They've invented another fake rape crisis--it's called "stealthing." See here.
Sounds sneaky and dishonest, doesn't it? It sure does--so therefore, it has to be something that college men are doing.
"Stealthing" is where men secretly remove their condoms during consensual sex to transform it into rape.
The theory goes that the woman consented to have sex with a condom-covered dick, not a dick without a condom, so it must be rape. Presumably, if the guy deceived her about any other aspect of his life as a way to induce her to have sex, that's rape, too. For example, if a woman agrees to have sex thinking that the guy is a honors student but later finds out he's got a "B" average, that's got to be rape, too, right? I mean, consent has to be based on complete and accurate information, doesn't it?
Put all that aside, let's say, for the sake of argument, that it is a form of sexual assault. Is "stealthing" a crisis?
You bet it is! USA Today calls is "a disturbing sex trend" that is "on the rise."
I knew it! Another rape epidemic! These college boys lie awake at night dreaming up ways to subjugate women with their penises.
"What's the evidence for this trend?" you ask.
Do you really have to ruin the narrative by injecting "evidence" into this? But okay, since you asked, the evidence for this "disturbing trend" is "a doctoral student named Rebecca who works for a local rape crisis hotline." And no, I'm not kidding. (Rebecca herself, of course, was a victim of "stealthing" in college.) Oh, and Kathleen Kempke, with the Crisis Center of Tampa Bay, verifies the "trend" because she has had "other cases" of stealthing. Oh, and "online forums" where dastardly men brag about doing it. Everyone knows that "online forums" where men brag about their nasty sexual exploits are terribly scientific and reliable indicators of "trends."
They never stop, folks. Just when you think the hysteria can't get any loonier--it gets loonier.
Wednesday, April 26, 2017
Can we stop lecturing to "men" as a class about how evil they are?
An arm of the UN is out to "educate" men by teaching them how evil their penises are--see here.
Their idiotic campaign is out to "show" men how uncomfortable it is to sit on a penis.
Okay, we get it--progressives think that men, as a class are evil. Progressive men think they belong to an inferior gender and that they are in need of enlightenment to tame their male privilege.
Imagine if the UN launched a campaign to tell minorities not to steal or kill. How do you think that would go over?
The people behind this campaign aren't out to reduce sexual violence--they are out to demonize traditional Western culture, maleness, and anyone who doesn't share their view of the world that everyone is a victim except for straight white males.
There's no bridge that can allow for discourse with these people. They are nuts, pure and simple.
Their idiotic campaign is out to "show" men how uncomfortable it is to sit on a penis.
Okay, we get it--progressives think that men, as a class are evil. Progressive men think they belong to an inferior gender and that they are in need of enlightenment to tame their male privilege.
Imagine if the UN launched a campaign to tell minorities not to steal or kill. How do you think that would go over?
The people behind this campaign aren't out to reduce sexual violence--they are out to demonize traditional Western culture, maleness, and anyone who doesn't share their view of the world that everyone is a victim except for straight white males.
There's no bridge that can allow for discourse with these people. They are nuts, pure and simple.
Thursday, May 26, 2016
Student charged with felony for harmless penis prank
This is how screwy our sex laws are. Last August, an 18-year-old high school football player named Hunter Osborn was dared by a teammate to expose his penis in his team's official photo that was taken for the school yearbook. As the photo was being taken, Hunter pulled the top of his dick out of his waistband.
The photo was developed and was placed in the yearbook, and nobody noticed Hunter's dickie because--sorry guys--it's not that big of a deal. The school received no complaints about it. Nobody went blind or was otherwise scarred for life over it.
Eventually, someone noticed the offending appendage, and when school officials realized what happened, they did what school officials are good at doing: they overreacted. They called the police. The police launched an investigation, which led to a charge of furnishing harmful items to minors—a Class 4 felony that carries up to 3.75 years in prison—and 69 misdemeanor counts of indecent exposure, one for each student present when Hunter did the diabolical thing. And they fitted Hunter with an ankle monitor.
Let's put this in perspective. The 69 students who were the victims of Hunter's heinous act were not looking at Hunter when he whipped out the top of his dick. Moreover, they, and everyone else, could barely see the offending object in the official photo.
These same victims presumably saw Hunter's whole penis--and everything else--in the team shower before and after games and practices without anyone suggesting the sight of Hunter's naked flesh victimized anyone.
The charges were later dropped--presumably everyone realized this was overkill. What Hunter did was stupid and it shouldn't be excused by the school. But the initial reaction by the school of involving the police, and the police reaction in charging Hunter, were typical hysterical overreactions to anything penis.
Hunter probably got a good scare--albeit more than the good scare he deserved--and my guess is he'll never do anything this stupid again. And yes, this was pretty stupid.
There's also a lesson for the adult and student editors of the yearbook: ya need to carefully check photos featuring boys to make sure they aren't showing more boy than they're supposed to.
Wednesday, September 2, 2015
Fear and loathing of penises in the girls' locker room
Some 150 students walked out of Hillsboro High School in Missouri on Monday in a protest over a transgender classmate’s use of the girls’ locker room and bathrooms at the school. Lila Perry, 17, was born with a penis and still has it. She previously came out as a gay male, but she has identified as a female since she was 13. Now she wants to be treated like a girl.
One student told a reporter: “I find it offensive because Lila has not went through any procedure to become female, putting on a dress and putting on a wig is not transgender to me.” A parent paraded around with a sign that said: “Girls Rights Matter.” Another parent said:“The girls have rights, and they shouldn’t have to share a bathroom with a boy." Another parent said: “They [the other girls made uncomfortable by Lila] should have the ability to do whatever they need to do in the privacy of the bathroom without having a male in there,”
But Amanda Jette Knox wrote: "Defining a girl by her body parts is the most misogynistic thing we can do."
Yes, Amanda, it's misogyny, but it also underscores something more basic--a fear and loathing of penises, and their owners, that is sadly predictable.
The girls who are so upset about Lila's presence in their bathroom apparently had no concerns about boys' privacy when Lila Perry identified as a gay male and used the boys' bathroom and locker room. It is no stretch to assume that Lila was/is sexually attracted to males and--in case my sisters need to have it spelled out--in both the boys' bathroom and locker room, penises are exposed. If the students were concerned about privacy and modesty and all, that's when they should have been concerned.
If you are wondering how students would react if the genders were reversed, you don't have to look very far. When a transgender high school student in Virginia who was born as female but identifies as male used the men's room, it was a far different reaction: the other students never complained (although some parents did). A similar case in New Jersey actually led to a petition signed by 2,000 people in favor of allowing the student to use the boys' bathroom.
I guess boys don't have the same fear and loathing of vaginas as girls have of penises.
One student told a reporter: “I find it offensive because Lila has not went through any procedure to become female, putting on a dress and putting on a wig is not transgender to me.” A parent paraded around with a sign that said: “Girls Rights Matter.” Another parent said:“The girls have rights, and they shouldn’t have to share a bathroom with a boy." Another parent said: “They [the other girls made uncomfortable by Lila] should have the ability to do whatever they need to do in the privacy of the bathroom without having a male in there,”
But Amanda Jette Knox wrote: "Defining a girl by her body parts is the most misogynistic thing we can do."
Yes, Amanda, it's misogyny, but it also underscores something more basic--a fear and loathing of penises, and their owners, that is sadly predictable.
The girls who are so upset about Lila's presence in their bathroom apparently had no concerns about boys' privacy when Lila Perry identified as a gay male and used the boys' bathroom and locker room. It is no stretch to assume that Lila was/is sexually attracted to males and--in case my sisters need to have it spelled out--in both the boys' bathroom and locker room, penises are exposed. If the students were concerned about privacy and modesty and all, that's when they should have been concerned.
If you are wondering how students would react if the genders were reversed, you don't have to look very far. When a transgender high school student in Virginia who was born as female but identifies as male used the men's room, it was a far different reaction: the other students never complained (although some parents did). A similar case in New Jersey actually led to a petition signed by 2,000 people in favor of allowing the student to use the boys' bathroom.
I guess boys don't have the same fear and loathing of vaginas as girls have of penises.
Tuesday, May 19, 2015
The latest female martyr is a school girl protesting unjust gender standards -- that also apply to boys
Lauren Wiggins, a senior at Harrison Trimble High School in Moncton, New Brunswick, Canada, was given detention Monday for wearing a floor-length halter dress to school. A school official supposedly told her it was a "distraction" to her male classmates. Wiggins says the school’s dress policy is an example of “unjust standards that we as women are held up to.”
Hooray! Another female martyr standing up to the evils of patriarchy!
Except that the school's dress policy applies to boys, too. The school's dress policy forbids "shirts exposing shoulders and/or backs and/or midriffs (spaghetti straps, tube tops, halter tops)." And it includes a ban on “muscle shirts,” a particularly male garment designed to expose male underarms.
Hmm. I haven't seen any boys protesting the ban on muscle shirts. And if they did, I wonder if they'd get in the news.
So why is Lauren Wiggins the feminist icon-of-the-day while her just-as-oppressed male classmates aren't protesting anything -- in fact, they are considered the bad guys in the Lauren Wiggins saga who need to learn to exercise self control while Lauren wears whatever the hell she wants?
The fact is, boys are more oppressed at school than girls. Have been for a long time. From the grade spike girls enjoy just for being girls, to the gender imbalance in incidents of corporal punishment, to dress codes, boys are second class citizens in schools. This is not to say that girls don't have their share of problems, it's just that the scales are more stacked against boys nowadays, and the burdens that girls shoulder are blown out of proportion--Lauren Wiggins is a case in point.
Take the whole baring underarms thing. Schools are more likely to let girls show underarms than boys. You see, there's something threatening to teachers and administrators about boys' underarms. A lot of school districts have told boys they can't display their underarms even though their female classmates are free to do so. Why is this, you ask? Because girls' underarms are considered "more aesthetically pleasing," some say. Some school administrators are more blunt. They justify the double standard by nothing that boys' "hairy armpits are not attractive," in fact they're "really gross."
In contrast, pre-pubescent boys are often permitted to wear tank tops because "there is nothing sexually alluring about a kindergarten boy in a tank shirt."
Sexually alluring? Oh, now I get it. The whole underarm thing is about sex. Hairy armpits are a no-no because they remind teachers that pubescent boys are . . . pubescent boys. We mustn't remind horny teachers that boys are sexual creatures. (By the way, the tank top double standard is just fine and dandy with girls.)
For a long time, some boys had to fight to have long hair. Boys have been sent home en masse to shave--they are often told it's either shave or leave school. Little 12-year-old boys with peach fuzz mustaches have been threatened with indefinite suspension. Whole debates raged over whether a boy was sporting a mustache or just peach fuzz.
Then there's the whole thing about boys' feet. In some high schools, girls don't have to wear socks, but sexy bare boy feet are too much for some administrators--boys must wear socks and may not wear sandals.
These double standards are acceptable because it's just the way it is, and only female martyrs are allowed to challenge the way it is. When boys challenge it, they're just trying to get away with something.
Hooray! Another female martyr standing up to the evils of patriarchy!
Except that the school's dress policy applies to boys, too. The school's dress policy forbids "shirts exposing shoulders and/or backs and/or midriffs (spaghetti straps, tube tops, halter tops)." And it includes a ban on “muscle shirts,” a particularly male garment designed to expose male underarms.
Hmm. I haven't seen any boys protesting the ban on muscle shirts. And if they did, I wonder if they'd get in the news.
So why is Lauren Wiggins the feminist icon-of-the-day while her just-as-oppressed male classmates aren't protesting anything -- in fact, they are considered the bad guys in the Lauren Wiggins saga who need to learn to exercise self control while Lauren wears whatever the hell she wants?
The fact is, boys are more oppressed at school than girls. Have been for a long time. From the grade spike girls enjoy just for being girls, to the gender imbalance in incidents of corporal punishment, to dress codes, boys are second class citizens in schools. This is not to say that girls don't have their share of problems, it's just that the scales are more stacked against boys nowadays, and the burdens that girls shoulder are blown out of proportion--Lauren Wiggins is a case in point.
Take the whole baring underarms thing. Schools are more likely to let girls show underarms than boys. You see, there's something threatening to teachers and administrators about boys' underarms. A lot of school districts have told boys they can't display their underarms even though their female classmates are free to do so. Why is this, you ask? Because girls' underarms are considered "more aesthetically pleasing," some say. Some school administrators are more blunt. They justify the double standard by nothing that boys' "hairy armpits are not attractive," in fact they're "really gross."
In contrast, pre-pubescent boys are often permitted to wear tank tops because "there is nothing sexually alluring about a kindergarten boy in a tank shirt."
Sexually alluring? Oh, now I get it. The whole underarm thing is about sex. Hairy armpits are a no-no because they remind teachers that pubescent boys are . . . pubescent boys. We mustn't remind horny teachers that boys are sexual creatures. (By the way, the tank top double standard is just fine and dandy with girls.)
For a long time, some boys had to fight to have long hair. Boys have been sent home en masse to shave--they are often told it's either shave or leave school. Little 12-year-old boys with peach fuzz mustaches have been threatened with indefinite suspension. Whole debates raged over whether a boy was sporting a mustache or just peach fuzz.
Then there's the whole thing about boys' feet. In some high schools, girls don't have to wear socks, but sexy bare boy feet are too much for some administrators--boys must wear socks and may not wear sandals.
These double standards are acceptable because it's just the way it is, and only female martyrs are allowed to challenge the way it is. When boys challenge it, they're just trying to get away with something.
Friday, May 15, 2015
Outrage over "naked" lady ad on bus, a lot of people ignore that bus company also ran a naked man ad
The New York Daily News ran a story with this headline: "Bus company apologizes for ‘Ride me all day’ ads with pictures of topless women." In various publications, people complained: Commuter Indianna Murphy said: "This advert is horrendous. Using a naked women and sexual innuendo to promote a bus service is disgraceful and seriously misguided. It makes me seriously uncomfortable." Customer Marianne Rhiannon said that New Adventure Travel "clearly have a shocking attitude towards half the population." She added: "This is an absolutely disgraceful advert promoting sexism and rape culture. I will not be using the service until these as removed and assurances are given that women are safe travelling on these buses."
Someone else said this: "Do they seriously think they can get away with this? Women should take a stand on this and boycott that bus company." We are Cardiff said: “It represents the commodification of a woman’s body and trivialisation of prostitution, and has no place in 2015.”
Xavier tweeted to the company: “@NAT_Group bus in Cardiff is vile. Women face enough harassment on busses without use of sexually explicit language”. Here's a tweet: "@swpolice @EverydaySexism @NAT_Group inciting rape with disgusting advert on buses - ride me all day for £3" Another tweet: Apparently @NAT_Group runs special buses for those creepy sweaty-handed heavy-breathing guys who make women feel uncomfortable on the bus.
Such misogyny!
Except that the bus company's ad campaign didn't just feature an apparently topless woman. The bus company also ran this ad--a bare-chested man, showing more skin than the ad with the woman.
The news reports mentioned the men's ad, but a lot of people are singling out the ad with the woman, suggesting it's the real problem. I haven't seen anyone do that to the man ad.
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Boys were routinely forced to swim in the nude for much of the 20th Century for reasons that don't hold up
NSFW picture below!
For much of the 20th Century, boys in American high schools and colleges were routinely required to swim in the nude. The girls wore swimsuits.
Below is a picture that appeared in Life Magazine in 1938, the guys of Michigan State's swim team in all their bare-ass glory. Can you imagine a mainstream magazine printing this today?
For much of the 20th Century, boys in American high schools and colleges were routinely required to swim in the nude. The girls wore swimsuits.
Below is a picture that appeared in Life Magazine in 1938, the guys of Michigan State's swim team in all their bare-ass glory. Can you imagine a mainstream magazine printing this today?
Monday, February 9, 2015
I would like your dick so much better if I could redesign it: dick hate in women's media
A Kansas City-based grandma named Holly Stewart quilts giant, mainly erect, penises and paints them all sorts of vibrant colors. Priscilla Frank at Huffington Post wrote this:
Now that the exhibition is up and running, we can officially report that the massive, quilted man parts are more wondrous than we ever imagined. The works are as feminist as they are hilarious, as affirmative as they are transgressive. Sparkly, colorful, big and small, hard and soft, the penises on display truly capture the manifold possibilities of a phallic shape when separated from the shackling confines of human flesh.Yes! If only dicks and balls weren't made of, you know, human male flesh! If only they could be redesigned by a feminist! Then we could make them to look silly and playful. We'd make them detachable so men can only wear them when we wanted them to, and they'd ejaculate colorful Kool-Aid!
"I really like them," a former UMKC student told the school's independent newspaper. "I wish real penises looked like this." So do we, anonymous former student. So do we.
What the fuck is it with women's magazines and blogs and their derision of penises? It's getting to the point where it's thinly veiled dick hate.
Recently, fashion designer Rick Owens presented his Fall/Winter 2015 menswear show at Paris Fashion Week featuring a lot of loose-fitting, draped pieces -- and some of them featured strategic cutouts to expose bare male genitals. As silly and as absurd as it sounds (and seriously, no one actually wears the clothes these somber looking models don on fashion runways), MTV.com, for one, understood the purpose. "While Owens has become a kind of master of making memorable runway moments . . . —a true gift considering the fleeting nature of fashion shows—he truly outdid himself with this one." The purpose was to get in the news, and Owens succeeded.
But over at Jezebel, where they constantly rant about sexism and double standards and excoriate a culture that makes girls feel bad about their body image, a young writer named Ellie Shechet proceeded to make fun of the models' penises.
"I feel absolutely terrible for these models," Schechet wrote. "Yes, women show their breasts on the runway all the time—but boobs (okay, model-sized boobs) don't flap around. Boobs don't shrink in the cold."
Get it? Boobs are good, dicks are ridiculous and fair game to ridicule.
My guess is this outlet would never dream of ridiculing female body parts because that could tear down girl's self-image, but boy parts? Not a problem! (Boys need to learn to laugh about their ridiculous genitals sooner or later anyway.)
Jezebel shows a picture of one model whose penis is in a state of shrinkage. Maybe it was cold, maybe he was anxious, probably both, but that's a pretty common bodily reaction, as I understand it. Nevertheless, the Jezebel writer "apologize[s] . . . in advance" for even subjecting her readers to the sight of it, presumably because it is so pathetic and disgusting. (Of course, if Jezebel was really so concerned about subjecting its readers to the disgusting sight of a pathetic small penis, it could have opted not to run the photo but you and I both know this writer couldn't resist the chance to ridicule some poor guy's organ because it doesn't measure up to a social construct--you know, the sort of thing Jezebel screams about when someone does it to women.)
Over at Glamour, Ella Alexander pitied the "poor, poor models" forced to reveal their presumably disgusting male genitalia through penis flaps. My bet is Alexander would never pity a female model who showed a little tit. Over at Bustle, Olivia Muenter wrote: "Now I don’t know about you, but men’s genitalia is simply not something that comes to mind immediately when I consider high fashion." And over at Cosmopolitan, they introduced the dick photos by saying "we've got the uncensored images right here for your viewing pleasure/horror."
Get it? Penises are pitiful, the antithesis of high fashion, and a horror show. If only we could redesign them--maybe they wouldn't be so disgusting.
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
It's a scrotum, ladies--get over it!
In the UK, the young man in the robe had a testicular cancer check on live television the other day to raise awareness about the disease and to encourage young men to check their testicles. And, oh no! They actually showed his well-groomed scrotum! No dick, just balls, but this sent some viewers into orbit. Read these tweets:
"Omg.... Its WAY too early to be seeing a pair of balls on #lorraine #ballsinyourface," tweeted viewer, Leanne Ellen.
"All for a good cause but that put me right off my boiled egg!.. #Lorraine."
Under the story, there were these comments:
". . . crude and offensive."
"Many people had just thrw up their soft boiled egg breakfast."
"I think ITV are using shock tactics to get viewers."
". . . bit early to be seeing those wrinkled nuts!"
"Is this really necessary."
"Ew no one wants to see balls whilst eating their breakfast!"
Fortunately, most people who commented were supportive of the demonstration, but the number of viewers who exhibited disgust was troubling. Even in this day and age, for too many people, "male" body parts are offensive.
Here were my two favorite comments:
"I survived (testicular cancer) too and would quite happily share the experience on TV if it meant one more man would be saved. Massive focus on female cancers and that's all good but when it's a mans cancer everyone becomes prudes. Hypocritical at best."
"I think that for those prudish women, and a few men, who see this as sexualised and wrong should probably be placed on some kind of register. I am sorry but if you can't see a testicle without thinking something is inappropriate then your mind might need examining...."
Friday, January 30, 2015
New York college bans 'Mr.' and 'Mrs.' salutations
Professors and other employees at the City University of New York’s Graduate Center have been forbidden from addressing students and prospective students with the title “Mr.” and “Ms.” because, campus leaders say, the terms may be offensive. School spokeswoman Tanya Domi told The Wall Street Journal that the policy aims to work “within a regulatory framework to comply with Title IX legal principles.”
What about students who want to be addressed with a traditional salutation? “It’s difficult to find a principled reason why the perspectives of those who prefer traditional salutations should be valued less than the perspectives of those who favor their abandonment, and that is precisely why language policing is best avoided altogether—it always entails making distinctions based on subjective preferences for a particular viewpoint,” said free speech lawyer Ari Cohn.
The new policy is fraught with problems. For one thing, it will promote disrespect for older indiduals. Instead of calling the delightful preschool toy "Mr. Potato Head," children will start calling him "Potato Head." (Mr. Potato Head, by the way, is over 60 years old.) Worse, if the central character of the British television "Mr. Bean" came to campus, everyone would be forced to call him "Bean" since he has no first name. Kids' show "Mister Rogers" would become just "Rogers."
The problems are endless: "The talented Mr. Ripley," "Mrs. Butterworth," "Mrs. Miniver," "Saving Mr. Banks," "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town," "Mr. Belvedere," "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," "Looking for Mr. Goodbar," "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." On and on it goes.
The college is making a statement: no matter how offensive our in-your-face policy is to your sad traditional values, it's worth it, if only to prove what a backward Neanderthal you are.
What about students who want to be addressed with a traditional salutation? “It’s difficult to find a principled reason why the perspectives of those who prefer traditional salutations should be valued less than the perspectives of those who favor their abandonment, and that is precisely why language policing is best avoided altogether—it always entails making distinctions based on subjective preferences for a particular viewpoint,” said free speech lawyer Ari Cohn.
The new policy is fraught with problems. For one thing, it will promote disrespect for older indiduals. Instead of calling the delightful preschool toy "Mr. Potato Head," children will start calling him "Potato Head." (Mr. Potato Head, by the way, is over 60 years old.) Worse, if the central character of the British television "Mr. Bean" came to campus, everyone would be forced to call him "Bean" since he has no first name. Kids' show "Mister Rogers" would become just "Rogers."
The problems are endless: "The talented Mr. Ripley," "Mrs. Butterworth," "Mrs. Miniver," "Saving Mr. Banks," "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town," "Mr. Belvedere," "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," "Looking for Mr. Goodbar," "Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde." On and on it goes.
The college is making a statement: no matter how offensive our in-your-face policy is to your sad traditional values, it's worth it, if only to prove what a backward Neanderthal you are.
Thursday, January 29, 2015
Headline in article says girls were subjected to humiliating search--but it turns out boys were, too
Young Mr. Soave writes for Reason.com, and he has a new article: "School Made 11-Year-Old Girls Pull Down Their Pants for Disgusting Inspection."
When I saw that headline, I was furious--but then I read the story and it turns out both girls and boys were subject to the same humiliating inspection.
I am still furious, but why did you leave out the boys from the headline, Robby Soave?
Tell us you didn't pick the headline, Robby. Tell us it was some sexist editor.
Here's a screenshot of the headline.
Wednesday, January 28, 2015
Boko Haram strikes again--but no big deal: they only killed males
You haven't heard much about this terrorist group for a while, have you? That's because they've learned how to keep a low profile in the eyes of world news organizations: they single out males for most of their atrocities.
For two weeks, Boko Haram gunmen have sacked dozens of villages in close to the border of Cameroon, slaughtering male residents. http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/28/africa/boko-haram-raids/
Earlier this month Boko Haram militants abducted 40 boys and young men, ages 15-23, in a remote community in Nigeria. They seize young men during raids and force them to become foot soldiers in its uprising aimed at establishing an Islamic state in northern Nigeria. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2895299/Boko-Haram-seizes-40-boys-men-northern-Nigeria-witnesses.html
Boko Haram recently returned a large group of kidnapped girls, but not kidnapped boys. http://www.inquisitr.com/1786891/boko-haram-calls-girl-hostages-infidels-orders-them-to-return-to-village/
Nice of the First Lady to hold up a sign for the boys.
Tuesday, January 27, 2015
New worldwide study: girls are outperforming boys in science, math and reading-
Monday, January 26, 2015
The Dictionary of Man-Hating Words
Slowly, there's a new vocabulary developing that blames men as a class for bad things that happen to women. The angry women who invent this new vocabulary take a gerund (a noun made from a verb by adding "-ing"), change the first part to include the word "man" or some male variation, and--voila!--it becomes a word to describe the bad things they claim "men" as a class supposedly do to women. Here are some examples (click on the word for links to source material):
Bro-opted: Taking a woman’s idea and taking credit for it.
Bropropriating: Taking a woman’s idea and taking credit for it.
Manslamming: The sidewalk M.O. of men who remain apparently oblivious to the personal space of those around them.
Mansplaining: When a man condescendingly lectures a woman on the basics of a topic about which he knows very little, under the mistaken assumption that she knows even less.
Manspreading: The male practice of sitting on a crowded train with legs spread wide apart.
Manterrupting: Unnecessary interruption of a woman by a man.
This new language is embarrassing to those of us who actually don't ascribe negative traits to "men" as a class. If a man does something anti-social--if he interrupts, takes credit where it isn't deserved, is condescending, takes up too much room on a subway, or bumps into people on the street--it isn't a gender hate crime, it isn't evidence that women are oppressed, and it isn't a reflection on his entire gender. It just means that this particular man did something anti-social.
And women do the same things (do I really need to go there, people?), but if male writers started dreaming up snarky words to shame the entire female gender for the actions of some women, the angry women who dream up this stuff would spit nails even more than usual.
Elissa Strauss says enough with this stupid trend! She writes:
Bro-opted: Taking a woman’s idea and taking credit for it.
Bropropriating: Taking a woman’s idea and taking credit for it.
Manslamming: The sidewalk M.O. of men who remain apparently oblivious to the personal space of those around them.
Mansplaining: When a man condescendingly lectures a woman on the basics of a topic about which he knows very little, under the mistaken assumption that she knows even less.
Manspreading: The male practice of sitting on a crowded train with legs spread wide apart.
Manterrupting: Unnecessary interruption of a woman by a man.
___________________
This new language is embarrassing to those of us who actually don't ascribe negative traits to "men" as a class. If a man does something anti-social--if he interrupts, takes credit where it isn't deserved, is condescending, takes up too much room on a subway, or bumps into people on the street--it isn't a gender hate crime, it isn't evidence that women are oppressed, and it isn't a reflection on his entire gender. It just means that this particular man did something anti-social.
And women do the same things (do I really need to go there, people?), but if male writers started dreaming up snarky words to shame the entire female gender for the actions of some women, the angry women who dream up this stuff would spit nails even more than usual.
Elissa Strauss says enough with this stupid trend! She writes:
For one, it commits the sin of gender essentialism, i.e. attributing one's behavior to one's gender. Is a man's windbaggery a consequence of his gender or the fact that he's just a jerk? Must we reinforce the connection between speechifying and penises? Women have long tried to undo the idea that gender is destiny, both as nurture and nature, because it limits everyone. Why bring it back? As Meghan Daum recently pointed out, both genders are capable of being blowhards.Ladies, it's time to grow up.
The other problem is that " man-izing" makes criticism too easy to deflect. . . . But most men, or people . . . deserve to be heard out. After "mansplain" caught fire, it became all too easy for women to avoid conversations with men who disagree with them; all they had to do is charge them with "mansplaining" and case closed.
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Jezebel makes fun of runway model's dick size, apologizes to readers in advance for showing picture of such a pathetic thing
Fashion designer Rick Owens presented his Fall/Winter 2015 menswear show at Paris Fashion Week last week, featuring a lot of loose-fitting, draped pieces -- and some of them featured strategic cutouts to expose bare male genitals.
As silly and as absurd as it sounds (and seriously, no one actually wears the clothes these somber looking models don on fashion runways), MTV.com, for one, understood the purpose. "While Owens has become a kind of master of making memorable runway moments . . . —a true gift considering the fleeting nature of fashion shows—he truly outdid himself with this one." The purpose was to get in the news, and Owens succeeded.
But over at Jezebel, where they constantly rant about sexism and double standards and excoriate a culture that makes girls feel bad about their body image, a young writer named Ellie Shechet proceeded to make fun of the models' penises.
"I feel absolutely terrible for these models," Schechet wrote. "Yes, women show their breasts on the runway all the time—but boobs (okay, model-sized boobs) don't flap around. Boobs don't shrink in the cold."
Oh, I see: boobs are good, dicks are ridiculous and fair game to ridicule. Got it.
Jezebel shows a picture of one model whose penis is in a state of shrinkage. Maybe it was cold, maybe he was anxious, probably both, but that's a pretty common bodily reaction, as I understand it. Nevertheless, the Jezebel writer "apologize[s] . . . in advance" for even subjecting her readers to the sight of it, presumably because it is so pathetic and disgusting.
Of course, if Jezebel was really so concerned about subjecting its readers to the disgusting sight of a pathetic small penis, it could have opted not to run the photo. How much you want to bet that thought never entered this writer's mind? You know it and I know it: she couldn't resist the chance to ridicule some poor guy's organ because it doesn't measure up to some social construct. (You know, the sort of thing Jezebel screams about when someone does it to women.)
To Jezebel and other women who do this, I say, grow up, ladies. Are you fucking 12 years old? It's a penis! They vary in size and shape from guy to guy, and each one varies in size depending on the circumstances, okay? Get over it!
The fact that Jezebel doesn't see the hypocrisy in making fun of some guy's penis while having fits over any whiff of sexism when women are on the receiving end is not surprising, but it sure as hell doesn't speak well for media outlets that skew feminist.
