What about the Womeeeeeeeeeeeen……?

 

We it appears, and by “we” I mean the vast majority of people living in the western hemisphere, have become so imbued with the “women and children first” mindset that even those “nice” women who suddenly find themselves aware that MEN and BOYS might, just might mind, have “a few problems” that they simply cannot have a conversation or discussion or even request information about Men’s Human Rights without positioning themselves AS women with all the mythology that this entails.

From that position, AS A WOMAN, they believe themselves to be “sincere” and “interested” and “want to learn more”. Hmmm, you what that sounds like? – A new hobby, a suddenly “popular cause” a cool charideeee to become a patron of, or donor too.

Like with starving children in Africa they feel sympathy and concern, they donate, they organise “fundraisers” and all from the comfort of their “nice” homes.  Because you see, they’re “good women” and so it is with the Men’s Human Rights Movement.

Except for one little detail, these “victims” are not in faraway place, not some vague ill-defined but worthy cause that one can “write a cheque for” secure in the knowledge that you’ve “done your bit”.

One can tut tut about the faraway “dictators” and “bad people” who allow such terrible tragedies to happen, and then feel good about themselves. Especially if they even go as far as to “write a strong letter of protest” to their political representative, and stop buying products from such a nasty place, and urge their friends “nicely” to do likewise.

Ah yes, it feeeeeeeeeeeells good to be good, doesn’t it?  Even better to be able to think of oneself as a “good woman”.

So, to the Men’s Human Rights Movement. Believing oneself to be a “good woman” and suddenly becoming aware of “men’s issues” as another “cause” another “charideeeee”  feels good to get behind, to support, to “be interested in”.  And of course like all good causes, it has its victims.

So, who are these victims, these vague men and boys that “need help”? Are they some vague amorphous group of faraway tragic figures that you can sympathise with from afar?

NO. They are not. They are your sons, your fathers, your brothers, nephews and friends, they are the sons, fathers, brothers, nephews of YOUR friends and in some cases, they are YOUR husbands, YOUR boyfriends.

Oh my goodness, that’s just awful I hear you say, who would BE so mean and horrible, so uncaring, so selfish?

YOU WOULD.

You and your friends, the women you chat to at the school gates, your neighbours, your sisters, your daughters, your mothers, and those of YOUR friends.

But, but, but, “I’m a good woman” my friends and all those other women you mentioned are “good women”

Oh, I’m sure you are right, in fact, you probably are, but of course this all depends on what standard you are using to define what a “good woman” is, doesn’t it?

Being a “good woman” starts and ends with one single criteria – BEING A WOMAN, and being a woman is “special” being a woman has a host of positive and self regarding connotations to it. Being a woman means first and foremost being DEFINED by your biology, NOT your humanity.

“Being a woman” means being blind to the humanity in men and boys, means seeing EVERYTHING through the lens of femaleness, means evaluating, assessing and quantifying ALL experiences, all problems, all issues through that unique filter of femaleness.

Being a woman and a “good woman” means feeling solidarity with, a connection to ALL other women, in a unique and special way, and THIS is what informs YOUR thinking, your inability to process the core issues of the MEN’S Human Rights Movement – MEN are NOT women.

Because Men only exist in relation TO women, men are defined BY their relationships WITH women.

But of all the blind spots, all the refusals to see, to open your eyes fully, good woman or not, it is the refusal to admit, to allow, to acknowledge that the vast majority of the Human Rights Abuses inflicted upon men are caused by.

WOMEN.

You will note that I haven’t mentioned feminism once, well apart from just now that is. Because this is another misconception that woman use to soothe their ego’s with, the “Oh, I’m not a feminist” not one of THOSE – a screechy, haranguing unattractive harridan, oh no, THAT’S  not me – pause – of course I believe in “women’s rights” but I’M NOT A FEMINIST.

I believe you, you’re not a feminist, and the latest polls and surveys will bear that out, depending on which one you use, only between 20% and 28% of women actually self-indentify AS feminists.

Well phew, I hear you say – see – I told you, NOT a feminist. I don’t hate men, I loooooooooove men, men are great. Is that so? Then you are making perhaps the greatest error, the biggest mistake in judgement regarding “being a woman”

Have you ever asked yourself, WHY? Why do women believe and think there is something inherently special about “being a woman”? Where did this little myth come from? Who decided that women had “special” qualities inherent in “being a woman”?

REAL feminists don’t actually give a shit if you are a feminist, if you tick the feminist box on polls and surveys, being a woman who supports “women’s rights” is just fine and dandy, being a woman who swallows the carefully and assiduously crafted myth of womanhood is more than enough. Feeling part of the vast global network of “sisterhood” that binds ALL women together in some bizarre made up “spiritual” connection will do just fine, because you see, the point is not for you personally to “be a feminist”. As long as you buy the lies, the false statistics, the scary sound bites you are a useful idiot. 

Doing this assures the REAL feminists that when it comes to MENS RIGHTS, you will almost automatically think, feel and even better raise in lament, in all sincerity, because YOU are a “good woman” this cry.

What about the womeeeeeeeennn?

 

 

 

All I Want for Christmas is……….

 

Let me just say up front, I’m a bit of an Ebeneezer Scrooge, in that I loathe Christmas, and when I say Christmas, I mean all the tinsel and manic shopping, the almost fevered “Christmas shopping” mania that grips so many people.  The innumerable articles penned on “What to get the woman in your life to prove how much you luuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurve her” ones.

I have no problem with those of a Christian persuasion who chose to focus on the religious aspect of this time, fair enough, after all Christianity has been one of the most influential forces in the history of the west, again this is a two –edged sword, because Christianity has been the banner under which many invading armies have marched.  This doesn’t negate the fact that many people genuinely attempt to live their lives adhering to the positive principles inherent in Christianity.

Ok, so having said that, Christmas has evolved, if one could call it that, perhaps mutated would be a better word, either way, Christmas has a particular resonance, first for children, then for the parents of those children.

One cannot fault children for buying into the excitement, the expectations and the hype of Christmas, because it IS adults who generate and perpetuate this excitement and hype, and of course, advertisers whose job it is to persuade consumers to go completely mad and shop till they drop, till their credit cards melt and they have bought every last item of useless pointless crap on offer, because after all – “it’s for the children”

That is the motif around which Christmas is generally sold, isn’t it? “It’s FOR the children”

Now, part of the excitement for children, especially young children is making your “list for Santa” a time honoured tradition where children write down a list of things that they really really REALLY want – for Christmas.

In a survey conducted last year, apart from the usual requests for ipads, ponies and baby brothers or sisters, what came in 10th on the list of things children wanted for Christmas was “a Dad” a mother came in 23rd.

 This survey was done to ascertain the top 50 things children asked for, inevitably of course the request for tangible items, such as the ipads, ponies and suchlike came out quite high.  But one has to assume that at least some of the 2,000 parents of the children who were asked asked already had “a Dad” but that there were sufficient enough “fatherless” children among these to make a wish for “a Dad” a significant enough number to come in 10th.

I wonder, how many mothers, the ones whose children don’t have “a Dad” are “single mothers” who have made an art form out of keeping their children from their fathers, how many see Christmas as yet another battle to be won “for the children”

In an article in the Telegraph on 7 December 2012, Sally Peck quotes family lawyer Allison Hawes who has this to say.

We advise the parents we support to consider practical compromises, to make sure children aren’t caught in the cross fire. And to try to remember that the festive period is mainly for children to enjoy, rather than for parents to try and score points

Sound advice, isn’t it? I wonder how many took it last year, and how many this year will once again ignore it?

I also find myself wondering how many of the children in the survey got their wish last year, and would those same children be STILL wishing for “a Dad” this year.

Pecks article highlights a dilemma from a father who’s ex has decided to take the children a three hour drive away to her parents “for Christmas” leaving him alone and making spending time with his children difficult.

On the surface this seems to be just a case of “letting children spend time with their grandparents” doesn’t it?

But, you know and I know, it is the perfect excuse to camouflage a selfish and calculated act to separate children from their fathers – at Christmas.

Its playing the “Christmas is for families” card and it absolves the “I’m just doing it for the children” mother from being accused of manipulating not just the situation, but the children.

And there are oh so many handy readily available justifiable “excuses” waiting to be manipulated at Christmas aren’t there? All manufactured, all cited as “just doing it for the children” and all have nothing to do with what children really really want for Christmas.

To spend time with their fathers.

 

 

Oppression? Where?

 

You know as oppressive regimes go, the patriarchy is doing a pretty shit job of being……….well, oppressive.  In fact on a worldwide scale of oppressive regimes, the patriarchy is a big fat failure.

This failure is actually a two way street, both by the putative oppressors, and the putative oppressed, those in the western hemisphere that is, are just not really getting with the oppression programme, and DOING THEIR JOBS!

Let me explain, then maybe all you lads and lassies can start being oppressed and oppressing………properly. You know, put some effort into it.

Taking oppression to mean living in a place, a country, a state or territory where basic fundamental Human Rights, that we all generally agree on as being basic fundamental Human Rights, are suppressed, violated, suspended, ignored or simply don’t exist.  Where your life is literally NOT your own, and the fact of your existence is to be a disposable entity for the use of your oppressors.

For the sake of argument let’s just take these as two of the most important absolute basic fundamental Human Rights.

The Right to Freedom of Expression, Thought, Speech, Belief and Conscience.

I put this first because of all the basic fundamental Human Rights, being able to speak out, to think whatever you like, to believe exactly the opposite of what those in power do, and to know that you will be allowed to keep breathing is, in my opinion, true freedom. The suppression and silencing of those who would criticise, question and reject the prevailing ethos of an oppressive regime guarantees that the oppressed will live in constant fear and compliance.  To know that a stray thought, a random off the cuff remark, a mild query or question could lead to their death or worse torture, is the mark of a functioning and effective oppressive regime.

True despots such as Stalin, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Ayatollah Khomeni, and so many more knew and  exercised  and in fact  continue  to exercise this tool of oppression to great effect in some parts of the world. Just not in the west.

So, how does the west stack up, how does the patriarchy, this ever present, all encompassing oppressive mechanism under which ALL women in the west apparently live, measure up?

Hmmm, not very well, if one is to judge by the thousands of blogs, sites, articles, books, talks, speeches, TV shows, films and random conversations going on all over the west, every minute of every day.

I have yet to hear of any woman, in the west, being hauled off in the dead of night with a hood over her head for exercising her right to “Free Speech” In fact to be blunt, the problem isn’t that women are being denied the right to speak, to express their “opinions” to hold some strange and outright bizarre views, nope, the problem is the reverse – getting them to SHUT UP!

The utilising of  the “Freedom of Speech” is being suppressed banner, by feminism and empty-headed vacuous women is an insult, an affront to all those who have, and are continuing to have their Freedom of Speech suppressed, sometimes violently.

The Right to an Education, at the very least primary education.

All Human Rights Instruments and Conventions, recognise that children are entitled to at the very least a primary/elementary education, and most states also extend this right to encompass secondary/high school education.

It has ever been the tool of oppressive regimes to deny their enslaved peoples an education, an ignorant and illiterate populace is a docile one. In regimes where “education” is offered, it is strictly controlled and regimented to reflect the ethos and ideology of the oppressive regimes tenets. There are many words that have been used to describe this kind of “education” this kind of societal “reprogramming”

In the Peoples Republic of China it was called “THE THREE REPRESENTS CAMPAIGN”, in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge it was called “The Four Year Plan” in the USSR it was a campaign to “promote a sense of Soviet identity

But one word covers all these methods of suppressing the kinds of Human Rights we are talking about here perfectly – Indoctrination.

So, what about the west? Well let’s see, not only are ALL children expected to go school, it is a legal requirement on the part of parents to SEND their children to school. Not only that, most states BUILD schools and PAY teachers from state resources (tax’s) to work in these schools.  In fact if one has enough money and a desire to do so, anybody can start a school. Anybody.

Ah but, it’s what is being taught in these schools that perpetuates this nasty oppressive regime of patriarchy, training young girls to be subservient and docile, and young boys to be dominant, brutal and……..emmm…..oppressive and patriarchal!

Really?  Is that so?

There has been one major influence that has surpassed all other influences bar none in the education systems of the west for nigh on fifty years now, it is called feminism, and feminism is and has always claimed to be, the voice of and for – WOMEN!

The impact of feminist inspired policies on education was felt almost immediately, and did start to raise concerns, in fact some feminists even went so far to conduct their own “studies” all the while being careful to make sure to keep in focus that feminism per se must NOT be blamed. It was subtle, but it was there.

As for what is taught in these academies of patriarchy? That girls are brilliant, multitalented, and utterly fantastic and destined to be the future leaders of the free world, and that boys are shit, boys are horrible, mean, nasty and stupid. In fact this programme of indoctrination is so successful, that both boys and girls leave these places BELIEVING this shit.

Because you see, what happens next is proof positive that girls leave these indoctrination camps in vast numbers to go onto the next stage of training to be the “leaders of the free world” and boys? Well, boys are left floundering, that is even if some of them manage to “get a place” in these so called “places of higher learning” they encounter the last and final stage of the “oppressive” system of education in the west. A system that is, and has been designed to hammer the final nail into the coffin of a boy’s life chances.

Gender Studies.

It is in these erroneously named “places of higher learning” that boys are “finished off” in the sense that they learn they are potential rapists, abusers, violent thugs, despicable human beings, if it is even acknowledged that they ARE human beings. It is in these places that boys learn once and for all that they are unwanted.

This is also the place where girls get to emerge from their chrysalis as fully fledged “empowered women” sweeping all before them, as they take their rightful places at the head of the queue for………………..EVERYTHING!

Ahem – one moment please. Are we not all forgetting something? First, girls going to university and college in higher and higher numbers, secondly, the numbers of boys going is falling?  But you see according to feminism this is ALL men’s own fault, yep, even though there is a definite crisis in boy’s education, it has nothing to do with the toxic influence of feminism. Boys are just not handling girls success to well.

Girls! This is not good enough, stop all this empowered business this instant and get back to being “oppressed” all these “slut walks” “take back the night” all this “learning” “blogging” voicing of your never ending opinions of everything and anything, all this “my body, my choice” crap. Get back into your homes and under the rule of your oppressive fathers.

Sorry what? Your mother kicked your father out of the house when you were just a child, and had hysterics if you even mentioned you wanted to see your Dad? Well then, under the rule of your brother then.

Pardon me?  What did you say?  Your brother took his own life after perhaps years of abuse from your mother? Perhaps after being the target for your mothers rage. Ah, ok.

Well then boys, step up to the patriarchy plate and get oppressing.  I’m sorry what did you say? You don’t know how? You’ve been told you’re a piece of shit since you were a small boy and now you believe it. No-one has ever shown you ”the ropes” so to speak, the patriarchy ropes, because your Dad was kicked out of the house as well. You don’t have the energy to be oppressive, because you’ve been on this medication for so long, since you were a small boy, that you don’t know who you are anymore.

Actually, you know, you are right, there is an oppressive regime in place in the west, it is pervasive, it is all enveloping, and it is toxic.

It is called feminism.

 

 

Got the Whole World in my Hands…..

 

Of the oft and interminably repeated complaints from feminists, two stand out, the first being that women are and have been denied access to positions of power and influence both at the present time and in the past.  In fact the constant whine from feminists is that women have NO POWER, because men are hogging it all? On a Global scale.  Hmmmm.

The second is that no-one cares about women, never did, never have and presumably never will. Not only that, but now it seems feminism has finally turned its attention to women in faraway places and decried the lack of “resources” for these women.  Not only that, apparently women from these faraway places are even more “oppressed” than women in the West, if that’s even possible!

So, this is a Global issue is it? Women are being kept out of positions that wield global influence and no-one is listening to women?

Shall we take a look at some heavy hitting Global Organisations and see the patriarchy in action.  Let’s start with the IMF (International Monetary Fund) because, well because this organisation wields enormous power and influence on governments, on states, in fact the IMF could make or break a nation.

The current head of the IMF – is Christine Legarde (France) – Managing Director

Now Ms. Legarde was apparently a bit naughty in May of this year, with lots and lots of other people’s money, but managed to dodge that bullet and retain her position of enormous power and enormous influence.

 Another female Ms. Nemat Shafik a native of Egypt is a Deputy Managing Director, of the IMF, Egypt being one of those faraway places feminists like to point to as hotbeds of female oppression. Ms. Shafik obviously forgot to be oppressed.

Then we have Ms. Antoinette Monsio Sayeh  from the tiny African country of Liberia who is the Director, African Department, of the IMF, Liberia is a tiny African country, with tiny African countries being high on the feminist list of places where women are oppressed. By the way, the current “President and head of government in Liberia is President Ellen JOHNSON SIRLEAF (since 16 January 2006); Vice President Joseph BOAKAI (since 16 January 2006) note – the president is both the chief of state and head of government.”

 President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf is female and has been head of government in Liberia for 6 years.

But of course, according to feminism the world turns its back on the suffering of women, the health of women, and demands that women be given a voice, an end to the silencing of women’s voices.

 How about that Global Organisation which is the voice of World Health “issues”? Just who is “in charge” at the WHO – World Health Organisation? Why look it is;

 Dr Margaret Chan – Director General

Dr Margaret Chan is the Director-General of WHO, appointed by the World Health Assembly on 9 November 2006. The Assembly appointed Dr Chan for a second five-year term at its sixty-fifth session in May 2012. Dr Chan’s new term will begin on 1 July 2012 and continue until 30 June 2017.”

 Appointed to a second five year term in 2012, having already been “in charge” of World Health “issues” since 2006.

Dr. Chan’s complete Bio is  here. What are worth noting are the dates, she started her career in 1978 and was appointed as Director of Health in Hong Kong in 1994, obviously the Government of Hong Kong didn’t get the patriarchy memo about “not allowing women into positions of influence and power”

 It’s an anomaly, I hear all you feminists scream in frustration, eemmm, nope it isn’t, out of seven Assistant Director Generals at the WHO two are female.

 Flavia Bustreo – Assistant Director-General – Family, Women’s and Children’s Health

Marie-Paule Kieny – Assistant Director-General – Health Systems and Innovation

 Not only that, there are six Regional Directors; two of whom are also female:

 Dr Carissa Etienne – WHO Regional Director for the Americas, the Americas being a ginormous place to be “in charge of”

 Ms Zsuzsanna Jakab – WHO Regional Director for Europe, again, EUROPE! All of Europe. No power or influence there!

Not looking really good is it for the feminists, all these women in positions of power and influence, maybe we’ll have better luck finding some oppression at the UN ?(United Nations)

 Let’s take a look at:

 United Nations – General Assembly of The United Nations: The Team.

 The President of this “Team” is Ambassador John W. Ashe and his second in command, directly under him is Ambassador Paulette BethelChef de Cabinet.  Ok then, the head honcho IS MALE.

What about the rest of the “Team”?

 Well there are 24 members and of those fourteen of them are female:

  1. Ambassador Janine Coye-Felson – Special Advisor – Legal Matters
  2. Ms. Tala Dowlatshahi – Director of Communications
  3. Ms. Afaf Konja – Spokesperson
  4. Ms. Abigail SommaSpeechwriter
  5. Ms. Frances Fuller – Special Assistant to the President
  6. Ms. Aqeelah AkbarAdviser – Third Committee
  7. Ms. Allison BookerAdviser – Third Committee
  8. Ms. Marie-Elena John – Adviser – Gender Issues
  9. Ms. Alina Padeanu – Adviser – Rule of Law / Human Rights and Civil Society Engagement
  10. Ms. Dornella SethAdviser – ICPD+20
  11. Ms. Maia Shanidze – Adviser – Fifth Committee
  12. Ms. Anya Thomas – Adviser – Sustainable Development Matters
  13. Ms. Fanny Langella – Deputy Speechwriter / Deputy Spokesperson
  14. Ms. Alice Farhat – Administrative Assistant to the President

There are six “Main Committees” of the UN with several other committees and subsidiary bodies.

The Third Committee that Ms. Akbar and Ms. Booker are advisors to, concerns itself with: Social, Humanitarian & Cultural issues:

“The General Assembly allocates to its Social, Humanitarian and Cultural Affairs Committee, commonly referred to as the “Third Committee”, agenda items relating to a range of social, humanitarian affairs and human rights issues that affect people all over the world……

“…..The Committee also discusses the advancement of women, the protection of children, indigenous issues, the treatment of refugees, the promotion of fundamental freedoms through the elimination of racism and racial discrimination, and the right to self- determination. The Committee also addresses important social development questions such as issues related to youth, family, ageing, persons with disabilities, crime prevention, criminal justice, and international drug control…..”

Please note, there is NO Committee that even bothers discussing the “advancement of men” in fact there are NO committees at all about men.

 What about the  Fifth Committee  that Ms. Shanidze is advisor to?  That is the Administrative and Budgetary Committee of the UN and is currently in its 68th session. Fifth Committee Resolutions & Decisions of the 67th session can be found here.

Hmmm, Ms. Shandze is the advisor to the committee that basically decides where the MONEY goes? Zero power or influence there!  Really?

You might have looked down the list and found yourself wondering, What the heck is ICPD + 20?

 Well, it is INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON POPULATION AND DEVELOPMENT one of the first of which was held in Cairo, Egypt 5-13 September 1994.  See here. Though there were two previous ones.

“World Population Conference in Bucharest in 1974 and the International Conference on Population at Mexico City in 1984.” 

The Cairo one was notable for this:

“The 1994 Conference was explicitly given a broader mandate on development issues than previous population conferences, reflecting the growing awareness that population, poverty, patterns of production and consumption and other threats to the environment are so closely interconnected that none of them can be considered in isolation.”

And this:

“The Conference outcomes will be closely related to those of the upcoming World Summit for Social Development, the Fourth World Conference on Women and the Second United Nations Conference on Human Settlements, as well as the elaboration of the UN’s Agenda for Development and the 50th anniversary of the United Nations.”

And finally this:

“The Programme of Action recommends important population and development objectives, including a set of mutually supportive qualitative and quantitative goals. Among these objectives and goals are: sustained economic growth in the context of sustainable development; education, especially for girls; gender equity and equality; infant, child and maternal mortality reduction; and the provision of universal access to sexual and reproductive health services, including family planning.”

 So, it would seem that not only are and have women been holders of enormous power and influence in and of Global Issues, but are most definitely NOT voiceless, never have been, and I very much doubt WILL ever be “voiceless” (chance would be a fine thing)

 As for women and “women’s issues” not being on the world agenda, women and “women’s issues” ARE the worlds agendas. Always have been. There has never been a time when women, have not had a platform. NEVER.

 But, I’ll tell you hasn’t had a platform, who haven’t even made the shortlist of “Global Issues worth talking about”?

 MEN

Form an Orderly Queue Gentlemen!

 

The selection process is about to begin, please have ready to be inspected, the following items:

1. Minimum of three years financial statements, (no hiding assets now boys) 

2. Letters of recommendation from, your mother, your college lecturers, the police, a member of jezebel, every female who has ever met you that states, you have completed and PASSED your training as per the parameters of the human socialisation project known as feminism and are now deemed to be, a “good” (ish) enough man.

3. A sworn and signed waiver relinquishing possession of every asset both present and future, both real and corporeal to whichever superior, celestial being, formerly known as “a female”, deigns to select you as the recipient of her beneficence – i.e. allows you to marry her.

 NB.  Please be advised that there WILL be a physical examination of the breeding stock, sorry, slip of the tongue, I meant, potential candidates, therefore be prepared to “drop ‘em and cough”

 Ok, have I gone completely off the reservation, am I now floating out to sea on an iceberg, madly tapping away at my keyboard? Broadband reception is shit in the Antarctic by the way.

 Nope, but I have been casting an eye over some of the more inane witterings from the feminist camp, to whit, I give you Careering into a Good Husband a post from the blog called the Vagenda, set up by Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett and her bestie  from “Uni” Holly Baxter.

When my friend Holly Baxter and I set up a satirical blog called the Vagenda two years ago, along with a group of our university friends, we never saw ourselves as part of the feminist movement. The blog took a tongue-in-cheek look at women’s magazines, was written in a slangy, easily comprehensible style, and didn’t take itself all that seriously. In ridiculing the way women were portrayed in the media, the entire ethos of the blog could be said to be feminist, but I didn’t really know anything about the modern feminist movement, what it entailed, and where my place in it might be; we just got on with it.  

Indeed, one of the great things about this new wave of female activism is that young women no longer feel they have to subscribe to a whole checklist of rigid ideas before becoming involved; they focus on what’s closest to their hearts, whether that’s Page 3 or everyday sexism or violence against women, and try and do the best they can, just as many women out there in their communities have been doing for generations, some without ever feeling a need to use the term “feminist“.

Being the possessor of an uuuummm “vagenda” myself, I thought I’d put her girlish and fun fun fun blog on my “to do” list – as in, do a quick survey, see if there’s anything worth a second look and then get on with my life.

 Lo and behold, Rhiannon and Holly have outdone themselves, now before you think, “I’ll go click on the link and take a look at this little fun palace” I have to warn you about something.

 It’s pink. I don’t mean a nice delicate shade of rose with subtle shades, IT’S PINK, pepto bismol PINK.  Bubblegum PINK. Ok, you’ve got that?  It’s PINK!

 Anyway, moving on, the post I linked to is a reaction to a couple of other articles, (sigh, bloody feminists, writing responses to responses to other posts from other bloody feminists – I can hear the sound of hens clucking and flapping about as I write)

And yep, I’m a year late to this party, as the articles linked above are from 2012, but never mind, the starting point, for me, was this article from Rhiannon “I’m a half-arsed, accidental feminist – like many other young women” by Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett The Guardian, Monday 25 November 2013.

Aside: I’m actually waiting for one of the “grande dames” of British feminism to build up enough of a head of steam to write a “response” to Rhiannon’s article and slap this uppity, “how dare she have fuuuuuuuuunnn” pseudo feminist down, but good. 🙂

Now, it’s not that Rhiannon and/or Holly are being all bitchy and snarky about these articles, nope, not these gals, but they are being………………………as dumb as a bag of hammers.  It isn’t even that Rhiannon/Holly are in agreement with the articles they are commenting on. Because to be fair, they are not. The problem is that they are missing the point. They are completely and utterly blissfully unaware of a couple of tiny little details.

 The unholy state of matrimony is rapidly losing its appeal FOR MEN! All this talk of marriage, of when and how and under what circumstances women will or won’t “get married” and no-one mentions, no one even hints at the big fat hairy elephant(s) in the room.  Escalating divorce rates and plummeting marriage rates. It’s not all wedding cake and Vera Wang girlies.

 So, they write from a distinctly female possibly “fun feminist” (I know, I’m having a bit of a problem getting my head around it myself) perspective. And this is what exactly? I hear you ask. Though, Rhiannon/Holly have a rather strange notion of relationships! 

Although I personally believe that I won’t marry someone unless I feel like I want to clone them, barricade them in my bedroom for all eternity, and then wear their clone’s skin as a onesie (i.e. the insane-making kind of adoration), I can see the point of also making sure that they’re an all right bloke and they don’t want to raise their future children on a fruitarian diet in the Forest of Dean.

Teaching women and men alike what functional, healthy relationships look like seems like one hell of a good idea. But approaching young girls with the idea that their husbands might hold them back seems a bit like, well, scare-mongering. And it also seems like potentially encouraging a colossal shift in responsibility.”

 I’m glad you asked about this “fun feminist” perspective because you see this is the perspective where the entire universe and all it planets, moons, asteroids and random comets revolves around WOMEN, women’s “choices” women’s “needs” what makes women “happy”, what women “deserve”, are “entitled” to and just, gosh, golly and gadzooks must have. Not that different from “regular” feminism is it? It’s just pinker!

 One of those “must have” items is…………………………….a hubby, and noooooooooooooo, not just any old hubby, not just a “fixer-upper” a bit “rough around the edges” nor even a hubby that “shows potential” nope – apparently, the gals, (and yes there are way too many of these bloody articles to post links to) have, after clucking and twittering, and thinking deeply (if one thinks of a puddle as “deep”) and of giving this “issue” serious thought, (the same kind of thought that went into creating a blog that would make a block of stone vomit that is), have decided.

 Women deserve a certain type of hubby, a high-quality, high earning, endlessly supportive, slavishly devoted to THEM hubby, an ever ready at the slightest hint of a passing whim to comply with said passing whim, hubby.

 The “great minds” of modern, fun and girly, pink and fluffy, feminism have spoken, hence gentlemen, let me draw your attention once more to the opening paragraph. THIS is your future, that is how these lovely ladies are beginning to think and plan and plot, with giggles and fabulous shoes on, with coy looks and gosh, a jolly good old finger wagging in your direction.

 

Yikes, my iceberg is melting! 🙂

 

© Anja Eriud 2013

Eavesdropping on Feminists.

Well sort of, I’ve been noticing that the odd feminist pops in here for a looksee, and then off they go, with one raddled oops, I meant radical feminist as the exception. She came she brain farted, and now……the wait goes on to see if one of her multiple personalities shows up. Exciting isn’t it?

Anyhoo, I decided to repay the, eeeemm compliment and go take a look at them. Which led me to an interesting exchange between someone who might be a feminist and someone who definitely IS a feminist about………….well, feminism of course.

The first step on this little adventure into the world of navel gazing feminism is with this article, by Leslie Loftus called, Can we rebrand feminism? Hmmm, the word NO springs to mind, but we’ll get to that shortly, this article was posted on November 14, 2013 and apparently caused one Susan L.M. Goldberg to get her knickers in a bit of a knot because she posted her own article on November 20, 2013, entitled Feminism Doesn’t Need Re-Branding, It Needs a Revolution in response – Oooooooh, thems fighting words.

Moving on, Leslie decided to respond to the response, on November 27, 2013 with, How to Overcome the Looming Feminist Collapse.

So, was it handbags at noon? Was there hair-pulling and scratching? Nah, as scraps go, it was pretty tame, actually it was boring.

Some of the comments on all three articles were funny, and some were very interesting, almost ALL more or less said it was time to hold the wake for feminism and bury the corpse, under the light of the moon while banshees wailed and wolves howled no doubt (burn in hell – sorry, got a bit carried away there)

Before I go on to take a closer look at the articles, a little about our two protagonists. Leslie Loftus is I believe what is called a staunch “right wing woman” whatever that is, her tiny bio gives this information about her:

“Leslie Loftis is a recovering lawyer, a housewife, and a mother of 4. She is also a serial Texpatriate, most recently returned from London, England.”

While Susan Goldberg describes herself as first and foremost a feminist, her bio at the end of her article had this to say about her:

“Susan L.M. Goldberg is a writer with a Master’s in Radio, Television & Film and a PhD in Life who would be happy roaming the fields of Prince Edward Island with Anne of Green Gables, were it not for her strong belief in the axiom “all that is required for evil to prevail is for good women to do nothing.” She prefers “Renaissance Woman” as opposed to any career title found on Monster.com. Her writing tends towards the intersection of culture, politics and faith with the interest in starting, not stopping the discussion. Follow her on Twitter @SLMGoldberg and @winegirlblog”

Well, whatever floats your boat Susan. I am, I admit slightly irked that she taken a classic quote from that great Irish philosopher, Edmund Burke and not only bastardised it, but not had the decency or honesty to attribute it.

The last point I want to make before we finally get to those articles is this, what led me to these particular articles, it was a link to a load of feminist sites, blogs and other articles, of which many were all asking the same questions, Is feminism dead? Can we save feminism? Where did feminism go wrong? And of course plenty about this “rebranding” that seems to be exercising the minds of all these “concerned” feminists. Someone used it to visit my blog.

Please allow me one small moment to gloat, aaahhh, I looked at this list, and I smiled, (ok – I gloated) there is discontent, consternation, and a bit of an identity crisis happening in feminist circles, the gals are all in a bit of a tizzy, the numbers are looking baaaaaaaaaaaaaad, people it seems are being very very mean and horrible about feminism! Lots of people! Tut tut.

Worse, apparently waaaaaaaaaaaaaaayy to many people have THE WRONG IDEA about feminism. Gosh darn it.

So, onto the articles, Leslie concludes her first article with this statement:

So I suspect that many women will continue to disavow “feminism” as the label for a life of work. As women plan for more in their lives, the term will diminish and fade, an ignominious end to a once-powerful historical label.”

She seems like a nice well-meaning sort, she does almost home in on the corrosive nature of feminism when she says:

“Right now feminism is defined by the old line political feminists, who have no intention of releasing their grip on the term. Any attempt to make feminism more popular will have to confront and break this hold.”

But of course completely misses that this IS feminism, the vice like corrupting and malign grip of feminism on ALL aspects of our political, legal, cultural and societal structures. Poor Leslie tries to make a case for nice feminism, what she calls “equal opportunity” feminists, and gives Christina Hoff Sommers a nod in a slightly condescending way:

“I struggled in writing this piece to describe the non-political feminists. It’s probably why Hoff Sommers suggested the a-bit-too-earnest “freedom feminism” as an attempt at a common banner.”

But Leslie just doesn’t get it, obviously the words, dead, horse, and flogging are not in Leslie’s vocabulary, and to be honest, she really, really doesn’t know feminism at all!

So, on to Susan – well Susan was a bit miffed, one could almost visualize Susan’s feathers getting all ruffled, but she settled down and decided to be “civil” though I swear I could hear the sound of teeth grinding while I was reading her article. Odd.

The thing is Susan had nuthin and she knew she had nuthin. So, what CAN SHE DO? Leslie to all intents and purposes focused on home- grown feminism, and she does confine herself to the experiences of women in HER world, and the world we all inhabit, the West, and her arguments are sound(ish) if decidedly underdeveloped and do avoid getting too close to any real core issues.

Even so, Susan knows she has nuthin, so she latches onto the handy “sacrificial lambs” that Leslie gives her on a plate, the “wealthy, elite-educated, white women…..” the “political feminists” Leslie   tut tuts at, and then takes out the big guns of 21st century feminism, and wraps her feminism in the flavor of the month, the latest “what the hell can I use to cloak feminism in SOME legitimacy” cause? Global Issues.

“Loftis is fully correct in her observation that feminism has become the property of “wealthy, elite-educated,white women, who are closest to perfect [boardroom] parity”. But, to turn our collective back on the real oppression of women that exists in this world because of the ideological failures of Barbie-esque dilettantes is as effective as throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

In a post-denominational era where religion has been replaced by cause and community has gone from neighborhood to global, better to rally effectively than disperse into isolationism. What feminism needs isn’t dissolution, but evolution out of the boardroom and into the real world.”

Yep, for nigh on fifty years, feminism has not given a rats arse about anything other than acquiring more and more unearned privileges for the already privileged, but all of a sudden is the caring sharing voice of (where the hell did you say Camaroon was again?) poor oppressed women GLOBALLY.

And the “issue” guaranteed to stop all conversations, make any decent human being cringe?

“While American feminists engage in Dunham-esque debates over their penny-ante problems, over 500 girls in Britain are “estimated to have undergone the procedure of female genital cutting” common in African culture. According to a recent BBC report, “It is estimated about 140 million girls and women worldwide are currently living with the consequences of FGM.”

FGM, female genital mutilation, and she even posts what is obviously a video of a female circumcision in progress, and no, I didn’t watch it, but I’ll bet lots of people did.

I addressed this issue in my post Count Me Out!

Susan doesn’t bother addressing any of the relatively valid points Leslie raises, nope, Susan plays to the gallery, while Leslie is in contemplative mood and actually tries to look at her experience of feminism with some honesty, if misguidedly, Susan’s article is an opera, with clashing cymbals, drum rolls, a crescendo of noise and fury, shrieking out secrets at the top of her lungs, all to hide the fact that the diva actually can’t sing for toffee!

“Whether the cause be FGM, honor killings, or any other threat to women, if feminism doesn’t exit the territory of privileged navel-gazing moral relativists, it will become a powerful weapon for the justification of female abuse across the globe.”

As you can see, grand sweeping operatic gestures, all piss and wind and no substance.

So, what about Leslies second article in response to Susan’s “response”?

She caves, yep, she backs down just as I was beginning to like Leslie, she retreats in the face of Susan’s histrionics, Susan’s bag of dirty feminist tricks.

“My pessimism is about that alliance forming. But alliance or no, Goldberg is right, there is much to be done.”

Oh she tries to rally a bit and stand her ground, but after letting Susan railroad her into acknowledging her (Susan’s) moral superiority it is hollow, but a nice try all the same.

“Some of us got pushed out or left the feminist fold and got on with life. But for the women who thought, who hoped, the movement worthy to follow, as it crumbles, they seek. What do they find?”

Two things about this little journey of mine into the wild n wacky world of feminist chatter and musings struck me, one they know that something is not right, something has entered into their previously smug little world (hello MRA’s 🙂) none of them are willing to admit it, and none of them have the guts to say it out loud, but they know.

The second thing is this, all it takes for a relatively “nice” feminist or a “not sure if I am a feminist” woman to back down is one snarky, bombastic, bullying hectoring feminist wretch, and they crumble, they cave, how to counter that?  Hmmmm, I will be giving that some serious thought.

Edit: I thought you might like some other examples of the “debate” within feminism about this “rebranding” issue that is keeping them all awake at night. 🙂

Next Newer Entries