Reason #1 Men are Evil by a Feminazi

January 1, 2008

men are jerks 

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:

 men are jerks woodcut 

Oh, and Happy New Year, btw.  🙂   

24 Responses to “Reason #1 Men are Evil by a Feminazi”

  1. bonobobabe Says:

    “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.”

    Amen, sister. And I think you’re right on with your word choice…CLAIMED to love.

    I’m not even going to throw in the traditional disclaimers about “not all men are blah, blah, blah.” I’ve finally realized that when a woman says, “I love you,” and a man says, “I love you,” they are completely diametrically different things.. No doubt about it. I think women delude themselves a lot about men. They hear the words and they get all warm and fuzzy inside, but it’s all a lie. A man does not mean what a woman thinks he means when he says those three little words. He may indeed actually love the woman, but it’s HIS definition of love that he’s using, and women would behoove themselves to learn this fact.

    Once you suss this out, it’s amazing how all romantic inclinations just drain out of you.

  2. m Andrea Says:

    “I’ve finally realized that when a woman says, “I love you,” and a man says, “I love you,” they are completely diametrically different things.”

    B-I-N-G-O and the only thing preventing women from seeing that is denial. But pretending something isn’t under the bed won’t make it go away, so we might as well quit pretending – to ourselves anyway. It is important that we put on our happy faces for them, however, otherwise they will start hiding all the chocolate.

    Also, I found more women who have come to the dark side, heh. They didn’t even need cookies!

  3. Scarlet Says:

    I have a lot of thoughts about the difference in how men and women love, but I had an “aha” experience a few years ago when I was in the self-help section of a book store looking up my man’s dysfunction so that I could better understand how to help him (the problem: drug addiction; the solution: run like hell). Anyway, it occurred to me that no man in my life–no matter how much love he professed–would ever be doing this for me. Hell, I’ve hardly even been asked an open-ended question when one of my “issues” comes up. Men don’t want women to be too real, too human. We should just stay pretty, or at least maternal, so they can love us symbolically as extensions of themselves.

  4. bonobobabe Says:

    “Anyway, it occurred to me that no man in my life–no matter how much love he professed–would ever be doing this for me.”

    Not to mention there aren’t even any books out there for him! All the relationship books are for women. Believe me, book publishers are shrewd. If men really gave a shit about their girlfriends/wives there would be books on the shelves. Relationship books for men is not some great untapped market. It is no market whatsoever.

  5. Lara Says:

    Men are taught to hate what they lust after, and to lust after what they hate. They are sick and demented from this socializing, much more so than women. But that’s the catch: men are exactly the image and stereotypes they project on women. (ie: men say women are “stupid” and “irrational”, or “slutty” or “virginal” because THEY, the men, are).
    I like your writing style, by the way, very dry and witty, I am glad I found this 😉

  6. Hermil LeBel Says:

    Feminazi comments at its best. Nonsense rant, misinformation and disinformation are the cornerstone of your evil grasp of social reality. Feminist scum are doomed, so far as concerned peoples with open eyes are concerned…

  7. m Andrea Says:

    Welcome Lara and Hermil! Hope you enjoy your stay!

    Funnily enough, I thought this post was awful, so *really* glad you liked it anyway. 🙂 If people are going to come here, they deserve better then this. I can’t decide between pseudo intellectualism, campy irony, or sledgehammer venom. Hoping to inspire someone else, frankly, so I can have more time for chocolate.

    I knew there was something special bout you, Scarlet. mmHmm. Feel free to sputter any ole thing you want here, if I can’t talk you into blogging. That goes for everyone too. *scatters more cookie trays*

    “Hell, I’ve hardly even been asked an open-ended question when one of my “issues” comes up.”

    Never thought about this before, excellent point. The few times some guy would stick with his ailing wife, he would be lauded as a conquering hero, but a women doing the same things gets “but of course”. It always bothered me, and since no other woman would speak up, I assumed I was over-sensitive.

  8. m Andrea Says:

    That probably sounded awful. To be a good post, for me, I have to agonize over it for days. I can’t believe I could write something worth reading in 15 minutes.

  9. thebewilderness Says:

    ” I can’t decide between pseudo intellectualism, campy irony, or sledgehammer venom.”

    Yes but, we’re wimminz, so we want to have it all, dontcha know.

  10. stormy Says:

    mmmAndrea.
    Now I know why the ‘m’ is there! 😀

  11. m Andrea Says:

    People are just now noticing that I’m nuts and indecisive?! Your powers of observation are slipping!


  12. […] and make fun of them for not knowing what’s good for themselves. mAndrea says it best in one of her posts: What kind of character trait is required before one can eliminate all educational opportunites for […]

  13. D Says:

    He may indeed actually love the woman, but it’s HIS definition of love that he’s using, and women would behoove themselves to learn this fact.

    Because all women are perfect and wonderful and never do wrong, and never do anything selfish, but all men are evil, and never really love women!

    Misandrist, much?

    Anyway, it occurred to me that no man in my life–no matter how much love he professed–would ever be doing this for me.

    You’d probably assume he was trying to “control” you, and wouldn’t let him help.

  14. D Says:

    Yep, typical feminism. Delete anything that makes you look bad, or calls you on your BS.

  15. m Andrea Says:

    I remembered I could put some folks into permanent moderation.

    You do not have the right to have your comments responded to; that is my right to decide. And the mod box is full of people who think they have a point, but it’s mostly not worth my time delinating why they’re full of shit when their “point” has already been addressed.

  16. m Andrea Says:

    It is fascinating that the transfolk insist that their every question be answered, when they do not give the same consideration to others. This is hypocrisy.

    Why is transgenderism not a fetish? No one ever answers, which is why I keep repeating the question.

  17. thebewilderness Says:

    I’m trying to figure out how you got from here:

    “He may indeed actually love the woman, but it’s HIS definition of love that he’s using, and women would behoove themselves to learn this fact.”

    To here:
    “Because all women are perfect and wonderful and never do wrong, and never do anything selfish, but all men are evil, and never really love women!”

    Because the first bit makes an important point about conditioning, expectations, and myths, and the second bit is kinda stoopid.

  18. D Says:

    ’m trying to figure out how you got from here:

    Because I quoted the first part, which was stereotyping, generalizing bullshit, and applied snark, because the person who said it, was apparently coming from a point of “Women love wonderfully and purely, and men love you like a pet” or whatever.

    If people wouldn’t post generalizations, and stereotypical garbage, I wouldn’t have to point it out.

    The first is not an “important bit”, it’s unsubstantiated, biased opinion. Not fact.

    The person posting it went into great detail to slander men, based on, well, nothing at all.

  19. wiggles Says:

    Misandrist, much?

    “Misandry” is not a word. And as a concept, the word has as much validity as “reverse racism,” (i.e. none whatsoever).

    The person posting it went into great detail to slander men, based on, well, nothing at all.

    Nothing at all except the fact that men denied education (and the right to own property and vote and to keep their own income, etc.) to women for centuries, keeping women as chattel and leaving them with only their sex-appeal to barter for any financial stability, and at the same time continually ridiculed women for being stupid and “vain.”

    Reality has a very anti-male bias. Deal with it, skippy.

  20. wiggles Says:

    BTW, what’s with all the old white-dude art always depicting women with their breasts hanging out? Even Victorian-era paintings are like this. If one were to land here from Mars and look around the paintings at the Met, say, they’d get the impression that women go around everywhere with their bodices torn off. Why not have practically every depiction of a dude be with the crotch cut out of his pants? Makes as much sense.

  21. thebewilderness Says:

    Point, set, and match, wiggles!

  22. thebewilderness Says:

    D, the bit where you tell a person what they think and then tell them how wrong they are to think it? Asshattery, dood, asshattery!

  23. m Andrea Says:

    Oh, left my comment in the wrong thread. Honestly it would be much easier just to add my comment to theirs while it’s still sitting in moderation but that would be rude.

    It’s difficult to find nice art that doesn’t have bodacious bits hanging out. And the women are almost always passively sitting, while the dood is actually doing something. It was really interesting the difference between much of the African-American art and non-AA art. Tons of movement, strong shapes and colors, etc. I’m wanting complex peaceful elegant, and I know I can always get that from Art Nouveau.

    Plus I’m sick of POC art being regulated to it’s own special little corner only doing african or repetitive themes when a peaceful mood is intended. POC are frickin everywhere, doing everything, and I’d like images which reflect that normalcy.

  24. Katey Says:

    You are amazing. Thank you!


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: