You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘Rant’ category.
I’m not sure why people are having such problems dealing with factual reality.
Whether it be the gender-queer crowd and their patented ability not to understand that sex and gender are not the same thing or here today with this story about the head of the EPA not accepting the fact that CO2 is a significant green house gas and pumping more of it into the atmosphere threatens human existence as we know it.
“The new head of the Environmental Protection Agency said on Thursday he is not convinced that carbon dioxide from human activity is the main driver of climate change and said he wants Congress to weigh in on whether CO2 is a harmful pollutant that should be regulated.
Pruitt, 48, is a climate change denier who sued the agency he now leads more than a dozen times as Oklahoma’s attorney general. He said he was not convinced that carbon dioxide pollution from burning fossil fuels like oil, gas and coal is the main cause of climate change, a conclusion widely embraced by scientists. “
What the ever living frak is this malarkey? Predictably, scientists are call Pruitt’s bullshit for what it is.
“Scientists immediately criticized Pruitt’s statement, saying it ignores a large body of evidence collected over decades that shows fossil fuel burning as the main factor in climate change.
“We can’t afford to reject this clear and compelling scientific evidence when we make public policy. Embracing ignorance is not an option,” Ben Santer, climate researcher at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, said in a statement.
The Supreme Court unleashed a fury of regulation and litigation when it ruled in 2007 that greenhouse gases are an air pollutant that can be regulated under the Clean Air Act. Two years later, the EPA declared carbon dioxide and five other heat-trapping gases to be pollutants.
Pruitt said the Supreme Court’s decision should not have been viewed as permission for the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide emissions.
“Decisions were made at the executive branch level that didn’t respect the rule of law,” Pruitt said in his Houston speech.
Pruitt has previously said the EPA should not regulate CO2 without a law passed by Congress authorizing it to do so. The Republican-controlled Congress could potentially issue a strong signal to the EPA that carbon dioxide should not be regulated by the agency, a move that would undermine many Obama-era rules aimed at curbing emissions.”
When Florida is mostly underwater, then – maybe – these people will understand what AGW is.
Books should never be banned; they are the life blood of an educated population. Yet banning books, specifically feminist books in The Vancouver Woman’s library is a priority for the group called Gays Against Gentrification. This sort of violent repression is a heinous crime against the notions of the promotion of rational discourse, civilized protest, and of course women and their liberty.
So… friends, let’s understand that if you decide to start banning books that are integral to the movement you want to be a part of, it is a really big hint that you need to be in your own fucking movement. Colonizing Feminism for your particular set needs is going to fail; therefore it is time to take wing and make a movement that really can be all about you, because, Dear Transactivists/queer ideologues/men etc. :
Feminism. Is. Not. All. About. You.
Erasing ‘heretical’ female texts and thus female experience isn’t what is expected of feminists or their allies – is this your #notmytrans movement moment? (Too fucking late for that now, the jackboots are already in motion in Vancouver.) – yet this is the shit move (banning feminist books in a library for Women) undertaken by the queer group GAG. (see the entire petition on Facebook here). Are you feeling the inclusive love from this group that is dictating what females are allowed to read? I know I certainly am.
Let’s follow Charles Rae in his article on The Fifth Column as she describes the situation –
” This has got to be the first time a library was accused of violence. In an interesting display of the blooming neoliberal tendency to turn the world into their self-defined “safe space,” an organization ironically called GAG (Gays Against Gentrification) has demanded the new Vancouver Women’s Library (VWL) ban books written by women. Feminist Mary Lunetta already created a petition in favor of freedom of thought, urging VWL not to ban any books.
The trend of the neoliberal left controlling and condemning thoughts and words is widespread, and damages the movements they are attempting to protect. In this particular example as a case study, GAG came out of the gate demanding an outright ban of women’s books instead of asking for a respectful dialog. But then, what would this dialog consist of? What books (and therefore thoughts) are allowed? Anyone who champions freedom of thought wouldn’t entertain such a debate, and women shouldn’t be demanded to comply to such restrictions.”
Follow the link to the petition and sign it. Better yet, go to the Vancouver Women’s Library website and donate to them.
“These demands presume feminism, and women, are or should be completely monolithic. That everyone should already implicitly and entirely understand their ideal of accepted language and thought. If you don’t know or accept their concepts, there is no conversation to be had. You are a bigot, and you should get out (like the books).”
How about NO. The sifting sands of your ideology serve only to reinforce the patriarchal conception of gender. No one should take a knee to such a corrosive ideology which, essentially, is the antithesis of radical feminist theory and praxis.
“The reasoning presented in their introductory paragraph is because “the ongoing violence against trans women, sex workers, and IBPOC (Indigenous, Black, and People of Colour),” and as was quoted, “settler-colonial violence”. But what connection a Women’s Library has to the violence anyone anywhere faces remains to be seen, and is not detailed in their demands. As seasoned feminists know and center in their messaging, violence is perpetrated (in a large majority) by men. Furthermore, violent males aren’t taking their cues from women’s books and libraries.“
Harassing libraries is easy, fixing male-violence isn’t. Looks like its coming up harassing libraries all across the board, because actually being an ally and working with women is too fucking hard.
“GAG goes on to say that “TERF”s and “SWERF”s are complicit in violence and liken them to Nazis. How long have feminist been called Feminazis? Where was the Holocaust perpetrated by “cis white women”? One of the SWERFy books they want banned is called Not a Choice, Not a Job: Exposing the Myths about Prostitution and the Global Sex Trade by Janice Raymond. Doesn’t that sound more like a book which exposes violence rather than perpetrates it? I’m going to have to give it a read.”
Men do need access to prostituted women after all. Definitely should be a priority for Feminists amirite?
“GAG’s attempt to give proof of violence was to call out women who stand in opposition to the sex industry, and the particular exclusion of a male who identifies as a woman into a woman-only space. Their demands to silence women are ill-founded at best, harmful to the women’s movement at worst, and ironic on all accounts. GAG says they will not sit down with the women of the VWL for discussion because they claim they are being gaslit– as they call women nazis and violent without a shred of hard evidence of physical violence. “
Typical male supremacist behaviour. Sorry folks, you can’t identify out of being part of the oppressor class, and shit like the GAG list of demands to silence women only proves that point.
“Furthermore, the books and ideas they are looking to ban are ones that are still under debate within the feminist community, such as the example of the sex industry, and whether it should be abolished or embraced. These demands are an attempt to control this ongoing dialog, as well as the outcome of it. Any kind of a book ban would, without a doubt, hinder feminist movements. Feminists, all movements with all ideologies, would be strengthened by robust debate and spaces of free thought, something libraries stand for, and something women have been denied time and again since men took the mantle as head of the home and state.”
Yep. What Charles said. My conclusion would have had more swears in it, but Charles sums up the situation nicely.
Stay Tuned, I’ll have the feminist books to be banned list up in a jiff.
**UPDATE** – Queer Transactivst Group Vandalizes Library
**UPDATE** – Video of dudes and handmaidens at the Library.
There was a time when religion commissioned great and wondrous art. Awe-inspiring cathedrals were built by the most grand and innovative architects. Beautiful music for masses were composed by the greatest musical minds in history. Religious paintings were created with skills and passion that have yet to be matched, even hundreds of years later. Art was the bright silver lining to the otherwise horrifying and cataclysmic storm cloud of religion. However, that was long ago and that silver lining has since been swallowed up by the black abyss. All that is left is a shit-storm of horribly lame, morally reprehensible, and just plain awful media that is christian pop culture.
The religious will rip off and bastardize anything in order to push their message, with no regard for or understanding of the source material. Whether it be a nauseatingly horrendous christian rock band or an offensively clueless rally video, only one thing is clear. There is no limit to how objectively bad something is, as long as a church can get behind the message.
For your consideration I present two new low points. Be warned. These are so very terrible that I was convinced they were fake at first. Please do not eat for 30 minutes before or after watching these. Your stomach may not be able to handle it.
First we have a trailer for an upcoming Romantic Comedy. The trailer shows neither comedy nor romance, instead it focuses on a cameo by Mike Huckabee talking about legislating anti-abortion laws. The Friendly Atheist has written up a few more details if you’re interested.
Just in case you still have your lunch down, I’ve saved the worst for last. Imagine the most awkward, desperate to be considered ‘cool’ by the kiddies, palm-through-the-face-into-the-back-of-your-skull bad PSA you’ve ever seen. Increase the uncomfortable embarrassment by a couple orders of magnitude. Multiply it by some unbelievable cultural insensitivity, then again by a massive helping of asinine theistic delusion. It should give you something wrong on so many levels, that it may have gone fractally wrong. Something like this:
I think the worst part is I want to have hope. I’d like to think that, given the right circumstances, people could see their religion for the hoax that it is. That their blinders could be removed and the atrocities in the name of religion would stop. But if they are so far gone as to think putrid ass gravy like this can pass as entertainment, I don’t think that hope has a chance.
Well, time for a different sort of cringe-worthy news item. The United Nations has made an Onion worthy press release. Unfortunately, this isn’t satire.
“The United Nations just rejected seven female candidates vying to lead the global organization.
Now, to promote women and girls, it is picking a cartoon character as its mascot: Wonder Woman.
