Stan’s one strawman war on women

August 21, 2007

Stanley  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. 

4 Responses to “Stan’s one strawman war on women”

  1. justicewalks Says:

    The problem is that people see the evolution of misogyny as improvement in women’s social position when it isn’t. That misogyny no longer requires men to beat women over the head with clubs and drag them off to isolated caves might be an improvement in conditions, but it doesn’t change women’s status within the hierarchy. Many women are willing to accept subordination – would even prefer it to freedom – if their oppressors would only agree to a nonviolent approach to suppression.

  2. m Andrea Says:

    Oh my. Youse are smart.

    Hey I just found a bug. This theme won’t let me copy and paste from anywhere on the page. Does anyone else have a problem with that, or is it just my brower?

    “might be an improvement in conditons, but it doesn’t change women’s status within the hierarchy.” EXACTLY. I swear some people can’t tell the difference between two things which are similar but not identical.

  3. justicewalks Says:

    Nope, I can copy and paste.

    Even worse than not being able to tell the difference is knowing the difference but insisting that we ought to put all our efforts into the option that might be easier to accomplish instead of the one that would set us free.

  4. Mary Sunshine Says:


    You said it all!


    xoxoxoxo Mary

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: