought for sure the line would be "so here's to the god of the world". But it wasn't. It was:
"So here's to Mother Earth". Dear God. Doesn't she realise what she's done? Or maybe she does and thinks it is too vague for most people.
* I believe the actual line was "angel of lights", which COULD refer to "father of lights", but as soon as I see that in the context I think "father of lies", so the whole thing twists back on itself.
I went home in high spirits for some reason. All I could think was "you stupid, stupid people. This isn't like Charles Manson finding predictions of a coming race war in Beatles songs - normal people can look at the quotes I've got and think 'hey, this is actually saying what this loony thought it said'".
---
Excuses excuses: "Even if men are/would be objectified and/or abused in comics, that isn't the same as women being objectified/abused, because of the unequal power relations between the genders. It's the same reason why, for example, discrimination and racial jokes towards the whites isn't the same as towards the blacks".
Ah, equality. And the consequences on society:
"I also went to the Vertigo panel, the highlight of which for me was Bob Shreck's exasperated "Yes, we'll think about reprinting 'Kill Your Boyfriend'..." when a fan asked. Apparently he gets asked that a lot. But I know I loved it when it first came out and I'd love for younger readers to have the opportunity to read it without having to go to great lengths to track it down."
God forbid. I wonder whether they would reprint ANYTHING with the title "Kill Your Girlfriend".
---
"There are certain differences that separate the men from the ladies ...
- Less muscle definition (This is not to say females can't be as strong as males. I'm not sexist, don't worry =) )"
The good old aesthete lie kicking in, I see. For those not up to speed, arguing that women can have less muscle mass or definition than men but equal or superior strength automatically assumes the female body is of superior construction (having denser or higher quality muscle fibres). Of course, in reality, strength is directly proportional to bulk - muscle fibres are muscle fibres, and more = stronger. A woman of equal strength to a man will have an equally muscular physique (I refuse to speculate on the ratios of men and women reaching a given level of muscle mass and the possible reasons for this).
It is vital that second-wave feminism propagate the aesthete lie, because it allows them to continue to portray females in fiction as willowy "goddesses" whilst giving them strength and power superior to men (thus assigning to them a superiority in beauty AND power). A suitable counter to this position is including more slender males with superstrength in fiction (this would also be more realistic than the muscle-bound brutes depicted in mainstream fiction, as someone who can move planets would be entirely unable to develop their musculature due to the impossibility of any challenging and sustainable workout).
It's the same with the "spin" feminists put on the brain cell findings. Upon discovering men have, on average 6 million more brain cells (which is a piddling amount compared to the difference between races*, which all reasonable people agree should not be used to promote discrimination), they quickly set to work on "damage control". Now, if I were a feminist I would question the methodology used (they examined cadavers - maybe the females were older when they died and hence had less brain cells left, or perhaps the male corpses were fresher, since brain cells do decay quite rapidly after death), or point out that men have bigger bodies and so need bigger brains to control it (in fact, calculating brain cells/kg of body yields a higher figure for women, although I'm fairly sure it evens out because the increase in required grey matter isn't directly proportional). Instead, they chose to argue that female grey matter was superior in quality - combined with the higher brain cells/kg figure and the fact that women on average have more white matter, that is blatant female supremacism.
* On average Asians were found to have 102 million more brain cells than whites - this was still considered somewhat dubious due to the large margin of error (the average person has about 20 BILLION brain cells - the difference between these two races is only 0.51%, with the margin of error being +- 0.5%).
---
Note the gleeful tone of this article:
"Sexual Suicide
"Self-Destructive" Behavior in Males Of Some Animals
This issue of WAYNE'S WORD is dedicated to all those brave males who literally gave their lives to the female of their species during (or shortly after) copulation (i.e. sexual intercourse). From an evolutionary perspective, the old adage, "It is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all," should now say "It is better to have loved and died than never to have loved at all.""
Hmmm ... "sexual suicide" ... "self-destructive" ... "gave their lives to the female of the species". One of these things is not like the other. These males are KILLED by their mates during coitus, they do not commit suicide! But we can't have even female animals associated with the slightest hint of violence, can we? "Sexual intercourse is the ultimate bond between a male and a female, but for some hapless males it is also their demise". Note it is the "hapless male" not the murderous female, who is to blame.
"...the abrupt and untimely termination of the male's life ... These males have little or no social interaction with females, and are merely sperm providers, or in molecular terms, "DNA donors.""
Wow, just like in Japan. This also puts the lie to the claim that males are genetic parasites - it is the female who takes the male's DNA, essentially raping him.
And in nature:
"B. Male Gender Inequity and Exploitation.
Males with greatly reduced body size and anatomy, and with limited life experiences compared with the female--often dying within hours after intercourse or persisting as a tiny blood-sucking parasite attached to the female's body. [I.e. their sole purpose in life is to service or inseminate their mate.]"
I'm sorry, nature oppresses WHO now?
And the unbelievable (hopefully parodic) "disclaimer":
"Disclaimer: The subject of this article is complex and controversial. Although it includes anthropomorphic metaphors and double-entendre sexual innuendos, it is based on scientific "peer-reviewed" studies. It is not meant to discourage any male from pursuing a meaningful relationship with a female of his species."
WHAT THE -BLEEP-? Even as a parody, this REEKS.
The whole thing is festooned with comedic stings:
"This selfless, non-traditional sexual role of the male redback spider [this 'non-traditional sexual role', by the way, is being EATEN ALIVE during intercourse!] gives new meaning to the phrase "A Love To Die For.""
In the praying mantis:
"Occasionally the female is not receptive to the male's advances, and quickly turns on him--biting off his head. Curiously enough, a reflex mechanism in the male allows him to complete the mating process without his head. (Mindless mating without using one's "thinking head" is also a common phenomenon in many human males)"
(CENSORED) OFF AND DIE, YOU FILTHY MURDERERS.
Accusations of parasitism? Check:
"A female deep-sea angler fish (Linophryne macrodon) with a stalked, luminous bait (above her huge jaws) and a strange barbell appendage on her under jaw. She also carries a minute, blood-sucking, parasitic male attached to her lower side..."
Who developed all these studies? Oh look:
"Richard Dawkin's Model Of Vicarious Selection"
Woops.
---
"Rising tide" propaganda at its worst:
"Illegal toys - no fun for you
A federal appeals court has upheld the dismissal of a lawsuit filed by a Rankin County [Mississippi] adult store, which challenged the constitutionality of a Mississippi law that bans the sale of sex toys.
Abortion, birth control - and now, toys [note that the blogger doesn't even qualify this with "sex" - by associating blow-up-dolls with children's playthings she hopes to lend them an atmosphere of innocence] . Pretty soon, certain positions will be illegal.
Via Mediagirl."
...except this news article is about a federal appeals court narrowly voting in favour of KEEPING an old law against sex toys as adult stores batter at legislation which regulates sexual morality.
Since all state-level anti-abortion laws (dating back to the 19th century) have recently been ruled unconstitutional (since they contradict Roe v. Wade), and it was an existing law forbidding birth control pills that was allowed to remain, this is an eye-popping example of a feminist blogger stunningly re-spinning an assault on morality as a "rising tide" of intolerance.
---
A quick look at how homosexual relationships are normalised:
"A book about two male penguins that raised a baby penguin has been moved from the children's section to the nonfiction section of two public library branches after parents complained about homosexual undertones...
Barbara Read, Rolling Hills' director, said she consulted with staff at the Omaha, Neb., and Kansas City zoos and the zoology department of the University of Oklahoma before moving the book. She said the experts all said adoptions aren't unusual in the world of penguins.
Let's not read a book to our children about two compassionate cartoon characters who care for an egg, pre- and post-hatching. Let's take a children's book with cute drawings and a moral of caring for others, and turn it into a political opportunity. What other purpose could kids' books possibly serve?"
Yeah, it's really the parents who complain about the homosexual message who are trying to make the book into a "political opportunity" rather than the author who chose to expose children to that message in the first place.
"But homosex is perfectly acceptable for penguins!". Oh look, it's actually a true story about homosexual humans adopting a child retold using penguins, who were selected to represent the people involved for exactly that reason:
http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat/litterbox/missouris_children_safe_from_gay_penguins_33381.asp
"...co-author Justin Richardson has freely admitted it's based on a true story: "No one will be able to say this isn't true. And the truth of the story will melt many hearts. It's tough to look at this adorable family and think it would be wrong to tell a child about them."
Even this article manages to finish with a venomous barb:
"Now the book's been refiled there's less chance the subject matter will "blindside" parents who don't want heart-melting reality to intrude into the stories they tell their kids."
Look at that. Can you seriously tell me that isn't an evil sentence? Vey ist vey.
---
More fantastic feminist bullshit:
"So many young women now, even if they have a pro-life or pro-choice opinion, are indifferent to the abortion debate. None of them know what a society with illegal abortion is life to live in. Schools and culture tell them about the life of the fetus, the procedure, and the immorality of abortion. They've seen pictures of fetuses - they've never seen the pictures of women who died on their bathroom floors next to a bloody hanger. They've never heard of Margaret Sanger. They don't know desperation.
Young men aren't much better. They don't care about birth control or abortion - that's a woman's problem. And never, ever say the word feminist. You'd get a better reaction if you said Satanist. They figure at least a Satanist will still shave her legs. But these same young men hate wearing condoms, either for one night or in long-term relationships or marriages. Young men may not want to become parents, like some young women, because of the responsibility or price. And just as abortion is no picnic for the girl, guys struggle with it too if it's someone they care about."
"Schools and culture tell them about ... the immorality of abortion ... they've seen pictures of fetuses." What a load of rubbish.
"They've never heard of Margaret Sanger." No. If they had they would, at the very least, become radically anti-Planned Parenthood, if not anti-abortion. Sanger was a eugenicist, promoted euthanasia, and was eye-bleedingly racist, even for her time. She openly and plainly stated that birth control was a valid method of exterminating the "inferior races".
---
Straight from the feminist's mouth - the most important thing in life is SEX:
""This is also from the mouth of a Utah legislator: "We're told we can't teach abstinence in our schools. We're told to keep our religion out of our schools. I'm not sure we shouldn't stand on our morals and yell them from the mountaintops."
What about at home? Or can you not be bothered to personally teach your children about the most important thing in their lives?"
OMG.
---
One sentence. This is in the context of how "natural" teenage sex and promiscuity is:
"Yes, we all know it seems easier for boys - of course they want it ... from the time he is 12 or 13".
Oh yes, I'm sure the tiny 12-year-old who is kept back after class and raped by his 30-something teacher is just BEGGING for it. Go to hell you sick perverts.
---
How to teach your children about sex - the liberal way. This feminist blogger recommends the tried-and-tested method of LYING:
"You can teach her that it [the morning-after pill] prevents her from ovulating, not that it will kill her eggs and babies."
She also infers that the recent sonograms of babies in the womb (fully-formed, blatantly human) are all fakes. Yes, the ones in the national newspapers. I suppose there's some kind of massive medical conspiracy to fabricate these images:
"Yeah, I have a question - where do these fetus pictures come from? I mean all of them, the good and the bad. Are there parents out there just handing out copies of their sonogram pictures?"
---
Strangely enough, feminists are just racing ahead to define "female chauvinist pig". Why? Because they want to get to it before the mass media. Disregarding the fact that "Chauvin"ism (after super-patriot Chauvin) means irrational devotion to one's OWN "in-group":
"Levy gives these women a name: "female chauvinist pigs", which she defines as "women who make sex objects of other women and of ourselves."
No, a "female chauvinist pig (sow?)" is a female supremacist. Can you see why I consider this to be malicious? They have just defined "chauvinist" as "male".
---
Oh, and comics are fair game for misandrist fantasies:
"Verdant wrote:
Assuming any swimmers make it to an egg. I bet [X-23's] immune system would attack them with extreme prejudice.
Actually, as she's pretty much a clone of Wolverine, her immune system would recognise the 'X' gametes as 'self' (cos the genetic material would be the same as hers...) and maybe the 'Y' gametes as (sic.) ripe for destruction.
So, that would be one way to populate Marvel with badass girls..."
Except that is even MORE blatantly wrong than the previous fan-blather in the thread (namely, that X-23 couldn't get pregnant because her healing factor would, get this, 'correctly' perceive any fetus as a parasite and auto-abort it). Don't they know that the X and Y chromosomes are both in every nucleii? Dear God, what are they teaching them in Biology? Oh, yes, I remember. Sex ed.
---
Something from the other side. In a creationist article:
"Anthropoligists, Things That Make Evolutionists Look Stupid."
"Apalling Fonetikal Spelings, Things That Maek Creeyayshunists Look Stoopid."
---
SO, SO, SUBTLE: You almost miss it. 2005 - Doctor Who ("Dalek"). A Dalek has broken out of a museum of alien artefacts owned by a wealthy collector. It murders the security guards said collector sends to stop it. Now the Doctor is forced to seal his companion in the vault with the Dalek. He believes it has killed her. He rails at the collector for not killing the creature when he was warned about it. The collector retorts it was the prize in his collection. Then the Doctor says this, and it sent shivers up my spine:
"Your collection?! Well, was it worth it? Were all those mens' deaths worth Rose?"
W.T.F.
The original line, apparently, is "Worth all those mens' deaths? Worth Rose?", but that isn't how Ecclestone speaks it, not by a long shot. In fact, when I first heard it I was sure the line was "WITH all those mens' deaths WITH Rose", which is grammatically awful but sounds more likely. But there is no doubt in my mind that either the scriptwriter or Ecclestone decided it should be "Were all those mens' deaths worth Rose?", which unfavourably compares the worth of dozens of male lives (note the female guard who died trying to delay the creature is not mentioned at all) to one 19-year old girl.
It might have been a mistake, a slip of the tongue which went uncorrected, a run-on sentence by Ecclestone. But I doubt it.
---
When one internet commentator asks despairing why boys seem more beautiful than girls, one response says it all, really:
"Either your being silly and joking or your a homo who despises women!!!! :P"
More crap:
"when did : frogs and snails, and puppy dog tails... look better than : sugar and spice and everything nice?"
"...girls are the best of creation, when it comes to beauties compared to nature, bird or flowers, or anything, nothing is more beautiful than girls."
Permit me to throw up.
---
And heaven help you if you are a male and try to support those "female feminists" by attacking "idealised, objectified images of women" in the media. No matter what you say, they'll twist things to make you look bad:
"Wow, that's some serious fear and loathing of women going on. And the usual obliviousness to reality as women live it. I confess that I gave up half-way down the page.
It never ceases to amaze me how many guys believe porn is about sex, and say that pornified images represent an "ideal" form of femaleness. Porn isn't about sex, it's about asserting male dominance over women and expecting that they will enjoy performing submissive and/or painful sexual acts that don't bring them pleasure. To assert that the cheesecakey, pornified imagery of female superheroes is just an example of "men liking sex" is breathtakingly naive.
The fanboys who claim that pornified images of women in comics represent an "(unrealistic) idealized form" and are somehow related to the unrealistic "idealized" form of male superheroes aren't entirely off the mark. The two are very closely related. The problem is they've neglected to question whose idealized forms these are: not women's, not even all straight men's. It's merely the patriarchal ideal. You will always find dehumanized images of women alongside violently powerful, controlling men in the patriarchal script. Women and men are hardly equal in such a scenario. There is a clear class system in place and it is women who are placed in the sexual object class.
To hear some fanboys tell it, male superheroes who look like they've swallowed a fridge and developed an allergic reaction to their spandex that makes them break out in rippling muscles is their idealized form of the male body. Interesting. It's telling that these same guys will deride women for liking "pretty boys" who don't resemble their beloved WWF fantasy man. The unspoken assumption being that the patriarchal ideal is "the" mainstream ideal, and damn those women who think otherwise.
Even showing men's "bulges", which are generally pretty discreet, isn't the same as emphasizing women's sexualized parts, thanks to cultural context. Male nudity is portrayed in our culture as powerful, frightening, OR A SOURCE OF HUMOUR [emphasis mine]. Female nudity, on the other hand, denotes vulnerability, to the infamous male gaze and/or violence. Namor's bare chest symbolizes powerful masculinity. It does not mark him as vulnerable the way that Huntress' bare belly does. Superhero's bodies may be unrealistic, but they exist with a cultural script that treats women's and men's bodies very unequally.
The claim that pornified superheroines are "idealized women" is both insulting and misinformed. And yeah, privileged."
Moving ... goalposts ... argh ...
---
Even in jest:
"I for one accept the yoke of our new Gynolords and will cringingly and with complete emasculation go about working towards a woman-ruled world."
---
Taken from http://www.mcmanweb.com/article-227.htm . Highlights (rendered here in asterixes) mine. The genocide (gendercide?) is coming:
"Is There a Male PMS?
**What do you call a man who is always tired, miserable, and irritable? Normal.**
"Ask a guy an innocent question and he jumps down your throat," writes therapist Jed Diamond. **"God, it's like he's so hormonal,"** one woman [woops, anecdotal evidence] told him. When he replied she wasn't too far from the truth, she snapped [woops] back, "I knew it."
Could it be that we had it wrong all this time, that men are the ones who experience PMS? A lot of wives and girlfriends would answer in the affirmative, decidedly so. Jed Diamond even has a term for it, "the irritable male syndrome," the title of his latest book. The term is somewhat misleading, as the author here describes a range of **destructive** behaviors identified with men [by whom?], from feeling a bit grouchy and uncommunicative to flying off the handle, from being inwardly fearful to outwardly belligerent. "Destructive male syndrome," or DMS, may be more appropriate.
Unfortunately for men, DMS is not restricted to a particular time of month or period of major life transition. The idea of male menopause (andropause) - or grumpy old men syndrome - has been steadily gaining ground in recent years, and Jed Diamond covered the issue in a previous book. But DMS is a lot more than declining testosterone in middle and old age. It's also about surging hormones in adolescence and young adulthood and even just right levels when life is supposed to be good.
**Dangerous at any age, every day of the month - that about sums it up**. Yes, raging estrogen may temporarily turn our wives and girlfriends into Public Enemy Number One or Saddam Hussein, but women **aren't the ones sitting on death row or awaiting trial for crimes against humanity**. Men are the true prisoners of their sex.
Add to testosterone five million years of **evolutionary** programming and the **brutal** rites of passage by which boys become men, not to mention the pressures of modern living, and one can see why "irritable" doesn't begin to describe men in crisis. Men are in a constant state of siege, contends Jed Diamond, caught in the deadly pincers of high-stakes (and **typically male) social warfare** on one front and changing (and often feminizing) social norms on the other. Bullied and **confused**, they find themselves increasingly failing in their ability to hold onto their jobs and families. Loss of sense of manhood and self-respect follow like Martian night after Venusian day.
Bring on DMS. Sometimes, it's simply comical, as when **men become lamentably and ludicrously immobilized when faced with the trivial task of asking for directions** [not me]. Other times it's far more serious and even deadly. Much of this behavior is in the form of "acting out," but the author also emphasizes "acting in" behavior, including depression [yes, when men get depressed now it's their fault] .
It would help if men learned Venusian, but equally important, women need to figure out Martian. A suitable subtitle to this book would have been: "Everything You Need to Know About Why Your Husband or Loved One or Colleague Acts So Strange." Make no mistake: this book is a cry for help aimed at women. Those from Venus who are able to glean a glimmer of insight into our fragile and battered Martian psyches will be doing both sexes a great favor."
Wow. Note that every outside factor is also blamed rather tenuously on the male sex.
---
Refuse to subject yourself to the marriage system? Can't find a job because of affirmative action? You're a "threat to society":
http://www.nomarriage.com/articleaustralia1.html
"Increasing numbers of men in their prime have neither full-time jobs, wives nor children and pose a threat to society, a senior labour market economist says."
But look:
"Women were not stepping in to take on the breadwinning work vacated by men."
How nice of them.
---
Of course, men are the more unfaithful sex, right? Wrong:
http://www.nomarriage.com/paternity_test.shtml
"Random DNA checks prove that 20% of men who think they are father (sic.) are not."
Let's see them spin their way out of this. What's that? They're already trying to?
"...a woman wants to bind a man into a monogamous relationship so he provides food and resources for her and her children, while she aximizes the genetic diversity of her children by having them with several different men."
Oh, I see, it's completely alright because they're born that way. But men are evil and should be exterminated because of the way they are born. Flawless logic. I love how evolutionary theory is now basically being used as a tag that excuses anything to which it is attached.
---
Damned if you do...
"Marketing "conventional wisdom" always bug the heck out of me, because it seems like it's used so many times to justify stupid decisions that really don't make much sense (like in viciouswishes' example above) with a shrug and a "that the way it is" Or even stranger yet, when something comes along that challenges the the CW there's this weird justification dance that gets performed in order to make the counter-example fit into the CW. The Matrix brought in a lot of women to the theaters when it came out. Could it have been the cool special effects, neat action scenes, and a kickass female main character? No, clearly it must have been because all those women were dragged to go see it by their boyfriends! Don't you know that women only want to see chick flicks?
..."
Again:
"Moving ... goalposts ... argh ...".
---
BASTARDS:
"WHY THE FUTURE IS FEMALE:
"Is business changing and finally embedding some female values rather than just the male pre-occupations of short-term results and the bottom line? Will these changes give women the opportunity to finally break through the "glass-ceiling" from which they have suffered for too long in their professional ambitions?
First, let us consider the case of men in business. Generally relieved of their childrearing and child-care responsibilities as the traditional hunter-gatherer, they have been able to develop other 'interests'. Of course, there will be exceptions to any generalisations but it is safe to say that men are ego power players. They are much better at playing politics, quicker to show their aggression and aspire to something called gravitas, which is the domain of alpha-maledom - the den of the unapproachable male who requires total and unquestioning obedience and loyalty. Does anyone still sign-up for that?
This nostalgia for simpler times means that men have developed traits that can make them insensitive to others in business and make their focus too narrow, too preoccupied with a single task. However, it is true that some men have greater physical strength than women, but like that over-used word 'passion' this should have only a limited use in the work-place. Clearly men have developed a style that is exclusive and this is shown in their values. They require control, this is largely an illusion based on the need for predictability. But business today is not about absolute control, nor will things always be predictable. In short, men do not seem to be able to handle ambiguity particularly well.
Are women any better? Well, to begin with they know how to handle men. Mostly. This means that they can get away with more - like asking questions that no-one else will, but really wanted to. They are also easier to work with because generally they do not have big egos. Women are empathetic; strive for social harmony and their nature as carers mean they operate at a human and socially-inclusive level. Needless to say, they are the original multitaskers and still may be working at the end of the day when the male [note: "women" vs "the male"] is having difficulty doing more than breathing and chewing [charming - never mind that stamina has nothing to do with multi-tasking] .
In particular, women are better communicators. But, they should be because they have more practice. They have a flair for it, which makes them open, honest and complete with information and how they feel about things. Men are more likely to go the route of 'what is it that they would like to hear' (sic.) regardless of how they feel about things.
Women's values are becoming more mainstream as well. They have a more developed sense of ethical behaviour than most; [MOST WHATS?! IN OTHER WORDS, "MORE DEVELOPED THAN MEN", WITHOUT EXCEPTION] are more astute at using emotional intelligence; strive for meaning and purpose in business as well as seek to develop and preserve social relationships. All of which most men are still learning. These are the first indicators of the feminisation of business and some may say long may it continue.
This all seems very encouraging if you are female, so why haven't women had more success. (sic.) Two reasons spring to mind: the first is inadequate and unreliable child care facilities and the second is more difficult: dislodging the stale, pale, male [*] .
The future is female. Perhaps?
Peter Thomas"
* GO TO HELL, SEX TRAITOR PETER THOMAS, YOU TRENDY (CENSORED).
---
Poetry in sodding motion:
"It's so difficult not to like Marston. And yes, he said some weird stuff about submission and bondage but...dude, he *liked* and *wanted* a matriarchy. And he was in a plural marriage that by all accounts worked pretty well. I just can't dislike Marston, although I know there are quite a few feminists that take issue with his work. I think it's just such a huge shame he died so young. I could totally see Marston, had he lived into the 1960's having more impact on the larger American sexual culture like Heinline or Leary."
"I don't think we can say conclusively that a matriarchy is as bad as a patriarchy until we've actually tried it."
"In all honesty, though, I think that pro-matriarchy is a much more sympathetic position than pro-patriarchy. If someone is struggling to create a matriarchy, their goals may be a bit flawed, but they're still working to advance women, which is a plus in the short term. Also, anything that messes up the patriarchal status quo is pretty much welcome in my book."
"As I see it, the most sensible argument for a matriarchy ISN'T that women would innately be better rulers than men; it's that a historically underpriviledged (sic.) group will handle priviledge (sic.) more consciouly (sic.) and conscientiously than a group which is used--and therefore somewhat inured--to being the priviledged (sic.) class.
Unfortunately, it usually doesn't work out that way in reality: when oppressed groups come into power, their usual knee-jerk reaction is to oppress right back. It's a pretty instinctual reaction, and one that's not isolated to humans" (WTF?).
RESPONDING TO CRITICISM:
One person dares to suggest a matriarchy might not be best, even if women ARE inherently superior. They get mauled.
""Women might be more ....uh....WHATEVER...(nurturing, fair, I don't know what we would say) than men, but the definition of a patriarchy is "a society where everything is centered around the male." I would naturally assume that a matriarchy would be the same, except in reverse.
And you know, that doesn't work for me. I don't care how nurturing or nice or whatever women are".
I hope you realize how sexist that is and were trying to make some sort of point".
FEMALE SUPREMACISM IS OPPRESSIVE TO WOMEN:
"Excellent! Then I shall merely point out that elevating women to pedastal "better" status, while much less obviously harmful than grinding their faces into the muck as lesser beings, also denies their capacity to be, at times, gruesomely human.
"Women" as a group, is a fiction. Characterising all women as *anything* is bad for women".
"This issue is bound to be controversial, but I agree with Marija Gimbutas. The societys of early to mid Neolithic Europe, seem to have held women in very high regard, if their art is anything to go by. This 7000 year old couple says it all, it's obvious who's in charge: http://www.planetfusion.co.uk/~pignut/goddess.jpg[both figures are the same size, but the woman has her hands on her knees, whilst the man has his on his head and appears sad] . Images of aggressive macho male war gods came later, along with weapons. In Minoan Crete women are also often pictured larger than life surrounded by smaller men (often attractive and scantily clad). We can't get inside the heads of people who lived so long ago, but this was nothing like patriarchy as we know it."
Nonsense. Also nonsense was this:
""Women" as a group, is a fiction. Characterising all women as *anything* is bad for women."
W.T.F. How is that not gross self-contradiction.
---
Yeah, we really need more "affirmative action" for women:
"The Université de Provence Aix-Marseille I is a university located in both Aix-en-Provence and Marseille. It is one of the Universities of Aix-Marseille.
It was founded in 1409. In the academic year of 2005-2006, 22,885 students were enrolled, 17,714 in the arts and 5,171 in the sciences. **The ratio of female:male in this year was almost 2:1**. Almost 3,500 students came from countries other than France."
---
You start noticing stuff like this:
"The Charter is addressed to the local and regional governments of Europe, who are invited to sign it, to make a formal public commitment to the principle of equality of women and men, and to implement, within their territory, the commitments set out within the Charter."
See the problem? "...equality of women and men" . Now, why would you put "women" first, unless you were specifically attempting to construct a parity-reverse reflection of the "traditional", "sexist" order? The only fair way to do it would be alphabetically, which would yield "men and women" (even if we adopted the feminists' suggestion and referred to men as "weremen"/"vermen", it would still come before "wo" in the alphabet). So, when they say "commitment to the principle of equality of women and men", we know they mean "dedication to cynically promoting female supremacy in order to counteract patriarchal influence".
Incidentally, alphabetic order yields "boys and girls", "gentlemen and ladies", "men and women", "he and she", and "female and male", "XX and XY", "her and him", "her and his". This seems appropriately balanced.
---
Remember what I said about 6,000 years of patriarchy being wholly insufficient to counterbalanced the alleged eons of goddess-worship? Take a look at this Wiccan site:
http://www.dirt-dog.com/kynna/wicca3.htm
"God was female for the first 200,000 years of human life on Earth."
"Venus figurines dating back to 35,000 BCE have been found depicting the Great Mother. Oddly, there are no male depictions dating back that far. To ancient man, woman was the source of life."
Mistranslation of Elohim? Check:
"Hebrew legends tell of the all powerful Yahweh was originally the Goddess Iahu-'Anat, a Sumerian Goddess. Actually the word God is a plural noun translated as creative nature spirits. Around the world the Great Goddess is referred to as the Great Moon Goddess. She is the great female trinity of the Maiden, Mother, and Crone. A Wicca's spells and rituals are always performed in conjunction with the phases of the moon. We discover the special powers and mysteries of the moon and the unique wisdom it teaches us about the Divine Mother of the universe."
A curious obsession with parity reversal, which rings hollow as to all extents and purposes they are doing the same thing themselves? Check:
"In mythologies and sacred literature written around 2500 to 1500 BCE, there is a noticeable change in sensibilities. The strong Goddess who dominated thought and feeling for several thousand years was slowly replaced by the powerful male Sky Gods. The Son/Hunter/Lover who as a child and consort to the Great Mother always had a subordinate position now became the primary deity. Sky Gods reining (sic.) with the power of the sun challenge the older Goddesses of earth and moon. The Goddesses became villains and many old tales were rewritten. Among the revisions was the Old Assyrian story of Adam and Eve."
Disturbingly Satanic worship of Eve, which gets worse with each re-telling? Check:
"It was rewritten so that Eve is born of Adam's rib -- rather than the reverse, as it appeared in the older versions. In Mesopotamian legend, Eve creates a male, Adam, and makes him her mate, following the usual Goddess/Son myth."
"In a Gnostic text, Eve is the Mother of All Living and actually creates Jehovah. One of Christianity's best-kept secrets says the Mother of All Living was the Creatress who chastised God. Jehovah is formed by the four Hebrew letters Yod-He-vau-He. The first Yod means I and the next three, He-Vau-He means both life and woman. In other words the name of Jehovah is feminine and it means: I am woman; I am life."
Again, the Sophia grenade error (but where are they getting the "chastised" bit? certainly not the original Gnostic heresy, where all Sophia said was "Ialdabaoth", or "Come up here, child", which the Demiurge took to be his own name. Here, Jehovah is conflated with Ialdabaoth (basically, a female supremacist version of Dave Sim's worldview).
Denial of the existence of evil (i.e. Nietzscheanism), in the same breath as admitting that if it existed as a concept, it must of necessity be Feminine? Exaltation of Eros? Check, check:
"As the mythologies drifted further and further away from the original religious view of the Great Goddess, the dualism that has come to dominate so much of Western thinking grew stronger and stronger. Life was seen primarily as a struggle between the forces of good and evil, rather than a dynamic dance of all things working together for the Good. Life on earth became less important than the life to come. The old saying that "Cleanliness is next to Godliness" sums it up pretty well: everything associated with this life, Earth, the body, sex, women became suspect, if not down right evil. Woman was to be rejected as a spiritual leader who reflected the image of the divine Feminine, dirty and impure. Then a curious thing happened to the male Gods: as they consolidated their hold over the human imagination, they lost their animal identities."
Attacks on civilisation? Exaltation of sex, and apparently nothing else? Check, check:
"God became completely human and completely male. The arrival of monotheistic thinking with it's rigid and inflexible form was the mark of advancing civilization. With the arrival of the Father Gods came the degradation of the earth, woman, the body, sex and the most natural tasks in which earlier people found joy and happiness."
Absurdity? Check:
"Survival depended on stockpiling food and resources. They gave way to the warrior classes which simply took what they wanted by force. Curiously this coincides with the smelting of iron around 2500 BCE when the patriarchal technology (sic.) began to fashion weapons."
Metal is apparently oppressive to women.
"Men emerged socially, economically and politically dominate (sic.) and eventually patriarchal institutions, laws and values reflected the myth of male superiority. Patriarchal societies organized around warfare were based on violent, militaristic values and coincide with written history."
Word versus the Goddess. I'll take the Word, thanks.
"Patriarchy is a rather recent development over the last four thousand years and is still a new experiment when it comes to the hundreds of thousands of years that human beings lived in matriarchal societies. It is certainly a mere drop in the bucket when compared to the 3.5 billion years that other forms of life have existed on the planet known as Earth."
Oh well, we can stand for a few more thousands of it, then.
"With the dawn of the New Age, women are regaining their lost stature."
I am reminded to the feminist cartoon/propaganda piece on the door of a female University professor - A massively obese, fertility idol-style figure with stars orbiting her head stands beside an anorexic, blank-faced slave. They were labelled, respectively, "A majestic, beautiful WOMAN" and "a tiny, pathetic MAN" (emphases in original).
"The earth and its creatures are in deep peril because we have lost touch with the old ways which were built around worship of the life on earth. If we are to have any hope, we must set our paths in new directions. We must incorporate the old with the new. For only through knowledge can we make the necessary changes. Each and every one of us can make a change like the ripples in a pond. Nothing goes unnoticed and nothing is forgotten. Today is the first day of the rest of your life. Take hold of that, respect all life in its great diversity and remember that the Earth is not inherited from our ancestors, but borrowed from our children."
Ah, eco-feminism.
In reality, of course, the number of goddesses worshipped has been multiplying steadily throughout recorded history (witness Aphrodite's sex change). The only "original" goddess was Allat, who was the cosmic prostitute (doling out sexual energy to male deities as long as they pleasured her). Curious how that accords with Second/Third Wave Feminism.
---
More:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=442m8frerghcsggf7bdtnh6av1&topic=9738.45;wap2
"I wonder how much our [male] hormones prevent us from playing across the chasm of sex appropriately. I wonder if women are more or less able to play convining (sic.) men. And what is it that males "get wrong" when playing females that is implausible to women? Why don't I observe females playing male characters "unrealistically?" And why am I less sensitive to males depicting female behavior incorrectly?"
"...male behaviour is generally more "open" (that is almost everything you guys think or feel, is more or less visible), whereas women hide a lot behind appearances and are more prone to taking different roles. Thus, men have less "material" to work with, forcing them to resort more on stereotypes."
So because women are wicked liars, they are superior. Fan-fucking-tastic.
When someone complains after a long misandric spew that "Sexism is not justified just because the victim is male" :
"I don't think it can be realistically claimed that discrimination against men on these grounds is remotely comparable with discrimination against women by several order of magnitude; in terms of what might constitute "social engineering" it is simply not a significant problem in my eyes."
---
"...in Germany, a paternity test done at the request of the father violates the child's privacy, but if the mother agrees, it doesn't. How they figure that one I'm sure I'll never know, but it does suggest that Germany has added yet another way in which fathers' parental rights are entirely placed in the hands of mothers. I guess that's what CL means by "evolved," i.e. more misandric even than in the US.
My understanding is that the German law in question prevents a man from contesting paternity without the woman's consent. Therefore, he has no power to ascertain his paternity..."
---
Man drunk, Woman drunk, they have consensual sex - Man has raped the woman.
Man not drunk, Woman drunk, they have consensual sex - Man has raped the woman.
Man drunk, Woman not drunk, they have consensual sex - Abusive drunk man has raped the woman.
Man not drunk, Woman not drunk, they have consensual sex - Man has raped the woman.
So why have sex at all? Wake the --bleep-- up!
http://fredxblog.blogspot.com/2006/10/more-misandric-bile.html
"The move would have huge implications for couples who have sex after getting drunk, placing a heavy responsibility on the man to ensure that the woman was fully conscious of her action."
And the consequences (snapback, polarisation - looks like there are more NOTs than I thought):
"Like I said in my post, not all lesbians are feminists but all feminists are lesbians (even the ones who are under the assumption that they're straight) so much so that I'm fast becoming a dyke-hater."
---
YEAH:
"I would like to stop for a moment and remember there is another enemy far worse then what we have discussed here today. There is an enemy that is out to destroy every man woman boy and girl. He has these feminist thinking they have won the battle but he has not given them the bill for his services yet."
Note those pronouns, girls.
---
"Each and every day in the United States, over 2,000 Americans have their civil rights violated by VAWA [the Violence Against Women Act]. These persons include over 750 male victims of severe partner assaults every day - who don't seek service because they know they will be turned away. Or worse, they fear they will be accused of the very crime that they were just subjected to.
These persons include over 1,250 men - and sometimes women - who are evicted from their homes on the basis of a restraining order that does not even allege violence."
---
Are Men Really More Evil?
http://shatteredmen.blogspot.com/2004/12/are-men-really-more-evil.html
"Feminist often brag that about 90% of all prison inmates are men. They use this to exert the "moral superiority of women..."
BUT:
"There are many crimes women are seldom sent to jail for to begin with. I do not know of a case where a woman was giving (sic.) jail time for having sex with a minor "boy" on the first offense although men serve an average of 6 years. This is odd since feminist (sic.) brag about girls maturing fasting then boys. If this were true, why are not women held at least as accountable if not more so for having sex with these IMMATURE boys? In fact, I know of one case a 20 year old baby sitter got pregnant from the 12 year old BOY she had sex with and she got CHILD SUPPORT."
This may or may not be true, but there was a case where a thirty-something female teacher commited statutory rape against a 15-year-old boy and became pregnant. She was given community service, and subsequently sued for child support and won. Her victim was still underage in the state she raped him - 17 years old - at this point.
