Male Privilege in Full Display!!

IF you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you....

It's only words, and words are all I have, to lead your heart astray..

Let's coin a new word called feminism,

misogynist a man with a criticism,

sexist who points to the sex schism,

power under the garb of equalism.

In other words, feminist theory cannot be accurately regarded as a competing or rival account, diverging from patriarchal texts over what counts as true. It is not a true discourse, nor a more objective or scientific account. It could be appropriately seen, rather, as a strategy, a local, specific intervention with definite political, even if provisional, aims and goals. In the 1980s, feminist theory no longer seems to seek the status of unchangeable, trans-historical and trans-geographic truth in its hypotheses and propositions. Rather, it seeks effective forms of intervention into systems of power in order to subvert them and replace them with other more preferable. Strategy implies a recognition of the current situation, in both its general, structural features (macrolithic power alignments), and its specific, detailed, regionalised forms (microlithic power alignments)...

As a series of strategic interventions into patriarchal discourses, feminist theory doesn't simply aim to reveal what is "wrong" with, or false about patriarchal theories - i.e. at replacing one "truth" with another. It aims to render patriarchal system, methods and presumptions unable to function, unable to retain their dominance and power.

-- "What is Feminist Theory?," written by a Dr Elizabeth Gross and made note of by the late David Stove.

Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard calls opposition leader Tony Abott a misogynist and  people start debating on the validity of the claim.

To start off, if every woman was a back-stabbing bitch like Gillard then misogyny would be widespread in men and almost ubiquitous amongst women, for after all:

"Misogynist: A man who hates women as much as women hate one another." - H.L. Mencken

(You must hate women to think that women can't be misogynists, women can do anything men can and often better, misogynistic chauvinist pig.)

Coming back to the word itself,  apparently the weaseling down under has started only recently, as an article at Punch by Sue Butler tells us:

that misogyny had developed a second meaning.

She goes on to write:

The Oxford English Dictionary online adjusted its definition of the word in 2002 by adding ‘dislike of or prejudice against women’ to the existing definition ‘hatred of women’. I have chosen in the Macquarie Dictionary to give two separate meanings for the word. It seems awkward to toss in hatred and prejudice as definitional bedfellows. They don’t mean the same thing.

It is not the case that Julia Gillard stretched the word to take in this new meaning as a personal flight of fancy. The word misogyny had acquired this second meaning in the 1980s and had been used generally in this way.

Of course I cannot say what was in Ms Gillard’s mind - definition 1 or definition 2 - but I think that it is extremely likely that she was using the word with the meaning that it currently has in feminist discourse

And what exactly is feminist discourse? That which Elizabeth Gross laid out so honestly for us?

Another article at Sydney Morning Herald which besides the already introduced Sue Butler has a feminist by the name of Jane Caro pitching in as well:

"We decided that we had the basic definition, hatred of women, but that's not how misogyny has been used for about the last 20, 30 years, particularly in feminist language," Ms Butler told ABC radio on Wednesday."

For example 'gay', hello?! Shame on their homophobia.

"Sexist does seem to be moving towards this description of surface features and misogynist applies to the underlying attitude."

"Feminist, author and speaker Jane Caro told Fairfax today that words changed all the time and said it was certainly not a problem for feminism that "misogyny" had lost a bit of its fire power. "


Nebulous is a good word. "Hazy" "Confused" "Indistinct" "Vague"

Contrary to simplicity and elegance, to make something nebulous can be quite advantageous.

Make the definition of transgressions nebulous, the definition of your own ideology nebulouser still

Thus anyone can be caught as a misogynist, and there is no effective criticism against a feminist's loony tunes when she goes "feminism ain't a monolith, mister; so what if Elizabeth Gross writes something about feminism? As if she is some authority who speaks for the rest of the feminist establishment, my feminism is not like that!"

Of course by doing this you run two risks, 1) making the charge worthless, 2) making the ideology worthless.

hide your phallus!

As for 1) feminism running the risk of "misogyny losing a bit of fire power" is almost the same as the word "rape" losing its. Despite 30-second rape( also in Australia) or fiascoes like the Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax, "rape is not funny" line is enforced as strictly as ever, as Tosh found out after being raped in the media.

2)Having numbers on your side is a big advantage, no matter what the numerical superiority thinks or whether it thinks at all. It's rather preferable if it doesn't and follows without. Thus the biggest hurdle that one faces while criticizing feminism out in the open is the humongous mass of stupid women and men which repeats slogans like wage-gap, abortion and gender-equality, while the radicals/true feminists keep moving the establishment to their male-hating ends.

"Ms Caro suggested the definition change may also be a reflection of the rise in the status of women. 
 
"It was acceptable 100 years ago, 50 years ago to hate women," Ms Caro said. "

Well kids, here is the herstory of how I could have been a woman-hater without much effort. But despair not, those who weren't born early enough to earn the title of misogynist have Ms Caro's assurance that words change all the time. 
I am sure that improvisations like 'Misogynist+' could be used to differentiate between wheat and chaff, if you excel at the exacting standards that your forebearers set. So all is well with the world again.

"Ms Caro added that she did not like to call someone "a sexist" or "a misogynist" because that insulted an entire person. 

"Tony Abbott is not a misogynist or a sexist," she said. "He is guilty of misogynist or sexist statements.""

Well, Ms Caro is not a stupid cunt, she is only guilty of living her life as one.
And since that which is attributable to stupidity shall be attributed to malice for those who should know better, she is a disingenuous malicious cunt. Like her other feminist sisters.

Gillard whines that she won't be lectured by 'this man' on the topics of misogyny and sexism, it's quite clear that she desperately needs some. Reinforcing gender-normativity instead of male-bodied person or simply person right at the start of her speech makes her following bluster worthless.
Gender is a social construction, misogyny is a social construction, Gillard is a social construction that has no basis in reality.

(in keeping with our changing reality and progressive world, bitch and cunt are used with a different meaning, viz. your mom)

Women's Brains and Male Upper Body Strength

Stephen Jay Gould, a polemicist of science, who was recently hoisted on his own petard, wrote a book 'The Panda's Thumb' wherein one chapter was dedicated to women's brains, or the lack thereof when compared to men's. A woman called Maria Montessorri featured at the end of his essay. Gould writes of her:

She measured  the  circumference of  children's heads  in herschools and  inferred  that  the best prospects had bigger brains. But she had no use for Broca's conclusions about women. She discussed Manouvrier's work at length and made  much  of  his  tentative  claim  that  women,  after proper correction of  the data, had slightly  larger brains than men. Women,  she  concluded, were  intellectually superior,  but men  had  prevailed  heretofore  by  dint  of physical force.

And Gould then went quoting her at length:

Since  technology has abolished force as an instrument of power, the era of women may soon be upon us: "In such an epoch there will really be superior human  beings,  there  will  really  be  men  strong  in morality and in sentiment. Perhaps in this way the reign of  women  is  approaching,  when  the  enigma  of  her anthropological superiority will be deciphered. Woman was always the custodian of human sentiment, morality and honor."

It's hard to fault Ms. Monterssori's logick, the legen-wait for it-dary human male upper body strength which has been submitting beasts like lions, tigers, bears, mammoths from eternity:

samson killing a male lion (tautology is sexist)

even sharks are not spared,

Haggar piledriving a shark

or for sending rockets into space,

If only rockets weren't such a phallic triggering symbol....

and the herculean task of keeping earth in position.

shrug it off bro!

How exactly 'technology'(and where this mythological abstraction arrived from) has made force redundant as power is something that is pointless to dwell on. It's more important to consider the sad fact that women like Maria Montessori couldn't enjoy the morality and sentimentality of today's male sex. Or the female sex, if she were inclined that way. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

PS -

Who says women can't have upper-body strength? Misogynists, that's who!

Eat yer heart out Montessori

A lesson in Herstory - Women as Property

There are some hilarious ways of saying women were chattel:

Example: a man’s goods and chat(t)els - hence the reason that widows were until recently described as chatelaines. That is, the wife and the kids were/are defined as ‘moveable property’.

And then there is the more serious way of saying women were chattel: they went from their fathers and brothers to their husbands and sons(see they moved!) with the involvement of wealth(and see property, patrimony, matrimony, QED bigot!), without the sex-in-the-city woo-girl lesbian-experimentalist phase that is a fundamental right of womankind.

The perspective that women were property sounds quite absurd when male resources is a common point in discussions of mate-selection. Property, wealth, money, doesn't exactly sound what men look for in a woman, isn't that what the 'strong and independent'™ women bewail about?

If women didn't exist, all the money in the world would have no meaning.

The lack of male prostitution, notwithstanding the "buying women" stupidity that feminists use, is another hint.

The existence of Coverture where the legal identity of woman was subsumed into her husband's when they married, the feme sole converting to feme covert, following which her earnings and whatever she brought into the marriage went to her husband and became his property and not hers, OMG patriarchy was really evil!

This state of affairs was to continue until a brave lady by the name of Caroline Norton appeared on the scene, rather disappeared from her husband's scene, much to his chagrin.

Wikipedia recounts her property grievance:


In 1836, Caroline left her husband.Caroline managed to subsist on her earnings as an author, but Norton claimed these as his own, arguing successfully in court that, as her husband, Caroline's earnings were legally his. 

and how unfair the law was towards wives, yet Mrs. Norton certainly gave back as good as she got:

Paid nothing by her husband, her earnings confiscated, Caroline used the law to her own advantage. Running up bills in her husband's name, Caroline told the creditors when they came to collect, that if they wished to be paid, they could sue her husband.

LOLZ patriarchy hoisted on its own petard!

Oh wait...

Why did the creditors could sue her husband and not her?

The answer is provided in stark contrast when one considers what Mrs Norton's orgy of tears led to. Married Women's Property Act,  a law by which married women could keep their property to themselves and only themselves like other women could, all is well and equal, innit? NOT!

As a successful lady litigant (May, 1896) remarked to her husband, "There is no law which compels me to obey or honour you, but there is a law that you must keep me." This woman tersely sums up the position. In the case of a man of property the Courts will expropriate him for the benefit of his wife. In the case of a wage-earner the Courts from police magistrates to Supreme Court will decree him to be her earning slave, bound to work for her or go to prison. A wife, no matter if rolling in wealth, is not obliged to contribute a penny to her husband's support, even if he be incapacitated from work through disease or accident.

or the ingenuity of suffragetes much like Mrs Norton's:

Under the married women property act a husband has no jurisdiction over his wife’s property and income. Under the income tax he is responsible for her taxes. If the taxes are not paid, the husband, not the wife, is imprisoned. Mrs. Wilks refused to pay her income taxes–$185–and her husband was locked up. He will spend the rest of his life in prison unless the wife pays or the laws are changed.

First wave feminist equality in full effect. FREEDOM from pater-archy!!

So the freedom that feminists want is a freedom from responsibility when it comes to interaction with men. And of course, the same rights that a man has. Logical contradictions are for the weak-minded.

Reason exists for those who cannot go on living without clinging to it. 
-Aizen Sosuke

thank god..err technology for photoshop (from manwomanmyth.com)

back to reality

Feminism and "Feminism is not a monolith" being just a power play where men are in the wrong regardless of what women do. If you are not a feminist, you're a bad person. Become a feminist and indulge yourself in the orgy of women-empowerment and the subsequent screeching amongst feminists as to how this empowerment can be attained(Note for phallus-bearers, keep your mouth shut so that women's voices could be heard!).

So men shouldered responsibility before too, but now are sent off to jail in the name of child support(so sad too bad, you should have kept your dick in your pants, Mr. Oppressor!) and have no power/authority against that responsibility(and that's the way we do gender-equality, bigot!), times they are a-changing'!

Men were property, Men are property.


Addendum:

1.)The American husband, as Mrs. Houstoun wrote in 1850, was "merely the medium through which dollars find their way into the milliners' shop in exchange for caps and bonnets."

2.) Madeleine V. Dahlgren made a case against women's suffrage by pointing out that women were unsuited for military.

Establish the right of suffrage for women and it involves a common responsibility in the duty of bearing arms, for which we are absolutely unfitted. In the discharge of of this severest of all masculine duties we cannot bear a share. If forced to do so, inferior size and strength must make inferior troops. We may therefore sum up these objections by the consideration that the present movement proposes to make the whole range of duties common to the sexes instead of the present division of the duties of life, which assigns to each sex those most appropriate.

Of course that doesn't go very far when State is much more than mere military and almost a provider husband for many women, election issues can devolve into the inanity of "War on Women", and  in our enlightened brave new world in which women can be soldiers too, bigot, at least equal and sometimes better than men.

Feminism and the Lion

Sexual assault. Attempted marital rape. Poor lioness is left gasping for breath at the end.


                 

It's female lion you sexist bigot!



Child abuse at 1:00

                 



Patriarchy in full display! Someone get me a glass of water! And call CPS quick! 




No equality in housework.



                  

Women's right to work doesn't mean there's free lunch for you male chauvinist pigs..err lions! Or dinner!



Feminism, correcting nature's sexist mistakes, one species at a time.

Before Marriage 

After Marriage

After Divorce

Pics from here.

And Finally,

EQUALITY has been had!

PS -


Male Lion against Feminism's mascot.



How ancient peace-loving egalitarian matriarchies were usurped by patriarchal violence...my poor heart weeps!




Sometimes the sisterhood goes horribly wrong.





That male lion caused all that, look how he tries to play the confused dumbo, damn you patriarchy!




PPS:

"what has this got to do with us, uncle dolan?"

BETA NOOB!

https://unmaskingfeminism.wordpress.com/2012/08/12/woman-have-quietly-snitched-from-man-his-really-human-qualities/

Male-Dominated History and the Definition of Feminism

The term male-dominated is commonly bandied about as if there was a version of history which went like this:

Every man-made or rather human-made institution fell from space, and men being men, ran into the more prestigious ones and then locked the doors after them. Women being poor runners and with the additional handicap of being pregnant and with babies stuck to their udders were then not let in.
It was only after an orgy of thousand tears that they were allowed and lo-and-behold today we have the feminist movement correcting for all those years of male-dominated inequality.

