A Modest Proposal….Because Equality Rocks!!!

 

Had an interesting discussion with a friend today, about all things feminist and how to further the progress of Men’s Human Rights.

As chats with friends do, things got a bit “silly” but something I believe that might be worth putting out there…..emmmm…. emerged.

As a certain feminist has been earnestly telling us –  women in effect have the answer to all problems male and therefore should be in charge of all programmes, courses and initiatives to do with improving the male – the reverse should be true?

Now, before I go on let me just say that my reference to “a certain feminist” is because I basically have a pain in my arse typing her name.

Anyhoo – moving on – where was I?

Ah yes, as feminists are the acknowledged (by themselves it must be said) experts on all things male, doesn’t it make sense that male MHRA/MRA’s are the experts on all things female.

Therefore I propose a new Femininity Studies Course – designed, prepared and delivered by – MHRA/MRA’s – well, if “they“can have a Masculinity Studies Coursewe” can have a Femininity Studies Course?

Makes sense – and this is the era of “striving for equality” is it not?

My nominations for Course Director(s) are:

Paul Elam of AVfM. http://www.avoiceformen.com/

John Hembling (JtO) http://www.johntheother.com/

Fidelbogen. http://counterfem.blogspot.com/

Proposed Course Modules

History –  Femininity through the ages: Or skirting the law in high heels while going backwards.

Robert St Estephe of The Unknown History of Misandry

http://unknownmisandry.blogspot.com/

Peter Wright (Tawil) Gynocentrism and its Cultural Origins

http://gynocentrism.com/

Relationships – Putting the Fe(e) in Fe(e)male: It ain’t cheap to end up looking this cheap.

AngryHarry http://www.angryharry.com/

Dean Esmay. http://www.youtube.com/user/deanesmay    

Andybob. http://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/andybobs-corner-vol-1/ 

Economics – Money Makes My World Go Round: What’s yours is MINE, and what’s mine is MINE.

Unassigned – suggestions welcomed.

Equality – Real Equality: 2 + 2 = 5 and 54% is a minority. Equal means BETTER!

Unassigned – suggestions welcome.

Consider this a “consultation” document – any and all suggestions for various modules and course lecturers of said modules welcome.

 Please bear in mind though, that as feminists (mostly female) are THE experts in “Masculinity” it naturally follows that MHRA’s/MRA’s are THE experts in “Femininity” though suggestions from anybody – no matter what they have in their knickers/pants more than welcome

EQUALITY ROCKS!!!!

 

My sincere and heartfelt thanks to Bibi for her excellent suggestions – most of which were too…emmmm…rude…and anatomically impossible, to post. 🙂

 

Old W[h]ines Fancy New Bottles – Part II

 

 Christina Hoff Sommers wrote an article for AVfM, where she casts her eye over a new documentary film called The Mask You Live In – even the title makes me shudder.

Anyway – in her first two paragraph, Hoff Sommers indulges herself in a bit of hand-wringing and worrying, about how this film might, just might be misrepresenting boys. Then goes on to do just exactly that herself.

“ It argues that American boys are captive to a rigid and harmful social code of masculinity. From the earliest age, they are told to “Be a man!” “Don’t cry!” “Stop with the emotion!” and “Man up!” This “guy code” suppresses their humanity, excites their drive for dominance and renders many of them dangerous. The trailer features adolescent men describing their isolation, despair and thoughts of suicide, artfully interspersed with terrifying images of school shooters and mass murderers.”

Fair enough, though the fact that the filmmaker is described BY Hoff Sommers as  “filmmaker and feminist activist Jennifer Siebel Newsom’s” might be a great big bloody honking clue as to how Newsome might view boys and all male human beings!

In light of the fact that it was Hoff Sommers own book – “The War Against Boys”, in which SHE described this “war” as a “war” initiated, waged and perpetuated by BLOODY FEMINISTS “Against Boys.” The rest of her “article” is………..bizarre.

But, alas, one of the things that feminists are famous for is, backpeddling, indulging in a little linguistic sleight of hand, depending on which way the wind blows, and how uncomfortable that fence they’ve been sitting on is getting. Sommers apparently is no exception as this article illustrates.

“Christina Hoff Sommers, who played a starring role in the anti-feminist backlash of the 1990s, is back again with a new edition of her book The War Against Boys. Originally subtitled How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men, it’s now relabeled How Misguided Policies Are Harming Our Young Men;”

Well now! Isn’t that intriguing? All of a sudden feminism is quietly swept under the carpet, and “policies” are now the big bad wolf creeping up on the hen house. Such a nice “let’s not point the finger at anybody or anything in particular” just some unattributed vague neutral “policies

Eh, yeah, right!

The article was published on Feb 14th 2013  – the author of this piece, Jim Naureckas, is very obviously not a fan of Sommers, and in this instance who can blame him.

I’m wondering, to myself, is this a chance to seize an opportunity to come in from cold? It can be a mite chilly being outside the sisterhood, especially when one yearns for “nice feminism” to come back into fashion. Naureckas helpfully supplies a link to another article, this time penned by Hoff Sommers herself.

Perhaps we’ll just let Hoff Sommers explain the little word substitution herself – I took a screen shot of the relevant paragraph, because for some reason I couldn’t copy and paste it, and am no good at figuring out what the problem is.

In her own words then. Click on the link above to go read the article yourself.

“For a revised version of the book, due out this summer, I’ve changed the subtitle – to “How Misguided Policies Are Harming Our Young Men” from “How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men” – and moved away from criticizing feminism; instead I emphasized boy-averse trends like the decline of recess, zero-tolerence disciplinary policies, the tendency to criminilize minor juvenile misconduct and the turn away from single-sex schooling.  As our schools have become more feelings-centred, risk-averse, collaboration-orientated and sedentary, they have moved further and further from boys’ characteristic sensibilities.  Concerns about boys arose during a time of tech bubble prosperity; now, more that a decade later, there are major policy reasons – besides the stale “culture wars” of the 1990’s – to focus on boys schooling.”

Ah, well then, let’s all stopcriticising feminism” because obviously since from the first time Hoff Sommers published her ground-breaking book, it appears that  now, feminists have become so much nicer, so much more concerned about boys, it would be better if we all just learned to get along, and play nicely together. You read it from the horse’s mouth – feminism is OFF the hook.

B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T – B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T – B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T – B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T – B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T  – did I mention that this is B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T?

Sommers does make a few friendly and nicesuggestions” as to how Newsome can improve her film, but decides to regale us first with some nice descriptive words about what men are, and what women are.

“A recent study on sex differences by researchers from the University of Turin, in Italy, and the University of Manchester, in England, confirms what most of us see with our eyes: with some exceptions, women tend to be more sensitive, esthetic, sentimental, intuitive and tender-minded, while men tend to be more utilitarian, objective, unsentimental and tough-minded. We do not yet fully understand the biological underpinnings of these universal tendencies, but that is no reason to deny they exist.”

 Where is the link to this “study please? I’d like to read it myself, and make my own mind up about what it found, if that’s all right with you Dr. Sommers?  Because what I’m seeing here is a pithy little analysis that functions to confirm and perpetuate STEROTYPES – what is “stereotypical female behaviour, and stereotypical male behaviour or if you prefer. Myths.

 What are little girls made of? Sugar and spice and all things nice………..you all know the rest.

 I especially liked the words “sensitive” and “tender-minded” applied to women, I must have misinterpreted all those RED PILL stories from all those MEN on AVfM forum, where they described the horrors they endured at the hands of “sensitive” and “tender-minded” women – but the words she uses for men are classic gynocentrism wrapped up in nice feminist bullshit, my absolute favourite being “utilitarian” ah yes – men have always been “utilitarian” FOR the benefit of women.

 But it was Hoff Sommers suggestion No, 4 that made me literally drop my jaw in amazement – in one paragraph she chides Newsome for misrepresenting boy’s mental health, claims that most boys are basically as happy as Larry AND points out that “Among 10- to 24-year-olds, 81% of suicide victims are male.

 But the cherry on top of her “suggestion“ to Newsome is that in spite of all these happy go lucky boys that “Male suicide is a much neglected scourge, and Newsom’s efforts to raise awareness are admirable” BUT also that  “Each of these deaths is a tragedy. But it helps no one to pretend that suicide is typical male behavior.”

“4. Make clear that most boys are psychologically sound and resilient

 The Mask You Live In gives the impression that the average adolescent boy is severely depressed. In fact, clinical depression is rare among boys. (National Institute of Mental Health data show that the prevalence of depression among among 13- to 17-year-old boys is 4.3%; among girls of the same age group, it is 12.4%.)

Newsom’s film reports that every day in the U.S. three or more boys take their own lives. Suicide is, indeed, primarily a male disease. Among 10- to 24-year-olds, 81% of suicide victims are male. In 2010, a total of 3,951 young men died by their own hands. Male suicide is a much neglected scourge, and Newsom’s efforts to raise awareness are admirable. Still, in a nation of nearly 33 million boys, that means that the percentage of boys who commit suicide is close to 0.01%. Each of these deaths is a tragedy. But it helps no one to pretend that suicide is typical male behavior.”

 So, let me see if I have this right? Boys are NOT suffering from clinical depression, because MORE girls, almost three times as more get diagnosed with REAL clinical depression – yet MORE boys than girls actually take their own lives – but not because they are as depressed as girls?

What am I missing here? Oh yeah – when girls are depressed its REAL depression, but when boys are depressed it’s………? Because obviously with nearly “33 million boys” What difference does it make if 0.01% of them take their own lives, plenty more to spare. It’s the percentages that matter, NOT the actual real human beings – because after all, it’s just a FEW BOYS! I’ll be honest, that almost made me puke in disgust.

 Hoff Sommers next suggestion made me spray my coffee out all over my computer screen – she lauds the efforts in Australia to improve men’s “mental fitness” because of a report in the Medical Journal of Australia in 2006.

“Some of the most promising, innovative ideas are coming out of Australia. In 2006, a report in the Medical Journal of Australia argued for a paradigm shift in the nation’s mental-health system. Rather than blaming “masculinity” or trying to “re-educate” men away from their reluctance to seek help, the author asks, “Why not provide health services that better meet the needs of men?”

 I’m just going to leave the link to Janet Bloomfield’s (aka Judgybitch) brilliant article on the issue of Male Health Studies in Australia here and this link here, and say just one thing to Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers.

 What fucking planet, what parallel universe have you been living in since………being the poster girl for cool and trendy nice feminists, way back, when sitting on the fence was much more comfortable than it is now?

 You cite some report from 2006, from almost eight years ago, without actually providing a link to said report, yet seem oblivious to events of recent days regarding the FIRST attempt to offer a Male Studies course – that IS actually about Male Health in Australia?

 Here’s what I think – that Christina Hoff Sommers sees an opportunity to jump on the bandwagon of feminism 4.0 via two avenues, first by re-issuing her book – with a new suitably sanitised tag line under the title, that takes the heat OFF feminism, and two, by offering a half baked apologia/endorsement/half fat approval, for this execrable toxic little film that is a vehicle for a repackaged, rebranded, renewed, boy friendly feminism.

 The message is the same – men and boys bad – girls and women good – it’s still FEMINISM – it just got itself a makeover, has quietly nudged the screechy ranty bad feminists back into the shadows, or up into the attic and is now doing the fluffy feminist two step.

 Bullshit.

© Anja Eriud 2014

 

 

NB. I wrote this article yesterday, but held off posting it last night, because as I read the comments on AVfM on this article – with almost no exceptions the comments were all rather gushing in praise of Hoff Sommers.  So I slept on it – thinking – am I just imaging this? That this article is a thinly disguised apologia FOR feminism? That this article is a sloppy, poorly researched, lazy, knocked it off in an hour piece of pro feminist bullshit?  That Hoff Sommers is skating by on past glories?

Now to be fair to Hoff Sommers, her book The War against Boys was groundbreaking and rightly deserves kudos, but that was then, this is now. What I did notice about the comments as well, was that with the exception of a few minor “issues” pointed out in the actual BODY of her article – no- one directly critiqued it. No-one took this article point by point and examined it very closely. There was a lot of tippy toeing around, a few vague references to a few vague, as I said “issues” but overall it was a love fest – Christina Hoff Sommers was so cool, was so brilliant and the MHRM was sooooooooo lucky to have her!

 

Added this Morning: What is written above is my honest to God opinion – I stand by every word of it – should anyone wish to “take me to task” for taking swipes at the untouchable Christina Hoff Sommers – go ahead – I won’t stand in your way – won’t close comments, censor you or bar you from commenting, obviously if you decide you post poisonous ranty illiterate diatribes I might use my discretion – it is MY blog after all – otherwise nope.

 What I will point out is that A Voice for Men has my full 100% support, now and always, without AVfM and Paul Elam’s vision and persistence the MHRM would probably still be in the doldrums, still languishing in dark corners of the internet, and feminism would have won – Men’s Human Rights would probably be fast becoming a distant memory.

 Anja

 

Old W[h]ines, Fancy New Bottles.