---
They admit it - at " templeofthesacredfeminine.com " they explicitly contrast the "divine feminine" with the "demonic masculine" :
"...women incarnate this internal, demonic masculine - the voice that says you're not worthy, you don't deserve it, why don't you get a real job [what, feminism?] . By exposing this voice, they learn how not to react to it and be enslaved by it. It doesn't matter how philosophically feminist you are, you can be enslaved by this angry masculine voice if you don't bring it to the surface."
DIE.
---
Painful reading: "The Origins Of An Anti-Feminist"
http://petepatriarch.blogspot.com/2006/11/origins-of-anti-feminist.html
---
And this article cackles over how "fashion" now dictates what men can and cannot buy:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/18/fashion/thursdaystyles/18CODES.html?ex=1305604800en=
10c7a92b7129e230ei=5088partner=rssnytemc=rss
Why should I, who have never dictated what women should and should not wear, be dictated to be women simply because of the way I was born?
---
"The Problem With Princesses"
http://seveninchesofsense.mu.nu/archives/200140.php
A feminist (finally) attacks entitlement culture:
"Watching the new Carrie Underwood video yesterday, it occurred to me that we are really doing some serious damage to women in our culture. Somehow, we have led them to believe that they are these precious little princesses who deserve good lives and limitless amounts of respect without ever having to actually work for it. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for empowering girls to believe they can do anything they want (as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else), but we've gotten a long way from that. Women these days, especially young ones, are more about entitlement than empowerment. I blame Oprah.
Somehow, over the past fifteen or so years, the attitude of women has changed drastically. They have gone from striving to prove their worth, to asserting it without ever having proven anything. And the problem is, somebody is allowing them to do it. Men have become so scared of being called 'sexist' that they are enabling these bitchy little divas to walk all over them. It's time for that to stop, boys. There are other options."
Yes! Empowerment = having the option, not being shamed out of doing things just because of the way you were born. Entitlement = have anything you want regardless of whether you give anything back, you are superior, etc. Equal rights is empowerment. Affirmative action is entitlement, whether based on race or sex (since affirmative action asserts that you are "entitled" to something based on alleged wrongs committed against your or your genetic predecessors).
I do like the way it's mens' fault for being on the receiving end of our misandric culture, though...
---
In other news: "Ex-University Professors (sic.) Says Blacks Should 'Exterminate White People'"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,234600,00.html
But then, this is FOX, so I suppose it would be just their line to try and stir up racial hatred...
---
A nice summary from another self-hating male:
"...female sexuality exists only as a spectacle for male viewers, while male sexuality is inherently disgusting and gross."
Wow, it's almost like we agree (except I would reverse the genders there).
---
Female nudity is "glorious" but even the hint of male organs is disgusting? Obviously that's patriarchal oppression of women:
"And there you have it. The men of Marvel are saying "being naked and exposed is humiliating."
But then they do all kinds of degrading crap to women. It's messed up, hypocritical, and downright INSULTING when you realize they think it's bad, but want it done to women as long as it's done for these guys' benefit."
Yes, it's obviously that the FICTIONAL CHARACTERS are complaining to their editors that they "don't want" to be exposed. Dear God, is this what passes for feminist argument nowadays? This is a blatant example of men being portrayed as sexless orc-like monsters whilst "androgynous" female sexuality is celebrated, but they manage to spin it into objectification vs. non-objectification.
Self Hating Bastard #1293 chimes in - apparently men just aren't as NICE-looking as women:
"Also, and this is honestly not trying to be an apologist for it, but it turns out that on some level, nobody likes a naked man ... Except prudes and the occasional weirdo phobic, nobody minds seeing a naked woman ... it probably has something to do with, well, rape (both sexual and to show dominance) and competition (more for the men, this one) ... Men weren't built so pretty."
But he does bring up an important point: "though we see a nipple/boob as sexual, it's not the same thing as being a procreative sex organ, so I can see how they might not be able to see it the same way. For all the skin-tight on everyone, we don't see camel-toe constantly".
But why do we see a breast as sexual? It's an icky, flesh-bag of skin filled with fat, and somewhere under there, some cells which produce milk (which men have too, although they don't work unless all the women in the vicinity emit "distress beacon" pheromones to indicate they can't suckle their young themselves). Outside Freud, no-one thinks a suckling infant is sexual.
Oh, but Self Hating Bastard #1293? NOT ENOUGH. The next commentator accuses him of ... wait for it ... being oppressive to women!
"Don't make excuses. I am well aware that those views are prevalent, but you can't complain about sexism after saying, "well, come on, no one LIKES seeing naked dudes, they like naked girls"."
Oh, and this commentator takes offense at the idea that men are easily driven into a frenzy by sexual images ... because it implies men are better at SOMETHING. Not allowed:
"Men are not visual while women are all niiiiice and feeeely. Men are just MORE visual. Women LOVE looking at things. A few years back I read that women may percieve (sic.) colors BETTER than men."
Ah, progress. Note how she skips from "lustful" to "colors" (sic[k]. Americans). And how the (censored) does this make any sense:
"Women are RAISED to be less sexual than men--pure and simple. Women are raised to be quieter, more docile, and less "piggish" all around, while men get a free pass more often in those reagrds (sic.) ."
W.T.F. Can anyone say "disconnect with reality"? Also note the gratuitous misandry.
---
GHOULS:
A feminist blogger, reporting on the following project:
"Internation Coalition For British Reparations - 'People Of The World, It's Time To Get Paid'"
"Welcome to BritishReparations.org, the official site of the International Coalition for British Reparations. We are a global network of citizens who have suffered injuries at the hands of the British Empire over the last five hundred years (sic.) . We've banded together to ask the United Kingdom to compensate the world for all the damage they've done."
"Think there could be a feminst (sic.!) angle on this?"
No, you murderous creature, because women were oppressed by all nations equally if at all - in fact, the UK was WAY ahead of your precious Africa and Australia, whatever time you care to look at the world.
---
Oh, yes, women are SOOO stereotyped...
On a forum discussing how female writers can convincingly write male narrators:
"Do you have any male friends? If so, ask them. Honestly...the teenage guy tends to think about three things - sports, sex, and food. I don't think Draco would be any different. That is unless this is for when they're out of school."
"Athena_Rhea speaks the truth. Men are not that complicated. As far as I can work out, it really is all sex-sports-food-party in the mind of the teenage male.
Again, this all hinges on the assumption that they are teenagers. If not, I'm afraid I can't help you.
The important things to remember about teenage guys are these:-
1. They spend an inordinate amount of time attempting (and often failing) to appear tougher than they are. Caveman instinct, combined with the mistaken belief that this will make us girls like them more.
2. They are absolutely confused by, and often a trifle terrified of, teenage girls. Particularly if we don't do what they expect us to, and we almost never do.
Oh, and any male who wishes to be 'popular' or 'cool' will probably be labouring under the misapprehension that alcohol or drug use will help them appear thus. This misapprehension pervades from the age of 13 to about 18, and then they (usually, but not always) realise how idiotic that is."
Someone stands up for his sex (yay!):
"...This is insulting. We're not nearly as stupid and simple as you seem to think. Well, most of us aren't. Never think of the opposite sex as some sort of untouchable creature. Just think of what makes you you, and think of what makes your male friend of your choice. Think of both of you as human. Above all, think. Always think about what you're doing. Before you write some insulting stereotypical garbage, think about where it came from. Do you believe that or were you told to believe it?"
The reply: "I have vast experience with teenaged boys, and men, and I actually agree very much with MiladyRose's [the sexist's] post. Men aren't stereotypical, but the fact is that the majority of them can be summed up more simply as (sic.) most women."
And it gets worse (all the following is sic., by the way).
"Gender is a continuity. Guys invented sap, so yeah. I've lived as a guy my whole life, even though I identify now as female.
[In other words, he is a self-hating transgendered feminist who argues that 'gender is a continuity' but will now proceed to trash 'men' as a distinct entity].
Guys are just like girls, only sheltered [W.T.F.] , and this goes 100000x for white (and pureblooded, in the HP verse) guys, like our Draco friend. Being sheltered, they think they are hot ****. All of the time. This is why guys goof off more, because they don't think there is any possible way anyone could find them less than hilarious. This is why guys do stupid ****, like uh, set themselves on fire, and kill themselves in much more interesting and varied ways than females [OH, SO WE KILL OURSELVES BECAUSE WE THINK IT'S (CENSORED) FUNNY? GO TO HELL YOU SELF-IDENTIFYINGLY FEMALE (CENSORED)] . They brag more, about the stupidest **** even. Like Star Wars trivia [better than (censored) nail polish, you shallow moron] . They think that their way is the best, so geeks think they are hot **** for being smart, jocks think they are hot **** for playing sports, emos think they're hot **** because they are hardcore [OH, YEAH, I'M SURE PEOPLE WHO SELF-HARM THINK THEY ARE JUST THE BEES' KNEES] . Guys tend to be more conservative/libertarian politically, because again, they got the "me" attitude [I think this comment can 'stand' on its own] . And the "me" attitude means they kill, rape, scam, start wars, cheat [not true] at higher rates than women. This is masculinity [GO TO HELL, GO TO (CENSORED) HELL YOU MURDEROUS DOGBASTARDCREATUREFILTH] , and guys can be really really masculine, like Cormac, or really really not, like Neville.
"Sex and Food" applies to all of humanity, though guys tend to adopt the "LOL ILL EAT A LOT OF FOOD AND HAVE A LOT OF SEX WOW IM SUCH HOT ****" [yeah, that's really intuitive, that's immediately what I think when I consider "Sex And The City"] position more than women...and guys have higher rates of obesity, especially as they get older [*] ["males like all parasites in the end degenerate into another kind of decaying structure, a sac of guts and genitals like tapeworms"] . "Sports" kind of applies to about half of guys, but mostly its just something to watch and talk about. You get the hardcore sports fan every once in a while, but I don't think it deserves a place on the top 3 list. I am surprised how many people put it there.
And I don't think guys are afraid of girls, that goes towards the "faggot" side of the macho--faggot scale [wow, that is the most hypocritical crap ever - a transgendered feminist who trashes gays as "faggots" - never mind some people are actually asexual or gynophobic] . Any guy who is afraid won't ever act like he's afraid [REALLY? I THINK YOU NEED TO GO SCREW YOURSELF] . He can have no job, doesn't take care of himself, living in his parents basement, no real world knowledge but he's a ****ing charmer, damnit [AND HE THINKS HE'S SUCH "HOT SHIT" AS HE HANGS HIMSELF? THIS IS MISANDRIC FILTH] . And there are a lot more male stalkers, gropers, publicly expose themselves, and generally....yeah [sex traitors all] . They might act all confused like, "Crazy girls! They don't want to go out with me, wtf?!"....but I don't think "afraid" is the right word just yet [really? the idea of intercourse with a woman fills me with loathing and disgust. it used to just fill me with disgust, but ever since I started to research your side, hatred has entered into the equation] .
And I don't think any of this **** is biologically inherent [how magnanimous of you - of course, you would think that, since you've just slagged off your birth gender: female-born feminists often see things differently] , it just has to do with traditionally being the "dominant" gender and having society structured around your gender....its a lot easier to lose touch with reality [apparently 'reality' is shoe shopping and writing misandric screeds] . It depends on how sympathetic you want to make Draco. He's really masculine in Books 1-5 but in Book 6 when he gets some real responsibility, he gets a bit more feminine, a lot less bragging and a lot more crying. Make him as feminine as you want to, if he's a believable person he's a believable person [so apparently "feminine" means "sympathetic" - never mind, y'know, that few if any females ever demonstrate allegedly "feminine" traits] ."
"girls tend to develop their verbal skills a bit earlier than boys and have an easier time of it."
Yay.
* Really? Then why do feminists claim, when it is convenient for them to do so, that:
"(1) The incidence of obesity and obesity-related illnesses is greater in minority communities, ESPECIALLY AMONG WOMEN" - emphasis mine ( http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=1962 ) ?
---
News bias.
This is the headline:
"LONDON: Flora, a Komodo dragon who has never mated or even mixed with a male, is the proud mother and father of five baby dragons, scientists said today."
"Scientists announced in December in the journal Nature that Flora had fertilised the eggs herself, without any male help, in a process culminating in parthenogenesis or virgin birth."
HAHAHA, MEN ARE SOOOO OBSOLETE. Oops (emphasis mine):
"The baby dragons, **all males**, are being cared for in a special area of the zoo and feasting on a diet of crickets and locusts."
Now, how did that happen? Clearly, the komodo dragon is a pure XX-species with one of the Xs containing all the male genes as well as the female genes. How the DNA is recombined and which X is "silenced" will determine whether the offspring is male or female. As I proved in my "Genetic Tomfoolery Debunked" essay, such a species will eventually settle at 3/4rds "male" (male organs) 1/4rd "female" (female organs) - genetically, all will be male, as they will all eventually possess the SRY.
(Editor's Note: My theorizing on the disappearance of the Y-chromosome can be found in .txt format --here-- , for anyone interested).
In other words, "Flora" is actually a male with half her DNA turned off. Wait a minute, we've seen that before:
"What's that? The BBC is ranting on in its usual misandric way about men being obsolete now they've made a mouse with two mothers, combining their DNA to produce normal offspring? Think you can have a child with your lesbian partner? Think again:
http://www.thetech.org/genetics/ask.php?id=16
It seems that mouse didn't have two mothers at all - it had a mother (XX) and a father (XY). They just tweaked the father (removing the SRY that made him develop male) so he expressed only female genes. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY CHEATED, USING MALE FLEXIBILITY (all men have a potential for hermaphroditism because they have the full genetic code - women don't have the sperm-making genes on the Y, so they can LOOK male using the male genes on the X chromosome but will never be a functional hermaphrodite) TO MAKE THE FATHER LOOK LIKE A FEMALE. Claps slowly".
Komodo dragons, then, are actually all male (as long as feminists insist on defining the "default gender" as female and insist "maleness" is the presence of the SRY), but some of them are born not expressing their male genes and so appear female. In my theory, that would make them something of a genetic dead end, as they lose the reproductive advantage of the lighter genetic load (XY sperm are faster than XX sperm and so get to the egg quicker, which is why the Y-chromosome has been jettisoning the inactive X-remnants). The 'parthenogenesis' (as opposed to self-impregnation, as per true hermaphrodites) is also inferior, as the offspring will be clones of the parent (but as we see above, may or may not be the same gender depending on which X falls 'silent'), whereas a true hermaphrodite who impregnates themself will get "remixes" with genetic variation, allowing the species to survive any changes in environment. The Komodo model is also less efficient, as there must be a separate system to tell the eggs to begin to develop, whereas a true hermaphrodite basically just inserts their male bit into their female bit and reproduces "naturally".
---
Ah, lovely:
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/01/27/good-christians-beware-say-nothing-when-mom-behaves-badly/
A cheating partner is no longer grounds for divorce, but telling your children that your cheating partner is wrong to cheat IS. Apparently, it's "alienation". God forbid. I wonder how "alienated" the husband was by his wife's openly living with another man?
And how about this:
"What do I do as a practicing family law attorney? I never bring these issues [whether the woman is unfaithful] to the attention of the court because not only will the court view them as irrelevant, but will consider the considerations to be an attempt to embarrass the mother in court. They certainly will not be considered legitimate considerations in custody determinations. As to the areas of homosexuality or cross-dressing, the courts will turn such concerns into a beacon of the father's "intolerance"."
Note the genders here.
---
The strawman [person?] cometh:
"If indeed the women's movement is over, then why are women still treated as objects in our society? We are inundated with images of perfection at every turn: from the check-out line of the grocery store to the movie theater to the billboards along the highway. We're informed how to slim our thighs. We're made the object of ridicule and rescue in most films [WHAT?! Talk about head-in-the-clouds] . Then there's the overwhelming presence of pornography. A simple Google search for "porn" elicits more than 85 million hits. What this leads to is the most sweeping social issues of our society: eating disorders, poor self-esteem, sexual harassment, violence and abuse. Every two minutes, a woman is sexually assaulted in America. And women still make 74 cents for every $1 a man makes, according to news reports. How's that for "women's lib"?"
Pretty good, considering some if not most of those things were brought about by "women's lib" (actually, second + third wave feminism). Oh, and a "simple Google search" for "abuse" elicits **367** million hits - so is the Internet overwhelmingly concerned about battered women? Of course not - most of those would probably be standardised "Terms of Service" for web hosts; which might also contain the word "porn" as an example of "abuse" of said ToS. And how many of those "porn" hits were sites arguing against porn? We don't know, because of the laughable anecdotal method used (just plugging in the word will give you EVERY webpage that uses the word, good or bad, including our hypothetical Terms of Service page).
And the snappy rejoiner: "Are women treated as objects in our society? Of course not, the only justification for such thinking arises from their often being handled like religious relics".
"Ms. Dombrowski also does not like the way in which women are represented in film. I have to agree with her here as it seems to me that women are inordinately depicted as heroines and champions while men are portrayed as wimps or psychopaths. Apparently though, she does not see movies I do and brings up the phantom bogeyman of ridicule. I guess she has never heard of Oxygen or Lifetime, cable channels devoted entirely to presenting women as empowered superheroes-a perspective that can be ironically juxtaposed with the channels' actual viewership which consists of irritable, discombobulated, depressioniacs."
"The only remedy for her claim would be government censorship. I have no doubt that corrupt senators like Joe Biden and Ted Kennedy would be happy to "man" such a committee, but I do hope that they'll consider adopting my suggested name for it before beginning their inquisitions. The National Association of Zeitgeist Interrogators is not taken as far as I know and would make for an acronym which reveals both their personal dispositions and domineering domestic agenda."
"Then we come to porn [with these people, what doesn't begin with porn?]. It seems that lurid imagery is ubiquitous nowadays which means ... nothing. Her argument is a non-starter. Erotica doesn't oppress women. It generally doesn't do much more than allow one to get some extra sleep. Many people purchase or freely obtain pornography and the act of doing so does not lead to the pathologies she outlines. Clearly, with such a wild accusation, the burden of proof lies on the side of the claimant, and this claimant has offered us none. If Ms. Dombrowski does not like raunchy flicks and pics then I suggest that she not watch them. Otherwise, she should offer up some support for her quips. Of course, we know that porn is not anti-woman because, if it were, then a large chuck of the market would not be devoted to the entertainment of gay males. No doubt that these fellows would be mightily disappointed should their cherished steroid freaks be replaced by 40 DD silicone queens. The plain fact is that women aren't oppressed by people looking at nude representations and neither is anyone else. Generally, most feminists try to separate themselves from the magically insane world of the, now deceased, Andrea Dworkin, but I guess Ms. Dombrowski remains interested in subletting a bit of space upon that twisted archipelago."
At this point, most feminists start spewing homophobic pejoratives because they cannot bear the idea that some men might not be aroused by them.
AND: "Women objectify women far more than men do. Women usually don't even bother looking at the men".
---
A feminist film based on the "male myth" of vagina dentata which delights in the biting off of male genitalia, described as an "outrageous assault on male ... fear" ? Rave reviews:
"Independent filmmaking is at its most exceptional when it defies categorization, and Teeth is jaw-droppingly undefinable. The story of a Christian high school girl caught up in her school's purity campaign--saving herself for marriage, as it were--is part horror film, part erotic/moral debate, and part outrageous assault on male vulnerability and fear.
Mitchell Lichtenstein's extraordinary feature debut is galvanized by the vagina dentata mythology (if you don't know what that is, Teeth will forever imprint it on your psyche). The innocent teenager, Dawn--so innocent she's not even aware of her own basic bodily functions--discovers quite by accident that she is anatomically very unique, a state of being that is both victimizing and incredibly empowering. Her boyfriend is getting a little aggressive, and her bad brother is the poster child for immoral teenage conduct. Writer/director Lichtenstein has created a deliciously enjoyable, yet symbolic, tale that will transform even the most resistant viewer into a rapt student of ancient taboo.
With a glowing, charged performance by Jess Weixler, Teeth is the kind of metaphorical work that keeps on satisfying, playing with our fears, fantasies, and phobias to create a potent, over-the-top fable that needs to be seen to be believed. -- Sundance Film Festival".
---
NEWS ROUND-UP TIME:
"Male Law: Super Bowl trumps Valentine's Day"
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/16548373.htm
Another steaming heap of misandry, portraying "males" as dumb for valuing sports over GIVING MONEY TO USSSSS.
"Oh, and one more scary [italics in original] part of the survey: 30 percent of survey respondents said they would rather see their favorite team win the Super Bowl than win a date with a supermodel."
Straight from the horse's mouth - the feminist media finds it "scary" that even a minority of people value anything over sex. I personally would rather see a pile of horse shit (hey, it's free fertiliser) dumped on my lawn than "win a date with a supermodel" , but maybe that's just me.
"Female Drivers Face Less Risk On The Roads"
http://www.weau.com/news/headlines/5270876.html
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/01/22/female-drivers-face-less-risk-on-the-roads/
Styled as overturning old prejudices, the article is nevertheless blatantly anti-male.
The response:
"One observation: men are more likely to drive for a living than women. If you're a truck driver, a cab driver, or snow plow driver, you are more likely to speed and take chances than if you're a mom driving to school to pick up the kids.
Also, men are three times more likely to be ticketed than women. That skews the claim that men are more likely to drive drunk- that might be true or it could be that men are more likely to be arrested and ticketed for driving drunk, just as they are more likely to be ticketed for speeding and other traffic offenses."
"With the point that women get less tickets it definitely would skew the stats. Also they were citing a statistic saying that women are less likely to die in a wreck? Could it be because they drive better vehicles? Drive less? Don't drive at night like alot of professional drivers? Just throwing things out but there are alot of things that may cause this.
As another writer once stated, many reasearchers (sic.) seem to be under the impression that correlation is causation in today's society. How many times have we seen a study (usually socialogical) (sic.) that sites (sic.) a bunch of info on something and claims that since this all happens at the same time as this other thing, then that is the cause ... The old adage is correlation isn't causation.
So men die more often in wrecks then women, does that mean we are worse drivers, or that something in the building of cars doesn't protect us properly?"
"Anymore, I'm always suspicious of these "scientific studies" because they always shape the terms and the data to the conclusion that "women are better." Once they've reached that conclusion, the study is over. They then publish it to the hooplah of the feminist press.
No one looks carefully at the study. When they do, they discover how the study did not consider alternative explanations.
For example, when I was married, I always drove in the snow/ice/rain-not my wife. I drove because I was a better driver in the snow and ice than she was. Guess what? Driving in the snow and rain is more dangerous than driving on dry pavement, increasing the likelihood I would have an accident. I'm thus statistically a more dangerous driver than she is, which proves I'm another evil, rotten male who speeds too much and takes more risks."
"The big list: Female teachers with students
Young victims mostly male, while penalties often hand slap"
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53859
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/01/24/worldnetdaily-2/
Yes, it's WND, but ... God. It lists ANECDOTAL evidence of female teachers who have been prosecuted for abusing both boys and girls. It actually seems the worse the crime, and the younger the victim, the less severe the punishment.
The response:
"The lack of reporting these, except showing the very hot teachers every day, is in stark contrast with the endless and selective outrage in reporting the Catholic Priests who did the same thing, clearly a case of moral relativism..."
"How about an article contrasting these criminals and their male counterparts, focusing on the sentances (sic.) . Very few of these women got what they discerved (sic.) ."
"These are just the teachers who were caught. No doubt there are many others, and they have yet to start prosecuting female pedophiles who are not teachers.
Either write it into law that female perpetrated pedophilia is legal, or start prosecuting.
Imagine for a minute being a prosecutor in a female pedophile case. The law says one thing, but you are supposed to ignore it because the perp has a vagina and the victim a penis. I wouldn't last a day as a prosecutor or a judge because I would ignore the unwritten laws of feminist jurisprudence and act based on equal treatment under color of law."
Ah, the good old bastard BBC:
"Gender change for Vienna signs"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6274213.stm
"Signs in Vienna are changing gender"
Quite apart from the transgender joke, feminists in Vienna have argued that the traditional "human" sign on road crossings is "male". So half of them are to be given long hair, skirts, and (unbelievably) high heels. They look utterly ridiculous - the stick figure is an internationally recognised androgynous symbol for "person". It has nothing that is noticeably "male". So now we will have female and androgynous symbols only. Oh, and men are evil for protesting:
"City officials say they have received thousands of e-mails both praising and criticising the new images.
Over half of the e-mails were negative, and of those, 80% were from men."
And I hesitate to cite the Daily (Hate) Mail, but:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=430702&in_page_id=1770&in_
"How feminists tried to destroy the family"
By one of the founding members of the womens' shelters movement:
"Within a few days I had the address of a local group [of feminists] in Chiswick, and I was on my way to join the Women's Liberation Movement. I was asked to pay £3 and ten shillings as a joining fee, told to call other women "sisters" and that our meetings were to be called "collectives".
My fascination with this new movement lasted only a few months. At the huge "collectives", I heard shrill women preaching hatred of the family. They said the family was not a safe place for women and children. I was horrified at their virulence and violent tendencies. I stood on the same platforms trying to reason with the leading lights of this new organisation.
I ended up being thrown out by the movement. My crime was to warn some of the women working in the Women's Liberation Movement office off Shaftesbury Avenue that if it persisted in cooperating with a plan to bomb Biba, a fashionable clothes shop in Kensington, I would call the police.
Biba was bombed because the women's movement thought it was a capitalist enterprise devoted to sexualising women's bodies."
"In a matter of months, the feminist movement hijacked the domestic violence movement, not just in Britain, but internationally.
Our grant was given to them and they had a legitimate reason to hate and blame all men. They came out with sweeping statements which were as biased as they were ignorant. "All women are innocent victims of men's violence," they declared.
They opened most of the refuges in the country and banned men from working in them or sitting on their governing committees.
Women with alcohol or drug problems were refused admittance, as were boys over 12 years old. Refuges that let men work there were refused affiliation."
[Note: I don't think this is so bad - a woman who has escaped an abusive male partner might not want the presence of men, and vice versa, although it does create an atmosphere in which the other sex can be demonised].
"Yet the feminist refuges continued to create training programmes that described only male violence against women. Slowly, the police and other organisations were brainwashed into ignoring the research that was proving men could also be victims.
Despite attacks in the Press from feminist journalists and threatening anonymous telephone calls, I continued to argue that violence was a learned pattern of behaviour from early childhood.
When, in the mid-Eighties, I published Prone To Violence, about my work with violence-prone women and their children, I was picketed by hundreds of women from feminist refuges, holding placards which read: "All men are bastards" and "All men are rapists".
Because of violent threats, I had to have a police escort around the country.
It was bad enough that this relatively small group of women was influencing social workers and police. But I became aware of a far more insidious development in the form of public policy-making by powerful women, which was creating a poisonous attitude towards men.
In 1990, Harriet Harman (who became a Cabinet minister), Anna Coote (who became an adviser to Labour's Minister for Women) and Patricia Hewitt (yes, she's in the Labour Cabinet, too!) expressed their beliefs in a social policy paper called The Family Way.
It said: "It cannot be assumed that men are bound to be an asset to family life, or that the presence of fathers in families is necessarily a means to social harmony and cohesion."
It was a staggering attack on men and their role in modern life.
Hewitt, in a book by Geoff Dench called Transforming Men published in 1995, said: "But if we want fathers to play a full role in their children's lives, then we need to bring men into the playgroups and nurseries and the schools. And here, of course, we hit the immediate difficulty of whether we can trust men with children".
In 1998, however, the Home Office published a historic study which stipulated that men as well as women could be victims of domestic violence.
With that report in my hand, I tried to reason with Joan Ruddock, who was then Minister for Women. The figures for battered men were "minuscule" she insisted and she continued to refer to men only as "perpetrators"."
---
No context whatsoever: "Did you know the female fish continues to grow throughout her life while the male stops when he reaches maturity?" .
How curious. You know, I don't actually believe you.
UPDATE: Or, just maybe, I do - but let's look at some other species:
"Males [male red kangaroos] continue to grow long after reaching sexual maturity, so that the oldest males may weight 6 times more than the smallest sexually mature females."
"An immature female, or "she-crab", will molt a total of about eighteen to twenty-three times before reaching maturity. She will then cease to molt, after mating. Males have the same growth pattern, except that they do not cease growth after sexual maturity but continue to molt into the third summer. Since males continue to grow, a fully mature male crab will be larger in size than a mature female, called a "sook"."
"While males [male elephants] continue to grow in height throughout their lives, vertical growth in females levels off at approximately 25 years of age (Laws et al. 1975; Moss 1990)."
"As two-year-olds, [polar bears] continue to grow and become pretty substantial creatures by this time in their life. One important thing to point out: Females generally stop growing in the 400-500 pound range, whereas males continue to grow pretty much throughout their life. Females hit a certain weight that gives them enough mass to reproduce, and then once they hit that reproductive age, they pretty much stop growing. Males continue to grow pretty much throughout their lives..."
---
Moving goalposts much? Apparently the feminist convention of using "woman" rather than "female" as a modifier to an occupation to stress that I IS WOMAN is actually misogynistic (even though apparently the word "female" is de facto sexist anyway) because it implies women doing any job is not the norm:
http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-09-25_395
"Except that using woman as an adjective (you rarely see it the other way around, excepting the modern trend of masculating words [W.T.F. - you mean like "womyn", "myntal illness", or "persyn"?] is generally accepted as sexist language:
A second mode of entry for sexual stereotypes has been through the labeling of some roles as predominantly male or female. To assume that all lawyers or epistemologists are male deletes the female segment of the profession and reinforces the assumption that only males are "proper" professionals. Moreover, to assume that homemaking and child rearing tasks are the primary concern of all and only **women** excludes **males** [emphasis mine - HAHAHAHAHAHA] from these roles, even as it ignores women's other concerns.
That can also be applied to "male" and "female" (as in "male nurse"), but I've found that general usage tends to be that "male" and "female" are used to reference a specific person, whereas "woman [profession]" has a long history of being used in a way that highlights that it's a "woman" doing the job, because the job was traditionally male."
Check out the whole article, including comments - basically, the blogger is arguing based on one blatantly misogynistic article by a Neanderthal comics writer (wow, anecdotal evidence, way to live up to expectations) that our society objectifies women by contrasting "men" with "females", when the slightest glance at any "progressive" journal or magazine (or even her own article) will reveal entirely the opposite.
Check out her excuse for why slander and misrepresentation is needed to make men listen:
"The only problem with that is that privilege is something that we're taught to hold onto so tightly that "postively" interacting is nigh impossible - the options I've been faced with personally are argue or shut up.
The former, no matter how nicely I try to do it, and no matter how much I try to listen to and engage with the specific arguments of the person, I've found that guys - and we're talking good guys, not misogynists [really? your feminist friends claim the former is a non-existent animal - read that last word again carefully] - dismiss my words, refuse to take me as a credible source (but expect me to accept their experience as a man as more credible than my experience as a woman and a feminist versed in these issues - regarding women's issues, I might add), and become very angry at me. I've had a few experiences in which the guy in question would not let me get a word in edgewise, and became belligerent when I pointed out that he was interrupting me (because to tell him that, of course, I had to interrupt him, and that gave him the "right" to complain that I had interrupted him).
The latter I've also tried because I wanted to keep these people as friends. But having to put up with that crap silently hurts and for what? To keep a friendship in which my words aren't valued and I can't even try to make a postive impact because these guys want to feel that they're "good guys" so badly they can't take hearing when I tell them that x or y thing they've said is sexist? Even when I don't use the dreaded "s" word, but instead frame it in terms of how I feel hearing it [that's the problem - you deny any kind of objective morality] ?
There are men out there ready and willing to engage in self-critique, but it's not my responsibility to stick around and try to be a "positive" influence on the ones who aren't. Especially since neither my arguments nor my silence make any sort of impact except to drain my self esteem."
Wow. Actually, the context is pretty OK (it's just saying "don't define people by their gender unless really pertinent"), but on its own it really sums up my problems with modern feminism:
""Female" as a noun is also on totse.com's List of Offensive Words That Should be Avoided."
More crap:
"And that's the problem, really. Not so much the crazy misogynist woman-haters (though they can do their own unique brand of damage), but the sheer force that is the "Good Guy" Brigade. These guys if asked would say that they absolutely support equality of men and women, that women should be able to make their own choices and that women are just as capable as men. And yet the moment their privilege - or sometimes even just the status quo - is called into question, suddenly all bets are off."
"Just one addition: to me, the phrases "female doctor" or "woman doctor" are equally offensive. Also equally offensive would be the term "black doctor", or even "African-American doctor". Because rarely does anyone feel the need to distinguish "male doctor" or "man doctor" or "white doctor". This further - and very subtly - establishes his status as the default to whom the rest of us are variants."
When presented with ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE (OMG) that it is **women** who talk about "women doctors":
"Anecdotally, in my personal life, the majority of the time I hear "woman" as an adjective it is coming from a woman. (the offensive term men use is not "woman doctor." It's "lady doctor.")"
"Yes it was true in your case but that is only the known distracting strategy of - it happened to me so it's probably reflective of other situations. This is one in quite a few situations that cannot be weighed against the experiences of many, many women. Oh yeah, even if a woman says it doesn't still make it ok."
Wow, so when a feminist uses ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE it is God, when anyone else uses it, it is "the known distracting strategy" . Hmmm. "Known" ... to feminists?
And more:
"In most contexts, I agree with you. But there are times in which emphasising the gender is important - contrasting females in the profession versus males, or when I look for a gynocologist I specify that I want a female doctor... that sort of thing.
I suppose the difference is that I don't think "woman [profession]" can ever be used inoffensively (possibly because it's bad grammar and I'm a teeny bit of a grammar snob), whereas "female [profession]" has a limited scope in which its useful, so I only find it offensive when it's being used to contrast "normal [professionals]" (ie. male) against "other [professionals]" (ie. female)."
NOTE: I must point out there that I agree with 80% of what is on these sites. However, this particular file is not for how much I love the strains of egalitarianism in feminism, it is pointing out the crap with which they garnish it. How could this article be better presented?
"Qualifying someone's profession with what they ARE (e.g. "African-American doctor", "female doctor", "male nurse", etc.) sets them apart from the "default" and may be considered offensive. Unless it is absolutely pertinent, it should be avoided as a rhetorical device. I am also aware that some gender feminists have taken to prefixing their profession with "woman" to highlight female accomplishments and challenge the sometimes dehumanising use of "female" as opposed to "women" by the mainstream press. However, this is also far from ideal, as it creates an intimidating "clique" which is destructive to gender relations, and in addition, ironically enforces traditional gender roles by subtly implying that the default lawyer or the default chef or the default doctor is a man".
See? Balanced, polite, but still getting the same points across. Note that I do not actually agree with many of the points above - nursing is still overwhelmingly a female-dominated profession, so where the name of the male nurse is not given (or is gender-ambiguous) it is very useful to be able to point out that he is, in fact ... a male nurse. Lawyers and doctors are more difficult, as women increasingly hold majority positions, however this is a very recent change, and we are still stuck with outdated ideas (ideas still used by feminists!) that these are male-dominated professions. Therefore it is still useful to be able to use "female lawyer", "female doctor", etc. as it draws attention to the paradigm shift. I do however think the "woman" prefix is a female supremacist convention which should be avoided like the plague (we don't say "man nurse", which sounds stupid), and definitely do not think that it is misogynistic - quite the opposite in fact, since it draws attention to female accomplishments whilst simultaneously employing an "off" which enjoins an entitlement mentality worldview (namely, that women need to be set apart and praised for what men do every day because they are the "newcomers" to the party).
---
"Deconstructing The Male Gaze"
http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-04-01_19
The stereotypical feminist analysis. By copying-and-pasting a comics character out of the context in which she was drawn and surrounding her with red pillows in a boudoir scene, suddenly the "sexual undertones" are made clear as day! W.T.F. By the way, I would agree that the character in question is drawn in an objectifying way, though it is no worse than many comics plugged by feminists.
The comments, however, are more troubling:
"100littledolls, I think it's interesting that we're also pitted against each other in competition for male approval. How can you present yourself in a way that doesn't tailor to the male gaze? That's a tough one I need to ponder."
Easy, don't shave your legs or armpits, don't expose your legs (comfortable jogging bottoms under a skirt?), don't wear makeup, don't style your hair, don't pluck your upper lip, don't wax, don't apply any kind of beautifying products (moisturising cream is acceptable for hands, but face is pushing it unless you actually FEEL uncomfortable), don't wear anything form-fitting (try comfortable pullovers or cardigans when not in a formal setting?), ESPECIALLY not stockings, don't wear high heels (in fact, buy boys' shoes). Then we'll see how long the "male gaze" lasts. The problem is that women throughout history have contrived to MAINTAIN their power-through-sexuality, and as a collective unconscious seem to be terrified of even one day when the female masses are not dolled up far past their natural "beauty", one day when men might just wake up and think "hold on, why did we ever think THAT was attractive?".
The traditional challenge (by "Zebee") and its "rebuttal":
"I agree that women are secualised (sic.) in comics. But so are men. They all have an idealised male body, they spend a hell of a lot of time in very stereotyped male activities and poses. He man macho bullshit all of it. Sure, they aren't portrayed as available in the same way, their objectification is different. But it's not only women."
"Zebee: this is a discussion on the sexualization of women in comic books, not men. While image analysis of men in comics is important, it is not the focus of this post and by bringing it up you're invoking the "What About the Mens?" Phallusy, which is in violation of #6 of our discussion rules. If you want to continue posting here, you need to read and obey those rules. Thanks!"
[Hmmm, the reply implies other posts on the blog might conceivably address the other 50% of humanity, but then she goes on to say that mentioning them is against the rules. Curious.]
Instead of using a crude sexual pun and coming across as a self-righteous bigot, why not try something like this:
"Zebee: No-one was saying men in comics are not objectified - it's just that this post, and this blog in general, focuses on the portrayal of women specifically. If you can find some examples of what you're talking about, why not write it up and put it on your own blog (if you have one)? You can post the link here."
See? Less confrontational, 100% less crude word play (come on, "Phallusy"?), and it still tells Zebee to push off without invoking ban threats or "violation" of any kind (you can't tell me that one wasn't intentional).
---
I am loathe to criticise the following post as the article it is trashing is blatant misogynistic crap ... or is it? Let's look at the first three sentences: "Try and think about women. Girls. Incarnations of the Goddess". God. By the way, none of the commentary even MENTIONS this blatant piece of woman-worshipping tripe. However, this sort of thing has been addressed before - one feminist rightly pointed out that "once you put women on pedestals, they can't really do anything, can they?" (no, but they can cause a lot of damage from their high places). Here, I can't decide whether our misogynist is really a women-worshipper (which is a Type I misogynist, according to my theory), or just regurgitating neo-feminist waffle to try and deflect criticism (which is a classic Type II maneuver).
Oh, but - blatant misandry? Men are to blame:
"This one is somewhat less insidious than the "Men as Beasts" trope, but is similarly used to abdicate responsibility for bad behaviour (see the Ellison incident). You can see this in other areas, too, such as domestic product commercials that feature men - you know those ones where the man is responsible for cleaning up, or cooking dinner, or whatever and he botches it so badly that you wonder how he got through life without accidently killing himself from sheer stupidity. Though presented in a comical fashion, the underlying message here is that men are just large children. As I mentioned above, this can be played to men's advantage in certain situations, but overall I'd say that most men recognize this stereotype as insulting. Too bad Lisner isn't one of those men."
'Nuff said. There's more, too, go read:
http://blog.shrub.com/archives/tekanji/2006-09-25_394
---
http://www.thetalentshow.org/archives/001863.htm
A liberal attacking liberal sexist assumptions about men? Great! Only problem is, he thinks it is caused by patriarchy.
"You see, as Gillard's oddly obtuse observations demonstrate, there is a widely held belief amongst even liberal men, that male humans are predators. That they are first and foremost nothing but a cock. After that, balls, then eyes, then rage, and somewhere way down the line, they become capable of speech, thought, and memory."
My only possible critique of this article is he seems to make the extremely questionable assumption that all men are heterosexual* and sexually active, and that all sexual encounters will be initiated by men.
* As opposed to being asexual, nonsexual or even being attracted to women in theory but not in person.
---
Feel free to despair:
http://shatteredmen.blogspot.com/2004/11/dont-throw-your-crayons.htm
"The report continued: "Kimberly said there was no hitting or pushing, but Richard did throw a box of crayons across the room".
The thrown crayons resulted in "minor crayon marks" about "5 to 6 inches above the table," according to Lovins' report.
Lovins then walked Richard Francis outside the home and cuffed him before taking him to the Eagle County jail."
"In another case an Eagle County woman had her boyfriend arrested and then went to visit him in jail the next day. The Eagle County DA then charged the man with violating a restraining order."
The result of all this? WARNING - OMG ANECDOTE:
"My son is a very well mannered child.. he has some issues when he gets frustrated but we all do.. he does not scream and throw fits and he never really did even when he was younger.. he is 11 years old and growing into a fine young man... but on the days he dont get his way or i ask him to do chores..lol.. then his fits are.. well.. him pouting...
my daughter on the other hand is a different story.. she has seen the way her cousins act and she is very much into throwing her fits and screaming and trying to get her way of things... she even sometimes hits herself when she is very mad.. she is only 4 yrs old..."
http://shatteredmen.blogspot.com/2004/11/why-we-do-not-know-real-facts-on.html
"Many of the statistics on the number of abused women were obtained from surveying "women's shelters" These shelters stood to gain funding based upon the number of abused women they found."
"We often hear "there is no excuse to hit a woman" yet our society provides countless reasons to hit a man. We see this in sit-coms, drama, movies and almost every mode of entertainment. Men are often beaten, hit and even kicked in the groin and we laugh. If we changed the genders the men would be arrested for aggravated sexual assault if this were to happen. As a result of this "conditioning" we do not see the many often sadistic things done to men as abuse. How often have we, have "you" thought that when a woman hits a man, "what did he do to deserve that?""
---
"Rodger Dodger" , the film:
"If Roger Swanson`s (Campbell Scott) theory that the clitoris will eventually evolve into a bigger and better source of sexual pleasure for women and their eggs will self-fertilise is correct, the heterosexual male [erm, wtf? all males would be extinct, including homosexuals, because women don't carry the SRY master gene] will soon be redundant."
"Think of a meticulous David Mamet style script laced with the misogyny and misanthropy of Neil LaBute."
Something is missing there. Ah, yes, misandry.
---
I HATE YOU! YOU FILTH! YOU (CENSORED)! YOU MURDERERS OF THE HUMAN RACE! YOU SECRET DEGENERATE (CENSORED)! DIE, WHY WON'T YOU!!!
""SIZE MATTERS: THE IMPENDING DEATH OF THE Y CHROMOSOME"
By Andrea Lam"
A woman. Why am I not surprised? Actually no, I am surprised, most of these articles are written by self-hating heterosexualist men. I wonder how the feminist community would react to a "Steve Lamb" writing a lengthy dissertation on the impending 'extinction' of women ("SUCK IT UP: THE IMPENDING OBSOLESCENCE OF THE XX DETERMINER"?).
"Biblical tradition tells the story of creation with man as the first sex, and woman the second, fashioned from Adam's rib. Biology conveys a different tale for the evolution of the sexes, however, revealing that man, not woman, is the second sex. Recent research in genomics and molecular genetics has shed much light onto the elusive human Y chromosome, suggesting that man may not only be the second to arise, but the first to disappear."
See? Why are they using the pejorative term "the second sex" if not to invert alleged past sexism? This clearly and unambiguously shows up the writer of this article as a feminist. Now, when a feminist says men are going to die out, what is your immediate reaction? (Note: this is not a trick question - your answer may vary from "Join N.O.W." through "Laugh at the deluded fanatic" to "call the police"). Also note the sustained sneer in the title - "size matters" is a reference to the male genitalia used by third-wave feminists, used to justify their rape of men with larger penises ("No other man can pleasure me like you! No, don't struggle, this is supposed to be pleasurable! I'm supposed to be able to imagine this is consensual!! OOOOHHHH ALLLL MEEEN MUSST DIEE!!!").
"The emergence of the SRY gene on the Y was a bold and definitive move (albeit by chance) [what else would it be - you're supposed to be an evolutionist!] that allowed and enabled the manifestation of the male species. Ironically, this mutation may have also sealed the fate of the Y chromosome and quite possibly doomed it for extinction. Since that fateful event 300 million years ago, the Y has shrunk dramatically. Recall that the X and Y chromosomes began as the same size; today, the X is 165 megabases (Mb), while the Y is less than half of that (67 Mb) [6]. Something has been driving the Y to degeneration [erm, that's creationist language - whose side is this creature on?] . Thus remain the controversial questions that have been debated for decades: What is the future of the Y chromosome? Will it continue to deteriorate to extinction? And what will this mean for the male species [sic - W.T.F?] ?"
YOU STUPID (CENSORED)! YOU MORONS! IT'S CALLED NATURAL SELECTION!! AGAIN - YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE SODDING EVOLUTIONISTS!!!
The Y-chromosome is shedding the silent genes that go unused in the second X-chromosome on women, making itself (and hence male sperm) lighter and more competitive. Each mutation that lightens the genetic load makes it more likely that the mutated "speedboat Y" will be transmitted to the next generation. The male "species" will not die out, because any mutation that threatens active genes on the silent X, or incroaches on the Y-unique male genes, will produce a sterile or female offspring which will not pass on the mutation to the next generation. Using technology (fertility treatment) we can sustain a much lower average fertility level, but if we lose that technology, the human race will spring back unless every male on the planet has dropped below the point where the technology is needed.
"Jennifer Graves from the Research School of Biological Sciences at the Australian National University is one of the leading experts convinced that the Y is on the road to extinction. She estimates that since the Y took on its sex-determining role, 1393 out of 1438 genes have been lost, leaving a measly 45 genes retained on the Y. (Compare this to the large 1438-gene-bearing X.) * ... Of these 45 genes, 27 are in the non-recombining MSY. The gene paucity of the Y is also evident in its density of active genes: 0.5 genes per Mb, compared to 10 genes per Mb on the X[6]. Graves argues that the Y chromosome's significant rate of gene loss (4.6 genes every million years) guarantees its future demise. In 2002, she predicted that the last 45 genes, and thereby the Y chromosome, will be gone within another 10 million years. [7]"
NEWSFLASH, YOU IGNORANT PSYCHO MISANDRIST (CENSORED) - MEN ALSO HAVE A --BLEEP-- X-CHROMOSOME, AND WOMEN USE LESS THAN 45 GENES ON THE SILENT X!
[Though women use more of the human genome overall because they have the womb as well as the vagina, ovaries, etc., which take up more of the X-chromosome].
* Really?
"The X chromosome carries hundreds of genes but few, if any, of these have anything to do directly with sex determination". The X contains most of the male genes. The X also contains, y'know, female-only genes, like, uhm, blood clotting. "The X-chromosome is a remarkably gene-poor region. It is composed primarily of repeated segments of DNA which do not code for proteins or any known function. Only 1.7% of the chromosome encodes for any functional proteins at all--lowest density of genes to date--and the genes themselves are very short compared to the length of the average human gene". In fact, looking at how they are described, it appears the X is starting to go the same way as the Y - if the Y is "degenerating", so is the X. "CT genes found on the X-chromosome are estimated to account for about 90% of all the CT genes encoded within the human genome. Due to their relative abundance, it is thus hypothesized that these genes (and thus the X-chromosome) confer evolutionary fitness to human males".
"I agree with Graves; there must be a critical flaw in the process of gene conversion if it has already allowed the Y to lose nearly 97% of its genes. I presume that the other side of the camp may argue that the Y has allowed itself to lose those 1393 genes because they were unnecessary, but the remaining 45 genes will be actively retained because they are essential. In other words, the Y has decayed to an optimal size and will remain stabilized at this state, perhaps akin to the human appendix. I find no evidence for this, however; after all, it is often said that the best predictor of the future is the past. If the Y has the capability to retain genes, it has evidently been out of practice, and it will likely be unable to successfully step up to the task when it counts."
W.T.F.? Genes are not human beings, they cannot get "out of practise" or "step up to the task" ! No active measure is required to preserve essential genes - the ones incapable of reproducing will die out!
But - oh look! My argument in toto - and it looks like some rodents have already undergone the alleged Y-pocalypse and still have males:
"Intuitively, it follows that if a gene is clearly essential for male development, function, and reproduction, then it cannot possibly disappear. The gradual loss of genes on the Y would inevitably lead to the loss of the SRY, which would surely mean the cessation of the male species, and thus of mankind. Not necessarily. The loss of the Y may not equate to the loss of the species if genes on other chromosomes could take over the job of male development. The question is whether all the crucial genes on the Y could translocate or be recreated elsewhere before the Y vanishes completely. The existence of human XX males reveals that the SRY master switch is indeed capable of smuggling itself onto another chromosome[6]. These XX males are sterile, however, since they are missing all the spermatogenesis genes also located on the Y. This strategy would therefore only work if one by one, each crucial Y gene is relocated or replaced by an autosomal gene, facilitating the loss of the former. Step by step, the Y would become less and less necessary for male function[6]. In 1995, male mole voles were discovered to have no Y and no SRY. These burrowing rodents who live in the foothills of the Caucasus mountains have roughly equal proportions of males and females, meaning that they have managed to invent a new form of sex determination [36]. The discovery of the identity and location of a supposed new sex-determining gene is currently in progress. It could be an already known gene that has been altered, or a newly-created gene. Japanese spinous country rats are also Y-less and SRY-less [37]. These rodents may very well be a vision of the future of human sexes."
