December 19, 2007
That phrase tells us more about the person uttering it, and the culture in which that person resides, then almost any other phrase in the typical feminist vocabulary. I cringe every time I hear it, because a truly self-examined self-enlightened person with more than half a brain simply wouldn’t say it.
Perhaps that is too harsh. Perhaps it’s not harsh enough. Feminists are not perfect. It is the height of ignorance to assume we are, and to automatically assume that any criticism directed our way is merely a disguised attack on women’s rights and status. That is a form of denial and a way to avoid examining our own attitudes. Is it possible to grow in sisterhood without a little discomfort along the way?
There’s something deeply disturbing about all these hidden assumptions circulating around the blogosphere every time that phrase is used, which implies that women shouldn’t hate men, or that it’s wrong to hate men, or that there’s something wrong with a woman for hating men. Have you ever stopped to think why you say that phrase?
Please, explain why it’s not a problem. Explain why it’s only really a problem FOR MEN – because in a world where men use every dumb excuse under the sun to justify sexism and resist equality for half the human race, where 95% of all physical violence is commited by men and where women still haven’t achieved parity in the year 2007 in one of the most liberated countries on the freaking planet – WOMEN HATING MEN IS NOT A PROBLEM FOR WOMEN.
That phrase adds a diversionary and sacrificial element to any discussion. We’re not like those angry bitches who are totally fed up with men’s sexist behavior, so don’t treat us like you treat them. We’ll gently tolerate all the assholes because we believe there’s at least a few men who “aren’t like that”. We’re much too polite to be angry as we tentively make our requests for the sexism to stop. Men know that they can count on us to know our place.
Not only that, but feminists will defend, uphold, and even internalize men’s right to denigrate radical feminism, and that phrase is but one example. Here’s the thing. If feminists aren’t indirectly supporting these men – who are the real problem, btw – then why do the feminists keep distancing themselves from the radical feminists? Shit, darlin’s. I’d get better treatment from the feminists if I said I was a man.
I’d like to hear why a women would use that phrase. Most likely she would tell me it’s because she loves men. Really? Does she love all men, or just her own circle of intimates – regardless of how gender biased the guy actually is? Does she love all men, or just the ones who loudly condemn patriarchal bullshit on a website – in between porn downloads? Because as far as I can tell, there’s only about three real feminist men in the entire world, and outliers are not a reason to celebrate. Wave the Duke University rape flag under their nose and find out just how enlightened they really are.
Or perhaps she will say that she doesn’t want to hurt the feelings of men “who aren’t like that”. Again, where are these non-existent hords of men “who aren’t like that”? If they’re so frickin’ common, I should be tripping over them like untied shoelaces by now. Besides that, if these men she’s defending are so wonderfully enlightened, then surely they would have the capacity to understand that they – as honorary NiceGuys™ – aren’t the ones being referred to during all this misogyny disection?
Or perhaps she hopes against all odds that one day the boyz will stop being sexist pigs, and she knows that the best way to manipulate a child into behaving himself is to raise her expectations for his behavior, and hold out the promise of a cookie as his reward. Never mind the fact that the boy wouldn’t bother – without external motivation – to get sick of his own behavior towards those whom he claims to love, and attempt to change his attitude on his own.
Once again, some feminists aren’t giving men as much credit as the vilest of feminazis will offer. I believe most men are intelligent enough to understand gender deconstructions the first time it’s explained to them.
Once again, denigrating women for not propping up men’s egos even as most men continue to be sexist fools is an internalized TOOL OF THE PATRIARCHY, used by many feminists with wild-eyed innocent abandon.
The only reason feminists denigrate and distinguish themselves from women who supposedly hate men is because — WHY??? “I’m not like that.” Try this instead: “I prefer not to be among the denigrated class of women, the same class that I myself denigrate”. Only a freaking fool suffering from willful blindness could confuse the righteous anger spawned from systemtic injustice with the senseless and deliberately harmful hatred of women which has continued down through the ages, with no end in sight.
No honey, you really don’t hate men; you just hate women.
December 10, 2007
Caller: Hello, it’s me, Nigel!
Feminist: Oh hi! I wuv u!
Caller: What have you been up to all day?
Feminist: oooh, I’ve been super dooper busy fighting the only three known misogynists in the world, and —
Caller: Only three?
Feminist: Well as you know, men aren’t driven by the intersection of sex and power to dominate women, so there aren’t that many, you know, real misogynists. Most of ’em just need to be taught different modalities for processing interpersonal schemas in regards to one tiny little subgroup of the global population. And as soon as one more study is completed delineating the integrative framework for gender-domain specific paradigms, I’m sure that this time men will finally vindicate the rights of woman! It was just yesterday, that crafty Mary Wollston said –
Caller: So you’re done for the day, then?
Feminist: Well hon, I need to finish —
Caller: Would you come over here and suck my dick?
Feminist: Be right over!
December 7, 2007
As I apparently am, sojourners — at least at first glance. But you have to squint real hard, in order to blur the jarring disparities so much out of focus that the asymmetrical comparision becomes relevant.
It starts out innocently enough. A co-ed conversation about the finer points of sexism and what to do about it, cannot last very long before a man shouts that women are sexist too. All other conversation ceases while this point is explained, debated, refuted, explained again, flame bait is thrown, someone grabs a fire extingisher, more explainations. Soon enough, the people who have been through this a hundred times and were really looking for chat with a bit more bite this time, become throughly exhausted, dismayed, disgusted – and wonder off to seek more honest chatter elsewhere.
Did you see what just happened there, sojourners? That is the exact same conversation which has been going on for millenia. I’m taking notes, so I wrote it down.
Another conversation, this one on the merits of perpetrator-blaming, is shaping up to look promising. Along comes darling Nigel, insisting that all men aren’t like that. He is profoundly, deeply insulted because he is not a sexist oinker and he doesn’t appreciate being penned in with the ones who are. Guess what happens, sojourners? Yep, the exact same thing which has gone on for millenia.
During these conversations, someone always does something and forgets to do something else — but of course it isn’t you sojourners*, and of course it isn’t the feminists, and of course it isn’t the women who think men are being castrated by the truth, and in fact it isn’t anybody at all because everybody does it. But of course I’m not going to let anybody off the hook, because I’m mean. You fell for it again. Everybody did. AGAIN. Oh stop, I didn’t mean that “it”, I meant something else. 🙂
You think I am talking about how the conversations get shut down by Nigel. Nope. That’s been done to death, and Feminism 101 was set up specifically to deal with that.
Can we pleeeeese think about this, this time from a different perspective?
It’s like a white person complaining about some black guy who insults white people. He thinks black man insulting white dude carries the exact same amount of emotional baggage as white dude insulting black man. Perhaps, it does — to him — because he doesn’t give a shit about anybody except himself. White dude is a selfish asshole. At the risk of repeating myself, the term which no one seems to remember is: SELFISH ASSHOLE. The full phrase could be politely worded as: Selfish assholes do not deserve more for themselves than what they are willing to give to others.
His initial complaint is not a statement which passes the common sense test. Complaining that an individual instance of harassment is the equivalent to deeply-rooted cultural discrimination is ridiculous. It is ridiculous because white dude somehow fails to account for the historic pattern of racism which has been overwhelming directed at people of color, and he fails to account for the fact that the pattern of cultural degregation is still widely evident. White dude apparently doesn’t know one damn thing about history, or care, and we are supposed to believe that white dude sprung fully grown from a box marked “empty”.
We are also supposed to believe that box is also stamped “fragile snowflake”. His feelings are hurt, his manhood has been insulted. This, sojourners, is supposed to be a tragedy and we are supposed to drop everything while we prop up both him and his twelve-ton ego. Our history of subjegation and continued pattern of degregation is supposed to magically take a back seat to his needs, AGAIN.
He claims to not comprehend the difference between one isolated instance of harrassment, and a pattern of harrassment affecting an entire group. Why is this simple point clearly too perplexing for so many men?
I personally believe that men are not stupid. Let’s face it, stupidity could be a reason they can’t comprehend simple gender deconstructions even after tedious repetition, but again, I don’t believe general stupidity is the reason. After all, men are capable of innovative scientific discoveries, which require immense brain power; and even the informally educated are capable of interpreting baseball scores, bus schedules, and directions to the new strip club — which are frequently and unnecessarily complicated. So if stupidity is not the reason, and if their brain isn’t the issue, then what is?
Why do they not get the simple fact that even though a particular women might be sexist, it is not and never will be as profound an injustice as when a man is sexist? What prevents them from seeing this? If we’ve ruled out stupidity, then what else is left?
Is it selfishness? Does he not care? Or does he want the privilege of sexism to continue?
Now that you’ve chosen an answer, I have a question for anyone still reading: What kind of character trait is required to continually tolerate a misogynistic asshole? Your possible answers are below.
- A small doormat who only tolerates assholess occassionally.
- A medium doormat who tolerates assholes frequently.
- A large doormat who tolerates assholes all the goddamned time.
- A gigantic doormat who doesn’t even know she’s a doormat.
A healthy person is not a doormat. You are not a doormat. I know it’s hard, almost impossible if you’ve been socialized to think of yourself as always needing to be concerned about the feelings of every man’s before your own. You have my utmost sympathy, but because I only want what’s best for you, please consider the possibility that you’ve been brainwashed into that belief. Think of it like a dangerously unhealthy habit which you need to break.
If you really think women should be equal to men, and I hope you do, then automatically putting yourself second every time is kinda not living up to that ideal. Politely accepting assholes at face value without calling them on their shit is completely in line with a doormat mentality. If you don’t feel that pointing out assholishness is acceptable, please be able to at least recognize it for what it is.
The next time you see an asshole attempting to shut a conversation down, send him to Feminism 101. Send the
feminist women doormats to this post, and this one. That’s the doormat post.
*It really isn’t. Radfems are too smart for that crap, but the sentence just didn’t sound right without a “you” in there.
November 26, 2007
STEP ONE: Man makes sexist joke.
STEP TWO: Woman objects, citing the harm that negative attitudes have on listeners.
STEP THREE: Man says woman is rude, and can’t she please be more polite about her incessant demands?
STEP FOUR: Woman politely repeats her statement.
STEP FIVE: Man says *yawn* I haven’t done anything wrong, what are you talking about, I don’t see a problem, she deserved it, anyway it’s just a joke, grow a thicker skin, the intention wasn’t what you think, I’m not sexist so it’s okay for me to make sexist jokes, aw you know boys will be boys, we’re just having fun, I didn’t mean it that way, you’re reading too much into it, just relax, don’t you have a knitting forum to bitch about this at, you’re too sensitive, you’re ruining my fun, how can I possibly have a conversation about anything and NOT include a reference to woman-as-sextoy, you’re whining again, get over it already, it’s not that bad, it’s really not my problem, other things are worse, explain your problem with the joke again, no I didn’t understand the first time will you explain it again, it’s your job to teach me–not mine, what did you mean by that, men have troubles too, don’t you care about men, why do you hate men, you’re making too much of it, my wife thought the joke was funny, if you’re going to be rude about it then why should I listen to you, you need to say it “this way”, show me some respect whydon’tcha, *cough* for god’s sake I didn’t know it bothered you that much, why didn’t you tell me sooner, why didn’t you say anything when that other guy did it, stand up for yourself, don’t be rude to me when you stand up for yourself–my feelings are important too! Hey! this stuff bothers women, and it’s harmful! Who knew? *shug* I’m such a great guy for figuring this out on my own! Come back here and lets be friends! Don’t hold a grudge, make sure you forgive – like I always have! I’m not mad at you honey so you better not be mad at me or else I’ll backslide… You just better behave YOURSELF TOO.
STEP SIX: Woman says, “I wuv you!”
Sojourners, there’s this thing called a doormat. It’s made for walking on, and for wiping the accumulated filth of the world on. This wiping device is designed to leave one’s heel spotlessly unaffected by what path one has chosen to trod upon, as one passes into a nicely clean world which is designed solely and exclusive for one’s own comfort. No thought is given to the harsh bootprints stamped into the mud, drying in the sun as a testimony to how hard that boot can stomp.
That doormat is you, erstwhile wayward feminist travelers. But everything will be okay, the truth is not going to kill you, the power of the truth will set you free.
Once on Twisty’s board I asked women to pick a date in the distant future when they thought sexism would be over. I asked: when that date arrived and men were still sexist pigs, would they give up on men? Most of them grabbed what I call the “sainthood excuse”. No, they would never give up on men and would apparently forgive any and all transgressions if men would just get with the program.
Funny how they won’t advocate infinite forgiveness for any other ongoing crime against humanity.
Forgiveness is only possible when the injustice has no possiblity of being repeated. Otherwise, it’s merely a coping mechanism for dealing with ongoing abuse. Only a god who doesn’t exist on this earth in human form can forgive her attackers for a continous gang rape in progress. Only a doormat in denial can forgive an inherently sexist animal for actively resisting equality.
Feminists are in denial. Buckets of it. Take any coping mechanism, and read it with feminists in mind. Take Stockholm Syndrome, for example:
Stockholm Syndrome is a psychological response sometimes seen in an abducted hostage, in which the hostage shows signs of loyalty to the hostage-taker, regardless of the danger (or at least risk) in which the hostage has been placed.
Loyalty to a more powerful abuser — in spite of the danger that this loyalty puts the victim in — is common among victims of domestic abuse, battered partners and child abuse (dependent children). In many instances the victims choose to remain loyal to their abuser, and choose not to leave him or her, even when they are offered a safe placement in foster homes or safe houses.
(An excellent book on the subject is Stanley Cohen’s States of Denial; Knowing about Autrocities and Suffering. I decided to buy it after finding this temptingly well-written review here; and yes, it has more than lived up to it’s promised shininess. Most books take forever to get to the point, but Cohen scattered gems on every page.)
Women love men, they love sex with men, they love being loved by men. It is unbearably heartbreaking for a feminist to think that, while men do indeed love women, men’s love is not the same as women’s love. Women have always loved men as one would love an equal, and some men have done the same in return, but great numbers of men are also imminently capable of loving women as one would love a dog. Sojourners, this is the only explaination which fits the pattern of history. How else can you explain a man looking his wife in the eye and saying, “no honey, you don’t deserve equality”?
I know, I know. “Culture” the feminists shout. Well please stop shouting, because you haven’t seen an ass reaming like the one I am about to give to “culture” as an excuse.
But I’m not done with denial just yet. Or maybe I am, because while a thousand words may paint a pretty picture, it is too long for a blog post.
To be continued.