Archive for the ‘feminism’ Category

I’m agenist feminisam

March 25, 2010

I just googled to see if I could find out what kind of search brings people to this blog.

One search phrase was: “people that are agenist feminisam“.

Advertisements

What Oprah Did For Pooping

January 26, 2010

Just stopping in to approve comments, surrounded though I am by cardboard boxes. I approved all of them, including the feminists who checked in to demonstrate that they still have no clue how to form an argument, though this time I didn’t waste my time trying to argue with these pinheads. Good grief, a couple months ago a feminist actually cited Barack Obama to me as proof that members of formerly oppressed groups could “achieve greatness”. In the latest batch of comments, some dimwit claims that homosexuality is not genetic. I didn’t bother to link her to the truckloads of studies proving that it is; she can get someone with a penis to show her how to use Google. (This same dimbo also claims that the real problem isn’t feminism or patriarchy, it’s capitalism, and when we have world communism everything will be wonderful, and that Eastern European women – coincidentally the women from the main part of the world which has actually tried the system which she claims will turn the world into paradise – are brainless automatons.)

Also, someone at my wordpress backup is pissed that I haven’t logged in to approve her idiotic screed arguing with me. See, at wordpress, the default setting is that a new commenter’s first comment is automatically moderated. After that’s approved, later comments are automatically posted. Since I haven’t logged in there in a couple of weeks, the comment hasn’t gotten approved. This so incensed her that she left the same comment a second time, and then a third comment demanding how many times she has to post it before I’ll approve it. Apparently I’m supposed to log in regardless of what’s going on in my life so she can have the ego boost of her rantings being published on my site, and also wordpress is supposed to change its policy for her. That being the case, I think I won’t bother to log in over there for a while longer. Let this entitlement princess learn a little patience.

Also, someone named Kinderling has real issues with Goths. S/he also said I would go up in his/her estimation by posting this link, so here goes:

Couple ‘choose’ to have deaf baby

A lesbian couple in the US have provoked strong criticism by deliberately choosing to have a deaf baby.
Sharon Duchesneau and Candy McCullough, who have both been deaf since birth, were turned down by a series of sperm banks they approached looking for a donor suffering from congenital deafness.

Tammy Bruce wrote about this pair of child abusers in one of her books. Last I heard, their baby showed signs of deafness. Disgusting.

But let’s get on to what I really wanted to post about, because this is so hilarious I had to share it right away.

Bloody Hell: Menstrual Activists Make Periods Public

Today we learned an awesome new word: Menarchy, or menstrual anarchy.

Um, yeah. Sign me up. Not.

The photograph at left is the work of artist Ingrid Berthon-Moine. It is part of a series of pictures that show women wearing the blood that was only recently inside their bodies on their lips. If you think this is gross, Germaine Greer has some choice words for you: “if you think you are emancipated, you might consider the idea of tasting your own menstrual blood – if it makes you sick, you’ve a long way to go, baby,” she wrote in 1970.

Oh, the horrors of patriarchy! Those mean old men conspired for centuries to prevent us women from the joy of tasting our own menstrual blood! We’ll never be free until our mouths are filled with our own blood!

1969: Men put men on the moon.
1970: Women taste their own menstrual blood.

Gee, how could I possibly not respect the amazing accomplishments of feminism?

It’s probably no surprise that we think this new found openness is pretty great. Despite the weird name, Menarchists are trying to do for periods what Oprah did for pooping.

I have no idea what Oprah did for pooping, but then, like all people more intelligent than a unicellular organism, I don’t watch Oprah. (Actually, that’s a very succinct way to prove the superiority of men over women: Which sex watches Oprah?) Anyway, pooping is about the highest accomplishment she or any other feminist could possibly hope for, so small wonder they’re glorifying it.

I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: “O Lord, make my enemies ridiculous.” And God granted it.
~Voltaire.

Still have a very full plate, will probably not show up here again for a few more weeks.

Quick note

December 25, 2009

Am still swamped. Right now I’m waiting for some other relatives to arrive so we can all visit the one who’s now disabled together, and I decided to take a minute to check my comments.

One of them, over at my wordpress backup, was so funny I had to spread holiday cheer by sharing it. It’s on Women have a “right” to get drunk”, in which I posted an article about how the law considers sex with an intoxicated person to be rape, even if the man is drunk too. I state that this shouldn’t be the law because the woman made the decision to get drunk on her own and should be held responsible for the consequences of that action. So some dimbo replied,

So I guess that means that you believe that an intoxicated individual walking home on the sidewalk is partly responsible when s/he is hit by a drunk driver of a car? Maybe you think that when two people get drunk and one shoots the other with a gun the person who gets shot probably should be held accountable for the poor judgment of getting drunk near someone who owns a gun and the gun owner is not guilty of manslaughter because of intoxication. A person committing a sexual assault is committing a crime and a person being sexually assaulted isn’t, whether they are drunk or not. Your argument ignores this principle.

If you want to outrage a feminist, just suggest that there is any situation in which any woman might be considered at all responsible for any of her own actions.

Also, I have a new reader, J. Durden, who has a blog of his own. I’ve only read one post so far, but it’s a good one.

On a personal note, I’ve found a new apartment and will be moving in in a couple of weeks. After that, I’ll be unpacking (boy will that be fun) and job hunting, so my appearances will still be infrequent until I’m settled.

And thank you very much for all the very supportive comments you’ve left! I do appreciate it.

All or Nothing

November 5, 2009

Feminists who comment here always insist that I have no right to criticize feminism because it did one great thing for me. What that one thing was varies: a favorite is that I wouldn’t have been allowed to blog if not for some mysterious unnamed feminists who won freedom of speech for women, another is that feminism gave me the great privilege of spending my childhood imprisoned listening to brainless sluts recite Marxist propaganda and being beaten up by the young alpha males who made the teachers’ ginas tingle.

Of course, as I’ve discussed, feminism does not deserve the credit for getting freedom of speech for women, nor did it win higher education for women, even leaving out the fact that feminism has ruined education in America. I have yet to learn of even one good deed to feminism’s credit. To the best of my knowledge – and remember that in my misspent youth, I read piles of herstory crap – feminism has never done even one good thing.

But that’s beside the point. What these feminists seem to be saying is that if feminism has done even one good deed, we must not make the slightest protest to the innumerable evils it has unleashed upon the world.

New Spearhead Post!

October 24, 2009

The Feminist’s Guide To Debate Tactics

One commenter said that I ought to have offered retorts that MRAs could make against these standard feminist “arguments”, but that wasn’t what the satire was about. Someone should write one of those sometime.

To my amusement but not surprise, a feminist calling herself “someone” is trolling the comments, using exactly the lame feminist arguments I was making fun of! Except I forgot to add “outright lies”: she claims, with no support, that Roissy bans people he can’t argue against. Having read a few Roissy comment threads and seen how ridiculous, hostile, and OT they can get, I doubt he bans anybody.

EDIT: Comments made after I made this post showed that “someone” is actually a guy, and has the distinction of being one of the very few people who managed to get banned by Roissy. Read the comments on any of Roissy’s post to get a feel for just how hard that is to do.

Professional Feminism

October 21, 2009

Was just reading Roissy’s latest post, and he linked back to one of his old Beta Of The Month posts, the one about the feminist wedding. I decided to see my or Roissy’s predictions about their marriage have come true yet – I think Roissy is right that she’ll cuckold him, and my own prediction is that she’ll leave him and take him to the cleaners in the settlement – so I went to her profile page.

(I obviously rarely visit the feministing website, so I didn’t know until this evening that one of the “feminists” who rants there calls herself “Professor Foxy”. Boy, does that sound liberated!)

I didn’t find anything about her marriage, but there is a summary of her “career”:

Jessica is a 30 year-old feminist writer from New York. She has a Masters degree in Women’s and Gender Studies from Rutgers University and has worked with organizations such as NARAL Pro-Choice America, Legal Momentum (formerly NOW Legal Defense and Education Fund), Planned Parenthood, the Women’s Environment and Development Organization (WEDO) and Ms. magazine. She is also a co-founder of the REAL hot 100, a campaign to highlight the important work that young women are doing across the country.

Jessica is the editor of Beijing Betrayed, a global monitoring report on women’s progress worldwide and a contributing author to We Don’t Need Another Wave and Single State of the Union (Seal Press). Her writing has appeared in Ms. magazine, Salon, The Guardian (UK), Bitch, Alternet, The Scholar & Feminist and Guernica.

In April 2007, Jessica was named one of ELLE magazine’s IntELLEgentsia.

She is the author of two books, Full Frontal Feminism: A Young Woman’s Guide to Why Feminism Matters, and He’s a Stud, She’s a Slut…and 49 Other Double Standards Every Woman Should Know. She’s also a co-editor of Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and A World Without Rape

Her newest book, The Purity Myth: How America’s Obsession with Virginity is Hurting Young Women, will be out in Spring 2009.

I guess I’m still behind the times, because I found this utterly baffling. Here’s this dame whose entire life work is walking around being a feminist. That’s it, that’s all she does. She got a masterette’s degree for spending years shoring up her opinions – Women’s Studies is not a real subject, and that there is a major in it just shows how useless college has become, and why I am not impressed that feminists have “made education available to women”. A fluffy fashion magazine has named her an intellectual, with a girly pun in the term. She “works” with organizations that bitch about how unfeminist the world is, and bitches on paper about the same thing. She spends all of her waking hours bitching that women aren’t seen as equal to men.

I doubt she would grasp the irony of that last sentence.

At least Nancy Hopkins, the dimbo who got Larry Summers shafted, has a science degree even if she probably got a guy to do her homework in exchange for sex, and she has some sort of pretense at a science career in between her real career of bitching that women in science aren’t taken seriously. (Her attack on Professor Summers was just one of a long list of publicity stunts she used to convince women who are trying to do actual scientific research that they’re being discriminated against, which oddly they never noticed until she made it up.)

It would just have never occurred to me to make a career out of going around telling people my opinions. Why should anyone care what this baggage thinks? Why should anyone be willing to pay to hear her opinions? This is the feminist idea of a “career” – do what you feel like doing and get paid for it. If she had real achievements of some sort and thought that women needed activism, I would have some respect for her, even though obviously I would still disagree with her completely. But she’s never bothered to make any, because she’s devoted her life instead to bitching at people to share her beliefs and wreck their lives by behaving accordingly. And of course, no matter how careful anyone is, she will find some way of catching them committing thought crimes, because it’s impossible for anyone to actually think the way progressives want everyone to. Even the most rabid blue-stater isn’t that out of touch with reality. So there are always heresies for libtards to root out!

One final amusing note. A few years ago, she and a few other SWPL leftie bloggers got to have dinner with former President Clinton. (What? She gets to meet a former president for a decade of expressing her opinion? I express my opinion, do I get to meet a former president?) She wrote an essay griping because apparently, a lot of commenters made a big deal about the fact that in the photo of Clinton with the bloggers, she had breasts. I skimmed some of the comments and based on the ones I looked at, I think that they were mostly inspired by Slick Willie’s reputation as a lecher, though really that means that putting a fairly attractive (for a feminist) young woman right in front of him in the photo was a bad choice.

Well, her breasts aren’t small, so unless she was going to wear some baggy monstrosity, she really couldn’t hide them. Mine aren’t small either, so I know what I’m talking about; as a soft butch, I’d rather de-emphasize mine, but surgery’s the only thing that could effectively de-emphasize these. She wasn’t showing them off. Women who think she was have small breasts. If she had been wearing a plunging neckline or something, I’d agree with the people who made a big deal, but she wasn’t; she just has large breasts. Women who are so endowed are under no obligation to conceal the fact from the world, especially since doing so is damn near impossible. Yeah, on that charge I’m defending her. From other feminists, in fact; she and another feminist had quite a catfight over it.

But what I found amusing was, after reading her article griping over Breastgate, I went to Google to see if I could find the picture and judge for myself. I assumed I would have to dig around a lot to find it.

Well, not only was it easy to find, but when I typed “Jessica Valenti” into the Google search box, before I was even done with her last name, Google suggested the search phrase “Jessica Valenti breast”.

Don’t be evil.

Breaking news: Feminist arguments still lame

October 21, 2009

Or maybe I should say “Feminist arguments still differently abled”.

Was just over at The Spearhead and read Feminist Rantings For Your Entertainment. It’s all comments from femtards on Spearhead articles, and they’re all pretty much the same: “You will never have sex again unless you paid for it!” Can’t they come up with anything new? Well, yes, they can tell me that if it weren’t for some mysterious feminists they refuse to name, I wouldn’t be allowed to keep a blog.

Oh, wait, they also sometimes accuse the MRAs of having small dicks. It must really frustrate them not to be able to use that favorite of theirs on me.

The first comment quoted in the article accuses the Spearhead contributor, in nauseating terms, of never having had sex. This is a charge I’ve seen levelled against antifeminists before, and it always baffles me, because as anyone who’s read PUA material knows, men who are inexperienced with women generally put women on a pedestal and think of them as innocent angels in need of protection. A lot of PUA material is focused on getting aspiring seducers out of that mindset and seeing women more realistically, as the very flawed beings they are. Only men who see female flaws as they are ever get laid. Yes, the lower your opinion of women, the more likely you are to get them.

My own personal story reflects this. When I first came out of the closet, I considered myself a feminist – though I was sort of a Booker T. Washington feminist, who believed that the idea was that women should strive to make impressive achievements of our own and improve our own lot. Like a lot of the pioneer feminists, I thought that most women had abilities comparable to mine. I didn’t realize then that most women simply don’t have the ability to achieve much.

So before I started dating women, I had a high opinion of them. That lasted about one year. I had dated men and even the worst of them never displayed the kind of viciousness that all my girlfriends showed me. I discovered in short order that women are fickle, deceptive, selfish in a way I had thought confined to toddlers, superficial, irrational, malicious, and just plain childish.

And I’ve had a lot of girlfriends. I kept dating, hoping that the problem was just that I was meeting the wrong women and there were some good ones out there. I didn’t realize then that the only women who don’t act this way are mannish lesbians like myself, and I’m only attracted to femmey women. If I were a man, I would join some very socially conservative religious group, where there are feminine women who are nonevil, but such groups aren’t particularly hospitable to homosexuals.

I can’t even tell you how many women I’ve dated. There were a lot. I was always the one to break it off, with I think one exception. Today’s women are so spoiled by the special privileges feminism has gotten them that they were usually completely astonished that I wouldn’t keep giving them candlelit dinners and jewelry when they were lying to me, cheating on me, consistently standing me up, etc. They just couldn’t believe that anyone would expect the slightest decency from them.

After dating a lot of women, I started to figure out on my own what, unbeknownst to me, guys like Mystery and Ross Jeffries were working down to a science at that very moment. Namely, that being nice to women is a one-way ticket to celibacy. Unfortunately for me, I couldn’t use this knowledge, because what I wanted was a healthy committed relationship, with a woman I could respect as an equal (ha!). I was so disgusted that I eventually gave up and stopped dating at all. I wanted more than getting laid, but modern women just don’t have more than that to offer. (Luckily, in retrospect, I was not then making enough money for that to be a motivation for any woman to hang on to me.)

Perhaps ironically, I then demanded far less of the women I was interested in than I would now if I were still on the market. Back then, I was willing to make allowances for a bit of bad behavior, like showing up late for dates. I had no problem with a woman being career-centric; I respected that. And so on. Nowadays, if I were to consider a serious relationship with a woman, it would have to be clear that her job was just a nuisance to her and that she would quit as soon as we shacked up and devote herself instead to attending to me and the kids.

I’m not very keen on the idea of gay marriage. Considering what heterosexual marriage has become – who the hell would want in on that? But one thing about it appeals to me a lot: the idea of getting a mail order bride.

So, sorry, girls. It’s not unfamiliarity with you that causes misogyny, it’s the reverse. To know you is to despise you.

There was one especially good comment on that Spearhead article, by someone called Z. G.:

What women and femtards do not realize is that by using those sexual shaming insults they create the following logical pathway in many men’s minds:

you can’t get laid, you are a loser, etc => So female sexuality is a reward, as seen by women.

This leads to the observation:

Women, at least for short term sexuality give this reward to the ones least deserving (in men’s eyes); douchebags, criminals, assholes, jerks etc (players and handsome men are not really in this category)

Combining those two:

1. The reward that women dish out by their sexuality has no value if it is dished out to the douchebags&co treating them like shit

2. Any woman who has given the reward to ones not deserving it is a slut, her sexuality has no value as the reward has been given in exchange of no value

2.a. Acknowledging that women are the gatekeepers of sex, making women accountable for almost all the problems we see in the sexual/dating world.

3. If I want reward, easiest way to get it is follow “Men behaving badly”.

So what these women do actually is justifying the slut brand, encouraging men to behave badly, and least but not last nullifying the value of a female as a person, as all the reward a woman can give is sex.

Nothing benefitting women themselves, which actually would have a detrimental effect on women, were it not for the almost infinite support net given by society/state.

Sing it, brother.

Link dump

October 2, 2009

How my mother’s fanatical views tore us apart by Rebecca Walker, daughter of Alice Walker. This is really heartrending.

The truth is that I very nearly missed out on becoming a mother – thanks to being brought up by a rabid feminist who thought motherhood was about the worst thing that could happen to a woman.

You see, my mum taught me that children enslave women. I grew up believing that children are millstones around your neck, and the idea that motherhood can make you blissfully happy is a complete fairytale.

In fact, having a child has been the most rewarding experience of my life. Far from ‘enslaving’ me, three-and-a-half-year-old Tenzin has opened my world. My only regret is that I discovered the joys of motherhood so late – I have been trying for a second child for two years, but so far with no luck.

I was raised to believe that women need men like a fish needs a bicycle. But I strongly feel children need two parents and the thought of raising Tenzin without my partner, Glen, 52, would be terrifying.

As the child of divorced parents, I know only too well the painful consequences of being brought up in those circumstances. Feminism has much to answer for denigrating men and encouraging women to seek independence whatever the cost to their families.

I was tempted to just post the whole thing. Read it.

Anecdotal observations on game, women and politics. Ferdinand Bardamu quotes me in this post.

Also, here’s an MRA blog I hadn’t seen before: Seasons of Tumult and Discord.

What’s Happening To Women’s Happiness?

First, since 1972, women’s overall level of happiness has dropped, both relative to where they were forty years ago, and relative to men. You find this drop in happiness in women regardless of whether they have kids, how many kids they have, how much money they make, how healthy they are, what job they hold, whether they are married, single or divorced, how old they are, or what race they are.

A fascinating post about the relative happiness of men and women can be read here.

Women are stupid and amoral: a double feature

It’s about a woman who chose to date a delinquent and, unsurprisingly, was murdered by him. Also discussed is the feminists who defended Roman Polanski, though I have to say that I was relieved to see that the majority of vocal feminists want his head on a platter. (For those who haven’t yet found out, it wasn’t just statutory rape; the creep drugged a 13-year-old girl and raped her orally, vaginally and anally while she kept telling him no and asking him to stop. In other words, it was “rape-rape”.)

The idiot woman who dated an obviously dangerous man is also discussed here: Slain Va. mom, daughter had counseling over music.

The mom was a professorette of criminal justice “who specialized in violence against women but has taught classes in homicide”. She co-wrote a book on sexual violence. This woman was paid to spend all of her time studying this stuff and she couldn’t tell her daughter, “Don’t date a horrorcore rapper”?

Male Call: BEYOND POWER

Life in the prehistoric era, as Marilyn French tells it, was apparently much like that in a modern Scout camp. Early humans fished and frolicked, lived off the land and sat around communal fires at night talking, singing and indulging in sexual banter. Life was generally not hard, she says, and peace reigned between the sexes and between humans and nature. This idyllic era, a source of some nostalgia for the author, fell victim to the most decisive and perfidious event in history: the rise of patriarchy….

Along the way, French dispenses reams of disinformation. Middle-class women of the 18th century, she writes, got pregnant easily because they were inactive. Regarbling an already muddled item from Ms. magazine, she says that President Carter wanted to send female soldiers into Afghanistan, and that the Afghan rebellion occurred partly because of the Soviet demand that women be allowed to read, write and attend village meetings. China and the Soviet Union are listed as the world leaders in allowing women to fulfill themselves.

I’m pleasantly surprised to see feminist yapping ridiculed in a PC publication like Time.

Housekeeping Post

October 1, 2009

After all, I believe that women should be housekeepers!

So, Roissy has echoed my recommendation that men film their sexual encounters to protect themselves from false rape accusations later. I wouldn’t be surprised if plenty of men who read neither Roissy’s blog nor mine noted that event and independently drew the same conclusion. Behold, the achievement of feminism: making women such untrustworthy backstabbers that men will not consort with them without the insurance of hard proof against the lies they expect women to tell.

Also: I’ve decided not to approve flame comments from feminists anymore, unless maybe I get one that’s especially amusing. It encourages them and wastes my time. I’m here to discuss matters with men who have freed themselves from feminist indoctrination, not to teach History 101 to silly females (or silly manginas). When their first two sentences prove that they’re idiots, I’m not going to go to their own blogs and read their rants about how terrible I am. Besides which, feminists – no, that’s not quite fair; liberals in general, of which feminists are a subgroup, have an incredible sense of entitlement. They have never bothered to acquaint themselves with the literature or history of the past five centuries, but expect me to summarize centuries of history – and recap points I have already made many times – to disprove their ludicrous assertions. I don’t have time to do what their high school history teachers couldn’t be bothered to do. I educated myself by reading a lot of very thick books. My trolls will have to do the same if they want to know what I’m talking about. I’ve even given them a handy start by linking piles of articles, essays and books in my sidebars that chronicle the particular aspect of history that concerns this blog.

My most recent trollette clearly doesn’t even know about the hate speech laws which now govern almost every Western nation, America being one of the few remaining exceptions. She doesn’t know what’s going on now, let alone what’s been going on for the last half millenium. Do I need to list truckloads of female authors, orators and activists from the past several centuries to prove to you men that it was not feminism that got women freedom of speech? No, because you’ve taken the trouble to study history on your own. I’ve had men dispute some of the details of my historical assertions, and they always provide specifics and often references. Women just recite rhetoric they got from some women’s magazine. They expect me to do all the work for them. Which is pretty much what evolution designed women to do: get others to work for them.

In addition, feminists have a really amazing all-or-nothing mentality. I say, “Women should not be allowed to use affirmative action or sex discrimination lawsuits to force their way into jobs they can’t do.” They hear, “It should be illegal for women to have any jobs whatsoever, plus their husbands should be allowed to beat them constantly.” Then again, feminists are a breed of liberal and liberals are the people whose brains transform “Willie Horton was a murderer and rapist and should be in prison” into “All black men are monsters! Put a white pillowcase on your head and let’s kill ’em all!”

So, yeah. Not worth my time. I told my most recent troll to provide names and dates supporting her claim that before feminism, women didn’t have freedom of speech if she wants another comment approved. I should have also demanded that she explain how Sojourner Truth, Carry Nation, Mary Wollstonecraft, Harriet Beecher Stowe, Abby Kelley Foster, Madame de Stael, Renee Vivien, Radclyffe Hall, Rebecca Protten, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Mary Baker Eddy, Mary Hunt, Elizabeth D. Golek, and many others could exist since they lived pre-feminism and therefore weren’t allowed to write or speak their minds.

Gosh, look at how many impressive women I can list. (I certainly don’t approve of everything all these women did, but the point is, they had things to say and they said them. And they weren’t even all privileged upper-class women.) I had to do some googling to find Rebecca Protten’s last name, but the rest I knew off the top of my head. I’ve noted before that some of the male chauvinist books I’ve reviewed give more credit to women who’ve made real accomplishments than do most feminist authors, who are more interested in whining about how downtrodden women are.

Wait, do you think they actually believe this shit?

September 26, 2009

No one who’s even slightly acquainted with history can possibly believe that before Women’s Lib, women didn’t have such rights as freedom of speech. Heck, a few minutes’ reading about the abolitionist and temperance movements of the nineteenth century will demolish that one handily. And yes, sooner than that, too. Women have had freedom of speech for exactly as long as men have had it – and I’ve yet to hear of any female martyr to truth like Galileo (who, historians inform us, was a dude). Arguably, men haven’t had any peace and quiet to speak of since the Reformation. (For feminist readers: the Reformation is that thing that’s happening in The Tudors.)

But then, feminists are indeed notoriously ignorant of history. It’s a prerequisite. No one who has any clue what jobs have been like for most of history would be complaining that they weren’t in on them. No one who has read about what schools were like when men still dominated them could argue that they have improved since teaching became a pink-collar profession. And so on.

If feminist leaders really have duped the empty-headed women who support their schemes into believing the astonishing claim that women were kept illiterate and silent until the 1960’s, no wonder those poor dimbos support them.