NAAA NAAA NAAA:
"So why should anyone, other than researchers fixated on the topic, care about the degeneration of the Y chromosome? Even if Graves is on track and the Y ceases to exist in 10 million years, that is still a long time away. After all, humans have evolved from apes in less than that time. Dixie Mager of the Medical Genetics Department at UBC agrees that although the Y "will continue to degenerate, [...] humans will likely have exhausted earth's capacity to sustain life long before the Y has a chance to change very much" [38]. So why then should it matter? The implications of the decrepit Y [wow - why use this emotive, pejorative word?] do, in fact, affect today's world. Intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) is becoming an increasingly popular procedure to help men with low or zero sperm counts father children. A few sperm are extracted from their testicles and injected into eggs, which when fertilized, are placed back into the woman's uterus [39]. Given that the fathers have fertility problems, there is a chance that their sperm carry defective Ys. Thus, such sophisticated assisted reproductive technology may well be contributing to the overall problem of infertility by allowing otherwise infertile and subfertile men to produce male offspring who will have the same problems as their fathers. Studies by Page have shown this to happen; genes controlling sperm production are able to be passed on to children via ICSI [27]. Therein lies the dilemma. There is an evolutionary reason that certain men have fertility problems. Spermatogenesis involves numerous checkpoints to ensure sperm quality during various stages of production[16]. If there is a flaw in the Y's AZF region, for example, no or few sperm would pass the checkpoints, and the defect would have a hard time being passed on. Enter ICSI, and sperm carrying imperfect Ys no longer have to fight uphill battles. Nature has disallowed men with Y chromosome abnormalities to reproduce, and there is evidently a price to circumventing this."
"Nature has disallowed men with Y chromosome abnormalities to reproduce". How lovely. I suppose that will carry over to women who cannot bear children and need surrogates? They too would pass on "defecting" genes.
"Consequently, should all men contemplating ICSI be tested for Y chromosome abnormalities? Should Y screening be offered, recommended, or enforced? Should men who harbor [GAH] mutated Ys voluntarily refrain from using ICSI? Should they be strongly advised by genetic counselors [wow - take a look at your female future, people] not to use ICSI? Should the government step in and legally prevent them from using ICSI?"
Should you go and stick your head up your arse? I'm banking on that last option.
---
http://vbulletin.thesite.org/showthread.php?t=105174&page=17
Our culture, online (in a discussion over Germaine Greer):
"I feel as a white, middle-class male I generally have it pretty good, and to be honest people (OK women) saying nasty things about men is like water of a ducks back to me. If I was a Sikh who been a target of racist abuse or a Jew who'd had a swastika daubed on my door I'd probably have less reason to feel so sanguine. There may be a problem with men being disempowered, but that's got sod all to do with feminism and more to do with a lack of backbone and that some men want to join a culture of victimhood."
"It's nothing really to do with that. It's the principle that matters. Sure White males probably have it better than any other type of demographic but still shouldn't back down from someone who calls you a freak of nature because you have it well off."
"For FUCK sake! My point is that if she replaced males with muslims or jews or even women she would be labelled a racist and a nazi and she would be widely discredited! The fact that she's defended makes it clear that men are fair game for this kind of abuse."
"It's a polemic academic thought-piece; I myself (as an admirer and sometime defender) of Greer took it with a pinch of salt, as a result of having read thousands upon thousands of words she's written I can now appreciate some points and disagree with others. That said, I am sure her words have a grain of truth in a scientific and statistical sense. Comparisons to racists and nazis are strong words. It has got to be a bitter pill to swallow, as proven by your words. But yes, as NQA said, some men do seem very keen to join this victimhood culture and you are the proof in the pudding. Those are the men who say things like "things are unequally weighted in favour of women, now" etc etc. Clueless, really. Oh, and feminism is not a product of this self-same victimhood culture that is becoming increasingly popular with men like yourself, fuck away off with that kind of bullshit."
In fact, sod it, just read it yourselves. There's too much darkness here to copy and paste it all.
---
...and the article in question. Germaine Greer:
"The truth is out. Men are much more trouble than they're worth. Sisters are doing it for themselves. Discarded males of all ages loiter in the streets, looking for trouble to get into and finding no lack of it. Male security guards shoot male football fans in Bratislava, male fans howl racist abuse and hurl chairs at each other, males train as suicide bombers, male heads of state stroll about discussing whether they could get away with another shooting war on the women and children of Iraq, and their male flunkies zoom around the world trying to talk other males into joining in. The Beltway Sniper turned out to be a man. And those "children" ejected from school for threatening to kill their teachers are actually boys. It doesn't do to say so. A kind of mad squeamishness prevents us from quantifying the nuisance value of maleness, possibly because if you actually tell men that they are damned nuisances, they are likely to behave even worse."
HERE: http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,11812,839992,00.html
And read the commentary:
http://www.erinoconnor.org/archives/2002/11/feminism_and_ma.html
And:
http://atlanticblog.blogspot.com/2002_11_10_atlanticblog_archive.html#85681850
More links mentioning Greer's article:
http://www.mens-links.net/showlinks.asp?category=33 - No time to quote from all the articles here.
http://www.fact.on.ca/news/news0211.htm
http://www.angryharry.com/revealing.htm
---
An Internet commentator:
"All this talk of men as victims does seriously concern me, to be quite honest, because a lot of it seems to be a concerted agenda to negate and minimalise the attacks on women."
---
It begins:
http://www.angryharry.com/reDrinkingMenUndesirable.htm
Attractive men may not be portrayed in advertising, ostensibly (this time) because it could lead women to buy the product being advertised (BUT GERMAINE GREER SAYS IT'S MEN WHO HAVE "THOUSANDS" OF SEXUAL FANTASIES A DAY!!!). Wow. Just... Wow.
---
http://www.lesbianstudies.com/familydefense/
Ignore the "Family Defence" crap - read Dworkin's material. She is (was?) a well-known feminist. Her take on lesbian rallies is ... scary.
""Hisses. Women shouting at me: slut, bisexual, she fucks men. And before I had spoken, I had been trembling, more afraid to speak than I had ever been. And, in a room of 200 sister lesbians, as angry as I have ever been. "Are you a bisexual?" some woman screamed over the pandemonium, the hisses and shouts merging into a raging noise. "I'm a Jew," I answered; then, a pause, "and a lesbian, and a woman." And a coward. Jew was enough. In that room, Jew was what mattered. In that room, to answer the question "Do you still fuck men?" with a No, as I did, was to betray my deepest convictions. All of my life, I have hated the proscribers, those who enforce sexual conformity. In answering, I had given in to the inquisitors, and I felt ashamed. It humiliated me to see myself then: one who resists the enforcers out there with militancy, but gives in without resistance to the enforcers among us. The event was a panel on "Lesbianism as a Personal Politic" that took place in New York City, Lesbian Pride Week 1977. A self-proclaimed lesbian separatist had spoken. Amidst the generally accurate description of male crimes against women came this ideological rot, articulated of late with increasing frequency in feminist circles: women and men are distinct species or races (the words are used interchangeably); men are biologically inferior to women; male violence is a biological inevitability; to eliminate it, one must eliminate the species/race itself (means stated on this particular evening: developing parthenogenesis as a viable reproductive reality); in eliminating the biologically inferior species/race Man, the new Ubermensch Womon (prophetically foreshadowed by the lesbian separatist herself) will have the earthly dominion that is her true biological destiny. We are left to infer that the society of her creation will be good because she is good, biologically good. In the interim, incipient Super Womon will not do anything to "encourage" women to "collaborate" with men--no abortion clinics or battered woman sanctuaries will come from her. After all, she has to conserve her "energy" which must not be dissipated keeping "weaker" women alive through reform measures. The audience applauded the passages on female superiority/male inferiority enthusiastically. This doctrine seemed to be music to their ears. ((Internet posting.) LETTERS FROM A WAR ZONE: Biological Superiority: The Worlds' Most Dangerous and Deadly Idea. Andrea Dworkin, 1977, 1988, 1993.)"
"Recently, more and more feminists have been advocating social, spiritual, and mythological models that are female-supremacist and/or matriarchal . . . . But the price we pay is that we become carriers of the disease we must cure. It is no accident that in the ancient matriarchies men were castrated, sacrificially slaughtered, and excluded from public forms of power; nor is it an accident that some Female Supremacists and Lesbian Separatists now believe men to be a distinct and inferior species or race. Wherever power is accessible or bodily integrity honored on the basis of biological attribute, systematized cruelty permeates the society and murder and mutilation contaminate it. We will not be different . . . . It is shamefully easy for us to enjoy our own fantasies of biological omnipotence while despising men for enjoying the reality of theirs. And it is dangerous--because genocide begins, however improbably, in the conviction that classes of biological distinction indisputably sanction social and political discrimination. We, who have been devastated by the concrete consequences of this idea, still want to put our faith in it. Nothing offers more proof--sad, irrefutable proof--that we are more like men than either they or we care to believe." ((Internet posting.) LETTERS FROM A WAR ZONE: Biological Superiority: The Worlds' Most Dangerous and Deadly Idea. Andrea Dworkin, 1977, 1988, 1993.)"
---
The War Against Men:
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/91207/the_war_against_men_men_part_one.html
---
More self-hating crap:
http://playlouder.com/feature/+1206weak2/
"Blokes are happy with a quick one off the wrist over some cheap porn, but women require much more, because they are vastly superior [*] . Now I'm not being some drippy new man nonce here - this is just plain truth. Sure, men are better at some things - like starting wars, killing, maiming, and making really sick drum and bass records, but in the things that count in NATURE, ladies kick our asses, and we are likely to become extinct if we're not careful. Even my Grandfather agreed that "men are becoming sissier, and women are taking over..." Look at people's bodies, for fuck's sake. The girls are getting taller, they are growing bigger feet and hands, smaller hips, more angular features and, tragically, statistics tell us their breasts are shrinking [really? hah, take that, Solanas] , presumably as nature doesn't think they're going to need them [THAT'S NOT HOW NATURAL SELECTION WORKS].
Well of course they're not, and they certainly don't need us for anything anymore. Men continue to repress women - shit pay, a tiny percentage of tight positions in society and business - because they are scared, and they should be. Women don't need us. Increasingly technology handles manual labour, which us men were made for, and I'm seeing more women geeks than ever. What's the point in having some war mongering, ignorant, smelly species [again, again!] bungling everything when you, as a woman, can do everything you need to yourself? Why put up with three second lays when you can buy a vibrator and make nice smelling girl babies with DNA?
Perhaps that's why the men of our world are so intent on remaining in a state of constant war - as long as they've got their fingers on The Button, womankind will have to wait. But then they won't have to wait for long will they? Give it another few score years and ten, and there won't be any men left - they'll all of (sic.) shot each other to death. Give a fuck. I'll be dead by then anyway, and I'd sooner trust my children's future in the hand of womankind anyway [unless they are boys, in which case they will be herded into concentration camps and burnt in ovens] ."
* Really? And there I was thinking that being happy with less was a mark of superiority.
---
The "United Boy Haters Of America" website:
http://www.angelfire.com/wi3/ubha/
Shame their "Facts" section doesn't work...
---
http://feministlawprofs.law.sc.edu/?p=1466
South Dakota is trying to ban abortion (Right-Wingers: "Yay!"), but was unable to get a general ban. Now they're including exceptions for alleged rape and incest victims. So, basically, to get an abortion, women will have to accuse a man of rape or child molestation? Why am I not filled with joy at this?
I can actually see the feminist blogs urging women to accuse men if they need an abortion because men are "part of the patriarchy" (even if they opposed these measures). This will not, of course, reduce the amount of men who hate women.
---
WATCH THOSE NEGATIONS, LADIES:
An internet feminist asks a sexist comics writer if he has stopped beating his wife (a play on his alleged misogyny and hypocrisy). Someone doesn't get the reference, and asks if he actually has a history of domestic violence:
"Oh, lord, the honest answer is "I don't know", but only in the sense that I don't know if *anyone* is beating their wife until evidence TO THE CONTRARY is presented. I certainly didn't mean to imply that he did" (emphasis mine)."
As it stands, this feminist has just confessed that she assumes every man is beating their wife until proven otherwise ("until evidence to the contrary is presented").
---
This, by the way, is what you get for raising objections to the above (via archive.org):
http://web.archive.org/web/20060115150739/http://www.insurgent.org/~alcatroll/Soc.men/faq.html
http://web.archive.org/web/20060115141747/http://www.insurgent.org/~alcatroll/Soc.men/altfaq.html
Of course, since this newgroup is dead and gone, I don't know just how misogynistic or in-bad-taste the subjects of these articles were. But the tone of the parodic FAQs, I think, says it all - the men in question are ridiculed for not being married, and those who escaped an abusive partner are mocked for being weeds.
---
More to come, but in the meantime...
