Fun with anti-feminists

At left: Falls Park hydrangeas! Purty!



Big news today: In case you didn't know, the skinnier a woman is, the more money she makes. By contrast, overweight men have higher salaries than thinner men. Go on, you say, they actually required some sociological study to prove that?

Apparently so:

A new study reveals that thinner women -- and larger men -- tend to make the most money.

"Early Show" Contributing Correspondent Taryn Winter Brill reported new research from the University of Florida (pdf) finds that, for women, corporate America is just like a catwalk -- the smaller your waist -- the bigger your paycheck. But if you're a man looking to snag that corner office, don't worry about skipping dessert. Thinner men actually make less money.

According to the study, women who weighed 25 pounds less than the group norm earned about $16,000 more per year. A woman 25 pounds above the group norm earned about $14,000 less. Thinner men, on the other hand, made almost $9,000 less than their average male co-worker.

One of those things I didn't need a study to tell me. But the right-wingers and anti-feminists demand copious data for every single political assertion, therefore DEAD AIR will carefully tuck this one away for the next unpleasant occasion one of them attempts to argue that women have it made in the shade, sitting at home and madly munching on bon-bons.

Speaking of which...

Ballgame, annoying moderator at the contentious anti-feminist blog FEMINIST CRITICS, self-righteously howls in indignation when he believes he is banned by a pro-feminist men's blog. Positively bug-eyed over his ill treatment, he writes:

Still reluctant to believe that a critical-but-respectful comment had been purged, or that I had been banned on the basis of that comment, I scoured the site’s comment policy and discovered two things. One, TGMP [The Good Men Project] bars “comparisons to genocidal dictators and their brutal regimes.” Two, the site apparently has a ‘one strike and you’re out’ policy.

That's pretty funny, since Ballgame banned me for "critical-but-respectful comments"--but I guess that's somehow different.

The difference is: one standard for men, another for women.

Ballgame banned me simply for disagreeing (loudly) with him and refusing to pinky-swear that I was arguing in "good faith"--when no such promise is extracted from the dozens of offensive Men's Rights Androids that frequent his blog. In fact, these reactionaries can attack feminists with gusto and it's all regarded as hunky-dory by Ballgame. Feminists, however, can not attack back in the same disrepectful tone.

So now Ballgame's karma catches up with him. (giggle)

Oh wait... not to worry, after howling and (most especially) reminding the guys at TGMP that he is an important blogger, they have unbanned him. But of course! Boys will be boys, bros before hos. Etc.

And BTW, exactly WHAT is Ballgame disagreeing with at TGMP? His blog post title says it all: Questioning Sexual slavery. He demands DATA, because simply passing all those female junkies in the red light district and watching Frontline isn't enough for him. (Amnesty International, Shamnesty International!) He is skeptical. Skeptical of what? Women's words, of course.

Might this be an example of "bad faith"? Running a blog called "Feminist Critics" that you pointedly ban feminists from and then writing posts demanding readable DATA before you concede that sexual slavery exists? Uh-huh.

Bad faith = anti-feminism, in its entirety.

"Why do my son's books tell him all men are useless?"

Daran at Feminist Critics has just posted a link to a London Daily Mail article by William Leath, titled Why do my son's books tell him all men are useless?

Some excerpts:

Why is the dad in [Zoo, by Anthony Browne], about a family trip to the zoo, such an idiot? Not just an idiot, but a grumpy, overweight idiot who tries to make jokes, but is never funny and, what's more, is always on the verge of ruining things for everybody else. He's a greedy slob, just like Homer Simpson. He's more childish than his children, even though he has hair sprouting from his ears.

Then there's the dad in Into The Forest, another book by this author. This one's about a dad who goes missing. He is clearly a weakling. He walks out of the family home and goes to stay with his mum.

A recent academic study confirmed that men - particularly fathers - are under-represented in almost all children's books. And when they do appear, like the fathers in Gorilla [also by Browne] and Zoo, they are often withdrawn, or obsessed with themselves, or just utterly ineffectual.

...

in another of our favourites, Benedict Blathwayt's The Runaway Train, the driver is called Duffy. And what does he do? He gets out of the train, forgetting to put the brake on, and the train rolls off without him. A driverless train - what a powerful symbol of male inadequacy! Yet this seems quite normal. We sit on the sofa and laugh.

'Why does Duffy forget the brake?' my son asked me. Why? Stories require fall-guys. They need some people to be malign or foolish or weak. And it just so happens that these people, in these stories, are male. It just so happens that it wouldn't seem right, to me, if these malign, foolish or weak people were female. Somehow, they have to be male. And symbols of male inadequacy are so deeply embedded in other parts of our culture. So much so, in fact, that nobody notices it any more.

For years, I've laughed at hopeless Homer Simpson and his dangerous son Bart, and the attempts of the female characters in the family to clean up after them.

...

For years, men in our stories - not just for children, but adults, too - have been losing their authority. Not just years - decades. It's crept up on us and now it's everywhere. Remember when movie stars were strong and decisive? That was a long time ago now: John Wayne, Gary Cooper, Errol Flynn.

Then came a new, softer type - Cary Grant and James Stewart were strong, yes, but against a background of self-doubt. And then came Jack Lemmon, Dustin Hoffman, Woody Allen, Bill Murray, Kevin Spacey - neurotic, bumbling, deeply flawed anti-heroes.

Think of Kevin Spacey in American Beauty. The deadbeat dad, smoking dope in the garage because he can't take the pressure of family life. For a long time now, something has been happening to the way we portray men.

And wherever you look, things seem to be getting worse for guys. In a survey of 1,000 TV adverts, made by writer Frederic Hayward, he points out that: '100 per cent of the jerks singled out in male-female relationships were male.'

So does this mean that there is something wrong with the way we portray men? Or - much more seriously - is there some deep trouble with men themselves? I can't bear to have that thought. Can you?

Yet that's certainly what our culture seems to be telling us. And it's what certain feminist writers seem to be telling us, too.

And predictably, at this point, he goes on to attack Susan Faludi and feminism in general.

But until he commences blaming women (which you knew was coming, right?)--I thought he made some good points.

However, those last few paragraphs got me thinking. I very much prefer Jack Lemmon, Dustin Hoffman, Woody Allen, Bill Murray, and Kevin Spacey to the Big Dumb Hollywood He-Men he named. I found them to be far more human, authentic, complex and 'thinking' protagonists. (I'd add Gene Hackman to that list, my all-time favorite actor.)

I loved Kevin Spacey smoking dope in the garage; he was trying to figure out what to do with his life rather than mindlessly charging ahead and continuing his unhappiness. Deadbeat Dad? He was present and accounted for in his child's life, she just didn't want anything to do with him. (And why do you suppose that was?) The pressures of family life? How about, the fact that his family was falling apart? His daughter was lying to him, he developed an obsession with a young friend of his daughter's and his wife was having an affair.

I guess John Wayne would have just pretended everything was okay and carried on anyway?

Some of us think that brand of male behavior was THE PROBLEM, not any kind of solution.

On the other hand, I don't want children to grow up expecting males not to do their share, which is how I read a lot of this fiction: Men usually screw up anyway, so don't be upset that your father has abandoned you.

If fathers are not represented in fiction, perhaps it's because fathers have been abandoning their role in real life? And this fictional presentation of male bumbling is possibly an effort to explain away the lack of men in children's lives?

How else could one explain it?

Any opinions?

Estimated Prophetess

Purple and red angelonia, and other purty plants at the South Carolina Farmer's market. (from my Flickr page)


I am one of those lifelong weirdo-hippies that enjoys talking to strangers, and so the article titled Happinomics in Adbusters totally vindicates me. I do think I am happier when I exchange pleasantries with other people, and I enjoy the warm fuzzy feeling of connection/communion that results from it...it's not (only) because I am a nosyparker! Random social exchanges are good for our well-being! And now I have this hotshot happiness-researcher to back me up in my random babbling in restrooms and checkout lines. Alright!

I have long noticed that friendly chit-chat increases the possibility of sales in a retail environment, just as familiar, fast-paced music does.

~*~

I am about to get banned, at long last, from FEMINIST CRITICS, the argumentative blog dedicated to criticizing feminism. I am already on the "watch list"--even though one guy who throws around the word "skanks" (and authoritatively announced that the Southern USA is a "shithole") is on no such watch list. I guess it depends on who you know and who you blow, as the expression goes.

In any event, the version of women's lives propagated at FC is a sharp contrast to the version offered at No Longer Quivering, a blog started by ex-Quiverfull women that I have been visiting regularly. On FEMINIST CRITICS, feminism is presented as a blight, blunting the happiness of our society, making people (read: men) totally miserable and altering the course of natural desire, blah blah blah. On NLQ, I see what our world would be WITHOUT feminism, and I feel like getting down on my knees before Almighty God and giving thanks for being born into a world that has finally been given the possibility of WOMEN'S FULL HUMANITY. Hallelujah and praise GOD for FEMINISM!

Graphic grabbed from Cyborg Mommy.



The guys at FEMINIST CRITICS (along with their trusty anti-feminist female mascot/hench(wo)man, TyphonBlue), would be totally at home in the Quiverfull movement... in fact, I don't understand why these anti-feminist malcontents aren't jumping on the bandwagon to find them a proper Quiverfull wife who will shut up and not argue.

Then, of course, it dawns on me: they'd have to support all those kids! LOL--obedience comes at a high price, dudes.

Meanwhile, TyphonBlue continues her complaint that her husband has been greatly harmed by the loss of his Bodily Integrity (FC lingo = circumcision) and resultant male sex-Godhood, or she'd be in the secular-Quiverfull movement for sure. [Caution: second link contains ableist language, the term "crippled sexuality"--which is horrendously gross, but I linked it to make a point. And TyphonBlue wonders why hubby has issues? I certainly don't.]

And you know, that's the thing...Quiverfull is a religious movement. IS there a secular equivalent? Absolutely.

The constant, worshipful fetishizing of the large family (Jon & Kate Plus 8, Nadia Suleman) is everywhere in our culture. It's been going on since the Osmonds, the Jacksons, The Brady Bunch and The King Family. And in these enlightened times (cough) you don't need religion to be radically natalist. In fact, I found the Quiverfull blog when one of their readers linked my Surfwise review to their message board, offering the wise observation that it sounded the same as the Quiverfull life, only no surfing.

The Quiverfull women are awesome in their self-analysis and truth-telling, one speaking openly about what it was like when her husband no longer desired her. (And what happens to these wives then? Are they simply supposed to ACCEPT loveless marriages? Apparently.) These women ain't a bit shy regarding the use of that much-maligned word PATRIARCHY; in fact, they are very clear about the usage. Unlike some of us, they don't throw the word around in a meaningless mish-mash of theory, they are quite specific: a patriarchal household is one in which the husband/father rules. After all, patriarchy is literally defined as "rule of the fathers"--and that is the life they have escaped from, the life they are warning us about. They know what patriarchy is.

PATRIARCHY is that which would exist, if feminism had not challenged it, if feminism did not continue to challenge it throughout the world.

PATRIARCHY is that state of affairs championed on FEMINIST CRITICS. And the Quiverfull women come forward to say, very plainly, NO. NO. NO.

I am now addicted to the blog, and the eye-opening spiritual witness of powerhouse-survivors Vyckie and Laura, also very descriptive and talented writers. God bless you strong womyn, and I love you. I am waiting for the special moment, here in Bob Jones University-land, to give your website-address to women who truly NEED it. I meet Quiverfull wives every day, I know it will happen eventually, so stay tuned. (((blows copious kisses)))

~*~

And speaking of patriarchy, dig THIS! It made me somewhat dizzy, but you know how cognitive dissonance is. Lord have mercy!

Kittywampus writes about Masters and Johnson, reviewing a review (we are somewhat derivative here in Blogdonia, you may have noticed) about the new biography of the duo, titled Masters of Sex.

Dana Goldstein's review on The American Prospect:

The truth of the Masters-Johnson partnership, however, was far more sordid. By Johnson’s own account, and that of friends and colleagues, Masters hired the divorced mother of two under the implicit understanding that she would become his sexual partner — for the purposes of research, Masters claimed. “Sex for Virginia Johnson would become part of her job,” Maier writes matter-of-factly. And indeed, Johnson told Maier herself in an interview, “No — I was not comfortable with it, particularly. I didn’t want him at all, and had no interest in him.” Johnson engaged in sex with Masters, she claimed decades later, because as a single-mother, “I had a job and I wanted it.”

She said what?!

Is this Virginia Johnson we are talking about?!

Well, damn, who knew.

Kittywampus writes:

Of course, when Masters hired Johnson in 1957, Catharine MacKinnon was still in grade school. No one had dreamed up a name for sexual harassment, though it occurred commonly, and women certainly knew it was wrong when they experienced it. And yes, sexual harassment is the right word for what Masters imposed on Johnson. She very clearly states that she had no interest in him. She was living a hardscrabble life as a single mother, and her other options appeared worse.

This is the couple whose work overturned the oppressive Freudian conceit of the vaginal orgasm as essential to mature femininity. They proved that clitoral and vaginal orgasms didn’t differ, physiologically. How ironic that this liberatory insight flowed from a partnership that began as sexual exploitation.

As I said over on her blog, all you can say is WOW.

I am really quite stunned.

~*~

At left: Close-up of red and purple angelonia. (I love them!)


I'm always glad to hear that there are more feminists in South Carolina (this rates another strong hallelujah! from me)... and Moody Springs is Rachel's relatively new blog. She writes about Ellen DeGeneres' new 'funny' commercial in which Ellen announces 'ironically' (and watch out for that free-floating irony, folks!), "Inner beauty is important, but not nearly as important as outer beauty.":

It's funny, I guess. Or...supposed to be. See, because she is a comedienne, and she makes jokes. And she uses verbal irony here...everyone knows that inner beauty actually is more important than outer beauty, but it doesn't hurt to enhance one's outer beauty. But instead of saying that, she says the opposite of what we all know to be true....

Or do we?

Actually, what she is saying is very "true." Outer beauty is more important than inner beauty. Or rather, that one must do everything she* can to hide her outer ugliness. Or in other words, her wrinkles; the fact she is old...or the fact that she didn't die young and is still alive. Oh, the situational irony is just as rich as the verbal irony...the fact that you have the vitality in you to live long, and that you have been blessed for many years with the good luck to not have been involved in some circumstance that resulted in your death, makes you ugly. So if you use this makeup, it will lie flat over those wrinkles. Hide them. Your potent life force that led you to be wrinkled will be your secret.

Rachel, may your new blog live long and prosper, girlfriend! Welcome to wacky Blogdonia.

And BTW: YES!--as several have asked, I did coin the word Blogdonia, with considerable help from Groucho Marx. Unfortuntely, the graphic in that link, featuring the mercurial Rufus T. Firefly, has now evaporated into the cyber-ether. (My advice to new bloggers regarding images is: always copy and download your own, because other people's stuff comes and goes like summer sitcoms, and frequently does not even last out the week.)

~*~

More stuff you should check out:

Politico on Obama's persistent gay problem.

Angry Black Bitch is hilarious on the subject of Senator John Ensign, violating the sanctity of man-woman opposite marriage.

The New Agenda's Urban Girls: The Have-Nots of Sports

Mr Daisy has deserted me on this sultry, sauna-like day, to go to HeroesCon in Charlotte. I assigned him Dead Air photography duties, so let's hope he returns with some proper Superhero photos to celebrate the Solstice!

And now, signing off to sizzle...

~*~

Estimated Prophet - Grateful Dead (jump to 1:31; they diddle with chords for a whole minute and a half!)



Like an angel
Standing in a shaft of light
Rising up to paradise
I know I'm gonna shine

Boys swim

I am the subject of two threads at Feminist Critics.

Am I important or what?

I'll bet that never happens to you!

Well, okay, it's actually the same thread... but there is a restricted-posting version, and a regular free-for-all version, wherein the insults come fast and furious and the regular commentariat makes jokes about suddenly needing to buy guns. (I guess I make them mad.)

From the Original Poster, comes this:

Please acknowledge female privilege. Alternatively address the question set forth above. You will not get a good response on FCB [Feminist Critics Blog] if you demand that men acknowledge male privilege until you do one of these two things satisfactorily.

And I think my regular readers know that will happen (as we say here in the south) on the second Tuesday after the third week hell freezes over.

The genesis of this argument was a post I was writing for this blog, actually, which I described on FCB some time ago. I was going to write about not being permitted to play the drums as a girl, and how I think that influenced my personality. Just as many women wish they had learned to participate in sports and compete, I think it would have very good for me. Drums would have been a way to control my aggression, or perhaps (as people like Mickey Hart have said) it would have increased my concentration and meditation capabilities. I consider the fact that I never grew up unselfconsciously drumming (as a method of relaxation or as a way of having fun--a HOBBY, okay?), one of the great losses of my life.

No, I do not think I would be some star drummer like John Bonham. (As a girl, I would not have even thought of such a thing, since I had never even seen a woman drummer before.) I was merely expressing sadness, and incidentally, giving this as an example of my earliest feminist consciousness. When I grew up, in the radical feminist 70s, I met women who had been denied other supposedly "male" activities: scientific careers, knowledge of car mechanics, the chance to play on sports teams with men, etc.--and I instantly identified. I offered this as an example of male privilege, the fact that my untalented brother was encouraged to do something that I even seemed to have an aptitude for and he did not.

Needless to say, I was savaged.

No, I don't think I would have been a star. Yes, I know I could have learned as an adult, but that is not the unselfconsciousness I am discussing here--I wanted this to be second nature, as is singing or dancing (for me). Yes, I know other girls in other places learned to play, and I have even mentioned them here on this blog. Yes, I know that other families did not think playing drums was too butch, and allowed their daughters to play, but that is not the family I came from. (I probably would have been allowed to play sports, if I'd been interested. However, other girls in other families I grew up with were never allowed to wear pants; hence, no sports.)

And no, I don't think my family was necessarily "worse" than others regarding sexism ... I think sexual stereotyping is very idiosyncratic, depending upon race, religion, nationality, ethnicity, class and overall general background. I knew girls forced to wear mantillas to church, who were allowed to play very rough-and-tumble sports... I knew girls allowed to do science experiments but never allowed to wear pants... I knew girls (like me) allowed to beat up harassing, nasty boys (and it was a lot of fun!) but not play drums. Go figure. I don't know why, or pretend to know why.

Actually, I do know: life is complex. Get a fucking clue.

It seems these guys on FCB do not understand this, although they love to continuously bellyache about whatever THEY were never allowed to do... surely they understand the dynamics I describe are very similar for boys? Some boys were allowed to play with dolls, but never permitted to cry. Other boys were allowed to cry, but never wear dresses; yet certain boys could wear dresses if they called them kilts. Etc. I knew boys not allowed to play violin (the instrument forced on me) since it was considered frou-frou and girlie, but were forced to play properly manly brass instruments. Again, go figure. (Cultural note: For this reason, I've always found it fascinating that BRASS is often used as a euphemism for boldness and/or high-ranking military status.)

One of the basic truths about sexual stereotyping and gendering is how arbitrary and ridiculous it is. OF COURSE it makes no sense and is not consistent! That's how feminists first discovered it was a crock!

I am glad a lot of these things seem bizarre now, but that IS the way I grew up. It is a shining testament to the fact that feminists have made so many improvements in life for boys and girls, that all of this seems so distant and strange now. But I grew up never wearing pants to school, ever, amen. It was against the rules, and it is still against the rules at places like Bob Jones University. These anti-feminists don't want to face these facts, since they would have to admit that FEMINISM HAS DONE GOOD THINGS, and they are, as their blog name proudly proclaims, FEMINIST CRITICS. In any event, the thread in which I stated these things was my last participation on FCB.

Unfortunately, I realize I made the mistake of trying to compare my experience to other women, and since NOT EVERY SINGLE WOMAN IN THE WORLD experienced what I did, well, obviously, sexism had NOTHING TO DO WITH IT. Even though I was explicitly told that GIRLS DIDN'T PLAY DRUMS (and since I could not find one in 1964 to point to and say "What about her?"--it seemed true enough to me), obviously, I must have been imagining things, since you know, sexism doesn't really exist, or something. I was informed "my assertions were unconvincing"--and since I don't take accusations of lying well, I went off on several arrogant FCB participants. (And no, not a bit sorry.)

I tried to explain that in working class, industrial Ohio in the 60s, this is the way it was. And again, I was savaged. Know why I must be wrong? Because ELLY MAY CLAMPETT (yes, Donna Douglas, ex-girlfriend of ELVIS) was a tomboy and much-beloved by America. This proves that gender stereotyping for women/girls/tomboys was not a big deal in the 60s.

Yes, you heard it right. The BEVERLY HILLBILLIES was used as proof that I am wrong about my life. A fucking TV show!

This individual repeated this inane and bizarre statement a number of times.

And see, at this point, I whistle to the intersectionalists in my readership--YO! Hey yall, over here!

At left: Elly May Clampett (Donna Douglas) of the 60s TV show The Beverly Hillbillies churns butter with her pet possum. (With that hair, it's pretty obvious that she is hard-core tomboy, yes?)


I did not consider Elly May a tomboy, but a redneck. To an upper-middle-class Canadian like my critic, Elly May was a tomboy. (Isn't it interesting that poverty/hardscrabble existence is regarded as masculinizing to the upper-classes?) They really didn't get it that Elly May was a stereotype of a backwoods girl, albeit one who was played by a former beauty queen. But what did she do (besides wear dungarees tied with a rope) that was tomboy or butch, besides have a multitude of "critters"? Actually, nurturing animals in the style of Elly May, is traditional feminine behavior. (?) (But maybe if you think tending animals is low-class farm-work, you don't know that?)

Dumbfounded.

As I said, that was it. I left FCB, since I was too livid to continue.

And I put the drumming post on the shelf, since I was too confused, at that point, to even attempt writing it. And a good thing too.

At the city swimming pool I attended as a girl, there were segregated swimming periods designated "boys swim" and "girls swim." The boys swim was known for people getting held underwater and nearly killed, while of course, ours was civil, except for girls making fun of each other's swimsuits and boob-size.

Feminist Critics blog is "boys swim."

And thus, I hereby name the threads currently frying my ass, BOYS SWIM.

Here are some of the highlights of Boys Swim (spelling and grammar remains intact):

I get sick of hearing about it, frankly. If she wants to play the drums, get a job and buy some drums. And then play them. If her parents sucked, she should yell at them (or whatever). America is going to fall apart with these spoiled princesses and the enabling male chivalrist idiots.

This marks a first: I've been called a lot of things by men in my life, but "princess" is most assuredly not one of them.

Women are the big victims in war, because the men die and then no longer support them (paraphrased from a statement by Hilary Clinton).

It’s kind of like … I don’t care if he got drafted and then shot at and then killed, I BROKE A NAIL. Everyone pay attention to me.

And all the chivalrous males DO pay attention to her. No one cares about men. That’s why these princesses can still be complaining when they’re the most entitled, privileged, spoiled group to ever walk the earth. Maybe Daisy ought to work for a few months in a rescue mission for homeless men (and they are mostly men, don’t kid yourself). Maybe she will get a different attitude.

I think my regular readers can probably guess that I have done such work...but doncha love how they make assumptions that I have NOT, without coming over here to read and find out what kind of person I am?

[...] I do think there’s a problem in the reactionary, aggressive and confrontational way Daisy deals with these misunderstandings. It doesn’t invalidate her opinions or arguments but it does tend to inhibit the coherent and productive discussion I see as the goal of (at least) this blog.

Misunderstandings? I think I understand them just fine.

I don’t know if I should really address this because there’s a need for my rage to be put under intensive care for the moment.

Thing is, DaisyDeadHead isn’t the only one who experiences hard times due to gender. I’ve been bullied by both men and women, had been betrayed by someone I thought cared about me.

Her comments about male priveledge set me off due to the fact that I’ve never had the “Luxary” of priveledge while both genders were slinging arrows at me left and right.

It’s unfortunate we got off on more than the wrong foot.

My opinion is strictly based on the fallacy of male priveledge. Because I’m not priveledged. Period. I’m a human being who’s had his fair share of hardships. Calling me priveledged due to my sex is a surefire way to negate those experiences. That’s why those types of discussions make me explode and I haven’t participated in a gender debate for a while.

And if she has a problem with that, then whatever her opinions are strictly her opinions. But don’t go calling me priveledged.

Privileged! Nyah- nyah! Yes you are!

This one is from typhonblue, internet circumcision crank, mentioned in my last post:

By not being circumcised a girl can experience something a circumcised man never can: sexual pleasure from an intact set of genitals.

Doncha love when people say exactly what you predict they will?

At this point, the thread threatens to totally melt down into still another male circumcision discussion. (See what I mean? PENISES UBER ALLES!)

Oh wait, they get back to the subject eventually:

And assuming that you [women] didn’t fill-out the [Selective Service] form when you turned 17, I assume you’ll now be *voluntarily* placing all of the appropriate restrictions upon yourself out of principle.

Failing to do so would show that you tacitly agree with the notion that you, weak woman, are poor solider material.

Maybe it’s not as fun as smashing the patriarchy by getting stinking drunk and having kinky sex all over the place, but I know you’re serious about walking the walk in addition to merely talking the talk.

I had no idea I had such a reputation over there! No wonder they address posts to me.

When women get drunk and have kinky sex, they are smashing the patriarchy. When men do the same, they are *reinforcing* the patriarchy. It is therefore vital that women go full-scale hedonistic without restraint while men refrain from doing the same. Go ask the denizens of Feministing, and they’ll assure you that this is absolutely correct.

True, it seems to involve a double-standard, but that only ignores the *real* double-standards inherent in phallocentric hermenuetic power systems of dominance and control blah-de-blah blah patriarchy racism.

As one who has discussed alcohol and alcoholism very personally and critically on this blog many times, I'm not sure where this fella is getting this, but obviously, he has issues with some female who is not me.

But then, I guess we all look alike in the dark, right?

More from the brawl:

It’s fine with me really. I can’t say if DDH will understand my reasons for thinking the way I do, though I hope she does. I do believe that now, in the present, in 2009, male privilege and female privilege are about equal (different things in different areas), all it comes down to is what you seek and if you’re encouraged or prevented from doing it (not why I transitioned, and I certainly don’t recommend transitioning to solve this). This will affect one’s perspective.

A woman who wishes to be a construction worker versus one who wishes to be a mother and housewife. One will feel more wronged than the other or more blocked in her choices. The same for a man who wants to be a stay-at-home dad.

It is less anti-woman bias than plain categorization bias. That is, people generalize traits of a category to all instances of that category. If they don’t fit, we’ll make it fit… This applies to both men and women. Don’t want to be a provider? You better be really lucky, handsome and find the very very few women who would like to provide for you, if you’re a man…or there’s always suicide. I hear there’s a high rate in men.

And I am sure there will be plenty more... the restricted thread is about to be "opened up" so that people can pile on me even MORE!

Let this be a cautionary tale to any feminist who seeks to discuss anything with the Men's Rights crowd: Don't. They just want to put you down. They just want to generalize about you without knowing anything about your personal history. They don't CARE about anything but reducing all arguments to FORESKINS.

And if this is how they are when they are heavily moderated, imagine how they REALLY are.