 

 I hate when people try to pull the wool over my eyes, really, hate it, especially when it is some well-meaning and sincere “concerned” person who wants to piss on my back and then expects me to believe that it is raining.

Perhaps more than that, I have no time for those who rush headlong into promoting something that according to them is in essence a “step in the right direction” yet fail to do the one thing that might convince me that these steps are indeed IN the right direction. Their bloody homework!

So, it is with a certain degree of reluctance that I feel I must take Dr. Christina Hoff Sommers to task, for this article on AVfM.  Now before I do, I have to say of the few feminists I can tolerate, Hoff Sommers is on that “can count them on the fingers of one hand” group, hence the reluctance.

Moving on, I have been wondering, pondering even on what form the PR campaign for feminism 4.0 would take, how “they” would package it? So, I watched the trailer of The Mask You Live In, and two things jumped right out at me, first, Michael Kimmel popping up as the token male (feminist) representative, and the less than subtle subliminal message embedded into this little PR stunt for feminism 4.0 – the new caring sharing, we really, really do want to “help boys” feminism 4.0.

So, first off,  let’s just plant something into the minds of those watching by showing images of boys holding pieces of paper with the word “anger” written on them! Because boys = anger? Duh!

As for Kimmel, Kimmel is a patsy, he is the useful male idiot reading from the script his feminist mistresses have pre-approved, a flim flam artist, a sycophant, ass kisser, and his “Guy Code”, the one Hoff Sommers mentions a few times? There might be a male (or nice female feminist person) person mouthing the words, but there’s some rancid feminist harridan with her hand up his/her  backside making his/her  mouth work.

This is a slick and shiny plausible PR stunt, a definite improvement on a certain scarlet haired wretch warbling “Cry me a River” – but – a PR stunt all the same. The purpose of which is to “road test” the roll out of feminism 4.0.

I have some knowledge, at a remove, of how the film industry works – here’s the bottom line – he or she who pays the piper, gets to pick the tune, the music, the orchestra, and the song. Artistic integrity, or individual “vision” be damned. Ppppft.

So, in that vein, I followed the money. Obviously my first port of call was the organisation behind this little boy friendly movie, The Representation Project. Here is what they say about themselves

From About Us – Our History.

“As an organization, The Representation Project remains true to the message of Miss Representation that limiting stereotypes harm all of us and that women deserve a seat at the table. We take that commitment forward with us, as we tackle the biases that impact our larger society.”

They are also into “education

From Resources and Education – Curriculum

“Miss Representation’s Curriculum gives media literacy a much needed gender focus. The curriculum asks girls and boys alike to think about the effects of the images they see—particularly the ways media affects women and girls’ ability to see themselves as leaders and be seen as leaders by others in society.”

Just in case you missed the core mission of The Representation Project, it is reiterated further down in their little vignette about how they go about “education”

“Think critically about how stereotypes of femininity and masculinity limit girls and boys. Examine the impact media has on a woman’s ability to see herself as a leader and obtain a leadership position.”

 What I’d like you to note in this altruistic little statement is that the goal is for women to “OBTAIN a leadership position” NOT earn, NOT be qualified for, NOT work for – OBTAIN – as a right – because she is a woman.

Do the words, “horse” and “mouth” ring any bells?

Something else about this now, “concerned about boys” organisation to be noted – WHERE does their money come from? Glad you asked, they have Founders and Donors. Who they thank very graciously for their support in giving them the means to peddle – oops – sorry – present this “concerned about boys” little film.

“Founders and Donors – About Us

We are particularly grateful to the donor leaders of our Founders Circle for their generous multi-year support of our continued success.”

Ah, that’s nice, good manners are always welcome – but, let’s just take a closer look at these generous patrons, shall we. The first two on the list are “anonymous” hmmmm, and for the purposes of this article I will only take the top three to have an in depth look at. Shall we begin?

Founder’s Circle

Anonymous

Anonymous “

Next up on the list is Susie Tomkins Buell, Susie has a Foundation, and :

Their front page slogan is –

“Empowering, educating and promoting leadership among women and girls.”

Hmmm, ok do I need my eyes tested? Anyone spot the word “boys” there? Anyone?

Maybe it’s on their Mission Statement?

Foundation Mission

 “The Foundation has two aims:

 To support women in reaching their full potential in public service, especially in the political arena.

 To inspire activism about our planet’s environmental crisis, especially among youth and women.”

Well! I’m shocked, nothing about boys there either, how about what they say about why they/Susie “sponsored” this film.

“Miss Representation is the award-winning documentary film that exposes how mainstream media contributes to the underrepresentation of women in positions of power and influence in America.

The new documentary film, The Mask You Live In, asks: as a society, how are we failing our boys? The film will examine how gender stereotypes are interconnected with race, class, and circumstance, and how kids are further influenced by the education system, sports culture, and mass media- video games and pornography in particular. The film also highlights the importance of placing emphasis on the social and emotional needs of boys through healthy family communication, alternative teaching strategies, conscious media consumption, positive role modeling and innovative mentorship programs. The goal of this film is to spark a national conversation around masculinity and ultimately create a more balanced, equitable society for all.”

Well, masculinity gets a mention, but, only in the context that there is something wrong with masculinity that needs to be fixed – by feminist filmmakers and organisations dedicated to the “empowerment” of women and girls?. By having complete twats like Kimmel endorse this new fuzzy warm and cuddly feminism 4.0

Maybe the next “Founder and Donor” sees boys as inherently good, as small human beings that just happen to be male, and that it is society, and societal attitudes towards boys that needs to change?

She is called Abigail E. Disney

“Full Biography

Abigail Disney is a filmmaker, philanthropist and activist based in New York City.  Her longtime passion for women’s issues and peacebuilding culminated in her first film Pray the Devil Back to Hell.  Abigail created the groundbreaking PBS mini-series Women, War & Peace, the most comprehensive global media initiative ever mounted on the role of women in peace and conflict.  She has played a role in many film projects and is currently at work on a film highlighting the key role of women in the Arab Awakening.  She founded the Daphne Foundation, Peace is Loud and co-founded, along with 2011 Nobel Peace Prize winner Leymah Gbowee, the Gbowee Peace Foundation USA.

There is one other thing – Regular contributor – Huffington Post.”

Say no more.

Abigail seems to have one overriding theme in her “work” doesn’t she?  Women!

What about the next Founder and Donor, that would be one Linda Gruber.

Linda is another person who has a particular focus, in her work – just like Susie and Abigail, and that focus is. Women, through the good offices of the Global Fund for Women.

Just what is this Global Fund for Women? – Well here is their Mission and History statement.

“Mission & History

Our Mission

 We advance the rights of women and girls worldwide by increasing the resources for and investing in women-led organizations and women’s collective leadership for change.

 Our Vision

 We envision a just, equitable and sustainable world in which women and girls have resources, voice, choice and opportunities to realize their human rights.”

What is Linda’s role in this Global Organisation for Women?

“Linda Gruber, Secretary United States

Linda Gruber is a long-time community volunteer and president of the Gruber Family Foundation which funds in the areas of education, progressive media, the arts and women’s issues, including reproductive rights. She also serves on the boards of the San Francisco Museum of Art and Planned Parenthood Federation of America.”

The ones I looked at here are not some fly by night temporary organisations, they have clout, influence and………power, political power. So, we’re talking about some heavy hitters here.

Here are the rest of the Founders and Donors of The Representation Organisation.

 Maureen Pelton and Charles Hartwell

The Eagle and The Hawk Foundation

JaMel Perkins

Lisa and John Pritzker

Amy Rao

Sarah Johnson Redlich

Regina K. Scully

Pheobe Snow Foundation

NoVo Foundation

 Getting back briefly to Hoff Sommers article, this quote illustrates the sloppy thinking that well-meaning but deluded “nice feminists” either display or exhibit when it comes to assessing whether something is or isn’t a step in the right direction.

“I admire Newsom for using her considerable talent to advocate for boys. But I worry that she is less concerned with helping boys than with re-engineering their masculinity according to specifications from some out-of-date gender-studies textbook

Sigh – it’s a shiny new “text-book” same toxic feminist shoite, but with a new super cool cover and better PR,

Maybe it’s some naive but sincere belief that feminism can rehabilitated, or that feminism was once good, was corrupted but can be good again?

I honestly don’t understand why people like Hoff Sommers pine for some mystical good feminism – that NEVER was, never will be, cannot be a good feminism. So, welcoming someone like Newsome as an “advocate for boys” is at best naive, at worst, complicit in perpetuating the toxic and corrosive ideology of ALL feminisms.

Unlike Hoff Sommers, I don’t worry about people like Newsome, not in the sense she does, I worry that people will fall for this bullshit, that this slick pseudo “concern for boys” will lull people into a false sense of “all is well, all is well, the nice feminists are on the case”

By the way, no need to thank me for doing your homework, but you can drop your lunch money on my desk every day before recess for…………..let’s say a week.

Cheers.

Anja.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

 

 

The Myth of Womanhood ™

 

Women have some serious fundamental problems,  with….well being women, and it has all to do with the cult of The Myth of Womanhood.™ Collectively known as feminism.

And progress. Technological, cultural, legal, and societal changes that have accelerated exponentially since the dawn of the industrial age.

And knowledge. In essence, almost universal education and the growing availability of information at the click of mouse.

In order to sustain a myth one needs a culture of ignorance and a means to control those who would question that myth – a bit like the child in the fairy tale who exclaimed “the emperor has no clothes!”.  One small lone voice in a sea of silenced and, coerced into submissive acceptance, voices.

One also needs one other thing in order to sustain a myth, a willingness on the part of others to believe this myth.

Perhaps the most well known of people in history who have suffered as a result of questioning  a myth, or in this case a religious belief has been Galileo Galilei 15 February 1564 – 8 January 1642, generally just known as Galileo, and referred to as the father of Modern science.

He challenged a myth/belief, not out of a sense of wanting to be “ornery” but because he discovered that the myth/belief was untrue. So, in a desire to correct an error of belief he shared what he had discovered. This is what happened to him.

“Galileo was found “vehemently suspect of heresy“, namely of having held the opinions that the Sun lies motionless at the centre of the universe, that the Earth is not at its centre and moves, and that one may hold and defend an opinion as probable after it has been declared contrary to Holy Scripture. He was required to “abjure, curse and detest” those opinions.

 He was sentenced to formal imprisonment at the pleasure of the Inquisition. On the following day this was commuted to house arrest, which he remained under for the rest of his life.

 His offending Dialogue was banned; and in an action not announced at the trial, publication of any of his works was forbidden, including any he might write in the future.”

You will note that Galileo lived a long long time ago. Centuries passed, centuries in which everything that Galileo had said was proved to be true, in fact universally accepted by everyone, not just in the scientific community but in the wider world, one would have thought then, that those, the keepers of the original myth/belief would have conceded the truth he discovered, and made things right? Apologised profusely and redeemed Galileo unequivocally?

Alas, those who proclaim themselves the keepers of myths are not so gracious.

“On 15 February 1990, in a speech delivered at the Sapienza University of Rome, Cardinal Ratzinger (later to become Pope Benedict XVI)

“The Church at the time of Galileo kept much more closely to reason than did Galileo himself, and she took into consideration the ethical and social consequences of Galileo’s teaching too. Her verdict against Galileo was rational and just and the revision of this verdict can be justified only on the grounds of what is politically opportune.”

“It would be foolish to construct an impulsive apologetic on the basis of such views.

Another keeper of the myth went just a tad further a couple of years later – but just a tad.

“On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, and issued a declaration acknowledging the errors committed by the Catholic Church tribunal that judged the scientific positions of Galileo Galilei…………………….A month later, however, the head of the Pontifical Council for Culture, Gianfranco Ravasi, revealed that the plan to erect a statue of Galileo in the grounds of the Vatican had been suspended.”

This is all very well and good I hear you thinking, but what has this to do with feminism and the Myth of Womanhood? ™

It illustrates perfectly what feminists believe that their ideology is – an unassailable and almost spiritual belief – in fact a religion – but even more than just a religion, a religion that takes its cue from the dogmatic, infallible and unquestionable doctrines of the 17th century Roman Catholic Church. Anyone who does question, does present evidence of the falsity of its beliefs is, just like Galileo was, be “vehemently suspect of heresy“, and there will be calls and demands and efforts expended to induce those heretics to “abjure, curse and detest” those opinions.

What Galileo proposed was called heliocentrism, and rejected what was known as geocentrism, (remarkable similar to the word gynocentrism, isn’t it?)

“Galileo’s championing of heliocentrism was controversial within his lifetime, when most subscribed to either geocentrism or the Tychonic system.”

For simplicity’s sake, Geocentrism is the belief that the earth is the cosmic centre of the universe, and heliocentrism is that it isn’t, rather one celestial body in a universe of celestial bodies

“The astronomical predictions of Ptolemy’s geocentric model were used to prepare astrological charts for over 1500 years. The geocentric model held sway into the early modern age, but from the late 16th century onward was gradually superseded by the heliocentric model of Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler. However, the transition between these two theories met much resistance, not only from Christian theologians, who were reluctant to reject a theory that was in agreement with Bible passages (e.g. “Sun, stand you still upon Gibeon”, Joshua 10:12 – King James 2000 Bible), but also from those who saw geocentrism as an accepted consensus that could not be subverted by a new, unknown theory.”

The Myth of Womanhood ™ is the geocentrism of the modern age, we just need to change one letter, the “e” to a “y” and add a letter, an “n” and we have Gynocentrism, and just as in the passage above, one doesn’t actually need to be a fully paid up member of the cult of The Myth of Womanhood ™ to be a believer, one just has to believe in the myth– while the original tyrannical defenders of geocentrism were Christians, our modern feminists, in fact all cults, all systems of belief based on unfounded assertions, need their useful idiots, their blindly following acolytes, in the cult of The Myth of Womanhood ™ these are just called……..women. There is a dedicated band of male followers, but these are merely those men who accept their lesser status in the human universe. Because you see, the core belief of the cult of The Myth of Womanhood states that.

Women are the centre of the Human Universe – around which all other human beings orbit.

Just as in the 19th century, despite growing knowledge, despite technological advances to further the acquisition of human knowledge, despite the increasing availability and access to human knowledge via education for more and more people– the cult of, The Myth of Womanhood ™ has persisted, has been assiduously cultivated and propagated. By women.

One can reject belief in a God that one cannot see, or prove the existence of, but when one has millions of putative Goddesses (all women) right there in front of you, doing what our naked emperor did in the fairytale I mentioned – exerting coercive methods, either passively or aggressively to ensure your acquiescence in what is patently untrue – it is difficult to be that lone small voice shouting out from the crowd.

“The emperor has no clothes”

I coined the phrase The Myth of Womanhood ™ as the title to a larger piece of work – a historical work – that will look back at the origins, perpetuation, entrenchment and finally demise of a belief system, a cult that infected the race of humans in varying degrees over a long period of time. It is almost time to write the last chapters, because persistent though it was and is – the cult of, The Myth of Womanhood is dying, it is in its final death throes.

Because you see, rather than there being one small childlike voice shouting from the crowd that the “emperor has no clothes”, though in this case, it should be “empresses” – there is a chorus of voices, a veritable full choir of voices, all saying in harmony.

“The empress has no clothes”

It is those who persist in clinging tenaciously to their belief in this cult of, The Myth of Womanhood ™ who are being drowned out, and whose “leaders” are making fools of themselves, laughing stocks of themselves – because they still believe that……………the earth is the centre of the known universe.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

Say Hello to your Gender Fairy…Godmothers.

 

According to feminism, and feminists of all stripes women – all women – are forced into gender roles, not only that, this nefarious patriarchal plot has been going on for ever.

Don’t know about anybody else, but the gender fairy didn’t fly into my room every morning, drop my gender script for that day’s performance of my “role” on my head, and fly out again.

There were no lines to learn, no costumes to wear, no character to “get into to” in fact I’m sure my parents and everybody’s else’s parents would’ve noticed fairies flying in every morning and dropping gender scripts on their children’s heads!

I say children, because apparently it is as children we “learn, or are forced to learn” our gender roles – presumably as we grow up, we have the lines and character down pat, and have played our part so many times that it becomes second nature to us.

But but but……feminists will protest, it is society that forces people – and when feminists say people, they mean women – into gender roles. Men are “not people” they are oppressors, patriarchal bastards and all round bad eggs, so they get to be the part of society that imposes these gender roles.

Hmmmm, is that so? Well I’m “people” ergo part of society, some of my family and friends are “people” though a majority are of the “not people” category, but nonetheless, therefore also part of society – and nope – never once in my entire life has any one of these “not people” – men, forced me to play some scripted gender role.

Actually, quite the reverse, when it came to either saying directly or by insinuation that there was a right way and a wrong way to “be a girl” it was invariably females. Any attempted oppression or threat of social disapproval for stepping outside the “girl” role came without exception, from other females.

Which brings on to another aspect of acting out a role – or being forced to act out a role – there is always a script – someone has to write the script for these roles. Now who could that be?

Who have always been, throughout history the ones who spent the vast majority of their time worrying about, writing about, setting down the rules, and dictating what is or isn’t proper behaviour for “men” and “women”?  It should be noted that some men did write about proper behaviour, but curiously mostly confined themselves to the behaviour of men or of men towards women.

“The basis of good manners is self-reliance. Necessity is the law of all who are not self-possessed. Those who are not self-possessed, obtrude, and pain us. Some men appear to feel that they belong to a Pariah caste.

They fear to offend, they bend and apologize, and walk through life with a timid step. As we sometimes dream that we are in a well-dressed company without any coat, so Godfrey acts ever as if he suffered from some mortifying circumstance.

The hero should find himself at home, wherever he is: should impart comfort by his own security and good-nature to all beholders. The hero is suffered to be himself. A person of strong mind comes to perceive that for him an immunity is secured so long as he renders to society that service which is native and proper to him, — an immunity from all the observances, yea, and duties, which society so tyrannically imposes on the rank and file of its members.

“Euripides,” says Aspasia, “has not the fine manners of Sophocles; but,” — she adds good-humoredly, “the movers and masters of our souls have surely a right to throw out their limbs as carelessly as they please, on the world that belongs to them, and before the creatures they have animated.” (*)

(*) Landor: Pericles and Aspasia.”

From: The Conduct of Life.  V: Behavior  (1860, rev. 1876) by Ralph Waldo Emerson.

Interestingly Ralph Waldo Emerson talks of “…..observances, yea, and duties, which society so tyrannically imposes on the rank and file of its members…” the question to be asked though is, WHO imposes these “observances” and “duties” on the members of society? WHO has always dictated the proper behaviour for men and women – in essence WHO wrote the script (s) for these gender roles that apparently only women are, or were ever, forced to play?

Let’s just take a look at perhaps the most famous of all experts on etiquette,  Emily Post 1873–1960. Etiquette being just an old-fashioned way of describing how people should behave – i.e. – play out their gender roles.

Now Mrs Post was writing at a time when the expectation was that people got married – though in a previous post (See: Forsooth! Oh Save me Oh gallant Knight) not all men were inclined to do so, and one Mrs Charlotte Smith had some harsh words for those reluctant “patriarchs”. For those who did get married the inimitable Mrs Post had some wise words for new bride.

From:  Etiquette.  1922.  Chapter IX.  One’s Position in the Community.

“A bride whose family or family-in-law has social position has merely to take that which is hers by inheritance; but a stranger who comes to live in a new place, or one who has always lived in a community but unknown to society, have both to acquire a standing of their own. For example: “

Now that she has established that a new bride’s social position is not based on any merit, or on any skill, but simply on the circumstances of her birth, she continues to set the stage for civilised behaviour in a civilised society. 

THE BRIDE OF GOOD FAMILY

The bride of good family need do nothing on her own initiative. After her marriage when she settles down in her own house or apartment, everyone who was asked to her wedding breakfast or reception, and even many who were only bidden to the church, call on her. She keeps their cards, enters them in a visiting or ordinary alphabetically indexed blank book, and within two weeks she returns each one of their calls.” 

What this is saying is that our new bride merely waits for others to “pay their respects” to her – on the sole basis that she got married. There is no onus on her to make any real effort to go out and forge her own way. 

  “As it is etiquette for everyone when calling for the first time on a bride, to ask if she is in, the bride, in returning her first calls, should do likewise.

As a matter of fact, a bride assumes the intimate visiting list of both her own and her husband’s families, whether they call on her or not. By and by, if she gives a general tea or ball, she can invite whom, among them, she wants to.

She should not, however, ask any mere acquaintances of her family to her house, until they have first invited her and her husband to theirs. But if she would like to invite intimate friends of her own or of her husband, or of her family, there is no valid reason why she should not do so.

This is the most interesting passage, because it is here that we see exactly who controls “society” who dictates who is or isn’t worthy of being included in civilised society. Remember we are talking about a time when people entertained in one another’s homes – when being invited or not invited was the mark of acceptance or rejection – by – Society.

Lo and behold, as soon as our bride gets that ring on her finger, is SHE who assumes control of the only social outlet available at that time.

“As a matter of fact, a bride assumes the intimate visiting list of both her own and her husband’s families, whether they call on her or not. By and by, if she gives a general tea or ball, she can invite whom, among them, she wants to.”

If we travel a little further forwards in time we see that it was always women who dictated the proper behaviour for both men and women;

From: 177.9 A425-1 (1950) Behave Yourself! Etiquette for American Youth by Betty Allen

“[Women] aren’t supposed to know how much dinner-for-two comes to or how generous your escort tips. So don’t look very interested when the waiter brings the check. It’s his privilege to scan the figures on the bill before paying it. During this little episode you could perhaps be gazing out the window or looking for an imaginary something in your handbag.”

Mind Your Manners by Betty Allen

And this little snippet from 177.9 E77 (1953) Esquire Etiquette

“Hold all doors for her, just as if she hadn’t a muscle in her body.”

Even the most cursory delve into the area of etiquette, and what is or isn’t proper behaviour – or if you prefer – the correct way to play your gender role, will show that it is and always has been women who have dictated the parameters of these oppressive (to women) gender roles:

 Other notable 20th century etiquette experts included:

 — Amy Vanderbilt (1908-1974), a New York City native, newspaper reporter and public relations consultant, who published “Amy Vanderbilt’s Complete Book of Etiquette” in 1952. She also hosted television and radio programs on good manners. Vanderbilt — a distant relative of the famed Cornelius Vanderbilt family who did not share in their wealth – was regarded as a successor to Emily Post, and her books, like Post’s, have been updated numerous times.

 — Letitia Baldridge (born 1925), daughter of a Congressman and sister of a Reagan Cabinet official, served as First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy’s White House social secretary from 1961 to 1963. She wrote two Amy Vanderbilt etiquette books in the late 1970s (after Vanderbilt’s death) before branching out on her own in the 1980s.

 — Judith Martin (born 1938), author of the “Miss Manners” syndicated advice column. Martin’s columns and books – with titles such as “Miss Manners’ Guide to Excruciatingly Correct Behavior” and “Miss Manners’ Guide to Rearing Perfect Children” – are known for their wit and humor.

 — Marjabelle Young Stewart (1924-2007), an Iowa native who learned good manners from the staff of an orphanage she lived in for several years after her parents divorced. As an adult, she became a professional model and sponsored charm school classes for all ages. Her annual list of America’s “best mannered” cities frequently cited Charleston, S.C., Savannah, Ga., and – surprisingly — New York City.

 Baldridge, Martin and Stewart all lived or worked in Washington, D.C. and were part of its social scene during their careers. Baldridge and Martin still live in D.C., while Stewart spent her later years in Kewanee, Ill. after marrying her second husband.

 

So, feminists – what was that you were saying, about how men imposed oppressive gender roles on women?

 

On Being a Non Feminist

 

 From the perspective of the Right to: Freedom of Speech, Thought, Conscience and Belief……

 

I’ve heard it said more times than I can recall and read  innumerable times on various sites, blogs, articles and essays, that THIS is one of the most basic fundamental Human Rights – and I agree – it is.

Most people interpret this to mean that they get to say, think and believe whatever they damn well like, and anyone who attempts to suppress them exercising this most basic of fundamental Human Rights is pond scum.

But, this is not the real test of your personal endorsement of this Right, nor is it an indication of how you personally stand on higher moral ground as opposed to others, because of the fact that you believe anyone who attempts to suppress YOUR Right to Free Speech is pond scum, that is.

No, what truly indicates that you personally are a stalwart and immovable proponent of what I will just call Freedom of Speech, for convenience,  is your commitment, your endorsement, your 100% support of ANOTHERS Right to say, think and believe things that are in direct opposition, in complete conflict with, and are anathema to YOU.

Even feminists, even those who hold religious beliefs while you are an Atheist and/or Agnostic or vice versa, even those who express the most abhorrent (to you) opinions – what truly marks you as a genuine believer in the concept of Freedom of Speech is not just a grudging willingness to concede “they have a right to their opinion/belief” but a deep and unwavering stance that THEY have the Right (in capitals) to do so, just like YOU have the Right to hold yours.

The other aspect of being a true proponent of Freedom of Speech is an ability to depersonalise the person from the opinion or belief – and yes I am aware that there are those both historically and at this present time, who hold and have held the most egregious beliefs, the most abhorrent opinions, and have acted on those beliefs and opinions, and which caused terrible acts of inhumanity, which precipitated horrors of genocide and cruelty.  These people rightly deserve universal condemnation, without exception, and all those who acted in equally abhorrent ways because they “believed” in the veracity and “rightness” of the “opinions” and “beliefs” of these dictators, tyrants and murderous “leaders” also deserve the most adamant condemnation.

But, this is where the nuances come in – even these tyrants were entitled by right to hold these abhorrent opinions, they were and are wrong, and when they acted on those beliefs, they committed grave wrongs against humanity – but they were entitled, by right to BELIEVE whatever it was they believed.

