Tammy’s Talk: Part 1


Contempt, Derision and Scorn.

 These are not “nice” words, nor for that matter are they “nice” feelings or emotions, does anyone wish to have these words used to describe the feelings or emotions that are precipitated by one’s behaviour, actions or demeanour?

Nope. I didn’t think so.

I read with great interest the comments that this article on A Voice for Men generated, and the three words of the title of this essay capture in a nutshell the feelings and emotions that the author of the article Tammy Bruce garnered for her demand, (text of her talk below) and yes, while cloaked in the now familiar sickly sweet pseudo conciliatory language of the nascent next wave of feminism that is struggling to find purchase in the prevailing zeitgeist – it was a demand.

Garnished with more than a soupcon of expectation that said demand would be complied with – by men.

The Myth of Womanhood © has always rested on several illusions, assiduously created by women and almost as equally assiduously championed by men, that women are special creatures by their very nature.  Therefore the words that frame and inform the behaviour of men towards women has been to,

Respect, protect, cherish, value and elevate – in most instances one could add adore to that list, because this was one of the primary expectations.

The fact is though, that while the illusion created of these fragile and special creatures was cultivated, propagated and disseminated by both men and women, it was indeed an illusion. There are too many chronicled instances throughout history when these fragile, delicate special creatures have behaved in ways which, had men not been blinded by the first illusion, would have shattered this faux construct. Women who have killed, who have defrauded and behaved in ways that would get a man hanged or thrashed, put out from “civilised” society and subject to universal approbation.

So, another illusion needed to be created, to add substance to the first one – that because of her delicate fragile and special nature, woman was never the agent of her own actions, she always was and according to feminists, still is, an oppressed creature, a creature who lives her life at the whim, at the behest of not just one man, but all men.

So was born the mythical patriarchy, that ambient pervasive coercive force under which all women live, have lived and no doubt will continue to live.

The final illusion is of course the performance, because yes, being a woman requires that one acts the part of the fragile, delicate, special mythical creature of woman. One must cultivate an attitude, an aura of delicate femaleness, a smokescreen of mannerisms, gestures and ploys that suggest an innate helplessness, a cloak of “femininity”.

An example, one of the most pathetic whines of feminism is that women are forced to dress a certain way to please men, to attract men, to make themselves appealing to men.  Yet throughout history it is women who have always dictated what is or isn’t appropriate “fashion” FOR women.

But, until the advent of the swinging sixties, women’s clothing was created deliberately to restrict women, to create an illusion of helplessness, to deliberately make women appear without too much effort, being physically incapable of……….well too much physical exertion. Of course the other aspect of this camouflage of clothing oneself in layers, was so that unwrapping a woman was akin to unwrapping a precious gift, and not to be done lightly, clothing that restricted access was part of creating the illusion that these fragile, delicate special creatures were only to be revealed in all her wondrous beauty, by he who had won the right to such beneficence.

Then came feminism, or women’s liberation as it was first called way back in those swinging sixties, the first mistake that feminists made was to declare the very things that kept and sustained the Myth of Womanhood © alive “oppressive” and to discard first the restrictive clothing that apparently was imposed upon women by men. Mary Quant, the designer who brought us the mini skirt obviously had some patriarchal swine looming over her as she chopped 24 inches off her skirt patterns.

Now that the oppressive packaging had been discarded, it was time to discard the next illusion, that what was wrapped up in this pretty packaging was no longer a gift to be bestowed upon a worthy champion. This was now repackaged as “a right” the right to give access to whomsoever this now liberated creature wished.  Social approbation, social taboo’s, disapproval and ostracism from polite society were yet another restrictive coercive device of the mythical patriarchy, therefore was to be rejected in favour of liberation. The device by which this new liberation, this new sexual freedom was predicated upon? The Pill.

Over the last 50 years or so, every last semblance of the artefacts that sustained, informed and supported the Myth of Womanhood © have been discarded, no longer do women choose to restrict their behaviours or clothing, no longer the need for a carefully cultivated illusion of fragile and delicate femininity, no longer even a lip service paid to an illusion of a well spoken, softly modulated voice.

All gone – in favour of loud, coarse and unrestricted freedom to say whatever you like, in whatever tone or pitch you like – no longer a subtle or provocation glimpse of a well turned ankle to inflame the passion of a suitable knight errant. One can now stride down the public street naked, carrying a banner declaring oneself proud to be a slut.

