Stan’s one strawman war on women
August 21, 2007
I failed in my first post, and I shall endeavor to repeat that experience today. Apparently I failed to elucidate exactly why Nigel’s position should be re-examined in feminist discourse. It’s because he stops all logical thought, and I like logical thoughts which build on other logical thoughts and eventually create even bigger logical thoughts. Which then spontanously combusts into thousands of little tiny fireworks and incinerates everyone within browser range. Wierd, I know.
So let’s talk about harm. Specifically, in relation to the strawman I introduced you to last time. His first name is Stanley*, and his paternal name is “war on women”, which is yet another thing I failed to explain because I know there’s at least one pipsqueak out there who doesn’t believe there’s an actual continguent of monkeymen in pants who would like nothing more than to roll back women’s rights into the middle ages. Those pipsqueaks would say a war on women is a misnomer, a strawman.
I put up a link to the left of a charming fellow you might want to acquaint yourself with. On second thought, don’t bother. While he does indeed surpass expectations of laying out exactly why multinational mega-conglomerates are afraid of teh gay disease, and he does too a superlative job explaining why conservatives rightly assume fatherhood is the cornerstone of patriarchy, and further still he clearly explains why a solid third of our populace fears our entire civilization is hurtling towards total annihilation all because silly women are allowed to waltz away from unhappy marriages, it ocurred to me that one well-written essay doesn’t prove that there is, in truth, a war on women.**
For that, I must prove pattern. And not the kind which requires knitting needles. Only a pattern which provides conclusive proof of an actual war on women will do. If you are smart, and I know you are, you would be asking why such insistence on fairness. If I was merely interested in being a manipulative blog hostess in order to prove my point, I would simply direct your attention to this page elucidating all the many darling Nigels who love to rape. Or this article, describing the growing number of child abuse sites, with mostly female victims. Or this study, because silent bots getting ripped on just because they have female names is kinda hard to argue with.
But I insist on being fair. The deplorable state of gender relations in other parts of the globe was deliberated omitted from my list, so only the least offensive countries are included. Men, as a class, get a free pass there. And the articles only looked at our current time period, so no picking on past injustices against women. Dear sojourners, my question is so utterly more fiendishly ignoble than past or present, and therefore only the most stringent standards should apply. Careful, we’re heading into twilight territory, seat belts and floatation devices are advised.
Wait, what was the question again? Wouldn’t ongoing systemic gender discrimination be enough to prove the pattern hasn’t stopped? Especially when considered on top of 6000 years of historical record, which thousands of feminists have already ripped open to expose the raw underbelly of barely disguised male control-freakiness? Misogynists would prefer to pretend that history stopped yesterday, and the pattern of gender prejudice with it, but yet somehow the bigotry brigade manages to march forward with ever more proof even as I hit “post”. We are supposed to ignore this long continuous pattern of a war on women as if it means nothing and assume any current proofs are mere isolated anomalies.
The next question is: when are they going to stop with the sexism? WHEN??? How long are feminists going to make excuses for them? What is the excuse going to be in 200 years when men are still pulling this sexist crap? Are they half-wit animals beyond redemption, or are they human? Ironic isn’t it, that they used to ask the same of us.
*Stanley is a bad name. I failed onomatology.
**What a long sentence.