You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Feminism’ tag.
It’s funny, you keep hearing the same bullshit from different dudes – its like they all have a master-list o’crap they refer to when they decide they want to ‘participate’ in discussions about feminism – with the bonus effect of trying to make it all about them. Add the cherry-of-equality on top and there you have the stage set for derailment and vexation.
So let’s get the armour on and tackle the first of those oh so special Zombie lies that dudes like to resurrect in feminist discussions.
- Women have a hell of a lot of privilege when it comes to custody of children.
– In 29 percent of custody cases, the decision was made without any third party involvement.
– In 11 percent of custody cases, the decision for mom to have custody was made during mediation.
– In 5 percent of custody cases, the issue was resolved after a custody evaluation.
– Only 4 percent of custody cases went to trial and of that 4 percent, only 1.5 percent completed custody litigation.
In other words, 91 percent of child custody after divorce is decided with no interference from the family court system. How can there be a bias toward mothers when fewer than 4 percent of custody decisions are made by the Family Court?
Additionally, when men DO want custody of the children, even abusive fathers, they are successful 70% of the time.
Lie Dispatched.
“Wollstonecraft concentrated on describing the state of ignorance and servility to which women were condemned by social custom and training. The passionate feeling with which her book is imbued give it wide social appeal and persuasive power. […] Wollstonecraft’s acute question – “how many generations may be necessary to give vigour to the virtue and talents of the freed posterity of abject slaves?’ – still has pertinence. “
Excerpts from A Vindication of the Rights of Woman –
“And if it be granted that women was not created merely to gratify the appetite of man, or to be the upper servant, who provides his meals and takes care of his linen, it must follow, that the first care of those mothers or fathers, who really attend to the education of females, should be, if not to strengthen the body, at least, not to destroy the constitution by mistaken notions of beauty and female excellence…
To preserve personal beauty, woman’s glory! the limbs and faculties are cramped with worse than Chinese bands, and the sedentary life which they are condemned to live, whilst boys frolic in the open air, weakens the muscles and relaxes the nerves. As for Rousseau’s remarks… that they have naturally, that is from their birth, independent of education, a fondness for dolls, dressing, and talking – they are so puerile as not to merit a serious refutation…
I have, probably, had an opportunity of observing more girls in their infancy that J.J. Rousseau – I can recollect my only feelings, and I have looked steadily around me; yet, so far with coinciding with him in opinion respecting the first dawn of the female character, I will venture to affirm, that a girl, whose spirits have not been damped by inactivity, or innocence tainted by false shame, will always be a romp, and the doll will never excite attention unless confinement allows her no alternative. Girls and boys, in short, would play harmlessly together, if the distinction of sex was not inculcated long before nature makes any difference. I will go further, and affirm, as an indisputable fact, that most of the women, in the circle of my observation, who have acted like rational creatures, or shown any vigour of intellection, have accidentally allowed to run wild… ”
-Ed. Miriam Schneir. Feminism: The Essential Historical Writings. pp 13 – 14.
Let it be known that in the 18th century the processes of female socialization were known to women. Fast forward to the present and we are still presented with arguments about how biology plays an overarching role in determining female social status in society. Of course, admitting that society and the socialization that goes along with it is inherently unjust to women, as opposed to calcified biological fact, would lead us to conclusion that society has been set up for the benefit of one sex, at the expense of the other. Social norms are malleable, biology not so much. I know which case I would rally around if I was trying to justify the inherent injustice that exists.
We’ll just file this under ‘pages that I need to photocopy and widely distribute’.
This just isn’t right, not at any time or circumstance. Yet, these witty ad-wizards have decided that sexism sells and are trying to promote a translation device that allows you, as demonstrated, to creep on non-English speakers.
Awesome.
Cringe worthy to say the least.
Here is a just a snapshot of what it’s like…
“What’s on my mind, Facebook? Glad you asked.
I am angry.
I’m angry because before I moved to the UK, I worked at a bar where the manager proposed a new uniform where the men wore waistcoats and button up shirts, while the women wore corsets. And no one saw the problem with that.
I’m angry because when I told him that if I wanted to wear that I’d be a stripper and earn ten times more, my coworkers were embarrassed and looked away.
I’m angry because even though he eventually admitted that my objections were valid, this incident (“Corsetgate,” I like to call it) is not remembered as the time I defended myself and my female coworkers from being objectified at work, but rather as the time that I “totally flipped out.”I’m angry because when I threw a customer out of the bar for grabbing me (twice, once after I explicitly told him it was unacceptable), I was asked repeatedly where exactly he grabbed me. As if there is some ranking system as to what must happen before I am allowed to feel violated by a stranger’s hands on me.
I am angry because the (female) bouncer told me afterward that his behavior was a compliment to me. I’m angry because she believes that. Because misogyny is so much a part of our society that women really believe that their bodies aren’t their own.
I’m angry because last night, out at some random club in London, a man walked up behind me and thrusted against me. And when I told him to get the hell away
from me, he moved on to another woman who was too drunk to say the same thing.
I’m angry because when I asked the bouncer to throw him out, he told me I was overreacting. I’m angry that when I decided to stand up for myself, my friends told me I was overreacting.I’m angry because my reaction, my refusal to allow myself to be treated as a subhuman slab of meat, is perceived as an overreaction.
I’m angry because men have a monopoly on anger. Because when I, a woman, am angry, it’s either “cute” or it’s “crazy.” It is never acknowledged that I could be a sensible, intelligent, educated person with a justifiable concern. Of course not. I’m a woman. (And a blonde at that. Strike two!)
If my boyfriend had punched Pelvic Thrust Guy out, he would have been applauded. Whereas my impulse to simply inform PTG that I was displeased with his behavior was met with a chorus of “Just let it go!” “We just don’t want to see you so upset!” “It’s not worth it!”
I’m angry because I was made to feel like I was being unreasonable for expecting to be treated with basic human decency. And PTG just strolled out of that bar without consequence. I cried all night, and he probably spent the rest of the night gleefully groping women who were too afraid or too brainwashed to speak up.
I’m angry because this (and much, MUCH worse) happens every day. And it happens everywhere, from small towns in West Virginia to great cities like London. To me, and to every other woman on the planet. And we’re still not allowed to be angry.
I am angry. And you should be too.”
I cannot identify what it is with dudes and radical feminism. There must be some strange extra-sensory siren call that attracts dudes and dudely opinion to articles, blogs, and heck even just mere information about women speaking unequivocally about their experiences and analysis of society. Of course the attraction is just one part of this warlocks brew, the most infuriating part is that the dudes once attracted, have the overwhelming desire… nay with seemingly single-minded animus to grandiloquently extrude their man-centric opinion blithely into feminist conversation. At the very same time,said dudes, expect to be taken seriously with all the gravitas and respect they usually receive while intoning their manly wizdom.
Concomitantly, dudes assume that their experience is just the same as everyone else in society(??) and thus, without research or understanding, make pronouncements that, to the finely tuned lobes of radical feminists, sound like Grade A, First Tier, patriarchally laced bullshit. Once called on their bullshite phase two sets in, displaying in full glory the fragility of the male ego and the ensuing stampede, to either Godwin,Flouce or have a full blown mantrum as they exit from the thread. Let me assure you gentle readers, this cycle of male-fail is a most dependable and curious clockwork… But I digress. The RPOJ has leapt into my hand quivering in anticipation of the justice about to be dispensed.
Today friends we delve deep into the world of dudes explaining Radical Feminism AND misandry – all in one post – who would have known it was soooooo easy. Let’s put on our swashbuckling pantaloons and join The Brain in the Jar; hmm…lets tighten that up a bit and go with Shit for Brains (SfB); and watch as he puts on his Mansplaining boots and beats all your favourite strawfeminist arguments to death.
The original post by ‘Brain in a Jar: Of Radical Feminism and Misandry’ ,in all its glory can be found here.
—–
“Whenever I bring up the subject of feminism, I always hear about those crazy extremists who really are all about hating men. I’m sure they exist.”
Well if you only talk to other dudes and MRA’s why of course you are going to get a nuance free view of feminism and feminists. Looking beyond your own bias is hard, and who the fuck wants to do that?
“There plenty of crazy ideas out there, and misandry is actually saner compared to them.”
Awww! Lookit SfB put on this big-boy-boots of equality and deep understanding, to show how amazingly aware he is of what he’s prevaricating on about.
“Women are also parrt of the dating game, so the terrible of reality of people wanting to have sex with you but not be in a relationship must have taken its toll on some. The thing is, these people can never refer to an example of such a radical feminist.”
Editing, what the fuck is it? Also, did you catch the subtle(?) hostility toward women? I mean isn’t it totally obvs that women are in the position of power when it comes to dating and relationships? (*eyes rolling into back of head*) That whole male violence/rape culture stuff those feminists prattle on about sure clouds the issue about those bitches not knowing their place and bowing to my ‘peen.
“They also don’t see that misandry and feminism, even the radical version, are two seperate things.. You can point out misandry all you want, and if it makes sense I’ll get behind you. It’ll never be a solid criticism of feminism or radical feminism.”
“It’s painful when I hear/see quotes from men, waxing poetic about how violent and inhumane “we” “humans” are “to each other”. When historically and globally, males account for the vast, vast majority of violence. Mostly against women.
I used to wonder, how could these men – fancying themselves profound and in-on Truth – possibly call “humans” violent when they are technically the source?
But I guess that’s what happens when the only people you consider humans are other men.”
-Alicen Grey
bleatmop
Mystro
The Arbourist
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…