Thursday, February 24, 2011
I don't think I know how to make this funny. It's sickening. Obviously we all teach our baby boys that being strong and powerful means raping women. Or something. What. the. fuckety. fuck? You make it funny, I can't.
By the way, it's come to my attention that if there is something in a post or article or video or picture that may suddenly jolt someone who's been the victim of, for example, a crime, it is only fair to post a "trigger warning." Feminists LOVE trigger warnings, and have them for such things as "trigger warning for body policing, racist language, sexual violence, fat-hatred, fat-shaming, shame-shaming, slut-shaming, pig-shaming" etc. etc. etc. So I figured I'd better get with the program and start posting trigger warnings to any possible readers here. (So far that'd be zero, but you never know!) I mean, what if you were raised by a feminist? Should I not warn you in advance that there may be feminist content in the post that might trigger you into running down the street screaming in shame and asking to have someone lop off your willy? I mean, I gotta be careful with this stuff; it's powerful. So, this is the first post with a trigger warning, but I expect plenty more of them in future. It's a tough old world out there, and I wouldn't want to set any poor bastard off with my man-slut-shaming or something.
Citing a NYT article, one of the bloggers at my current shredding site quotes: "
"A 37-year-old illegal immigrant was under arrest Friday after three people were found shot to death and three others were wounded at two houses just blocks apart in the northern Virginia city of Manassas, the police said."
1. I know it's all the rage in the liberal media these days, but can we give the term "illegal immigrant" a rest? Please?
No. First of all, it isn't "all the rage" "these days" in the media; the preferred term has become "undocumented immigrants" or "undocumented workers."
2. There's nothing in the story that suggests that the status of the suspects' immigration paperwork had anything to do with his motivation. I don't see any motive listed. And yet "immigrant" is the first subject
I think someone needs a statistics lesson. "Cities that receive the largest numbers of immigrants also have twice the unemployment rate, 40% more people living in poverty, and 40% more serious crime per capita than cities with few or no immigrant arrivals. (1)http://www.usillegalaliens.com/immigration_facts_figures_and_addendum.html Yeah, see, when the cities with the largest number of ILLEGAL immigrants have 40% more serious crime PER CAPITA (look into it, honey) then while merely being an illegal immigrant may not be in and of itself the motive, it might give you an idea the type of people that are moving here, you know, ILLEGALLY. I'll even go out on a huge limb without looking it up and say that people who go through the process of moving here LEGALLY are LESS likely to commit serious crimes than natives. (And despite what your ideas of native might be, I am talking about people who are born here.)
I'll spare you some more tripe, but this kills me: "Oh! There's also the narrative that brown people + coming to America = Crime! Oh noes, fear for the future of the real peoplez!"
No, sir, (more on that later) the actual assumption you're looking for is that people (of whatever color or race) who come here ILLEGALLY ACTUALLY DOES EQUAL CRIME IN AND OF ITSELF. That's why it's called ILLEGAL immigration. The very act of coming here illegally IS a crime. When are you people going to understand that? And perhaps it is that a person who will commit one illegal act is that much more likely to commit another. Many may be merely escaping heinous conditions; others are running from their own law to begin with. Even those who are not are committing a crime by living and working here "undocumented." See how that all works? Even if that person is white as the driven snow. So drop the act; we ain't buying what you're selling.
Now I'm pretty sure I believed some stupid things as a kid, but being raised in a liberal area in the 70s it didn't get quite that stupid. Oh wait, yeah it did, because I was raised feminist. I was raised on Marlo Thomas' "Free To Be You and Me" where the princess either didn't need rescuing or she rescued the prince. I had grade school rooms with tables full of books we were free to pick up and read that were ALL about famous women in history - Amelia Earheart, or this or that slave girl made good, or Amish girl overcomes oppressive background blah-de-blah. Library time was full of books and stories that either contained heroines or equal numbers of hero/heroines who had no gendered differences (such as the Secret 7 series, a group of boys and girls who solved mysteries together.) Even in kindergarten the boys were just as likely to want to play in the "house" section as the blocks section because A) girls liked blocks too and B) all the cool equipment (fake stove, sink, refrigerator, washer/dryer, tables/chairs) were in the "house" section and boys wanted to get their hands on those gadgets too. Whenever my mother was out on a weekend my father would vacuum, do dishes, cook lunch, do laundry, etc. He said he'd spent 4 years in the army and everyone ought to so they could learn to take care of themselves. Sure, she did it during the week, but then she also got to sit at the table and read a book for 3 hours at a time if she wanted, and he didn't get that. It never occurred to me that cats were female and dogs were male. Why should it? About the only dumb gender idea I can remember was that I thought when I was about 3 that kids grew up to marry their mothers - not because of gender, but because being married meant you live together.
So I think a better question might be...DID you have any dumb ideas about gender when you were a kid, and if so, where do you think it came from and does it even matter? Because we're...well some of us aren't anyway...not kids anymore, right? And most of us know where we differ and where we're pretty much the same, don't we? I can't tell you why I even brought this one up except it annoyed me. And I don't like to be annoyed by feminists.
Apparently men try to take away the "Agency" of women in many many ways. Or, should I say, as the feminist does, "dudes" - since "men" is too, you know, respectful a term to use.
One way men steal the "Agency" of women is by "Exceptionalism". This means claiming that your mother or sister isn't like "those" women. Whoever "those" women are. In my case I'd have to say you can safely claim I'm not like "those" feminists. Stupid dudes, stealing my Agency and shit. The capper to this section is "Indeed, it is more special to be regarded as a cool woman in a world full of cool women than it is the only cool woman on the planet." Except since the world has so many feminists, I'd have to say it isn't really FULL of "cool women". Some women are feminists, some women are just bitches, some are nasty racists, some are...well, it would seem that just like everyone else on the earth, many suck ass and some are very cool. I may or may not be cool, but at least I'm not like THEM. (That's called "internalized misogyny" since women are conditioned to hate women as much as men are heh.)
Another way men steal the "Agency" of women is by breach of consent. This is characterized by not asking. If you really have to stop and ask me every step of the way, I'm kind of going to think you're an asshole. "Asking a woman, "May I take your arm?" or "May I kiss you?" is actually quite likely to be considered both sexy and smooth, with the additional bonus of being respectful." For what it's worth, I don't find that to be very sexy or very smooth. On the other hand, if you grope me and I don't want you to that isn't sexy either. Naturally this is a fine line to tread and I don't envy men being in that position. But if I'm shoving my half-exposed cleavage at you and you don't get the damn signal, let's just consider that sort of a turn-off, shall we? If you're dating a feminist, here's a clue - run the fuck in the other direction.
Another way men steal the "Agency" of women is by doing things like telling her to "smile." Presumably you don't have a camera in your hand at the time. If you tell me to smile and I'm in a pissy mood I'll just say "Nope." Probably just leave it there. But I'm not going to hold it against you for giving it a shot. If you tell her to smile and she says, "You didn't give me a *trigger warning* first" or "Fuck you" then she's a feminist, and I repeat - RUN. Fast and far. Learn the signals of feminists and stay as far away from them as you can. You can't win. Trust me.
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Ok ok so I promised you a daily blog and I so didn't deliver. Hey, I got shit to do, you know? But I think I can do better than I have so far. The blogger I'm currently shredding comes out with so much shit that it's really almost impossible to keep up. I'll have to get back to where I started, though, because there really is some funny stuff there. But let's start with where we are now - she's got a whole category called "assvertising" which translates into "advertisements that piss me off, especially because I think they're sexist." Now gee, you'd think she'd just get up and make a sandwich or get a drink like the rest of us would, but apparently getting up from the seat it just a little too difficult (if you saw her you'd probably know why) so it's easier and more fun to hop on the laptop and start a'bitchin'.
The latest "assvertising" takes place in a commercial for Dove body wash for men. Apparently this is sexist both against men AND women in one fell swoop - a twofer! It supposedly explains to men the need to moisturize their skin, just like an old piece of rawhide or something. But this message is brought to you by the...dun dun DUNNNNNN - PATRIARCHY! Thus it must be destroyed on contact. Her husband said (yeah, she has one - don't ask me) that it was both insulting to *secure* men but inherently misogynistic because "Fates fucking forfend men should use a product for women on his man-hide." Feminists LOVE the word "forfend", which is one of the reasons we laugh at them so hard. I think they probably like it because it starts with F. I'm not going to go into the bizarre and twisted logic by which they claim this is true because it makes absolutely no sense and there's no point wasting your time with it.
So we'll move right to the funny part which is <blockquote>
There are plenty of men whose male identity is not frail, not in constant need of nurture and reassurance, not held in thrall to a compulsion to display their masculinity in order that it may be acknowledged and admired.
Those men, however, tend to be feminists.</blockquote>
Haha! Yes, we all know that feminist men don't need their "masculinity" acknowledged...what masculinity? Feminist men are the biggest pussies there are. Yes, see what I did there? I just used pussy in a negative way! MISOGYNY! But have you ever tried to hold a conversation with one of those guys? It's like being put through the wringer in pussy hell. And if they're NOT huge pussies, they're the bossiest sonsabitches going. There's no happy medium, no regular guys. Well, there aren't any regular women either, but I digress. You do tend to get a lot of men who are "transitioning" into women...hmm, maybe there's something to that but that's for another time.
The solution to this "problem" she informs us helpfully? MORE FEMINISM! Because, tragically, patriarchy hurts women AND men. Sad, sad, sad.
On a funny note, in a category called "Both Sides Are Not Just as Bad" (hey, we agree on something...oh, wait) she refers to Jon Stewart as a "future conservative." Now that just made me laugh. You mean that guy who held a counter-rally against Tea Partiers about "Restoring Sanity" alongside COLBERT, with attendees bussed in by the tens of thousands by Arianna Huffington and Oprah Winfrey and people held up filthy signs about "teabaggers" and "BusHitler" and how evil conservatives are? That Stewart? Oh yeah, I can see your point. Hahaha!