miss Andrea’s

WARNING: I’m using logic again, thorry!

The term “real women” was used deliberately in Part One, and I for one have decided to not back down from it’s use, because it’s kinda important for all sorts of secret feminazi reasons loosely pertaining to the status of my chocolate stash. Or perhaps because transgenderism itself is a suicidal train wreck waiting to derail the unwary feminist in a few years, as trends progress.

So that was my half-assed intro, and I’m interrupting it already.

Perhaps my motive for debunking this disaster wasn’t clear, and so now would make a nice time to go through those reasons. First, I really don’t care what transgendered people do with their own bodies, it’s none of my business as long as they aren’t hurting anybody else. And that, you see, is really the crux of the matter. For what they are doing will eventually come back to bite real women in the ass in a few years. But it occurred to me that my explaining that prediction in a way which makes sense to vanilla feminists is asking for the moon — for one reason because we mustn’t hurt any body’s feelings by pointing out the stupid, and for another many feminists seem to be having a great deal of trouble understanding the simple logical inconsistency which exists in their support of transgenderism. You see the dilemma. So let’s deal with the logical inconsistency first, and then get to the prediction later.

But let’s do this the right way and bring a healthy dose of skepticism to the fore, because only the gullible automatically believe everything they hear without questioning it’s validity. If transgenderism can survive this examination intact, then I will cease my harping on the subject and wish them well. Let’s begin:

First, we have someone who claims to not feel comfortable in hiz own body. All well and good, many people are uncomfortable about some aspect of their physical appearance that they wish to change. This individual claims to be a different gender then hiz birth body indicates. Well we have a problem with that word gender. Because feminists keep saying that there is no gender. So if transgenderism is a valid medical condition, and transfolk really do need to change body parts, then the reason they need to change those body parts is because gender is real. Which automatically makes the favorite feminist theory invalid — yanno, the one where they screech that gender is a social construct. Yanno, the one theory which has formed the foundation for all other subsequent feminist theory for the last three centuries. Yanno, the one theory which if rendered invalid automatically reboots every other feminist theory in existence. That one, ya fucking pea-brain.

That has been said many times already, and yet the vanilla feminists still stand around like cows farting breakfast, and claim to not “understand” a very simple logic problem. Do they also not understand what happens to all those other feminist theories when the foundation crumbles? If gender is real, then it logically follows that other concepts are true as well, and we get to say all sorts of things which they probably won’t like but will have to accept anyway. Here’s the first one:

If gender is real, then there are real differences between men and women.

Well obviously there are physical differences, that’s nothing of interest. Yes, and those differences which are so important as to require surgery must be of the internal variety, such as emotional or intellectual, for example. The reason we know those differences must be internal is because the transgendered themselves say that it is impossible to change their internal structure, and so they are altering their external body — the only thing they say which is capable of change. In addition, if you’re going to say that there are real internal differences, then there is no logical reason to limit those internal differences to just one particular attribute or characteristic. From all that, we get this:

If gender is real, then there are other real internal differences between men and women, such as emotional/intellectual/moral/etc..

Okay, that’s not sooooo terrible, feminists have already proved that in most jobs at least, women can perform as well as men. And of course I don’t mind that it may indicate there are moral differences, because I already think men suck anyway. But it gets progressively worse as we proceed down the merry road of deductive reasoning:

If gender is worth changing body parts over, then those differences must be significant. You do not go to that much trouble over minor or insignificant differences.

But all along feminists have been insisting that the differences between men and women are minor; and also insisting that because those differences are minor, then segregating jobs and other skillsets is discrimination. But darlings, when those differences become worth switching body parts over, then those differences become major, and then gender discrimination becomes not only reasonable but acceptable. It ceases to be discrimination at all, and becomes instead a normalized condition of womanhood…

… And isn’t that how sexism started in the first place, darlings? Why yes it is, m Andrea. (You know I’m wack when I start having imaginary conversations in a freaking blog post fercrissake.) Sexism and it’s close friend misogyny are propagated by the idea that women are very different from men, and have very different skillsets which conveniently are not as shiny as the skillsets belonging to men.

We know men will take advantage of any opportunity to normalize gender discrimination because that is the over-whelming pattern. Until vanilla feminists are willing to seriously argue that sexism is permanently eradicated, then we can expect that pattern to continue in some form, and so it behooves a person not blinded by fairy lights to look for ways men will subvert women’s status. And darlings, transgenderism is as great an opportunity for subversion of women’s status as the sexual liberation was back in the 60’s. It slid so effortlessly into “liberation equals pornification”, and some are still wondering how that all happened!*

The very foundation of patriarchy is the separation of all humans into distinct classifications of gender, each with their own set of approved characteristics and skillsets. Eliminating patriarchy entails breaking the chain between each gender and it’s corresponding set of approved characteristics. Vanilla feminists understand that part, but their logic disintegrates at the next stage of critical reasoning.

The next section briefly veers off track. A post-within-a-post. It dissects their reasoning again, discusses one part of their motivation, and also refutes their motivation:

They believe that gender is a made-up social construct which does not exist, but somehow or another an individual still needs to move from one made-up socially-constructed gender to another. Let’s look at that. Even a person of average intelligence realizes that if a thing does not truly exist in reality, then there can be no existing sub-components of that thing. So there is no need to move from one non-existent component to another non-existent component. The only idea these feminists have “proved” by supporting transgenderism is that gender exists — the very thing they insist does not, and the very thing they claim to work to eliminate.

So why are they supporting transgenderism, when it obviously doesn’t make any sense? There are several fascinating reasons, but here’s what they tend to say, if I keep nit-picking them down to an actual reason during conversations:

They will claim they need to work within the framework of culture; that in order to get to a place where there is no gender, they must first continue to pretend that gender is real. But what they are really saying is that the quickest way from a sexist society to a post-sexism society, is through bargaining with lies. This is their only remotely plausible excuse for supporting transgenderism, if they bother to think it through. But why on earth do they need to bargain with made-up socially constructed lies at all? That is the mark of a child, who argues with shadows. Also, I would like to see some proof that the quickest way from a sexist society to a post-sexist society is through the never-never land of make believe.