Yes, the comic book figure.”
*headesk* What the ever-living-frack is going on in the UN? I mean is this throwing over half the population of the world a ‘bone’ for overlooking them with regards to leadership positions in the UN.
Uh…sorry, those female parts you have – you know the unmentionable ones because of religion in the East and the po-mo gender politics in the West (stage whisper: “Vagina, Uterus, Ovaries” – duck and cover) – that exclude you from positions in power. Let’s not deal with that problem, let’s get serious about fighting for women’s rights by making a comic book character our mascot.
How very fucking empowerful of the UN and their bold team of deciders.
“Dozens of countries pushed this year for a woman to be chosen as the next Secretary General, pointing out that the United Nations pledges to promote gender equality around the world and arguing that it needed to “lead by example.”
After months of internal jockeying, the Security Council last week picked António Guterres, who ran the United Nations refugee agency for 10 years, to be the world’s top diplomat.
Then on Wednesday, the United Nations announced that it would appoint Wonder Woman as an honorary ambassador for “the empowerment of women and girls.”
The appointment of the heroine will be made official on Oct. 21, when Wonder Woman turns 75, only slightly older than the United Nations itself.”
Leading by example indeed. :/
“Too bad Wonder Woman will not actually traipse through the halls of the United Nations headquarters. If she did she would inevitably have to vanquish a few problems, like peacekeepers who sexually abuse civilians and major military powers that bomb schools.
The United Nations, in making the announcement, said that Diane Nelson, the president of DC Entertainment, would come to the United Nations to accept the designation, along with “surprise guests.”
Surprise guests? – Is the liberation of women some sort celebrity cause that needs to be ‘punched up’ with some ‘star power’? I keep looking for the Onion tag line somewhere in this story.
“Wonder Woman’s avatar, Mr. Nasser said, would be used on social media platforms to promote important messages about women’s empowerment, including on gender-based violence and the fuller participation of women in public life.
That, too, is a bit awkward. The United Nations is woefully behind on its pledge of gender parity in senior appointments. One analysis found that nine of 10 senior leadership jobs last year went to men.”
*Looking through fingers as this train wreck plunges over cliff* – Oh, this *IS* the UN leading by example – the problem is that its the wrong farking example. Replicating normative patriarchal society with a high-sheen glossy-dross of “equality” is precisely the message denatured neo-liberal feminists rally-on about. 
Prattling on about supporting gender equality while leaving the systems in place that objectively prevent gender equality and then having this boondoggle of a position mirrored at the UN under the auspices of ’empowering’ women….
*sproing* – My irony meter just shorted out. :/
“Not to mention, a woman has never led the United Nations system, and none will for at least the next five years. The Security Council chose Mr. Guterres, a former prime minister of Portugal, to be the next Secretary General, dismissing the candidacies of seven women and five other men. Mr. Guterres, who is expected to be approved on Thursday morning by the General Assembly, has promised gender parity in senior appointments.”
Well of course, we should wait for the gender parity to be given to us, by the class of people who have no interest in achieving gender parity. I’m as pleased as punch, honest.
“Wonder Woman is not the only fictional character to be celebrated by the United Nations: Winnie the Pooh served as its honorary Ambassador of Friendship in 1998; Tinker Bell was its honorary Ambassador of Green in 2009; and Angry Birds dared fans on Twitter last year to make the game’s characters happy by conserving water and energy.”
I, for one, am grateful that the symbol for the advancement of women in the world shares such auspicious company.
Dear United Nations, if this is your idea of advancing the cause of Women – please just stop.
Surprise, yet another Cesspool on the interwebs!
This post from the garrulous hodgepodge of turds known as ‘ihatesocialjusticewarrors’ manages to test the very boundaries of quantum physics – the stupid here is so super-dense that the Planck constant just may not apply. The original buffoonery can be found at ihatesocialjusticewarriors.com. The dumb is strong at this site, consider yourself warned. :)
“There is a widely held belief that feminism is a movement for equality between men and women. This is inaccurate and a misconception.”
Whaaat? These two sentences are true. Feminism is the movement to liberate women from the detrimental constraints of patriarchal society. Might we have common ground between DWR and ‘IHATESOCIALJUSTICEWARRIORS’?
???
Wait for it.
“Feminism is actually a form of sexism.”
And *boom* goes my head into the desk.
“Feminism views women as inherently inferior to men, no different than the traditional ‘sexists’ they are actively engaged in fighting against.”
Not. Even. Close.
Feminists are in the business of analyzing, deconstructing, and critiquing the patriarchal society that women are forced to live in. The goal of feminism is to eradicate the patriarchal superstructure that society is based upon; the very same patriarchy that damages both women and men.