So, back to Ms. Bruce and her demand for a return to a state of male female interactions that rested on the carefully and assiduously created illusion of the Myth of Womanhood ©. She appears to want men to once more put on their rose coloured spectacles ,once more  to look upon this now, stripped bare to her essential nature, literally and figuratively, creature, and to buy into the illusions that women once depended on to lure, attract and utilise mates who would protect, provide, cherish and adore this delicate, fragile creature.

Alas Ms. Bruce, an illusion once shattered is gone forever, a paradigm shift once made, cannot be unmade, nor can a person pick up those rose coloured spectacles and view something that has been shown to BE an illusion as anything other than an illusion.

What Ms. Bruce has abysmally failed to comprehend is that not only was it women who created and cultivated the original illusion, in order to garner the requisite responses and protection and provisioning from men, it was women who deliberately tore down those illusions, who dismantled that framework of ploys, and artefacts that sustained the illusion.

Now, she wants men to return to a state of ascribing to an illusion that no longer exists, on the basis that the architects and proponents of that illusion still do, exist that is.  Even as they act and behave in ways that are in direct opposition to a now defunct and shattered illusion?

Really? There is no going back, there can be no going back, there will never be a time when men will en mass subscribe to the notion that women are delicate, fragile, special creatures to whom one owes (if one is a man) unearned respect, that one must cherish, protect and provide for, and perhaps the most laughable of all – adore – simply for existing.

Women like Tammy Bruce, and feminists in general are in a rage, a fever of outrage and anger, some like Bruce express it as a plea for a return to a time when men were still under the spell, some express it with great vitriol and rage, but all are incensed that men now, have no reluctance in expressing their contempt, derision and scorn FOR women.

THAT is what feminists and women in general are outraged about – men NOT playing their parts and continuing to subscribe to an illusion that not only did women create, but women destroyed, and have unmasked themselves as what they really are – human beings with flaws, with negative traits, with not so nice characteristics, just like men.

Except men, and some women, will self reflect, will honestly give themselves an internal audit and make decisions about what they might need to work on, but most of all, will take responsibility for their own actions and behaviours.

Feminists and a lot of women won’t – and it is not a case that they CANNOT – but they WILL NOT. Because of all the illusions that feminism shattered – (and women gleefully took up the mantle of the idea that women are “empowered” are “strong independent” autonomous beings) – being the helpless creature who lives under the coercive power of some man – is and always was the biggest illusion.

Ladies – you ARE on your own – there is nothing stopping you – everything you ever wished for – is yours, including self-determination and accountability.

THAT is what men who hold you in contempt and derision, who pour scorn on your doings, your witterings and spewings are doing.  Giving you what you demanded. Holding you accountable. Treating you as an independent autonomous adult human being.

Welcome to the real world girls.


© Anja Eriud 2014




8 Comments (+add yours?)

  1. Trackback: Anja Eriud: ‘Contempt, Derision and Scorn’ |
  2. Phill Ferreira
    Feb 15, 2014 @ 17:02:02

    Reblogged this on The Story of my Twin Boys and commented:
    A good article from Anja again, well worth a read.


  3. alanbowker
    Feb 15, 2014 @ 22:40:16

    Once again, sublime. I have Ms Bruce’s novel and I watched a recent video. The message was acceptable and she was far more polished than I had expected. BUT something wasn’t right, something rankles, this woman’s message wasn’t acceptable to me. Am I conditioned to reject everything an ex-feminist presents to me, am I so cynical that I recoil at every female specimen appealing to my male concerns, or am I just so very aware that I don’t trust ANY woman again?
    You mention that men hold a message by women in higher regard than those communicated my men. Absolutely correct. Just look at the “likes”, the comments, the responses on blogs to a comment made by a female name (even on an MRA or MGTOW website amazingly) and you will draw the same conclusion.
    Until that changes, until ALL men hold any comment by a female – feminist, ex feminist, or whatever – in deep suspicion rather than in obvious admiration then the deceived have still a lot to learn.


    • Anja Eriud
      Feb 16, 2014 @ 00:04:28

      Thank you Alan

      The message contained in this example of Ms. Bruce’s musings may be half acceptable, if even that, but only as it pertains to one single thing, that women need to act with more dignity, that being a wife a mother was always a worthwhile occupation, and that feminism corrupted and derided that.

      What she failed to do was expand on the responsibilities inherent in BEING a wife and mother, the major part of that being to recognise that as a wife one is one half of a partnership, and as a mother one is one half of a partnership, and that one’s partner is OWED your loyalty, your commitment, your support and your respect.

      These are NOT gifts that you may or may not bestow grudgingly, if you happen to be in the mood – you OWE them, you are obliged to extend them, end of discussion.

      I cannot in all honesty contradict your belief that to trust any women is basically a game of Russian roulette, I’m female, and the number of women I trust, personally that is, I can count on the fingers of one hand.

      The conditioning goes deep, the indoctrination is so deeply embedded, perhaps because the message of feminism touches on something almost primeval in some women, and resonates with them, that almost everything they say and do is an illusion, a chimera, a ploy.

      “You mention that men hold a message by women in higher regard than those communicated my men. Absolutely correct. Just look at the “likes”, the comments, the responses on blogs to a comment made by a female name (even on an MRA or MGTOW website amazingly) and you will draw the same conclusion.

      Until that changes, until ALL men hold any comment by a female – feminist, ex feminist, or whatever – in deep suspicion rather than in obvious admiration then the deceived have still a lot to learn.”

      At the risk of sounding female – I am aware that with regard to being given the benefit of the doubt by men, with men being willing to extend the courtesy of “hearing me out” that women in general do not and will not extend to men – it makes me angry and sad in almost equal measures.

      Angry because, while I accept and acknowledge the justifiable anger of men towards women, I am angry AT women, and feminists for literally putting me as an individual into this same category and by default, being tarred with the same brush as them. But, it is what it is.

      Sad, because I have met very few men who I have actively disliked as much as I actively dislike most women – and sad because again, while I accept that most men will distrust me personally, I wish it was not so. But it is, so be it.

      Men and women are one race – the human race – there cannot be a human race without both – feminism has literally divided the human race into two opposing species, with females assuming the dominant role, the predatory role. Driving us as a civilisation, down the path of feminism only leads to self destruction. Feminism hit the self destruct button and we are in the midst of a countdown.

      Meanwhile bloody feminists are bitching and whining over what poxy colour the button should be! And women? Bloody women are out shopping for useless environment destroying crap and shoes.


  4. Rick Bradford
    Feb 16, 2014 @ 09:47:44

    Anja – I don’t think it is true that most men (or most MRAs) would distrust you personally. Female MRAs are extremely highly valued and respected. There are two reasons for this. Firstly it is because you reassure us that our disdain for many women really isn’t misogyny, and secondly because you are so valuable as advocates due to your misogyny-proof armour.


    • Anja Eriud
      Feb 16, 2014 @ 12:02:38

      Thank you Rick

      I wish actually that men would stop feeling guilty for having disdain for women, would stop believing that taking a female to task for being a total bitch is somehow “wrong” it isn’t and more men need to do it.

      Most of all I wish that men of a certain type would stop making bloody excuses for the vile behaviour of women – if. as they tend to say – they “believe in equal rights” – sigh – then prove it – by extending women the right to be treated like an accountable adult and to expect them to take GROWN UP responsibility for their actions.

      With regard to being accused of misogyny – I recently wrote a piece on that – background to it is, that I WAS actually accused recently of being a misogynist – by a couple of females – apparently unless I subscribe to the notion that “us women need to stick together” and “back one another up” no matter what one of my “sisters” does – it means I just hate women. pppfft

      My response – nope, I don’t hate women AS a class – but I DO think that you two are a pair of totally conniving, self centred nasty bitches – and I’d rather poke myself in the eye with a fork than breath the same air as you.




  5. donzaloog
    Feb 16, 2014 @ 19:50:51

    Brilliant work once again Anja. I don’t have much personal interaction with women, but I have no problem calling women on their bullshit. Because I believe in equal rights. I treat women the same way I treat men.


    • Anja Eriud
      Feb 19, 2014 @ 20:20:25

      Thank you donzaloog

      Sorry for taking so long to reply, the problem is of course, that if you treat women the way men are treated – opens up a whole other can of screechy, hysterical woms – sigh.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: