when the status quo frustrates.

I said slut, but what I meant was, well, slut but I probably should have used some kind of code word there so Ayaan wouldn’t scold me

Sunday, February 24th, 2008

Amanda points to Rod Dreher’s take on a recent NYT style article about sexed-up wedding dresses. Now this being a New York Time’s slut-shaming style piece, it is of course unintentionally hilarious, trying to mix up the usual fluffy attempts to pass off a super-fabulous wealthy lifestyle as normal (who among us doesn’t get separate designer dresses for our two destination ceremonies?) with some old fashioned flyover country slut shaming (I know that when I’m spending upwards of $15,000 on a dress, my first thought is if my “male relatives” would approve. This is because I’m the daughter of a Saudi Arabian oil sheik).

Amanda just wanted to make fun of Rod for getting so giddy about slamming slutty women, but this left the post with little room for the real comedy gold, the post Ayaan Hirsi Ali-talking-to stuttering retraction, easily six times as long as the original post, minus the NYT quote. Ayann Hirsi Ali, you’ll remember, is that ass-kicking-name-taking former Muslim who is currently an awkward fit as the darling of the intellectual wingnut set. The problem is that the pundit-types love her because she is very angry at the whole concept of Islam, as she should be considering her experience, and as a result she’s willing to fawn over how superior Western culture is to the barbaric Muslim patriarchy. Which is great for everyone, except she’s also an outspoken atheist as a direct result of the way religion was used as a stick to beat her down, and she’s got an anti-patriarchy streak a mile wide. Since this is apparantly a marriage of ideological convenience and she knows she always lands on her feet whatever happens, when her gracious hosts and sponsoring community says shit like this:

The bride’s a slut. They call it progress…Natasha DaSilva, that tattoo just above your butt telegraphs to the world that you’re one classy dame. I’m sure your daughters will be so proud of you one day. “Wow, Mom, you really hooched up your wedding, didn’t you?” Dreary old me, I miss bridal hypocrisy.

Ali’s not going to let them get away with it just because they’re signing some of her checks and snorking up the copies of her books. Which means that people like Rod are going to have to do some interesting mental yoga tricks to convince her that there is an important distinction between Islamic fundamentalist slut-stoning and Christian fundamentalist slut-shaming. Otherwise, their cover may be blown and they’ll lose some of their influence on the reality-based community. Since she’s an atheist, the God-trumps-Allah card is not working and honestly, these guys don’t seem to have an argument B.

When I say “slut,” I’m being intentionally provocative, and as I indicated in a further comment below, the absence of her virginity is not what I mean by sluttiness, but rather her belief that her wedding day is an opportunity to show how little she cares about sexual purity. That’s slutty behavior, period, and we shouldn’t be afraid to condemn it…

However, I just heard a woman, Hirsi Ali, talk about how sexual purity is taken to such a psychotic extreme in Islamic culture that women are beaten, tortured and even murdered for having violated the code of honor. Hirsi Ali, who is no longer religious, said in her remarks that she believes religion should have nothing to say about sexual morality. That is clearly unacceptable to any remotely traditional religious person, but given that she’s an atheist now,….That Islam and Islamic law is fanatical about sexual purity doesn’t mean that a respect and an idealizing of sexual purity is wrong. Obviously there is a gulf between Christianity and Islam on this point.

Oh, yeah, a great gulf. A gasping, yawning chasm. For instance, did you know that in some Muslim-dominated areas of the world, it is very difficult, if not impossible, for a woman to get proper medical care because of religious laws about strange men being able to see a woman’s body, and restrictions on women prevented female doctors from practicing, or new ones from being trained? But in Christian-dominated areas, women are denied access to medical services because the doctors, or in some cases, appointment-setters, themselves are personally morally opposed to that specific care. See? Worlds of difference! I could go on, but it’s lunchtime. Suffice to say the only difference between devout evangelical Christians and devout Muslims is that the Muslims can make a modest swimsuit that doesn’t look like ass. I highly doubt that if Rod’s people were given the kind of control over us that fundamentalist Muslims have in some countries that our women wouldn’t feel the need for hymen replacement surgeries before our weddings as well. Because America’s religious right just respects and idealizes sexual purity, gazing upon virginal purity like the rest of us would appreciate a fine painting, and never feels entitled to try and shove their beliefs and morals on the rest of us, by law or force. And they respect all women and the very concept of womanhood, as Rod’s own post demonstrates.

You’ll have to do better than that, Rod. Ayaan’s pretty smart, I hear.

24.02.2008 Godbaggery, HUH!?, Sex, Shame on you for being a woman, Wankers, What Patriarchy? 9 Comments

Why not just call McCain the new Jesus?

Saturday, February 9th, 2008

Un-be-fucking-lieeeeeeevable. I’m really sorry it’s all gloom and doom from me when I find the time to post these days, but I am fed up with the defeatist language of the Democrats. It alternately depresses me to the point of inaction and sends me into a frothing tizzy accompanied by incoherent thoughts.

Allow me to do my best to sum up my feelings: THE DEMOCRATS ARE FUCKING IDIOTS. Every day, I become a tiny bit more convinced that the game is rigged and they’re trying to lose, because nothing else explains the astronomical levels of incompetency that pervade every campaign and every candidate and every organization.

The most recent example: Hillary Clinton, in an attempt to beat a fellow Democrat, basically showered her sum-bitch Republican opponent with gold, frankincense, and mer. [I had to include the frankincense and mer or that would've been a golden shower. And what she said was the opposite of peeing on him. Unfortunately. /digress.]

Listen to this:

“If our nominee is running against someone with the legendary background of John McCain — Democrats need to think about this,” Clinton said. “Because we’re picking a nominee we expect to win. We cannot take four more years of more of the same.”

The LEGENDARY BACKGROUND? I realize the man was a PoW and all that, but come the fuck on. Why not just call him bulletproof? Why not just cut off any attempts to assail his character now and forever? If Hillary runs against McCain, this quote will be thrown in our faces the entire time. “Even tax and spend liberal demon Hillary Clinton thinks John McCain is ‘legendary.’ Vote McCain! Paid for by the Committee of Shitbirds to Elect John McCain.”

It gets worse. Well, maybe not worse, but it stays pretty damn bad.

“When I think about running against Senator McCain, if I’m so fortunate to be the Democratic nominee — you’ll never have to worry about being knocked out of the ring,” Clinton said to cheers. “I think I can go toe to toe with John McCain every single day.”

Oooooh boy! We MIGHT have someone who THINKS they can maaaaaybe go toe-to-toe with the Republican! Aren’t we full of bravado! Gosh, what a novel idea, expressing that perhaps you’re the equal of the person you’ll need to defeat to become President and just maybe shove the country back on the train tracks.

I can’t believe the Democrats are fighting amongst themselves to point out who best measures up to the awesomeness of the Republican candidate. This is political suicide. And worst of all, it’s a goddamn lie. John McCain’s a tough guy who went through some rough shit. He also sold his soul to get this nomination. And his voting record is disgusting.

Until someone in the party calls these hypocritical bastards by the names they deserve to be called, Democrats will never win. You’d think someone would’ve figured that out by now.

09.02.2008 FUCKING IDIOTS, HUH!?, McCainery 15 Comments

Premise: There aren’t that many women in math and science. Conclusion: feminism has gone too far. Obviously.

Monday, January 21st, 2008

Jessica at Feministing finds another example of my favorite genre: Douchebag On Feminism. In this chapter in our infinite series, feminism has gone too far (dum dum dummmmmmm!)

I happen to speak fluent Douche, so let me translate for you. Blockquotes are Douchy McIssues, italics are translation, regular text is commentary.

So, in this wonderful age of liberty, women are free to do whatever they want, without social pressure to conform to certain roles, right?

I have no idea what I’m talking about, but that’s not going to stop me.

This is a common blowhard technique, used often by Intelligent Design proponents and discussed, I believe, by PZ Meyers, of starting off with a statement so mind-bogglingly incorrect that a reasonable individual doesn’t even know where to begin refuting it. Just unpacking the wrong to defuse it point by point is such a chore that you lose the listener and Mr McIssues wins the soundbite war.

So let’s be brief: Anyone who claims that there is no social pressure for women to conform to certain roles is talking out of his ass. Feel free to change the word “women” in that statement to any other group without affecting its validity.

In this day and age feminism has gone too far. I have several female friends whose greatest ambition is to be a wife and mother, but feel social and cultural pressure to go to college and get a prestigious job simply because it is expected.

I’m not above making up friends in order to project my issues onto them.

Douchy McIssues goes to Michigan Tech, which is a bit heavy on the math & science. Even their Arts & Humanities lists the physical sciences individually and lumps the not-physical sciences together under “social sciences.” Don’t even look at their Humanities page. Something tells me that women who really want their MRS but are being forced by their parents to get a degree are not flocking to this particular school.

Anyway, this is a fake dilemma. While your parents can force you to get that marketing degree, they can’t force a prestigious job to take you. We’d all like to have prestigious jobs and spend our Saturdays swimming in our money pools, most of us won’t be living that particular dream even if we try. If you don’t want a prestigious job, you will not be able to compete with those that do. So to Douchy’s poor, pitiable friends: don’t worry your pretty little heads off, just enjoy the four-to-five year meat market that is college, keep flirting with those engineers, and hope for the best.

Now, Michigan Tech’s female population is exceptional in many ways.

Please don’t take my balls from me; they’re all I have.

Some of his best friends are girls, I’m sure.

Thus, most of the generalities of this article do not apply in anywhere near as high a degree to the female population at Tech.

Really, you’re the exception, baby. Now, please, stop twisting my nads around each other like that. It hurts.

Like all this wishy-washy backtracking is going to help. He wasn’t getting laid before this article was published, and if he’s lucky, he will simply continue to not get laid afterwards. If he’s unlucky, gaggles of giggling female tech students will make jokes about how insecure he is about the size of his penis while he’s in earshot.

For an opening example, many would consider it sexist for me to say the aforementioned about math and science studies, yet it is true. You simply do not find as many women interested in studying theoretical physics as you do interested in studying, say, nursing.

For my next trick, I will display a staggering lack of cultural and historical awareness and reinforce all the arguments in favor of a liberal education.
(more…)

21.01.2008 Douchebag on Feminism, Feminism, HUH!?, Media hackery, Wankers 15 Comments

Before Ayn Rand, philosophy was crap

Saturday, December 15th, 2007

Generally I think that it is a bad thing that our current economy shoves our over-supply of articulate, overeducated people into wage slave customer service jobs that are expressly designed to squander the talents the articulate, overeducated people. On the other hand, thanks to the internet, we can all benefit from the combination of an aware mind and soul-gnawing tedium and or absurdity.

After I took you to the philosophy section to show you her absense in person, you began to explain your personal theories to me.

You explained to me that Ayn Rand is the first person to radically change philosophy in history. You explained to me, in a soft, intimate voice, that capitalism should in fact be called “liberalism,” due to the fact that it comes from the French word for “free,” and that capitalism makes us free.

I would like to apologize at this point for the fact that my employer prevents me from engaging in political or philosophical discussions with customers, because instead of nodding quietly, at this point, what I really should have done was point out that liber actually comes from Latin, from which both the French and English words are derived. I also apologize for not explaining that capitalism actually falls under the subject of economics.

15.12.2007 Asides, HUH!?, Humor, Wankers 4 Comments

File this away with “housework prevents cancer” and “if your boyfriend drinks alot of mountain dew he’ll be sterile”

Saturday, December 8th, 2007

Via Kevin at Slant Truth, a pop psych article is in dire need of more fisking. Purporting to share with us 10 “politically incorrect” “truths” about “human nature” by justifying all your favorite stereotypes, it’s quite a delight of an article. Kevin himself was only able to get past the introduction and first point (Men want to bang Barbie and Barbie alone, and ain’t nothing wrong with that) before he had to stop, presumably from a creeping case of the head-explodies.

Thanks to his excellent groundwork, I was able to get to the third point before my brain stopped functioning in self-defense. (This, by the way, will leave #4-10, such as “Most suicide bombers are Muslim” and “Men sexually harass women because they are not sexist” up for grabs.) It was the audacity for #3 in the face of reality. Sure, we’ve heard a million times that men only want nubile, well-racked 15 year olds and that they are naturally and blamelessly relentlessly polygamous, but did we know that this actually benefits women?

3 Most women benefit from polygyny, while most men benefit from monogamy

When there is resource inequality among men—the case in every human society—most women benefit from polygyny: women can share a wealthy man. Under monogamy, they are stuck with marrying a poorer man.

The only exceptions are extremely desirable women. Under monogamy, they can monopolize the wealthiest men; under polygyny, they must share the men with other, less desirable women. However, the situation is exactly opposite for men. Monogamy guarantees that every man can find a wife. True, less desirable men can marry only less desirable women, but that’s much better than not marrying anyone at all.

Men in monogamous societies imagine they would be better off under polygyny. What they don’t realize is that, for most men who are not extremely desirable, polygyny means no wife at all, or, if they are lucky, a wife who is much less desirable than one they could get under monogamy.

That’s right! Polygamous systems are great for women, who can share the wealth associated with the best men! This leaves only beta-males and super-fuglies out in the cold and really, can you count weak men and ugly women as people? Didn’t think so. Women have been tricked into thinking monogamy is a good deal, but really it’s just preventing them from the happiness of being wife #3 to a much cooler guy than they’re currently chained to.

This is true because having more wives, like having more chairs, doesn’t do anything to divvy up your resources; being the 4th wife of a guy who makes $100,000 a year is superior to being the only wife of a guy who makes $25,000 a year, because the guy who makes more money is obviously better. The status is well worth dealing with the other three wives.

Also, since women today have no access to resources of their own, it makes sense to focus all of our energies on getting the alphaest alpha male we can possible get before we and our children are driven from the tribe and eaten by coyotes.

Of course, to say that “polygamy is better for women than men!” is just so jaw-dropping that I have to assume that this whole article is some sort of shit-stirring put-on. Because, no, really, anyone with a PhD should be willing to show why they fuck they think that. With the recent Warren Jeffs trial, media has recently had polygamy on the brain, and it shouldn’t be too hard to show that polygamy is great for everyone except the genetically unfit.

Let’s see what the benefits of polygamy are:

1. Natural selection, being all-powerful, ensures that only the best of the best make it to the top and earn all that tantalizing wealth and those luscious wives. Power-crazy, insane corrupt people are naturally weeded out:

Warren Jeffs’ official title in the FLDS Church was “President and Prophet, Seer and Revelator”…effs, the sole individual in the church who could perform marriages, was responsible for assigning wives to husbands. Jeffs also had the ability to punish men by reassigning their wives, children, and homes to another man…In July 2004, Warren Jeffs’ nephew, Brent Jeffs, filed a lawsuit against him alleging that in the late 1980s his uncle sodomized him in the Salt Lake Valley compound then owned by the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (FLDS). Brent Jeffs said he was 5 or 6 years old at the time, and that Warren Jeffs’ brothers, also named in the lawsuit, watched and participated in the abuse. Two of Warren Jeffs’ other nephews also made similar abuse claims against him. One of the alleged victims, Clayne Jeffs, committed suicide with a firearm after admitting that Warren Jeffs had sexually assaulted him as a child.[21]

In June 2005, Jeffs was charged with sexual assault on a minor and with conspiracy to commit sexual misconduct with a minor for allegedly arranging, in 2002, a marriage between a 14-year-old girl and a 19-year-old man who was already married. The girl, known as “Jane Doe IV” (Elissa Wall)[22] testified that she begged “Uncle Rulon” to let her wait until she was older, or choose another man for her. Rulon Jeffs was apparently “sympathetic”, but Warren Jeffs was not, and she was forced to go through with the marriage. The man that she was to marry was apparently her first cousin. The 14 year old alleged that her new husband raped her repeatedly, starting on their wedding night.

2. In the zero-sum game of resource acquisition, we don’t have to take in any other considerations as long as we match nubile young women to men of sufficient status. Stories like this:

Sara Hammon saw some of her sisters pulled out of school to be married to men they didn’t know. She dreaded a similar fate. And so, she ran away from home before she was old enough to drive legally.

She left behind 19 mothers, 74 siblings, and a father she says could never remember her name, even though he repeatedly molested her.

And, she left behind a culture she says was oppressive for young women.

aren’t really how it works at all, you see. Sure, everywhere we see polygamy we see incredible levels of child abuse, sexual dysfunction, and poverty (polygamous communities in the American west suck up social services like a bunch of Fundamentalist money vacuums This is partly because having that many dependents is really tough on a guy, and partly from the fundamentalist Mormon belief that it is righteous to defraud a non-Mormon government.)