Women are treated as inferiors in society because the patriarchal status quo, not because of any inherent inferiority.
Happy to clear that up for you.
“Feminism doesn’t encourage women to be as efficient as men, but rather they attempt to adjust policies to accommodate women. This isn’t equality. Instead it’s making the determination that being a woman is a handicap and special rules need to apply.”
What does being ‘efficient like a man’ look like? It looks like you are implying that men are the default normal setting in society and, that if women could just be more ‘man-like’ they would do better. Of course, the idea that default human = man, is the sorta of bullshit that feminists have been fighting against since the founding of the movement.
Adjusting policies? You mean supporting structural changes that move toward levelling the playing field? We certainly cannot have any of that.
The common thread running through so much of the feminist backlash is the wacky idea that equality is somehow achievable with the current state of affairs. The problem with this analysis (other than its made of certified grade A bullshit) is that it ignores the structural reality of society. Society is heavily tilted toward favouring men. How could it not be, as men are the primary architects of society, so why would they not craft it in their favour?
Axiomatically speaking, no egalitarian solution can be reached until patriarchy has been dismantled.
It is known that being female *is* a handicap in society. Females are not taken seriously, not given bodily autonomy, not paid as much, and for the most part relegated to the sex class to be objectified by the ‘default humans’ a.k.a men. Not exactly carnival fun times for the double XX caste.
“If feminists truly believed that women were equal to men, then there would be no motivation nor reason for them to implement, or to push to implement, special rules or adjust any of the policies that govern workforce requirements or productivity.”
Because not challenging the status quo will somehow fix the status quo…
1. Observe differential treatment on the basis of sex.
2. Do nothing about it.
3. …
4. Profit! – Sweet sweet egalitarianism for all!
C. *thud* *gasp* Need ASA stat, head sore from repeated desk impacts.
“Let’s face it, feminism is just a different form of sexism.”
Maybe in your imaginary world reverse racism(?) exists as well, but back here in reality feminism really isn’t sexist, as it attempts to directly address sexism in society and fix said problem.
“It’s also misogynistic in that it attempts to put unrealistic demands onto average women and it denies the very nature of what a woman is and how nature designed her.”
Just *love* the biological essentialism to justify misogyny, so fresh, so original.
Aww f*ck, it is all about the fluff pink lady brains isn’t it? Along with the migrating wombs and bouts of hysteria – women had better just shuffle back to the kitchen before more male egos are hurt and privileges are threatened. It’s not patriarchy that is holding women back, but rather biology that makes females inferior…
*thud thud thud thud*
“Feminists hate women and want them to be men instead. There, somebody finally came out and just said what we were all thinking.🙂”
Feminists want to see the structures in society that mandate differential treatment based on body type erased. Feminists have no desire to become the oppressor class, rather they seek to redress the fundamental imbalances in society.
And there you have it gentle readers, your dose of deconstructed ass-hat misogyny for the day.
The working title for this post was accurate, but a bit wordy: Dude Superciliously Imagines What Females Think then Blames Females for His Imagining of their Problems. We tightened things up a bit and figured we’d add more verbosity in the introduction.
The Dude over at Talonrest is a master of erecting stupid assertions (go there now for the bullshite-in-the-raw), applying them to the group he hates (feminists, women, double-XXers, etc.) and then castigating feminists for acting (as he portrayed them to act) so damn shallow and stupid. Talon’s glaring problem is that his argumentation only briefly entertains connections to reality.
Talon DudeMcDudinstein is all about abandoning any semblance of rationality preferring to sashay headlong into meandering fields of straw arguments and butt-cogitations that manage to both besot and flagellate the reader not only with their insipidness, but astonishing lack of grounding in anything resembling fact.
Different format time folks, let’s deal in paragraph sized chunks to see if we can really appreciate what dear Talon is trying to say.
“Behind all the feminist posturing about being independent and empowered a big fear for many millennial young women still remains the impending big 30. That’s when the facade starts to crack and they realise that they didn’t have this all figured out.
You will see signs of it start to happen in the late 20s as the strong independent millennial woman who has been living it up in the years of her prime attractiveness starts to realise that the party won’t last forever and that she is no longer the center of the universe for the high-quality male attention that she used to take for granted.”
This is really a grand example of what happens when dudes ‘analyze’ the experience of females through the fucked up lens of patriarchal expectations. Those expectations are:
1. A female’s worth in society is directly correlated to the physical attributes men find attractive.
2. Male ‘attention’ is a valuable resource because, implicitly speaking, females cannot achieve in society without male help/attention.
Both points are the kind of nefarious bullshit women struggle against everyday. The grand quest to be though of as human, rather than desirable fuck-object starts here.
The fight to be a subject that is capable of action, rather than a object to be acted upon is fundamental to the feminist movement and happens to be one of the tenets many radical feminists organize around. (The radical notion that women are people too – et cetera)
“It happens gradually, but one day she suddenly realises she has been receiving a lot less attention from men. The waiter at Starbucks is no longer extra-friendly to her. People start expecting her to pull her weight at work and no longer cut her as slack despite her pulling the usual charm offensives. She looks at that new young pretty intern that just joined her workplace getting attention from everyone and suddenly realises that she can no longer compete.”
Misogyny comes in so many flavours, here we see the restated notion that female worth is derived from male attention. Female people have the same extrinsic and intrinsic value as human beings – and this is the key truth that Talon, our shit-nozzle of the day cannot comprehend.
“It is telling that most of the social media posts worrying about the impending big 30 come from my empowered, independent female acquaintances, along with the usual self-assuring polemics about how they “still got it” and are wiser and stronger with age. But you get the distinct impression that they are just posturing and attempting to make sense of a very confusing situation.”
Women are not confused about the situation as they have been socialized from the beginning to be pleasing objects of desire for men, and are also aware of the penalties for non-compliance. Aging-out or fatting-out of the prime attention of zone of dudes can be bitter celebration for many women as it marks the transition from constantly creeped on fuck-toilet to mostly ignored invisible non-person. Choosing your patriarchal shit sandwich has never been so empowering…
“What’s more interesting is that my female acquaintances who have settled down in their 20s and have gotten on with life in starting a family and working on building a functioning, fruitful and healthy marriage don’t exhibit any sort of the same angst on social media.”
The Second Shift doesn’t leave much time for facebook. Raising a family mirrors of the inequality women face in society, as women are responsible for most of the work that goes into rearing children and the domestic hell that goes along with said task.
“Meanwhile their strong, empowered counterparts are trying to get into fad yoga, getting cats and hopping onto the next fashionable frivolous activity that comes along in an attempt to prolong their party years. But it’s clear for all to see that their best years are behind them, and they are just trying to relive the heady days of their early 20s, except without the devoted male attention and valuation that they used to take for granted.”
Because the male-gaze is awesome.
No head? Check. Fetishized parts represented? Check. =Male Gaze achieved.
“This is the brutal reality of female nature that many millennial women don’t realise- they time they have in the sun is actually quite limited. Young women who keep themselves even passably attractive enjoy a lot of social leverage based upon their biological youth. This, along with modern pop-culture feminism that encourages “empowered” behaviours without caveats that leads to them having a distorted idea of their own value.”
I’m pretty sure this ‘social leverage’ is what douche-canoe misogynists like Talon bang-on about all the time. All the submissive beauty rituals that differentiate females from the accepted standard of ‘normal’ (male) must be lauded and elevated so that somehow they become desirable to perform. Hey ladies, perform all these pointless rituals to appease the male gaze, but on the same time we’re going to shit on you your for doing all these frivolous time-wasting things. Patriarchal double standards for women are the norm in this society, and this is just one of many.
Striving to be valued as full human being is society is hardly a ‘distortion’. Ass-hat.
“They assume they will always be attractive and that the red carpet from men will always be out for them. They don’t realise a lot of the “you’re beautiful” polemics will actually be coming from themselves after they pass the big 30. There are always thirsty Beta men who are willing to snap up the leftovers after the party stops for our “empowered” woman when she ages out of the market, but she is unlikely to find this men very appealing.
The “empowered” woman stuck with lower tier dating options. Cue a lot of self-convincing that they are not snag a Beta they can’t feel attracted to because they are trying to cash in before all of their attractive fade and eventual resentment that the “empowered” lifestyle didn’t deliver them Mr. Big at the end of the day.”
*sigh* – Because all women are about snagging the ‘prime’ ‘alpha’ male. One of the neat things about making arguments is that one cannot arrive at truth when one of the premises you’re basing your arguments on is false. In this case, patently false – classifying men, like wolf packs, into Alpha and Beta males – is based on discredited shit research that got almost everything wrong about wolf society. I’ve talked about this before on the DWR before so I’ll quote myself to on how wrong the MRA classification system is:
This chart is LOL-tastic. Witness the extent of self-delusion our MRA friends mentally fap over. It’s horrible-scary-fascinating all at the same time.
“Schenkel’s observations of captive wolf behavior were erroneously extrapolated to wild wolf behavior, and then to domestic dogs. It was postulated that wolves were in constant competition for higher rank in the hierarchy, and only the aggressive actions of the alpha male and female held the contenders in check. Other behaviorists following Schenkel’s lead also studied captive wolves and confirmed his findings: groups of unrelated wolves brought together in artificial captive environments do, indeed, engage in often-violent and bloody social struggles.
The problem is, that’s not normal wolf behavior. As David Mech stated in the introduction to his study of wild wolves (Mech, 2000), “Attempting to apply information about the behavior of assemblages of unrelated captive wolves to the familial structure of natural packs has resulted in considerable confusion. Such an approach is analogous to trying to draw inferences about human family dynamics by studying humans in refugee camps. The concept of the alpha wolf as a ‘top dog’ ruling a group of similar-aged compatriots (Schenkel 1947; Rabb et al. 1967; Fox 1971a; Zimen 1975, 1982; Lockwood 1979; van Hooff et al. 1987) is particularly misleading.”
So, as the studies cited indicated, these assertions have been shown to be erroneous for over twenty years. It is known that accuracy (wit, intelligence, charity, …) and MRA’s don’t mix. If you can stomach the manosphere you will see this error perpetuated with metronomic regularity.
“A Red Pill masculine man worth his salt will know that these “empowered” women in full on approaching or post-30 panic will not be good prospects for a relationship. Their years of “empowered” feminist living would have stuffed their minds full of ideas that give them an entitlement mindset to commitment that is way beyond their value proposition. In addition, it is highly likely these “empowered” women would also not be having any maternal feminine aspects that are considered desirable wife material.”
Yes, having their minds stuffed with ideas that they are full human beings and not just objects of male of desire, the nerve of 30+ women. Oh, and keep in mind when you hear ‘maternal feminine aspects’ please read ‘patriarchally approved ritualized submission to men’.
[…] – Skipping repetitious meandering prose.
“Meanwhile, the Masculine man who has been focused on improving himself would find that his options in the dating marketplace would have opened up dramatically. While the early years can be tough for a man, the later years will only get better if he has spend the intervening years improving himself.
The Masculine man is shaped through adversity and develops the important life skills and experience that allows him to have a true value proposition in the Dating Marketplace.”
Masculinity is about exercising your will over others. Masculinity is toxic.
“The “empowered” woman on the other hand, has coasted through her life based on her youthful biological attractiveness and feminist “empowerment” ideology that made her overestimate how valuable she was just for having a vagina. She is less likely to have gone through the same adversity and rejection that a young man has in his struggle to be valued and hence is out at sea with a clue on what to do once she can no longer rely on her looks.”
Oh my goodness. Pro-Tip: Being Born with a vagina means a ticket to second class status in society. Not being heard, not being seen (other than as a sex object to be possessed), not being represented. These are all part of the female experience. Fuck-Nugget is trying to compare males facing rejection to the shit-show that is living life as female, as it appears to him to be a valid comparison (fml).”
“They are the ones that become the true matriarchs- the women who contribute their valuable life experience and maternal instincts towards nurturing the next generation of functional, fruitful adults, not the aging feminist spinster taking fad yoga and adopting multiple cats trying to live in a real life parody of Sex and the City.”
Yes ladies, if you adopt the submissive patriarchal ideal things will be right with the world, negating your personhood will payoff huge dividends as you’ll be expected to raise the next generation of patriarchally screwed up women and men.
Whoo-haa.
This is why it’s important to have a long game mindset in your Masculine journey, don’t be like the thirsty Beta who can’t think 5 years ahead and is always clamouring for female attention, making him the prime target of the panicking “empowered” woman seeking a chump willing to take any woman to settle down with. Focus on improving yourself and success, along with high quality feminine women worth your investment will naturally come.
*sigh* – Stupid ‘sage’ advice for the conclusion. Avoid those females with notions of personhood and wait to attract the perfect slave befitting your station. :(
This shit makes me tired. The amount of horrible is off the scale, and yet it dribbles forth with disquieting regularity from dudes who think they have the great game of life down and are grasping the bull by the horns.
I hope, by quietly pointing out that our MRA friends are not grasping the horns, but rather are elbow deep into the rectal fissures of said bull, that people can see how the societal system known as patriarchy fucks with people on an individual level, leading them to the dehumanizing conclusions we see on display here today.
Arb out.
I’m not sure what the author of the review was thinking… Actually, on second thought I might have an idea – this is the liberal left dude deciding to be ‘edgy’ and take on an issue that feminists, especially radical feminists, like to rattle on about. One would hope that with a title of a book like ‘Why Rape Culture is a Dangerous Myth – From Steubenville to Chad Evans” one might, at the very least raise a cursory skeptical eyebrow at the presumptive nature of the work. Perhaps this is just my own bias showing through, but I think that it would be a good idea to least familiarize oneself with the topics at hand before presenting a review that would have worth to someone outside the liberal circle of ‘progressive’ dudes who think that they ‘get it’ and can speak with authority on the topic(s).
So there are two dimensions to this review of a review, the tone deafness of the review and the astonishing amount of cluelessness posited by the author of the book in question. Both will be tackled as the cocksure nature and faux-authoritative pronouncements being made about the experience of women in patriarchal culture – as interpreted by men – in this ‘review’ sadly illuminates how far we have to go to becoming a decent culture, and one that doesn’t rely on marginalizing half of the population based on their private bits.
The RPOJ cometh for thee.
The Red Pen of Justice has been under wraps for a very long time now and has been agitating to let loose once again on the blogosphere. I cannot deny the RPOJ discontents anymore, so gentle readers, suit up, sit back and prepare for a radical feminist analysis of the important words going on over at David Marx:Book Reviews.
“It has sometimes been said that sex and intimacy can mean what we ultimately want them to mean; which, for all intents and self-gratifying purposes, can more often than not entail the go-ahead (regardless of one hundred per cent consent). The ‘go-ahead’ that is, amid a resounding variant of ways in the eyes of the law, not to mention society at large.”
*Blinks* On first reading I have no idea what the fuck he is saying. Let’s look again… Okay, this requires further parsing.
“”It has sometimes been said that sex and intimacy can mean what we ultimately want them to mean; […]”
Who said this and when? I think this defaults to what David Marx thinks on this particular topic, as no references are made to any relevant sociological source. This could be interpreted as David, with artless academic-ese construction, trying to authoritatively make a point.
My eyebrow raised because it looks like David is making the case for non-consensual relations somehow being a-fucking-okay because we can define consent out of the occasion. Funny how a review about the purported mythological status of rape culture is actually affirming its existence.
“The ‘go-ahead’ that is, amid a resounding variant of ways in the eyes of the law, not to mention society at large.”
Sentences missing objects/clauses don’t make sense. Charitably, I think David means that the ‘go-ahead’ or consent is somehow related to what is agreed on in society.
“Either of which can, and often does trigger dire and detrimental consequences.”
I’m done playing parse the sentence fragment – make your best guess here – thanks Dave for being unfathomable in your writing style.
“That we live in a society, where so-called honour killings (usually by men) are on the unfortunate rise; and a vacuous dirt-bag of Tunisian descent feels it’s in his right to attack a mother and her two daughters with a machete at a summer resort in France – because, in his eyes ”they weren’t wearing enough clothes” – is a both a sad and a very, very serious indictment of today’s moral fabric.”
Almost always by men, as they are upholders of honour/subjugators of women. Why mention that the killer dude was Tunisian? One should try to curtail the impulse toward xenophobia and racism in a serious review. And how is this one incident a serious indictment of anything other than horror we all know and love as organized religion; the big three and the various tributaries of fail almost always reinforce the patriarchal status-quo. Name the problem Dave.
“The fact that such vile and callous behaviour is entwined with varying degrees of religiosity, only accounts for the latter being something of an idiosyncratically laughable indictment.”
So you spend the words to make a point and then dismiss it as ‘idiosyncratically laughable’ in the next paragraph? Coherence is a thing Dave, more of it would make what you’re trying to say easier to understand.
“Yet as Luke Gittos points out in Why Rape Culture Is A Dangerous Myth – From Steubenville to Ched Evans: ”The argument that we live in a rape culture encourages a deeply harmful notion of inherent vulnerability, which adds to a worrying problematisation of intimacy in wider society. This is likely to have a significant effect on the young, who are often taught that intimate relationships are potentially dangerous”
What? A Jaw dropping non-sequitur after a word salad of an introduction, this review has legs!
Let’s look at the content after you massage your jaw for a bit, I should have warned you gentle reader, limber up those oral hinges it only gets worse from here.
“”The argument that we live in a rape culture encourages a deeply harmful notion of inherent vulnerability, which adds to a worrying problematisation of intimacy in wider society.”
The fuck it does. The argument we live in a rape culture threatens the status-quo notion that women should always be sexually available to men. Rape culture threatens the normative idea that women are not really fully autonomous, that they do not share the same rights to their personhood and autonomy, rights that men, under patriarchy enjoy by default.
Problematisation? Is problematic too ordinary a construction for you? Jeezus. A dudes ability to fuck females with impunity is not synonymous with ‘intimacy’. Luke Gittos is riding high on the Misogyny Train, and a decent review would call his shit out for what it is.
Tell me Dave, how is treating a woman like she has rights and a full human being a fucking problem with regards to intimacy? It’s only suffers from ‘problematisation’ if you are in favour of the current toxic environment that women are forced to inhabit.
“If such is the case, which, throughout various parts of the world it most certainly is, does this mean intimacy and ultimately love, should be denied?”
If love and relations can only be had with the shitty patriarchal overlay that shafts both men and women, then yes it should be denied. But you are not arguing that, are you Dave, your faffing on with Gittos about how denying women their agency (consent) is making it hard for dudes to feel intimacy. This is a primal man-baby argument – if we can’t have sexy times *my dudely way* then everything is wrong with the world and the feminist sponsored end times are here.
“Immediately prior to the above, Gittos also writes: ”Recent decades have seen the expansion of the law around rape to cover many new areas of sexual behaviour. The impact of the hysteria around rape has been the shutting down of debate around this expansion and the demonisation of anyone who seeks to question it.”
Hysteria? Man-children really can’t help themselves when it comes to patriarchal tropes. But let’s get back to what he’s saying – the broadening of laws to protect the integrity and autonomy of women is making his boner sad. Gittos (emphasis on ‘git’) is also sad that he gets shit on for harkening back to the good ole’ days where beating and raping your wife was just the norm and everything was hunky dory – if you happened to be in the same class as Gittos…
“That the ”hysteria around the rape has been shutting” down it’s ”debate,” is surely cause for alarm, which to a certain degree, these 140 pages do tackle head-on. But, as Graham Matthews recently wrote in Will Self and Contemporary British Society: ”The language used in rape cases is of the utmost importance since, according to Lyn Higgins and Brenda Silver, ‘whether in the courts or in the media, whether in art or criticism, who gets to tell the story and whose story counts as ”truth” determines the definition of what rape is.”
Why in a review of the GIT are you talking about Will Self and Contemporary British Society? Is foisting non sequitur after non sequitur on your reader a stylistic choice? It’s a bad one, let me assure you.
“There again, as Luke Gittos has categorically stated in Why Rape Culture Is A Dangerous Myth’s Introduction: ”this book is not about rape. It is not about the hideous criminal offence that takes place every day, and is the subject of arrests, court cases and prison sentences up and down the country […]. This book is about the contemporary panic around ‘rape culture’ that […] often bears little resemblance to the reality of rape.”
Translation: The idea that rape culture exists and is working in my favour is unpalatable to my sensibilities, thus the problem must be with the hysterical women and their risible claims… *facepalm*
“The argument of the book is that intimate life is suffering under the panic around rape and rape culture. This panic has arisen in the context of a society which is less sure of the parameters of intimate life than ever before. “
Oh consent is necessarily a roaring tempest filled with vapours purposefully designed to confuse the man-brained. The idea that women are struggling toward agency is an affront to needs of the ‘peen and patriarchy and must be done away with because my male right to unfettered access to female bodies is at stake – and this unfettered access – is what is important.
“As old narratives of intimate life die away, what has replaced them is not a new, individualised sense of what intimate life is, but a ream of laws, regulations, guidance and expertise about how we should conduct the most private aspects of our lives. This presents a serious challenge to the status of individual judgement about intimacy and, accordingly, the future of intimate life in general.”
I thought it couldn’t get worse, but Dave also seems to aspire to the swaggering, self-aggrandizing pile of mule-feces that Libertarianism is. Where white males are the only ones who can have the *true* feelings of oppression while simultaneously wielding power in society. If you cannot handle intimacy with a female that has autonomy and full human being status – then the only females of the blow-up variety will fit your particular bill. So go forth, find your inflatable Sally, and kindly fuck the hell off.
“Herein lies something of a literary juxtaposition, surely?”
*rolls eyes* – Dave, sounding smart and being smart have never been so clearly demarcated.
“For as pronounced and well analysed as this resoundingly tough and rather taurine book is, rape will always remain what it fundamentally is. Rape.”
A fucking equals A? This is the epic conclusion mic-drop you’ve assiduously been setting up. Step aside Machiavelli, Word fucking salad Dave is in the house! You are brought this review to close with a tautology? I have another for you, hold on it is earth shattering level of awesome – “stupid people are stupid people”.
And do you know ‘taurine’ means? It is a goddamn amino acid. Another meaning, common in the 17th century is ‘of or like a bull’. So is this a bullish book on rape culture, or did your thesaurus go to the dark side and led you astray with it?
“Regardless of judicial interpretation, sexual intimacy or, dare I say it, ”individual judgement.”
Did you eat alphabet soup and are just burping this shit up and then writing it down?
And also: Subjects, what the fuck are they?
The double shot of tautology and quasi-coherent sentence structure ends this review with an unsatisfying, stultifying dribble that offers offence not only to feminism, but the English language as well.
RPOJ out.
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…