These feminists must assume that people in general are really quite stupid and have difficulty with reality; and frankly, I agree with them on that point. But I stop at the part where we wrap people up in cotton wool and assume the only way to get people to face reality is through yet more make-believe. You don’t get to the place where reality reigns by practicing pretense. You get to the place where reality reigns by practicing reality. Pick any attribute you want, and the way to get better at it is to practice that very attribute. You do not become a better musician by practicing baseball. You do not become more honest by lying.

A society which convinces itself that lies are a valid pathway on the way to achieving some goal only convinces itself of the necessity of lying to itself; and then that belief system is used on other subjects as well. They’ve already decided that belief system works as a good tool, after all. But you never actually get closer to reality, you only get deeper into the use of lies. Lying even to oneself becomes a comfortable, familiar pattern; so much so that one is not always aware of it’s occurrence. Doublespeak become doublethink, and both reign supreme.

Our Orwellian Alert System has screeched itself into oblivion long ago, it’s voice hoarse from screaming. Now there is only the echo of a few pointing out the idiocy and they too wonder if the sheer number of thundering hordes signify authenticity. No, it simply means the voice of reason must dig in and use the only tool which can defeat the greater mass of thundering hordes — logic. But in order to be effective, one must first clearly delineate their offensive manipulation strategies (as opposed to defensive strategies) which are intended only to silence and confuse.

It is impossible to argue that transgenderism holds no negative repercussions for real women, yet most feminists are blatantly refusing to even consider the existence of these negatives. Instead, they label any disagreement as a “transphobia”, entirely forgetting that claiming something is phobic can only be valid if the criticism is actually addressed, and proven to be wrong. As such, the charge of “transphobia” becomes nothing more then a manipulation doublespeak technique intended to silence.

There are two major tactics the trans supporters use; one is the stupid crying girl as a pity shield and the other is the charge that we are “transphobic”. We are not supposed to notice that they never actually refute any of our accusations. Instead, we’re supposed to be overcome with sympathy for one and insulted into silence by the other. Surely we’re not cruel enough to ignore the crying girl, are we? Surely this lack of pity indicates some sort of phobia against an entire class of people, doesn’t it? Um, how ’bout they answer the criticisms which are never answered?

Deflecting our criticisms with aspersions upon our character is an ad hominem attack writ large. When your entire argument rests upon insults, you’ve lost the debate. When your entire argument is “look at the tear-stained face”, you never had an argument to begin with. When your entire argument presupposes an assumption which you never bothered to prove, — child, you are a fucking fool.

Come on, kids, it’s past time to put those Orwellian manipulation tools away. It’s past time for a change. You can do this, I know you can. There is a way out, and it is beyond beautiful. Anyway, let’s get back on the logic train where we left off:

Remember, the transgendered claim they can only express their feminine attributes if they have a feminine body. By making each set of approved gender characteristics utterly dependent on which body the transgendered person happens to claim, — guess what we get to say next? Well, for starters:

Which set of characteristics one is permitted to express is utterly dependent upon specific body parts.

The chains of patriarchy are still intact, and stronger then ever thanks to a brand new source of socially sanctioned paternalism. A new source of sexism will have a variety of new effects upon society, in addition to further entrenching those already in existence. The transgendered are coyly bargaining with patriarchy, promising in return for a peaceful co-existence that they will submissively uphold the traditional genderized norms. Dear readers, how exactly does that help real women? Because it seems to me that it only creates a long list of problems, all of which increases the amount of sexist dogmatism that must be overcome.

Personally, I believe some feminists are focusing on the extremely short-term benefit and completely ignoring the far more damaging long-term consequences. Yes, transgenderism proves a man can have feminine attributes, but in the process, it also proves that feminine attributes are ultimately only limited to females. It’s a trap, designed for people who only consider immediate gratification of short-term goals worthy of consideration. If the only short-term benefit is utterly nullified by the long-term consequence, — and in fact made worse — then only a total imbecile still thinks the damn thing is valuable.

So what do we have so far? We’ve briefly mentioned that patriarchy has a habit of subverting any feminist cause for it’s own misogynistic purposes, and that transgenderism merely cements patriarchal gender norms. In addition, I hope it was clearly determined that there is a fundamental inconsistency within transgenderism itself which, besides never being addressed, undermines the very foundations upon which feminism was founded. Along the way, we highlighted some peculiar blind spots of vanilla feminists which are quite fascinating in their own right — all in all, a nice little display of tunnel vision, just waiting for someone who isn’t a venomous feminazi to explain it all.***

And if that isn’t enough, I believe the answer to the question which is never asked, has been found. Kind of exciting, if you’re into inexplicable enigmas. Stay well, thanks for reading, and seeya next time.

_
*Actually nobody ever wonders why it happened. Reseachers document the rise and fall of trends and attribute it to misogyny; rarely do they ask what causes societal-wide misogyny in the first place.
**Serious thanks to TheBewilderness!
***Probably TheB again, she knows everything. Then I’ll act like I knew it all along.

there is a potential for harm associated with irrational thinking. People who uncritically accept one claim are just as likely to uncritically accept other claims. The potential for harm is not caused by any particular belief: it comes from the manner in which those beliefs are formed and the uncritical way in which they are accepted

That page, found here, begins today’s indictment of many feminists. I think we can all agree that irrational or magical thinking is the sign of an ignorant person, but just what defines that peculiar dissonance is up for grabs depending on who you ask. I prefer to call it what it is: non-logical thinking — which of course upsets all the people who resent being told that they are non-logical and therefore total fucktards.

People who do not think logically will find all kinds of justifications for why non-logical thinking is preferred or beneficial. Usually they will appeal to emotion, which as we will see, is the common denominator of children. Non-logical adults will disguise this trait with hyperbole, as graciously explained by George:

As I have tried to show, modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and making the results presentable by sheer humbug.

Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, “I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so.” Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:

While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.

The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts like soft snow, blurring the outline and covering up all the details. The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink. In our age there is no such thing as “keeping out of politics.” All issues are political issues, and politics itself is a mass of lies, evasions, folly, hatred, and schizophrenia. When the general atmosphere is bad, language must suffer.

The feminazi translation: Know with absolute certainty that if someone lacks the capacity to be clear on some issue, they are either an idiot or a liar. When someone’s stupidity is pointed out, they always scream that their feelings are hurt; we are not supposed to notice that the actual criticism is never addressed. It was TheBewilderness who taught me how turds always flush the subject without wiping first; although in this specific instance of her brillance, she was reaming a troll who was attempting to change the focus from *men being assholes* to *women being man-phobic*. She is quoted below:

But many of the comments above seem to be based on some prurient hatred of sex instead, which is disturbing.

This is a cheap transparent trick to change the subject from the behavior of men, to the feelings of women. Every time you hear the term hate used in this fashion it is always a cheapass way to change the subject. Serious people do not like to be manipulated in the style of political operatives.

Men rape women.
Why do you hate men.

Porn hurts women.
Why do you hate sex.

Do you see the shift from the behavior of the perp to the feelings of the victim? You can see it any time you like on the cable news networks, where that crap passes for discussion.  It does not pass here.

That was a such a brillant remark, I would tattoo it on my forehead if I had enough room. It has all kinds of other handy interpretations upon further reflection. For instance, that remark taught me about the crying girls who expect everybody to drop the original criticism because they are sad.

I don’t know how many WOC were raised this way, but we have a situation in the US where young white liberals are typically raised to believe that they are entitled to having their feelings protected forever, which is of course a very child-like expectation. According to them, if their feelings are hurt in any way, then the person who hurt their feelings must be rude. Since their feelings are paramount, the criticism must always be inaccurate.

This explains why so many idiot young white feminists automatically assume that the crying girl is right, rather then just crying. We don’t know if her claim if valid, we only know she is crying. Only idiots conflate the two.

Perhaps that was too plainly stated, and feminists need a more polite version in order to avoid becoming distracted by their own emotional reaction. Intellectualized gobbledeegook once again saves the princess from dealing with reality:

In order to establish a more nuanced dynamic inclusive of protected emotive environments without negatively impacting group cohension and individual authenticity, it becomes necessary to encourage a scaling growth pattern reflecting objective social normatives in conjunctive with new behavioral modes which precludes excessive emo-pander-itis.

Thus ends today’s lesson which can be summarized: feminists are idiots if they lack the capacity to differentiate between emotion-based manipulation and fact-based evaluation.

Don’t compound your irrational dissonance further, you fucktard feminists: Stop equating “feminazi sees logical inconsistencies in transgenderism” with “feminazi thinks harrassment of transfolk is okay”. And for the last goddamn time, stop blaming others because you lack the capacity to think through this shit for yourself.

Yes, I’m condeeeeescending — that’s what always happens when adults speak to retards. Patience ain’t my strong suit, and some idiot’s insistence on focusing on their own emotional reaction instead of addressing the actual criticism merely proves my entire point. Want some respect? Then grow the fuck up.

I hope that was clear enough for you.

To prove I’m still paying attention, let’s take a gander at the Orwellian doublespeak which commonly passes for working brain cells among the transgender crowd. It’s a sad testimony to our troubled times that this particular ontological manipulation has heretofore slipped betwist the cracks, but rest assured I can put down the Cheese Whiz and cartoons long enough to immitate Twisty one more time*. Before I proceed, however, it needs a disclaimer, most likely one comprised of twenty pages, but a paragraph will have to do.

I love Twisty, I really do. Nobody can rip apart the patriarchy like Twisty when she decides to give it a bigger rectal reaming then Goatse’s best efforts after a five-gallon enema. So I offer a humble apology for not letting her get away with upholding that which she claims to despise. Unless I am mistaken, she likes transgendered folk for the same reason that most feminists seem to like them — they prove gender is fluid. Unfortunately, feminists stop right at the edge of their brain, believing that there is no more to think through. Those kind of mental stop signs do not apply to me, though, because I’m evil. And so we arrive thusly at our next introductory paragraph.

When transgendered folks get through the final stage of transitioning and reach “the end”, all that gender fluidity goes right out the window and solidifies into the crusty crud on the bottom of my boots. They have merely succeeded in upholding the gender binary — the very same binary which has held women down for the last 10,000 years. The very same gender binary which says you need a penis to beat your competitors to the punch (else she’s a bitch), or that you need a vagina to express sensitivity (else he’s a wimp). There is simply no character trait in existence which requires one to possess specific genitalia in order to display said character trait to the world; feminists are clearly unanimous in this belief.

Since you do not need a penis to pick up a hammer, since you do not need a vagina to vaccuum, or validate virility, vanquish vasselage, or *oh my!* vounch for volition, there is also no corresponding need to switch out body parts in order to express what is basically described as internal character, unless the purpose is merely to commodify one’s personality as a dainty girl might wear pink or a goth craves black. The genitalia have been reduced to the status of wardrobe accessory.

And since these folks insist they’re not swapping out genitalia for mastabatory fetish purposes, there too is no need to accessorize oneself with the preferred genitalia of their romantic partner unless they’re also prepared to reverse the surgery again, when they meet someone new who wants yet different genitals to play with.

Here again, the crying girl bats her tear-stained bits, and we are supposed to expose our monster hearts because we have a fucking brain and she doesn’t. Suppose it’s also time to admit that I personally don’t care one way or the other what she chooses to do with her body, but the blowback will continue in earnest until she gets a clue that as a permanent member of the respectable third gender, she has no right to speak on behalf of real women — for when they refer to themselves as “real women”, that is exactly the practical result.

*I lied, nobody can imitate Twisty. Suppose I could imitate pure unmitigated evil, though — it comes naturally to feminazis.

I don’t remember how I found this page, and I don’t know how they did the fancy “embed four videos into one”, but if you watch this video from their site, all four short vids blend almost seamlessly into one.

It’s about a dood who makes $51,000 every hour of every day, and pays less in taxes , percentage-wise, than one of his maids. It’s about asking what the hell are we doing and what are we trying to achieve, but most of all it’s about asking what is RIGHT with the war on greed. This country and this world are comprised of peoples of many colors, many of whom are in desperate need - and yet we’re supposed to believe that business as usual and more of the same is the star we strive to attain?

Pardon my suckage once again, I could not draw a pair of angel wings to save my life.  You would laugh if you knew how much time was wasted on this stupid thing.  It looks like a moose with icicles.  The entire post is suckalicious, so at least it’s consistent. 

As part of an ongoing existential crisis I sought outside sources, and as any good radical feminist knows, those sources included both pro and con.  We get to be smug because religious fanatics and the like, so it goes, only consult those whose prior agreement reinforces the desired outcome.  This guy questions how many steps over the line are allowed before one’s character changes from the box marked ‘evil’ into the the box marked ‘good’.  Feminazis are naturally curious about such things, you know.  Our evilness may be in jeopardy.   He explains my gravitating towards stupid stuff:

“This splitting of things into all-good and all-bad, with the attendant projection and scapegoating, appears to start in us as infants. Since it continues into childhood, it explains why fairy tales use such stark concepts of good and evil. It’s the only thing children can understand. Unfortunately, it also continues with us into adulthood, with catastrophic results. It is an infantile defense, a concept fit only for cartoons and fairy tales, but one with which we as adults consistently judge the complex world with all its shades of gray.”

I of course do not like this, but it gets better:

“One interpretation of the story of the Garden of Eden supports the view that projection starts in us when we are very young. I personally think this myth makes more sense if we consider Adam and Eve to be about four-years-old, because they are as unaware and ignorant as apples.

In the story, the first thing Adam does, when caught breaking the rules, is to point at Eve and say, “She made me do it.” Eve, no different than Adam, then shifts blame onto the serpent. “It’s his fault, not mine,” she says. An old story, but a very perceptive one that clearly tells us that scapegoating is one of the first things we do. One interpretation of the story claims Adam and Eve’s scapegoating, and refusal to accept responsibility for their actions, is what got them kicked out of the Garden of Eden, thereby bringing evil into the world.

Although I certainly don’t believe Adam and Eve were real people, and the story is just a myth (although a very wise one), it suggests that if they had not scapegoated each other, or had accepted responsibility for what they had done, they might have been allowed to stay. The moral, obviously, is that one of the first steps back to the Garden of Eden (to the extent it can exist in this world) is acceptance of responsibility and the cessation of scapegoating. It can’t be done through violence.”

Oh, so according to another thing he wrote, I’m not really evil.  HA!  Of course he’s lying.  Except I’m feeling a budding kinship with clueless twits, so perhaps a downgrade to merely wicked is in order.  What does it say when even a vile feminazi feels sympathy for men?  This is terrible news.  Worst case scenario, I could end up dating my neighbor - holy crap.  

Next post: either transgenderism or a really awesome surprise! 

 *

In an apparently never-ending quest to avoid dealing with an existential crisis, I am taking yet another leaf out of the patriarchal tree - I’m going to go attack something completely different.  Yes, yes I am.  Please do not sneer at my ability to avoid uncomfortable topics, it’s a very handy tool, one that feminists are quite familiar with but us rad-fems are not.  That’s why I pointed it out, so you too can play along at home.

Today’s spewage is brought to you by the f-word and the topic is that most ubiquitous of subjects, transgenderism.  Please note the clever use of ism, which referrs not to transgendered folk themselves, but to the broader philosophical concept which approves of switching one’s genitalia around as it’s nothing more than a Mr. Potato Head, if you remember those.   Shockingly enough, it is actually possible to discuss a concept which impacts society as a whole, as opposed to chatting up one individual who is but one small part of that whole.  Yes, I know this is news to most feminists, although once again the rad-fems are quite used to it.  Try to keep up.

Just to be clear, I’ll draw a diagram.  The pieces of the puzzle are not the whole picture; each of them is merely one part of the whole.  Say it with me:  part is not whole - you can do this feminists!  To assume that one is able to see the whole from examining only one part is not reasonable; sorry to crush your sour grapes into wine, but that’s the way it is.  If the goal is to see the whole, then you must look at the whole, not one tiny part of it and call it done.

So here we are with someone representing some part of the picture, but we’re not sure which part.  Perhaps both, which muddies things, and you know I like to be clear. Is this person discussing her own problems, and therefore limiting herself to only those public ouchies which hurt her personally; or is this yet again another feminist poster child whining about broad societal problems and using herself as the pity shield which is supposed to stop our deconstruction of the larger whole, and supposedly makes us look mean because we have a brain and can do these things?  Let’s see what she does.

Hmmm, first four paragraphs are about her, so this must be a personal kvetch.  Anytime it’s a personal story, we’re supposed to respect the sacrosanctity  of the person’s feelings and criticism is off-limits.  But that becomes a manipulaton technique when the person then uses their personal history - the same one they used to make a point - to exempt the much larger societal framework from any and all analysis.  We’re not supposed to notice the hypocrisy, which is repeated ad nauseam every time this subject arises.  She is the one who made it about her, yet she is off limits.  This makes no sense.  Either it’s about you and you’re fair game, or it’s about the wider societal implications, in which case you wouldn’t come into it at all MAKE UP YOUR FREAKING MIND.

This one actually gets a nod for mentioning the points of contention, although I suspect we’re not supposed to notice that these never get addressed.  Am I supposed to be impressed?  

Here’s the problem:  We would never expect a freshly raped person to come onto the internet and argue why rape is bad; in the exact same way it is not appropiate for a freshly transitioned person to argue her position herself.  Of course both of them would be upset; that’s why they need an advocate.  If she is strong enough to argue these points herself, then it is one more bit of hypocrisy that no one else is allowed to refute the charge without being called petty names.  Silencing through intimidation is something the patriarchy knows quite well, how does it come to pass that feminists are so throughly familiar with underhanded tactics?

Turn-around is fair play: you cannot criticise anything I’ve said, or you’ll make me cry and then you’re a big meanie.  Still sound reasonable? 

Because this basic hypocrisy flies right over their heads no matter how many times it’s pointed out, reasoning with these folks using logic becomes unproductive; there is no other option left but to make fun of them.  Ridicule is, quite factually, the only thing they do understand.  That reminds me, I need to write a post on how endless patience in response to endless harm is yet another attribute of doormats and denial.

END OF PART ONE, to be continued - perhaps next time, if I don’t post the thing which makes you all hate me for sure.

*Now, before you all line up to complain about the person in the picture, let me just point out that he likes to cut his girlfriend during sex with a knife, because it makes him hard.  Don’t worry, she likes it too!!   I’ll give the link out privately if you want, we can’t have the whole internet beating down his door.

My favorite Emo Phillips joke, paraphrased:
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a feminist standing on the edge, about to jump off.

So I ran over and said, “Stop! don’t do it!”

“Why shouldn’t I?” she said.

I said, “Well, there’s so much to live for!”

She said, “Like what?”

I said, “Well…are you feminist or a non-feminist?”

She said, “Feminist.”

I said, “Me too! Are you a regular feminist or a pro-porn feminist?”

She said, “Regular feminist.”

I said, “Me too! Are you a regular feminist or a radical feminist?”

She said, “Radical feminist.”

I said, “Me too! Are you Dworkin or Frye?”

She said, “Dworkin!”

I said, “Wow! Me too! Are you Dworkin-Who-Loves-Men or Dworkin-Who-Hates-Men?”

She said, “Dworkin-Who-Hates-Men!”

I said, “Me too! Are you original Dworkin-Who-Hates-Men, or are you Reformed Dworkin-Who-Hates-Men?”

She said, “Reformed Dworkin-Who-Hates-Men!”

I said, “Me too! Are you Reformed Dworkin-Who-Hates-Men, reformation of Heart’s;
or Reformed Dworkin-Who-Hates-Men, reformation of Twisty’s?”

She said, “Reformed Dworkin-Who-Hates-Men, reformation of Twisty’s!”

I said, “Die, heretic scum,” and pushed her off.

Please remember, I am a professional asshole.  Do not try being an asshole at home, without adult supervision. 

Ever since Sudy did that video detailing how white feminists are ignoring their privilege in relation to feminists of color, that incident - and perhaps others - appeared to galvanize some brownish feminists into rage. Ordinarily I like rage, except when it’s directed at the label I’m boxed into. Amazingly enough, this made me uncomfortable.

Justice and I emailed back and forth. Convinced she would see things my way if I persisted, persuasive arguments were employed. Eventually, a tiny light appeared at the end of the tunnel. Being an obnoxious twit with a ironic sense of humor, an email ensued, which ticked her off so much it was doubtful she would take me seriously ever again. It was a summation of previous discussions - this time written as if I were a man responding to feministy demands - and I thought she’d be pleased that I had finally noticed the little light off in the distance, and also amused at my references to men’s sexism. Amazingly enough it had the opposite reaction, and her few emails after that seemed to positively seethe with frustration.

The email is below if you’re interested, but apologies for sounding simple - it’s the only way I can parse out problem areas sometimes. Big words are scary, but not as scary as the ideas they represent. Notice how I was writing the email to Justice as if I were writing a blog post to everyone. Oh, no narcissism there. Gee, why was she so huffy?

“Justice keeps bugging me to work on my white privilege, and I wish she’d stop. How can I enjoy it if she keeps making me feel guilty? Damn her. Hmmm, that sounds kinda bad, I don’t really enjoy the thought of people being oppressed. Well, damn her again!

But it’s kinda hypocritical for feminists to insist that men work on their gender privilege, and yet we don’t have to work on our white privilege or even examine our own little selves for traces of it. Wah, I don’t wanna be a hypocrite. She is a pain in the ass. I will blame her rather than actually dealing with the issue. Yeah, that’ll work, nobody will notice and I can pretend it doesn’t exist.

Excellent. Except I can’t critique anybody, including what I believe is the intractable problem (men) if I really did believe all that crap, because frankly I’m not that much of an asshole. So, how to deal with my white privilege? I dealt with it the same way everybody else deals with information they don’t like - DENIAL.

First, I tried telling her that in the summertime I get really really dark-skinned and am frequently mistaken for something other than white, in a friendly i-am-so-down-with-you-sisters kind of way. Surprisingly enough, she basically ignored that one - almost as if the men who claim that one dick-grab in a bar is somehow equal to a lifetime of harassment and intimidation are completely worthless.

Then, I tried the old hey-i’m-not-a-racist-so-don’t-blame-me routine. I figured this one might work, but no dice. She muttered something about “silence equals support for the patriarchy” and “the patriarchy is built on oppression” or some such [crap] - I’m still trying to ignore it at this point, obviously.

Third, I attempted the always popular i-don’t-benefit-from-it-because-i-got-other-isms-up-the- rootie-patootie-and-those-are-crappy-too. Surely this one could be expected to garner sympathy, but she’s mean, and so it didn’t work either. She said none of those were racism, and racism adds another layer on top of all those I had mentioned. Unfortunately she has a point. Curses, foiled again.

Next up - you can see by now that at least I’m persistent in my defense of not needing to work on my white privilege, right? I offered the extremely sneaky i’m-not-racist-but-those-other- people-are-so-what-should-we-do-about-them? This would surely distract her, as this technique is extremely effective on most activists. Hey, it works on feminists all the time. Unfortunately for me, Justice is way sharper than that, and meaner too, so it didn’t work at all.

Nope, she insists that I have white privilege and I have to deal with it. God she’s a pain.

So then, I tried the last misogynistic trick I knew - which is where I learned all these btw - and that was to suggest that perhaps if-she-just-calmed-down-and-told-me-things-in-a-different- way-then-maybe-i-could-understand. Crap, it didn’t work. She very politely (and patiently really) set me straight.

Frankly, in retrospect I’m wondering why I thought any of those tactics would. Perhaps the this-is-all-a-big-joke-and-gosh-isn’t-it-funny will pass muster. Somehow I don’t think it will. Hmmm, okay, I give up.

All kidding as a coping mechanism aside, I didn’t even realize what I was doing at the time, and afterwards I felt like an idiot. It was the very same bag of tricks that the patriarchy uses to resist dealing with problems affecting the very people that men claim to love, and which always capitulates to logic eventually. Great, I’m using it on my sisters, awesome.

The only reason I finally saw the pattern of my own behavior was because I was trying to figure out why she seemed so mad - even though I was being so “reasonable” - and because she kept poking holes in my bag of denial so that it became a seive. All the dumbass excuses and justifications leaked out until all that remained were chunks of stupidity - and have I mentioned that I’m not so much of an asshole that I can look idiocy in the eye and pretend it’s gold?

This all fascinates me on another level as well; white women in WOC space reminds me of men in womyn space and it gives me more perspective on what men have to cope with when dealing with gender issues. But of course I am going to stomp on my burgeoning sympathy for men like a ton of bricks, because in most cases they are deliberately using our sympathy as yet another delay tactic.  Unlike men, most women do not need to hear a thousand accusations before we respond.

[...] That is the exact same thing that men do when dealing with gender privilege, and that garbage stinks just as bad when a feminist does it. Except, I really don’t know how to deal with my white privilege. I mean, what am I supposed to do about it, exactly? I could use a cluestick, if you don’t mind helping out a blind white woman some more. END EMAIL QUOTE

Justice plucked a lovely quote from Amy’s Brain and which I will share with you. Her bolding for emphasis:

“One of the privileges of being normal and ordinary is a cer­tain unconsciousness. When one is
that which is taken as the norm in one’s social environment, one does not have to think about it. Often, in discussions about prejudice and discrimi­nation I hear statements like these: “I don’t think of myself as heterosexual”; “I don’t think of myself as white”; “I don’t think of myself as a man”; “I’m just a person, I just think of myself as a person.” If one is the norm, one does not have to know what one is. If one is marginal, one does not have the privilege of not noticing what one is.

This absence of privilege is a presence of knowledge. As such, it can be a great resource, given only that the marginal person does not scorn the knowledge and lust for inclusion in themainstream, for the unconsciousness of normalcy. I do not say this casually or callously; I knowthe longing for normalcy and the burden of knowledge. But the knowledge, and the marginality, can be embraced. The alternative to em­bracing them is erasing the meaning of one’s own experience in order to blend in as normal-pretending that one’s difference is nothing, really, nothing more significant than a prefer­ence for foreign cars, bourbon or western-cut clothes.”

From Marilyn Frye, “Lesbian Feminism and the Gay Rights Movement: Another View of Male Supremacy, Another Separatism” in The Politics of Reality: essays in feminist theory (Crossing Press, 1983).

Posted here with J’s permission.  Also, I will never write another blog post using Firefox.

Either transgenderism or my own white privilege was scheduled to be discussed roasted and broiled today, but I’m kinda busy watching ThePinkyShow™. I have no idea what you could do with five minutes instead of reading my spewage.

Pinky has a way of asking the most profound questions in such a simply charming format, it’s difficult to remain unaffected. Found via ArtThreat, which has no pictures to steal, but is still pretty cool anyway. While ordinarily Youtube is far too plebian to mention, Pinky’s bandwidth would appreciate you scoping out their awesome past videos from there. Have a great day!

Most days I feel like I wondered onto the set of Sesame Street.  The props which make up this imaginary world are obviously fake, but all the actors are getting paid to pretend it’s real.  The actors are paid to explain simple shit to 4 year olds, but yet in order to explain simple shit to 4 year olds the producers must have a pHD.  It takes a really big brain to understand the mind of a child, but yet those tiny brains can understand each other just fine.

I find that amusing, don’t you?  I can’t decide how big my brain is - I’m going to go with the small one - that way I can understand the pHD too.

We tell parents to ‘train their children in the way that they should go’, and the advantages are obvious; it would never occur to a child psychologist that teaching a child respect for others should involve name-calling, coercion or dishonesty.  And yet, calling a woman a whore during sex or at any other time is supposed to magically be empowering for her.  Somehow, I think the four year olds are smart enough to see through that foolishness, and yet we grownups continue to tolerate the men who claim that behavior is okay .

We teach our children about ‘bad-touch’ which of course basically involves touching of the genitals by someone else; perhaps we should teach our children about ‘bad-trick-touch’, which is what happens when someone coerces a child into letting them touch her genitals in exchange for something else that the child does want — like love or affection, or some treat, and tells her it’s all good because she agreed to the bargain.  Would any parent find this bargain acceptable for their child?

Somehow, I don’t think that last concept would go over too well with the patriarchy as a new teaching tool, it’s far far too similar to what goes on now, and god forbid we actually teach our children the basic theories which would fight the patriarchy where it counts and in a way that they understand. 

Boys on the playground, and salespeople too, comprehend that the act of talking someone into doing something in exhange for something of lesser value is a great indicator of power and control; yet when girls are encouraged to show their titties for nothing more than a laugh in return, we are suppposed to believe the men when they say that too is empowering.  The four year olds would understand immediately where true manipulation hides.

The game starts in earnest whenever they devalue sexuality - devaluing the worth of the desired thing is a marketing tool -  in order to make their free access to boobies seem fair.  Name-calling and harrassing the nay-sayers is an old trick too.  Hiding in the shadow of one stronger than you to avoid staring in his face is the act of a coward, one who doesn’t even have the courage to do the harm himself.  Even the four years olds can recognize the tactics of a bully and his groupies.

There’s nothing wrong with sex per se, it’s just that– Look.  Dworkin said marriage could not be equal as long as men could rape their wives with impunity; you know, rape: against-her-will-without-her-consent kind of thing.  And the woman couldn’t do a fucking thing about it because in the eyes of the law, a married woman couldn’t charge her husband with rape. 

Marriage became almost equal in the US of A in the year 1993. That year is something for men to be ashamed of, not proud.  That is the year American men decided married women were not completely property.  The only reason it took so long was because men resisted treating women as human beings entitled to equality, using excuses and justifications to prolong the agony.

In the exact same way, you can’t have sexual equality in a society where 1 out of 4* females are raped, and yet the vast majority of their assailants are walking around without a rape conviction in their past.  There is a basic injustice there, and until more men either wear their rightful badge of dishonor or men stop raping women, all men will be tarred with the same brush.  This is so fucking simple a four year old could tell you that, if she could articulate the words and do the math.

Men SCREAM that women are filthy whores for daring to demand anything in return for the things we do for them; women are groomed from birth to give away our negotiating power in exchange for nothing more than the hope our good karma will be returned.  Is this appropiate?  We tend to teach our own children “to be nice to others” in equal measure — nevermind the fact that most girls take that message to heart on the second hearing, and most boys are still deaf on the 1000th.

Telling ourselves that little boys and little girls grow to be exactly the same when there is no proof of this is insane; it only shackles the wings of a thing that can fly, and uplifts the thing which wants to wallow in grime.  How can you respect a thing while it’s foot is on your neck?  Hope is not a reason to wait for change, it is a way to cope with that which does not.  Reality is not a thing you get to barter with, for free.  The exchange reguires you give something up, the question is:  what? 

———————————————-

http://www.auckland.ac.nz/uoa/about/news/articles/2007/10/child_abuse.cfm  thanks to Starfish for the 1 in 4 figure! 

http://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-of-sexual-assault.html  Also thanks to Psaquaririse for even more!
http://www.ncmdr.org/state_law_chart.html
“July 5, 1993, marital rape became a crime in all 50 states, in at least one section of the sexual offense codes, usually regarding force. May 2005! New stars: AZ/VA.  30 states still have some exemptions from prosecution for rape, e.g. when the husband does not need to use force because the wife is most vulnerable (temporarily or permanently, physically or mentally legally unable to consent)! Such marital privileges are also extended to unmarried cohabitants who sexually attack their partners in CT, DE, IA, MN & WV.”

————————–

MARITAL RAPE STUDY
(J. Langhinrichsen-Rohling, C.M. Monson; Journal of Family Violence 199 Abstract:  This vignette study was conducted to determine how observers’ beliefs about marital rape are altered by the knowledge of a prior history of husband-to- wife physical violence. Participants (n = 50 college students) read three different marital rape situations; in one situation the husband had been physically violent in the past; in another he had not. In the third situation, participants were not given any information about the physical abuse history between the spouses. As expected, participants blamed the victim most for the marital rape and minimized the seriousness of the rape when they had been told that there was not a prior history of husband-to-wife physical abuse. These findings suggest that observers use a physical violence history to establish the coercion needed to determine that marital rape had occurred. The legal implications of these findings are discussed.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/uw34413380522484/

 Somebody needs to do a post on that one in four figure.  What the hell is wrong with women’s groups that they can’t be CLEAR and CONCISE, with CITATIONS?  They’re so busy trying to make their pages warm and fuzzy that they forget some people want PROOF. 

So there I was searching for the Study-To-End-All-Studies*, happy that I had finally finished clipping Big Bird’s wings for another post, when I came across this news article.  Yes, I know it’s old, but I immediately had a feminazi moment and I knew that some people - who shall remain nameless (Lara and Hermil, heh) - would probably like it.  And if those two found some value in my ramblings, other people might as well.  So here we are, about to have a feminazi meltdown with nary a bit of chocolate sanity in sight.  The text reads:

Don’t ask me how I wound up at the University of Otago website while searching for a Sesame Street Big Bird picture for another post, but I did, and some of the woodcuts on display are gorgous.  The description for this one reads:

This is the second German edition of the original Pour et contre la femme (For and Against Women; 1951), compiled by Georges Pavis (1886-1951), the French illustrator. It contains 366 epigrams, with female nude studies by JBW at the start of each month. Here is Balzac’s epigram for March: on the ease of fighting with men rather than fighting with one’s wife. The first German edition appeared in 1955.

What kind of character trait is required before one can eliminate all educational opportunites for a group, and then turn around and laugh at that group because they have no education?

What kind of character trait is required before one can eliminate all job opportunities for a group, and then turn around and laugh at them because they have no alternative but to use the only thing they do have - their body - as a bargaining tool?

Really, what kind of character trait is required before one can be that much of an asshole?  Because whatever kind it is, men sure do have an abundance. 

Men called women hysterical, illogical idiots - not just once but for centuries.  Amazingly enough, even though women had no formal education and the men did, women could oftentimes best them in an argument.   Men, with all of their alleged superiority and formal education, must have been kind of stupid if they couldn’t win an argument against someone who had none.   Plus, they even had to bolster their claims with nudy pictures, as if bare breasts proved anything other than men think with their sardine swizzlers.

You know, it’s only common sense that if a woman must depend on her looks to catch and keep her only source of income, that she will invariably become paranoid about her appearance.  Yet somehow, men were too freaking stupid to comprehend basic cause-and-effect, and would laugh at women for their insecurities.  Nice going, assholes.

But we know the real reason, and it had nothing to do with men being stupid, and everything to do with men being absolute control freaks over those whom they claimed to love. 

And we know they are still doing it to this very day, or we would have anyway if I had found the picture of Big Bird.  :)   I totally crack myself up.  My blog hostess skills are becoming quite lax, sorry, I’ll try to straighten up and fly right. 

Men are assholes.  Here’s my favorite woodcut so far:

Oh, and Happy New Year, btw.  :)   

Someone* wanted to know how men could suggest insist that their access entitlement to porn body parts was crucial to their mental health and social development; and she noticed in particular how men could at the same time claim that the respectful dehumanized images found in the average porn has absolutely no influence on their attitudes  behavior towards women. 

Excellent!  She wanted a rebuttal to that and here it –

We interrupt your regularily scheduled commercial stream to bring you a brief message from the product sponser:

The difference between what we know to be true, as opposed to what is emphasized, tells us something important about the culture in which we reside — if we can but see the dichtonomy.  While there are numerous reasons why we might not see what is right in front of us - exhaustion, stress, too busy rushing from one activity to another - sometimes one of those reasons is plain old denial, which sometimes can be healthy and necessary when faced with an immediate attack on our psyche.  It buys us time until we learn better coping skills, but it can also become it’s own  source of stress and confusion if we never move forward.

Some types of denial are based on simple avoidence, a desire to protect ourselves from the discomfort of a painful reality.  We pretend the thing in front of us is not important and so we don’t have to acknowlege it, or deal with the consequences.

Other types of denial work to protect ourselves from how others perceive us.  By insisting that we don’t even know that something is wrong, we eliminate our own accountable for our failure to act.  We are blameless, because we didn’t know.  We remain innocent in other’s eyes.   So when men continually pretend to not understand plain language - “this is rape, stop, now” - it should tell us something very important about men.  

But it doesn’t, because the thing that hurts our brain gets in the way, and so we don’t want to know.  It doesn’t have to be this way.  The patriarchy is just a giant game, like Monopoly or Life, and uses every psychological tool and manipulation tactic in the DSM-II to stack the deck in it’s favor.  It’s a game that has a happy ending for everyone - but only if you see the game.  You cannot end what you do not see.  Blind blundering hope will never race as fast to catch the moving prize as those who see where the movement trends, and wisely takes the shortcut.

Still other types of denial perform a more intensive service, which is to shift blame away from one source to another.  This happens when a fault-finding mission is underway, and it becomes a game among all players to see who gets caught holding the proverbial smoking gun.   In other words, blame the problem on somebody else, before somebody blames you.  While this is a lovely denial mechanism and a very useful way to avoid attention, one itsy-bitsy tiny thing needs to be made clear.   Before someone even gets to the point where she feels it is necessary to shift the focus onto somebody else, that person either has to experience some degree of responsibilty for the problem in the first place, or that person recognizes that she will be the likely focus.

Looks up.  Is that a fair assessment, do you think?  And what exactly does that have to do with the original question and finding a rebuttal?

Advertisers spends billions of dollars each year convincing people to buy their products, and millions are invested in marketing/psychology research, which studies how and why people make the goofy buying decisions we do.  There is an entire subfield of study devoted exclusively to “how to get shoppers to walk away from the fricking door” — I kid you not.  (People tend to walk in a store and pause in the doorway, which blocks the path of incoming customers; and we can’t have that.)

**Obviously** companies wouldn’t blow their budget each year, decade after decade, if advertising didn’t influence attitudes and affect change in behavior.  This statement alone should refute the claim of pro-pornies quite nicely.  But in addition to that, there is a massive amount of research demonstrating that people who are exposed to porn will give convicted rapists less punishment, etc.

 All of that should be enough to close the argument, and yet it never does.

Gee, I wonder why?

That bit of logic -with a TON of proof  to back it up - never is quite good enough to pass muster with the patriarchy, it is instead dismissed and minimized, and distractions flourish.  But those are strictly manipulative tactics and do not and never will amount to a logical refutation of feminist arguments.

Have you considered the subject of denial? 

I don’t think the answer to the original question has anything at all to do with what would appease the patriarchy, in my arrogant opinion, because it never addresses the real problem.  The question for me is “why do men deny the bloody fucking obvious?”

The only reason for admitting a problem is to fix the problem.  Their denial is a tactical delay, which hopefully will buy them more time in which to fuck women over.  

But folks - what is the next question in the que?  Come on, there’s another one.  Ask it.  You cannot find the answer until you find the question.  Your happy ending to the game is waiting for you.

*The person who asked this question may or may not want credit for inspiring today’s spewage.  I am waiting for her approval.   Yes, she is fabulous.

Porn research which refutes quite nicely the awful pro-porny propaganda bandied about so cheerfully on message boards. Feel free to cut and paste to your heart’s content, as reputable peer-reviewed research is the only thing which makes misogynists cry.

This section is occasionally updated and refined. Not to mention it’s permanently archived on a free site, so it won’t ever change it’s address or disappear. Bookmark for your convenience! More links containing additional peer-reviewed studies are listed at the bottom.

Read the rest of this entry »

 For Jokerine, enjoy!

  Crème de Cacao Torte

• 2/3 cup butter or margarine, softened
• 1  2/3 cups sugar
• 3 eggs
• 1/2 teaspoon vanilla
• 2 cups unsifted flour  (I used cake flour)
• 2/3 cup cocoa
• 1  1/4 teaspoon baking soda
• 1/4 teaspoon baking powder
• 1  1/3 cups milk
• 2 tablespoons crème de cacao

Cream butter, sugar, eggs and vanilla in large mixer bowl until light and fluffy.  Combine flour, cocoa, baking soda and baking powder, add alternately with milk to creamed mixture, blending just until combined.

Pour into two greased and floured 9-inch layer pans.  Bake at 350 degrees for 30-35 minutes or until cake tester comes out clean.  Cool 10 minutes; remove from pans.  Sprinkle each layer with 1 tablespoon crème de cacao; cool completely.

Meanwhile, prepare Crème de Cacao Filling.  Split each cake layer horizontally into 2 layers.  Place one layer on serving plate;spread with one-third of the filling.  Repeat layering with remaining cake and filling, ending with cake layer.  Cover tightly; chill at least 8 hours.  Prepare Chocolate Ganache Glaze; spoon on top of chilled cake, allowing glaze to drizzle down the side.  Chill.  Garnish as desired.

——————————————————————————

Crème de cacao filling

•  1 cup heavy or whipping cream
• 2 tablespoons crème de cacao
• 1 tablespoon cocoa 

Beat cream, crème de cacao and cocao until stiff.  Cover; chill.

——————————————————————————

Chocolate Ganache Glaze

• 8 ounces sweet chocolate, broken into bits
• 1/4  cup heavy or whipping cream
• 1 tablespoon butter or margarine
•  1  1/2 teaspoon crème de cacao

Combine chocolate bar pieces, cream and butter in medium saucepan.  Cook over low heat, stirring constantly, until mixture is melted and smooth.  Stir in crème de cacao.  Cool to lukewarm.  (glaze will be slightly thickened.)

NOTES:  I know I added cinnamon to the dry mix and coffee to the filling, but I can’t remember how much.  Possibly as much as 1/2 or a tad less of cinnamon but test it before you add that much; and the coffee was a very concentrated left-over extra strong espresso that had been sitting around evaporating all morning, so it didn’t take a lot of liquid to give it a nice flavor.  I might have used less chocolate in the filling and more in the cake mix.  I possibly did other things to it, but I doubt it with this recipe.  I used to consider it my sacred duty to improve change every recipe I ever made, don’t ask me why.  Oh, and cake flour instead of the regular.  The glaze was practically black, not a wimpy shade of brown if that helps confuse you any more; but even if you don’t change anything the basic recipe is still unbelievably scrumptious.  Goes perfectly with a nice cup of coffee.

The thing was heaven, and screams of ecstasy were heard.  It’s never been quite as good since the first time, and after a couple disappointing attempts I never tried again.  My neighbor has now taken over, and hers are to die for.   I hope yours is fabulous!