So, when I say that the test for a genuine commitment to Freedom of Speech involves an ability to depersonalise the belief/opinion from the person what I mean is that one separates an opinion or belief NOT acted upon in a way that causes actual physical harm to another human being, or caused actual physical harm to be done – in your name – to another human being.

Also, when I say actual physical harm, I also include laws enacted that impose sanctions or restrictions or punishments unjustly upon others because of some characteristic that is inherent to them. Acts of individual social and cultural harm, acts that are designed to demonise or propagate permissions to treat other individuals in negative ways.

Feminism does that, feminism spreads and propagandise lies, misrepresentations and false information about men and boys – but – feminists – have the right to express those sometimes ridiculous and nearly always designed to BE harmful, opinions and beliefs should they be acted upon deserve all the condemnation and universal approbation that comes their way.

The question for others is this? Having heard, having listened, or read these opinions or beliefs – what will YOU do? How will YOU act?

Accept or reject? THAT is your Right. Whether you are an individual or a politician with the authority to enact legislation based on the beliefs or opinions of feminist – you have to choose – to accept or reject. Sometimes choosing to do nothing is as harmful as to choose to do something.

In many ways it is as simple as that, to say – “I hear or I read what you have written or said and I reject it” – and therefore CHOOSE not to act in ways informed by those beliefs or opinions that endorses, codifies or imposes laws, sanctions or punishments on others who choose also NOT to accept your opinion or belief about “how things should be”.  Choose not to act in ways that harms other individuals because I choose to believe and/or accept the opinions/beliefs of others that endorses and validates these harmful acts.

So, while accepting that even the misinformed, the perpetually stupid, the completely “off the reservation” have the Right to hold whatever opinion/belief they wish, you also the Right to say – thank you for sharing your opinion – now please go away. (or, words to that effect)

This encompasses the final element of passing the test for being truly committed to principles of Freedom of Speech, Thought and Belief – being willing to accept, to acknowledge and to endorse the rights of others to not just reject YOUR opinion/belief but that THEY have the Right to do so – unconditionally and to NOT act in ways informed by YOUR opinions/beliefs.

You cannot, you must not, you shall not expect, demand or attempt to coerce OTHERS to – believe what you believe, think what you think or ACT in ways informed by YOUR beliefs/opinions that conflicts with their right to act as THEIR conscience dictates. To do so, to expect so and to demand so is to be a tyrant, a dictator and an enemy of Freedom of Speech, Thought, Conscience and Belief.

What overlays all these elements that comprise the concept of Freedom of Speech, is an overarching belief and willingness to extend without conditions – The Right to Reply.

So, I’m not “anti-feminist” because feminists are people, individuals, and therefore have the right to believe whatever they like or choose to. You can believe that the moon is made of green cheese if you like and for all I care – but you do not have the right to demand that I do also.

I am a non feminist – in that I CHOOSE to reject in its entirety the ideology, belief system, doctrine, whatever one chooses, called FEMINISM, but absolutely, unconditionally and without hesitation endorse an individual persons right to not just believe in the tenets of “feminism” but to call themselves “feminists” and I will exercise MY Right to criticise, to condemn, to reject and to  basically take the piss out of ANY belief or opinion you, as a feminist EXPRESS whether verbally or written that is informed by the tenets OF feminism.

And if you truly are a proponent of Freedom of Speech – you will take it – you will do the only honourable thing, the only moral or ethical thing – answer mine or anyone else’s criticisms with counter arguments, with EVIDENCE that gives validity to YOUR opinions/beliefs and perhaps might convince me to CHANGE my opinions, and extend to others the same opportunity.

Though I should warn you – if no-one has presented an argument over the last 25 years and more, to recruit me personally to the “feminist” cause – I wouldn’t hold your breath if I was you. But, you are more than welcome to try.

Alternatively, you could do what HuffPo did to Mike Buchanan of J4MB, when he attempted to get a post published on their blog, show the entire world an almost perfect example of how those who have no idea what Freedom of Speech means – how to act to suppress, to deny, to violate and disregard the very principles that underpin this most important, sacred and  essential of Human Rights, for civilised Human Societies.

 

Freedom of Speech, Thought, Conscience and Belief……

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

 

 

 

 

 

Because We Are Women.

 

Women – not just feminists – though for the purposes of this essay we’ll get back to that “extra-special” category of women known as feminists a bit further down – where was I?

Ah yes, women, spend an awful lot of time thinking about, talking about, and writing about what they deserve. Great jobs or “careers” as we must now call them – job is just so pedestrian, great homes, great clothes, great bodies, and on and on and on – all these great things, that women believe, not feel, but believe they deserve.

There are some other things that an awful lot of women believe they deserve – great husbands or partners, and children, but not just any type of child or children, great children, whenever they decide to have them and at a time that suits them.

The last category of things that women believe they deserve, are respect, consideration, loyalty, and universal endorsement for anything they do.

Now if I was writing this for a woman’s magazine or website dedicated to all things females my readers would be nodding their heads, perhaps being overcome with a bit of emotion, or if there were more than two or three of them, the remarks would be something like this; –

“Oh, that is soooooooo true, every word of that just says perfectly what every woman deserves, she really really understands what women are about – we do, we really DO deserve all those things.”

There might even then ensue a discussion about how short-changed our putative reader and her gal pals are, how life is soooooooooooo unfair, how they weep into their pillows at night, about how the things that they deserve are just not manifesting themselves. On schedule.

Let’s just call our imaginary gal pals Susie, Megan and Lauren, shall we?  

On one level, Susie, Megan and Lauren would be right, that women believe they deserve all of things I mentioned; they genuinely believe that they deserve EVERYTHING on the list.

But, they would be WRONG – they don’t – deserve ANYTHING on that list, they could work for them, strive for them, even in some instances make themselves worthy to have some of those things, but they absolutely do NOT deserve any of them.

Shocking isn’t it? Well Susie, Megan and Lauren are shocked now, aghast, maybe even getting a bit snarky, a tad grouchy – they are looking at one another, wide eyed, puzzled and getting ready to get the claws out and bitch slap me back into line. If I was standing in front of them they’d be scanning me for flaws, for weaknesses, for something that they could use as a weapon to hurt me with, undermine my sense of “self-worth” and shake my confidence in myself – AS A WOMAN!

Am I a bit overweight? Nope – not really, and anyway I don’t care. Am I, what my mother diplomatically used to call “a bit plain”? Apparently not, according to independent sources – and nope, again I don’t care. Am I childless? Nope. Unloved? Nope. Touchy about some aspect of my physical appearance at all? Nope.

You may have noticed that all of the examples I gave as potential weapons were based on some external factor, apart from the “childless” one, though unless I can claim several miraculous conceptions then I obviously didn’t achieve that on my own.

Susie, Megan and Lauren met in college, and became fast friends – of the “friends forever” type.

Susie eventually ended up as an administrative assistant to some higher level executive in some vast multinational company, one of many higher level executives in this monolithic company. She dated Brad in college and when they both graduated, they got married about 2 years after college, they both come from traditional families, and getting married has always been one of Susie’s life goals. No kids, yet, because they’re building their careers. They’re going to start trying next year, when Susie is 30 – it’s the last item on the Life Goals list. Susie’s. Life. Goals. List.

Megan, works for a Women’s Charity – that helps women start their own business, not married, not dating anyone, thinking about getting herself some of that donor sperm next year – when she’s 30, before it’s too late, and IVF is so expensive.

Lauren is the high achiever – works in a small but prestigious law firm, mostly real estate and wills, has her eye on a corner office, gives talks at her feminist group  “Empowering Women with the Law” – belongs to another feminist group that does pro bono (she got that out of her law firm by threatening to sue them) for women accused of assaulting their husbands or partners, and women accused of neglecting or abusing their kids. Not interested in having kids – yet – plenty of time – anyway – she has her eye on the senior partner, wife passed away some years ago and….he has a house in Tuscany, Lauren loves all things Italian

They ALL believe that they deserve ALL of the things I mentioned in the first part, not want, not are prepared to work for, not even things they would be willing to sacrifice anything for – nope – they DESERVE them.

The reason they believe they DESERVE any and all these things?

Because they are WOMEN.

Time to mention the feminists. All of our gal pals took some women’s studies classes in college, and they were told that as women, they DESERVED anything and everything their little ole hearts desired, without working for it really, because as women, they join a long line of other women who have historically been deprived of all those things.  They were also told that nothing they did was ever wrong, or their fault, because they live in a world where men dominate them, oppress them and stand in the way of their empowerment. That life was a constant struggle, as women, to be heard, to be taken seriously, to be allowed to reach their potential.

Oddly at the same time, they were told they could DO anything, BE anything, HAVE anything they wanted, in fact they DESERVED all this, as payback for the terrible things done to woman since Adam was a boy, the most important thing they took away with them into their “adult” lives was this, in direct opposition to the first part, that each and every one of them was a special and unique creature of incomparable beauty, ability, intelligence and accomplishment. In fact, that were awesome.

Because they were WOMEN.

Let’s catch up on our gal pals shall we?

Susie is unhappy, she doesn’t really know why, she knows that Megan and Lauren thought she was mad to get married straight out of college, and are always putting Brad down, she does too, Brad doesn’t seem to have any ambition, or not the kind Susie thinks he should have – he likes being outdoors, and has his own landscaping company, which he inherited from his father, and works with his two brothers.  She hates her job, in her heart of hearts she knows she’s just a glorified secretary. She hates her house, it’s just an ordinary house, needs some work, and has been trying to get Brad to agree to move, get a huge mortgage to finance a bigger house in a more upscale neighbourhood.

She’s in a bit of a dilemma, she wants kids, but she wants that big house, first, even if she does have kids she’ll have to keep working. It’s all Brad’s fault for being so irritatingly easy going, and not giving her EVERYTHING she wants. His niceness really really irritates her.  Why does she have to share the profits of the business with Brad’s brothers, and Brad’s annoying and boring stay at home mom, sisters – in law. God they’re so boring.

Megan is also in a dilemma, no matter what she does with her “Women in Business” groups, the vast majority of them fail, and the women keep coming back for more and more micro finance, with more (don’t let anyone hear me say this) daft ideas for businesses that just won’t work. The last relationship she had was a disaster, he didn’t want “to commit” and expected her to PAY HER WAY, on dates. He made fun of her job and the women she worked with – and then – Oh my God – try to “mansplain” to her the mechanics of business, so what if he was a business major in college – he just didn’t understand women. That only lasted 3 months. Good riddance.

No way was she going to tolerate some man “mansplaining” to HER. She’s going to check out this sperm donor thing over the next few weeks. What Megan doesn’t know is that that dose of Chlamydia she caught in college, what with all the –  exploring her sexuality – she did in college, has damaged her fallopian tubes. Irreversibly.

She is worried about coming off the pill, on it since she was a teenager – acne –  what if her acne comes back? Though it was cool being on the pill in college, never ever forgot to take it, so even on that one occasion, or was it two or three? when she got a bit drunk at that party and hopped into bed, condomless, with …………what was his name again? Anyway, it didn’t matter. Yep – come off the pill, wait 3 months, get some sperm, then aim to have this child around March next year, will give her time to get herself organised. Hope it’s a girl, boys are so noisy, and grubby and icky, hmmmm, can always terminate and try again if it’s a boy.

Lauren is oblivious to anything but her own ambitions – she has been working on her five year plan since leaving college – she does the pro bono work for her “Empowering Women With Law” group because of what happened in college. The incident. That party. That creep. The police didn’t believe HER! So what if she was drunk, so what, that everyone at the party saw her sticking her tongue down that creep’s throat and dragging him by his tie into the bedroom, heard her laughing and shouting “do it to me” do it to me” Bastards. They recorded it.

Time to make her move on Mark Darcy, the senior partner, she’s tired of living in her one bed apartment, she wants a house in upscale Poshville, and that villa in Tuscany, she heard he had. Of course it never occurred to her to find out anything at all about Mark Darcy. That he has been seeing a very nice widow from his bridge club, that he signed over the villa in Tuscany to his children, (less a villa and more his grandparents old family home) that he and the nice widow are planning a summer wedding, just a small family wedding,  with all her extended family and his extended family.

That he is not renewing Laurens contract because he and the rest of the senior partners are sick to death of all the harassment accusations, the constant demands for special conditions, the way Lauren treats the juniors and paralegals. Nope. Everyone in the firm is sick of her. She has to go. Her contract is up for renewal in 3 months, and the firm DOES need to downsize.

What all three have in common is that they are completely oblivious to anyone else’s needs, anyone else’s interests, anyone else’s anything – they DESERVE whatever it is that they want, be it a job, a house, a man, respect, loyalty, career advancement, children – ANYTHING.

Because they are WOMEN.

 

© Anja Eriud 2014

NB. For the hard of thinking – I made these women up – they are fictional, a conglomeration of innumerable women I have known and observed over a long period of time. So, for any women who happen to be called Susie, Megan or Lauren and think this is about you – GROW UP! And grow a brain.

Previous Older Entries Next Newer Entries