Or should we consider that there is another version of history that can be understood  after you use this definition of feminism:

Feminism is a power grab by (man-hating) women called feminists who have the chutzpah to claim that they have done the most for women by simply positing themselves as a necessary intermediary between transfers of knowledge/resources/technology/opportunities from men to women, and then disparaging and working towards eradicating the source.


                          


‘I looked into the Hellfire, and the majority of its dwellers were women who were ungrateful.’ It was asked, ‘Did they disbelieve in (i.e. were ungrateful to ] Allah?’ He replied, ‘They were ungrateful to their husbands and were ungrateful for favors and the good deeds done for them. If you had always been good to one of them and then she saw something in you not to her liking, she would say, ‘I have never seen any good from you at all.”

The shamelessness with which feminists cry "women were denied education" is a sight to behold. Most of them do reject the fiction of a male God which they say is used to perpetuate the patriarchal beast, but apparently a/the divine father in heavens sent down a thing called "education" to all equally but men kept it only to themselves. And brainwashed women into being mothers and "primary care-givers", a term that is stupid because of its existence.
So let's see, becoming a mother and wife = patriarchal brainwashing,
20 or more years of education = FREEDOM!

What makes people believe this sort of nonsense?

Feminism's "strong and independent" women throw off the patriarchal yoke and then run into the very bastions of patriarchy to be taught how to become strong and independent.
Sexist to have a males-only university, women were not allowed into prestigious learning institutions, and the good women called feminists allowed women in, feminists fought for women's right to education! Right? Right!

History in a nutshell (Angry Harry)

These women did not build their own institutions, but shamelessly clamored for the "right" to go into men's even though they merely had to copy what had already been put in place by men and not to start from the primordial scratch.
And for this they are women's liberators?

Women won the right to vote. Oh lordy, and since women couldn't vote, men voted for it. This is women's struggle, this pitiable and laughably aggrandized greed for power that is built upon lies, utter solipsism and a victimhood that shows no signs of waning, feminism's raison d'etre?

Is this some kind of a joke or has the Onion taken over the world?

Their expropriation is not merely content with getting into old boys' network, but then justifies affirmative-action on the grounds that men were its beneficiaries for thousands of years, the time during which patriarchy ruled the roost, before feminism appeared to take us back to the egalitarian world of matriarchy(logical contradictions are trifles that feminists don't deal with), the utter shamelessness of these ingrates is breathtaking!

Isn't a Millennium of Affirmative Action for White Men Sufficient??


As for the fiction of equality, it is to be merely used in this way:
Declare yourself equal to an apple-farmer. Then in the name of equality, you deserve half the apples, and a bit more to make up for the time during which you are unequal. Oh and since he is now driving a tractor, no matter whether he was using a plough before, you deserve the inviolable right to be the tractor driver. 
And he should put up an AC in the driver's chamber unless he wants an hostile workplace lawsuit. Any murmur of discontent is proof of farmer-privilege.

State is their father, or mother, or the androgynous/genderless being that their acolytes can be sufficiently comfortable with. State is the replacement for the pie-in-the-sky bearded old white man and jesus rolled in one, which sends down education to them, teachers being the priests of this religion.
And having a good priest is necessary to save one from Newton's rape manual, or introducing gently the other such howlers from the Lord-of-Flies-esque place called women's studies department.

Is there a better definition of feminism? Is one being too harsh on feminists here?

In other words, feminist theory cannot be accurately regarded as a competing or rival account, diverging from patriarchal texts over what counts as true. It is not a true discourse, nor a more objective or scientific account. It could be appropriately seen, rather, as a strategy, a local, specific intervention with definite political, even if provisional, aims and goals. In the 1980s, feminist theory no longer seems to seek the status of unchangeable, trans-historical and trans-geographic truth in its hypotheses and propositions. Rather, it seeks effective forms of intervention into systems of power in order to subvert them and replace them with other more preferable. Strategy implies a recognition of the current situation, in both its general, structural features (macrolithic power alignments), and its specific, detailed, regionalised forms (microlithic power alignments)...

As a series of strategic interventions into patriarchal discourses, feminist theory doesn't simply aim to reveal what is "wrong" with, or false about patriarchal theories - i.e. at replacing one "truth" with another. It aims to render patriarchal system, methods and presumptions unable to function, unable to retain their dominance and power.

In simple words, truth is an expedient, merely to be used when it's useful to do so, to be disregarded when not. An example would be women being "second-class citizens".
The word citizen is merely used to gain advantage and it's not as if feminists care about being citizens when they are more concerned about women in other countries than men in their own.
Traitors is more like it.

Before they were femini....err lesbians