Anyway, sure, every time we see a polygamous community we see nothing but unsustainable bad things, but that’s because they’re all doing it wrong. If we did polygamy this other, imaginary perfect way that still somehow managed to favor multiple-wives over multiple-husbands then everything would be cool. Really.

3. The endless wealth of the alpha male should be available for all women to share

Nothing says keeping the resources like acquiring more dependents. If I’m wife #1 to a wealthy guy, I’ve no reason to worry that my standard of living will dip when sexy young wife #2 drops in, and of course we’ll welcome wife #3 with open arms because our husband, a man biologically driven to complete his Barbie collection, would never sacrifice our material comfort by getting more dolls if he can’t afford the bigger Barbie Mansion Playset, right? Plus, under a system where men are slaves to biological imperative and women can only get access to real resources by exploiting this, we never have to worry about being tossed when we’re past our sell-by date.

And if the measure of a man is how many wives he can attract, I suggest you check out Tom Green, and his lovely family desert retreat, Greenhaven. That’s a catch, mind you, the “less desirable” men mentioned in the article can’t even offer their wives the luxury of a bunch of trailers in the desert. They live in caves and eat bugs. Is that what you want, missy? No, then marry the nice man like I told you to.

And you can always leave, if you are that bothered by it, allowing a steady stream of used wives to trickle down to those lonely beta males, or if you’re over 45, a gamma male. This plan is perfect!

Clearly, the evidence shows that Alan S. Miller Ph.D. and Satoshi Kanazawa Ph.D. aren’t just making shit up, so we have no choice but to accept the other points as unfortunately true, regardless of how it angers our little progressive minds.

08.12.2007 "Science", For the ladies, HUH!?, Sex, Wankers, What Patriarchy? 13 Comments

Not the whorification of ladyhood! Anything but that!

Wednesday, November 21st, 2007

Via Echidine & Pam, another undergrad guy lets us know what boys want, and that’s a good thing because most of us would never have guessed that the boys want us to set things up so that they may have more opportunities to act on their own Elizabeth & Mr. Darcy fantasies. Turns out, girls in boys clothes are icky, just like boys are!

Also, the Architect from the Matrix is currently residing in Texas, where he majors in history.

Dresses epitomize womanhood in the Western world. Such has been the case since the western man adopted pants to replace the tunic in the sixth century (an aspect of the West’s Germanic barbarian heritage).

Women, the more refined sex, kept the tunic-reminder of our barbarian heritage and unlike men, made it look good. Obviously. Or maybe the whole sixth century was an aspect of our barbarian heritage.

Dresses allow us to differentiate between the silhouettes of men and women on restroom signs.

Without the dress, we’d be shitting indiscriminately in any hole we could find, which is not terribly ladylike. This is the actual second sentence of the whole essay. Pause for a second to let that sink in, because it’s only gonna get better.
(more…)

21.11.2007 Culture, Douchebag on Feminism, For the ladies, HUH!?, Historical Wankery, Sex, Wankers 34 Comments

Racism is like the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal: if you can’t see it, it can’t see you. Right?

Thursday, November 15th, 2007

Breaking news: white boy does something racially insensitive and is knocked right on his ass.

Gabriel Keith, an assistant editor at the City College Times at Minneapolis Community & Technical College, used a drawstring from a hooded sweatshirt to make a noose, from which he hung a message about making deadlines in late October.

The tactic did not go over well in a newsroom that included several black students. Keith took the noose down five minutes later, but the ensuing hubbub led to his firing from the paper and a dispute between the editor-in-chief and the adviser.

Long story short: everyone involved knows that this college newspaper editor was not trying to make a racist statement; however, his offensive and poorly executed attempt to be funny and the apparently poor handling of the event afterwards meant that at the very least, he needed to be replaced by someone with a clue. Anyone who has ever spent five minutes in a campus newspaper office can probably imagine how this whole thing went down. And really, how can you not have sympathy for the guy? Expecting a journalism upperclassman to be aware of all the major symbols in modern American history is like expecting him to remember the names of all 50 freaking states. That’s like, a lot, and he’ll never even use half of it, so whats the big deal?

I was in the middle of learning to fix a heat stage when my friend came in to talk about this terribly critical event; mostly he wanted to complain that the thought police were on their way when a man can’t use a noose to convince his subordinates to do their work on time. I was just surprised that every guy in the room needed to have why a noose could be interpreted as a racist symbol explained to them. I made several compelling arguments about why this newspaper editor was in the wrong, including: “well, duh” (this one didn’t work as well as I think it should have) and “a newspaper editor, off all fucking people, should know better than to use such a heavily laden symbol for something so stupid, especially since the noose has no special relationship to making people work more effectively so he could have just as easily picked something else” which I think they found a little harder to argue with. I mean, really, pretend you’re a person who has no negative noose-related associations, then pretend you’ve just seen one hanging over your boss’ desk. My first thought? WTF? My second? Maybe I need a new boss, if this one is threatening to kill me in an elaborate and antiquated manner for missing a deadline. Perhaps I’d like to work with someone with better management skills. See? Even if you remove the racist imagery all together, Gabriel Keith is still a dumbass.

Then I actually read the article. Now, the version I linked to is similar to the version I read this morning, but it replaces a few paragraphs with more recent information. In the version I read, two assistant editors (or they may have been section editors, I forget which) said that they’d been there when Keith and his friend had made the noose, and they told them it was a bad idea to hang it up. In fact, other suggestions were made and dismissed in favor of the noose.

The two assistant editors were black women, by the way.

So now those of us who have spent some time in the campus journalism school really know how this all went down, don’t we? There’s always that One Guy. They’re everywhere, and most of them never get beaten with the clue-by-four they so richly deserve, so you can imagine how surprised these guys are when someone finally calls them on their bullshit. How much do you want to bet that the two guys making the noose were too busy giggling over how funny it was to heed their prudish colleagues warnings? And now they’re paying for it, cause no one can just take a joke. It’s a harsh world, I know, and let’s pause and feel sorry for poor Gabe. OK, that should be enough of that. I’m sure he’ll do OK once all the furor dies down; you don’t reach 2623 that clueless without some kind of safety net.

So I went back to my friend and said, hey, I read the article and while it is overkill that this campus incident has made national news, the editor in question was pretty fucking stupid, doubly so because he’d been warned by his two coworkers that hanging the noose was a terrible idea. Now, I know what I’ve been thinking when I’ve told guys “I don’t think this is a good idea.” And I have been told by others, “I don’t think this is a good idea.” We all know what “I don’t think this is a good idea” means; it means: dude, fucking stop it, this is an awful idea. No, seriously, fucking stop it right now because you’re going to get in trouble. The person saying this is nearly always right.

My friend, however, considered this a terribly cryptic, almost useless warning. What, he said, are we supposed to read women’s minds?

White male privilege in a nutshell, ladies and gentlemen.

15.11.2007 HUH!?, Racism, Shame on you for not being rich white and privileged, Wankers 74 Comments

Patriarchy is like a bra: a bad one can ruin anything, but there’s nothing better than a good one. What do you mean, I missed the point?

Thursday, November 8th, 2007

Boundless’s Heather Koerner sez: feminism is for silly girls! Thank God she grew out of that! Oh, and check out how the fascinating story of this remarkable Muslim woman can be used to add drama the story of the junior high mock election where she voted for Mondale.

My male classmates had taunted me that a woman, well, a woman just couldn’t be vice-president. She just couldn’t.

But as a pre-teen who could beat the pants off my male counterparts in math class and was wholly unimpressed with their flatulence jokes, I begged to differ. We were women, hear us roar. Her victory, I thought, would bring honor to all females and her defeat was a defeat for us all.

Looking back, I have to smile. I am thankful that Mondale and Ferraro were not elected. She does not, to put it mildly, advocate my political beliefs. I’ve realized that just because another human has ovaries, doesn’t mean we naturally share the same opinions or ideals.

But don’t take her word for it; let’s ask this Muslim! Or, let’s take some quotes from a Muslim woman and wrap them in a fresh steaming pile of WTF.

One of the latest lessons I’ve gotten came from an unexpected place — a secular article about a woman who grew up in a Muslim family in Mogadishu. In the article, Deroy Murdock profiles Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a woman with an amazing story. Ali now lives, writes and speaks in America, attempting to encourage the West to realize that its culture is, indeed, superior to militant Islam. As Murdock quotes her, “Human beings are equal; cultures are not.”

She particularly extends her appreciation to our culture’s treatment of women.

You go girl, my seventh-grade self might have said! We are still fighting for our equality, but we’re getting closer all the time.

But that’s not Ali’s point in Murdock’s article. Her point is simple: Here, a man holds a door open for a woman.

“When I first came to a Western country, I was astonished to find men who said, ‘Ladies first,’” Murdock quotes Ali. “I was amazed because I was born and raised in a culture that put me last because I was born a girl.”

Ayaan Ali is absolutely the perfect woman to be holding up as an example for Godly women to emulate. For example, she’s willing to say a lot of stuff The American Enterprise Institute, who are currently writing her paychecks, love to hear:

“A culture that holds the door open to her women is not equal to one that confines them behind walls and veils,” Ali continued. “A culture that encourages dating between young men and young women is not equal to a culture that flogs or stones a girl for falling in love. A culture where monogamy is an aspiration is not equal to a culture where a man can lawfully have four wives at once.”

She’s passed the door test (always, the damn doors with these people) and she really doesn’t like Islam anymore and so Heather is free to weave what was probably a masterful ass-kissing on Ali’s part into the much less interesting tapestry of her own sheltered life:

Unfortunately, not all women are as appreciative of an opened door as Ali. Some women, and men, link the impulse to open a door for a woman with the impulse to repress and abuse her. But Ali’s experience has taught her the exact opposite, and I think she is right: There is a difference between a culture where women are honored and a culture where women are chattel.

But, for me, it goes further than just “culture.” Many modern day feminists have tried to argue that they offer me honor while Christianity offers me chattel. But they’ve got it backwards. I only have to look around to see it. The hook-up culture, the abortion culture, the depiction of women in media — they’re all proof. It wouldn’t take me 10 seconds flipping the television to see that — though Ali is gracious enough to see the positives in our culture — there is plenty of chattel-like behavior towards women.

As a seventh-grade girl, I was incensed that someone would treat me differently because I was a female. Now, though, I take comfort in the fact that God commands my Christian brothers to treat me differently…Yes, some societies live that way, and it’s a shame. But that is not God’s way. God has given my husband the right, and the responsibility, to lead our family. But simply because I submit to an authority — as, in fact, all of us have to do — God doesn’t see me as inferior, as inadequate or unworthy. The true message of Christ is quite the opposite and it’s a beautiful thing.

Now I remember that every time my husband opens my door. It’s a small gesture, but it points to the larger truth.

Of course, to turn Ayaan Ali’s appreciation of getting a door held open into an ode to wifely submission may be, at best, a bit of a stretch. For it seems that while Ali is a controversial figure, one fact is perfectly clear: the woman has an enormous set of thatchers. A short list of her accomplishments include:

Running away from an arranged marriage
Lying to Dutch officials to get refugee status
Learning Dutch and getting a masters degree in political science before
Obtaining an elected position in Dutch parliament only to resign after
It was disclosed that she lied to get her citizenship but it was OK because the Dutch loved her so much that
The government bent over backwards to allow her to keep her citizenship but she went to America anyway to
Write her book

Oh, and somewhere in there she narrated the movie that got Vincent Van Gogh’s movie-director descendant killed, with a five-page death threat to her knifed into his chest.

And then she went back to the Netherlands, just because the cheap bastards would only pay for round-the-clock security when she was actually in the country, leading me to ask why the American Enterprise didn’t pick up the tab so she could stay in DC? I guess the Conservative Skinflint Uncle isn’t such a strawman after all.

So anyway, she’s a real Titus 2 woman, indeed. All of your biblical role models, your Rachels and Esthers, ended up renouncing their religion and talking smack about Islam and fighting for women’s rights until they needed bodyguards 24 hours a day. I think that we can safely assume that no matter how conservative Ali is, she’ll not be endorsing the following tripe anytime soon:

God’s balance, of course, is perfect. He commands that I be respected, but also that I respect. He commands that I be honored, but also that I honor. He commands that I submit to authority, but also commands that authority to submit to Him…

In seventh grade, and probably for years later, I would have told you that all patriarchal societies were the same — their only goal to puff men up in their own power. But not anymore.

In fact, that might be the exact opposite of her message. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, and sometimes appreciating that a guy held the door for you instead of stoning you to death is not an endorsement of your western-flavored patriarchy.* Also, her political party back in Dutchlandia is soft on both drugs and fags, although they just love the free market. Or what passes for a free market economy in the Netherlands. Just letting you know. And this other post about female Muslim writers in the West, maybe that’s some good readin’.

*And keep in mind that her primary “West” experience is centered in the freakin’ Netherlands. What are the odds that in Heather Koerner’s country, a female African immigrant with Ali’s “polarizing” personality would make it as far in politics in America? Is Heather aware that the “West” encompasses a couple of continents, which is why we just don’t call it “America”?

08.11.2007 Douchebag on Feminism, HUH!?, Politics, Wingnuts 4 Comments

What is Yahoo! smoking?

Saturday, October 13th, 2007

I think I need to check Yahoo! more often. First, Fengi found this adorable pair of articles on how those elitist, overly educated single women need to lower their standards, play dumb, and give more blowjobs. Or something like that.

The most mind-boggling quote, to me, is this one, from “dating coach” and self-hating Jew Evan Marc Katz:

In real life, if you start talking to someone at a party who is intriguing, you’ll probably get a phone number and set up a date. You may not find out until later that he’s a different religion, or political party….For example, I’ve got a male dating-coaching client who is 24 and runs a multimillion-dollar corporation. He never got a college degree, so he wouldn’t appear in many women’s educational searches. Too bad for them. I’ve got a female client who is 64 and still goes hiking, fishing and skiing. She’s beautiful, youthful and vibrant, and completely off the radar for most men. It’s a shame, isn’t it?

While I think it’s fine to date outside of your social circles, I wonder why this sort of romantic advice so often encourages women to go out with anti-choice Republicans men with wildly different political views. I guess these relationships work sometimes, but I would have a hard time dating someone who thought that my body was his property. It’s just not sexy. If Republicans can’t get dates, which is I think what Katz’s advice suggests, maybe they should work on developing a less misogynist world view. Just a thought.

Anyway, that’s not the weirdest thing on Yahoo! lately. Hat-tip to Seaya for finding this charming little game, called Missionaries and Cannibals.

The kind missionaries can’t be left alone with too many evil cannibals, but they all have to cross a river in a small boat. Can you help them?

If you think that description is bad, wait until you see the graphics.

13.10.2007 Entertainment, For the ladies, HUH!?, Mutterings Of The Disturbed, Racism, Ze Goggles! Zey Do Nothing!, Zinczenko'd 7 Comments

Feminism: Empowering women to hurt themselves.

Wednesday, October 3rd, 2007

A few days ago we heard from a young lady who felt feminism failed her and no doubt you felt my post lacked balance. What, you asked, about the men? What do they think? You ask and sophomore print journalism major Josh Bass provides.

Upon returning from what I assumed, based on her flashing eyes and violent body language, to be an unsuccessful date, a friend of mine bitterly spat out a phrase I have come to recognize as the international anthem for disrespected and mistreated women everywhere: “Chivalry is dead.”

For years now, the cry has sounded from high towers, railroad tracks and marriages arranged for wealth rather than love. Ladies in desperate need of one decent knight are left to fend for themselves against dragons, dastardly mustached villains and boorish fathers.

So right off the bat we know that this is going to be a fresh, original opinion piece that makes a lot of good sense, because I totally got what he was saying there. But I’m not exactly sure what a knight can do against a boorish father, because if I recall correctly, back when chivalry was at its height, possession was still 9/10 of the law, if you know what I mean.

Looking at the bemoaned loss of chivalry in our society, I can’t help but wonder if chivalry had – in accordance with popular belief – brought about its own demise or if more sinister forces were at work.

If you’re about to blame feminism, you are so behind. The real problem is plastics. If you really want to go back to the golden age of gender roles, then you should reduce, reuse and recycle.

The latter accusation is not without validity, given the somewhat primitive state of many of those with a Y chromosome, the underestimated difficulties of courtship and maintaining a meaningful relationship.

Ergo, therefore, vis a vis as you can see, a shiny quarter to whomever can make sense out of the previous two quoted sentences, which in Josh’s mind are related in some manner. Anyway, blah blah blah men are pigs, blah blah, women are to blame. We’ve all seen this song and dance before.

On July 19, 1848, a group of revolutionaries gathered in Seneca Falls, N.Y., and, shedding the feminine shackles of inferiority, began to pull the sword of equality from its historically misogynistic stone prison. What they did not consider at the time was the fatally double-edged nature of that sword.

That? That’s not a metaphor. This is a metaphor:

A lot of women have concluded that the problem is that guys, as a group, have the emotional maturity of hamsters. No, this is not the case. A hamster is much more capable of making a lasting commitment to a woman, especially if she gives it those little food pellets. Whereas a guy, in a relationship, will consume the pellets of companionship, and he will run on the exercise wheel of lust; but as soon as he sense that the door of commitment is about to close and trap him in the wire cage of true intimacy, he’ll squirm out, scamper across the kitchen floor of uncertainty and hide under the refrigerator of nonreadiness.

Dave Barry is a professional writer, and he advises you to not try these metaphors at home. You see, Josh, Dave made your point thirteen years ago, and it was a joke then. The difference between you and him is that you’re actually sincere, and also an asshole.

Along with the empowerment and individuality they so undoubtedly deserved came a complete rejection of all things classically feminine and a new phrase to make men shudder; “I can do it myself!”

…And so emerged a group of warrior princesses affectionately referred to as Feminazis; lean, mean, emasculating machines in power suits who proved to the world that women are intelligent, strong, capable and incredibly frightening.

Issues much? Jesus, Josh, there are women o’plenty, especially on a college campus, who’d be pleased as punch to accept a graciously offered movie ticket or dinner. Unless, of course, you’re a complete cocksucker. Just saying.

So blah blah, time passed and things have changed on the meat market, which Josh seems to think was caused by an Attack of the 50-Foot Feminists having some sort of tantrum for something like 150 years, because the chronology leaps from 1848 to today.

In either case, when the red tint of rage in her eyes faded and the vein in her neck eased, woman did not ask chivalry to come back. Instead, chivalry took advantage of the destruction of feminine stereotypes to fully access her needs, both sexually and romantically.

So women said, fuck chivalry, and then when they were done pouting said, yeah, we were right: fuck chivalry. And chivalry said, “I’ll show that bitch.” What a classy guy, why did we ever dump his ass?

Also, I believe if chivalry was fully accessing women’s needs romantically (“Swipe card, enter PIN. Welcome, Bass J. You are authorized to access the following needs:”) the whole introduction to Josh’s essay would have been shot to shit. Unless romantic is a euphemism for sexual, in which case Josh is truly an idiot because there’s really no need to euphemism-ize something after coming right out and saying it.

Without the age-old strictures forbidding harlotry and all other forms of public taboo, women became free to do what they wanted with whom they wanted without an inordinate amount of societal backlash or the need for a long-term relationship.

*Sputter rage!* And the WOMEN! They organized! For rights! And freedom! And then they got most of it! And started acting like real people, with rights! And freedom! And no one was punishing them! No one! They were out there doing exactly what the men were doing, but no one was punishing them! No slut-shaming or rape or shotgun marriage or anything! Josh is like boggled! He can’t believe that he grew up in a world with 50% less slut-shaming than his father! Seriously, why aren’t you people upset? Women! Just doing things! With not nearly enough social backlash! Like hardly any!

Just wow. How oblivious do you have to be to actually type those words and then submit them. I’d say someone’s editor let that one go to press just to maximize the hate mail.

As women, the traditional gatekeepers and pacesetters, collectively dropped their standards and engaged in commitment-free, purely physical relationships, they opened the door for the treatment that their behavior elicits.

That’s a two-way road, buddy. For example, your stunning self-absorption and barely masked loathing of the fairer sex means that you actually do deserve to be alone. So very alone. Quite honestly, if I was your right hand I’d refuse to form a fist. That’s how alone you should be.

When a guy is given the option to bypass courtship and gain entry without much effort, it takes no great Holmesian deduction to discover why proper treatment and respect fall by the wayside.

Dave Barry, if I may refer to the master once again, once praised Rod Stewart for his cleverly subtle lyrics “Spread your wings/And let me come inside.” I hereby award the Rod Stewart Award for Class and Subtlety in Sexual References to Josh Bass, Sophomore Print Journalism Major. *clapclapclap!*

But that does not mean that chivalry cannot be resuscitated, or that it does not live on still in the hearts of a good number of men. And after listening to me prattle on in rebuttal to her no doubt unconscious remark, I think my friend may have gained a new perspective.

No, dude, she knew you were a dick before you followed up her crappy date by boring her to death. Also, she’s pretty sure you just called her a whore.

No, this doesn’t mean she’s free next Friday.

After all, there are women all over the world who have male confidants and close friends, but they never for once take a step back and realize that the person with whom they are constantly sharing their romantic woes is in fact ­- male.

And so to that widow of romance out there, when next the words seem about to spill unbidden from your lips, bite your tongue and look a little harder. You may have to seek, my lady, but ye shall find.

Wait, wait, that didn’t make any sense. Let me run it through Babelfish…let’s see…from “Douchebag” to “English”

I’m a Nice Guy(TM)! How come women never want to go out with Nice Guys(TM)! All I did was point out that I’d treat her with respect and if she doesn’t like it then she’s a slutty mcharlotwhore who just doesn’t appreciate what a Nice Guy(TM) I am. But all these bitches will see. Oh yes, one day they’ll see. They’ll be all “Help, help, I’m being raped!” and I’ll be all “Well you deserved it, skank.” And they’ll be all “Oh, why didn’t we see how wonderful Josh was when we had the chance, ow! Ow!” and then I’ll jump on my horse and pick up a maiden and we’ll live happily ever after.

Seriously, why can’t these hos see how great I am?

03.10.2007 Douchebag on Feminism, For the ladies, HUH!?, Pigs, Sex, What Patriarchy?, another fucking sex post 12 Comments

Must be nice to have a 0.0% crime rate

Wednesday, October 3rd, 2007

At least, I assume Italy must have vanquished crime in all of its forms to have the time and, let’s face it, the stones for this:

In Italy, the land of fashion and elegance, it’s only natural that public officials want to look good too. And so the Italian police ordered high heeled-shoes for its 14,750 female police officers, who wanted to give their uniform a younger and sexier look.

The nearly 15,000 female police officers were reportedly “delighted” to get to wear stilettos to work. I’ll admit, the one Italian woman I know does wear insanely inappropriate shoes to work and insists that once you get used to it it’s totally cool, but I have a hard time believing that 15,000 police officers were uniformly thrilled to finally look younger and sexier, the prime concern of any police officer.

sexyrimbacop
Sure, it’s impractical, but perpetrators frequently tip me upwards of $10 in singles before they realize I’m not kidding about the right to remain silent. I’ve never been more motivated!

We’ll never know how the great Official Calf’n'Ass Sculpting worked out, because while sexual discrimination standards vary from nation to nation, penny-pinching, ill-communicating bureaucracy is a universal language:

However, the Interior Ministry made a fatal mistake when it tried to save money on the shoes. After studying various bids, it awarded the €600,000 ($850,000) contract to a factory in Romania instead of to Italy’s famous but expensive shoemakers. The clinching factor was the Romanian company’s elegant design — and the low cost of €20 a pair.

But the authorities failed to realize that Romanian sizes did not conform to Italian norms — with the result that the shoes were too small for Italian feet.

Well fuck, if the government can’t be trusted to buy shoes then how are they going to be able to get the vinyl catsuits with the bras that shoot poison darts?

h/t Erica

03.10.2007 For the ladies, HUH!? 1 Comment

I thought I was a feminist, but it turns out my house had a radon problem

Saturday, September 29th, 2007

My Favorite Anti-Feminists (TM) ask, is it possible that feminism, like many form of cancer, is a by-product of pollutants in our environment?

No. Really.

Could environmental factors contribute to feminism?

Environmental factors like good mentors and strong role models, or environmental factors like when the Communists put all that fluoride in our water?

I’ve read and heard several articles (especially over the past 10-15 years) dealing with the growing amount of evidence covering the unpopular topic of the effects of both hormones from the pill and hormones from our insatiable appetite for synthetic goods upon both animals and human beings alike. Though the abovementioned industries persist in the “tale” that their products are 100% safe for both our environment and us, the mounting weight of evidence demonstrates otherwise.

Ever see a phase diagram for water? After a certain point, called the critical point, water vapor and liquid water become indistinguishable from one another.

pdareas
Phase diagram from ChemGuide

Mrs. Elliot exists on a similar point in the political spectrum. At some point of sincere but completely batshit passion, a person stops being distinguishably right and left and is just frothing. This allows Mrs. Elliot to be a Conservative Christian Anti-Capitalist Anti-Abortionist Environmentalist. As you can imagine, such a brain potpourri encourages Mrs. Elliot to use the always crystal clear narrative method known as stream of consciousness.

Some years ago now, a widely publicised study carried out on genetic gender “mistakes” leading to a rise in reproductive disorders (among other problems) within the polar bear population alerted society to the dangers we’re storing up for ourselves from nearly half a century of the pill and synthetics…

if we wish, as workers for our Heavenly Father, to address this issue and advocate for change, we do need to consider the whole question of feminism and the masculinisation of womankind as more than a rise in Communist Feminist Ideology. We should rather consider a combination of the former, quietly and unsuspectedly helped along by this frightening new evidence for emerging environmental influences–a Frankenstein’s monster created by our own hand as we meddle with the delicate balance of God’s creation and His natural order.

In 1953, Saran Wrap, the same material the military used to wrap its fighter planes in to keep them fresher, longer was approved for use in food packaging. Then, the sexual revolution happened. Coincidence? I think not.

If a true, healthy gender identity is to be rekindled, any environmental influence that hampers both the feminine and masculine identity in men and women must be promptly removed from the equation.

It’s not that women don’t like patriarchy, it’s just that polystyrene and lo-dose estrogen combine to suppress the hormone femmase in women, and the polystyrene doesn’t do anything good for the masculase in men. Since femmase and masculase are the God’s Divine Will hormones, without them the estrogen and testosterone present in both genders is helpless to regulate properly gendered behaviors and the next thing you know, Satan’s polymers have triumphed over good once again, leading to women in the workforce and the end of civilization as we know it.

Legislating against the reproductive pill and the use of unsafe plastics and their intrusion into our everyday lives on such a vast scale will be a good place to start.Though these suggestions may seem extreme, if a factor has been shown to present danger, are we not morally, ethically, and spiritually beholden to act?

Sure, but it’s 2,000 years after Christ and we still have war. If you can’t get humanity to agree to stop blowing each other up because we are beholden to prevent danger, then you sure as shit ain’t getting them to give up Tupperware and Step 2 brand indestructible mailboxes.

c6step2
Pop quiz: Which one of these two things sucks up more resources and does more damage to an environment? Left: A soldier at a burning oil field. Right: An ugly-ass mailbox whose production creates estrogen-mimickers as a waste product, allowing for a tenuous argument that urinating while using birth control pills is as harmful as pouring used motor oil into a stream

Remember, everything belongs to God, and he wants you to live Biblically. Specifically, he wants you to combine low-impact living with enormous family size. If this seems extreme, and possibly counter-productive, then you’ll probably need to start with regular colon cleanings and detox diets to flush the feminism away.

29.09.2007 Feminism, For the ladies, HUH!?, Mutterings Of The Disturbed, Reproductive Rights 7 Comments

Previous Entries
Newer Entries