One reader posted a comment under the original story that is right on the money:
Um...guys...it's not okay to point and laugh at other peoples' bodies. I'm the last person in the world to be all "what about the men!1!!1!" and I generally have close to zero sympathy for penis anxiety, but the way people are reacting to this is fucking gross and really, really surprising for Jezebel. There are people reading these threads whose genitals look like this, and it's pretty fucking hurtful and dehumanizing to have to listen to a bunch of strangers be all "ewwwww what IS that?!" Knock it the fuck off.
Besides, I've seen hundreds of dicks and — FYI — this one isn't that unusual.
Wednesday, December 17, 2014
Thursday, December 11, 2014
Tuesday, December 9, 2014
Male spaces are goods for males, and females
In days long gone, women complained about being excluded from positions of power and prestige. That exclusion is now legally prohibited and socially unacceptable, so now some women complain about being excluded from places where, in days long gone, no woman would have wanted to go, where there is no power, where there is no prestige, just guys. They want to go there precisely because the guys don't want them there.
A 36 year-old barber got death threats after he barred women from his barber shops in Manchester and Liverpool. He argued that “there are very few spaces left where men can be men.” The government threatened to shut him down.
A Jezebel writer named Ernest Adams explained that real men don't have male-only spaces, but, of course, women do: "If you want to have some private little club for males only –- like keeping women out of your favorite shooter games –- you're not a man, you're an insecure little boy." He continued: "Male-only spaces are about excluding women from power, and making little boys whose balls evidently haven't dropped feel special. Female-only spaces are about creating a place where they are safe from vermin."
(Note that when you want to attack men, you need to make a quip about their balls.)
Put aside people's delicate, politically correct feelings about gender equality, male spaces are good because they promote male bonding, which is good because it relieves male stress, which is good for men and for women. Why women? Because the stresses of "being a man" in the 21st Century create all sorts of social pathologies that have taken a massive toll on our male loved ones. We're losing our sons, brothers, fathers, husbands, and boyfriends to suicide and violence at epic rates, and too many of them succumb to alcohol, drugs, and violence (including domestic violence) for reasons women just don't understand. Male bonding relieves the stresses of modern male life.
When scientists want to learn about human males, they study apes because, working in a university setting, they can't tell the difference. But here's a study of apes that gets it right.
A 36 year-old barber got death threats after he barred women from his barber shops in Manchester and Liverpool. He argued that “there are very few spaces left where men can be men.” The government threatened to shut him down.
A Jezebel writer named Ernest Adams explained that real men don't have male-only spaces, but, of course, women do: "If you want to have some private little club for males only –- like keeping women out of your favorite shooter games –- you're not a man, you're an insecure little boy." He continued: "Male-only spaces are about excluding women from power, and making little boys whose balls evidently haven't dropped feel special. Female-only spaces are about creating a place where they are safe from vermin."
(Note that when you want to attack men, you need to make a quip about their balls.)
Put aside people's delicate, politically correct feelings about gender equality, male spaces are good because they promote male bonding, which is good because it relieves male stress, which is good for men and for women. Why women? Because the stresses of "being a man" in the 21st Century create all sorts of social pathologies that have taken a massive toll on our male loved ones. We're losing our sons, brothers, fathers, husbands, and boyfriends to suicide and violence at epic rates, and too many of them succumb to alcohol, drugs, and violence (including domestic violence) for reasons women just don't understand. Male bonding relieves the stresses of modern male life.
When scientists want to learn about human males, they study apes because, working in a university setting, they can't tell the difference. But here's a study of apes that gets it right.
Scientists from Germany's University of Gottingen studied groups of Barbary macaques, a type of ape which exhibits very human behaviour is its social groups.
Strangely, stress-related illnesses among macaques only seem to occur among females or both sexes within a pair. So they monitored the levels of the stress hormone glucocorticoids among male macaques when they were with their partner, family members or in groups of other males.The S.O.M.T.
If the male apes were put under stress, such as in very low temperatures or when faced with a threat, their stress levels went up.
But when faced with similar threats, their stress levels didn’t rise so high if they were in a group of other males.
This remained true among males at the top of the hierarchy in their social circle and those further down, said Dr Christopher Young, of the university's Primate Social Evolution Group.
Wild Barbary macaque males form strong social bonds with other males just as humans do, the study noted, and like humans they feel there is safety in numbers.
They feel less threatened by outsiders when in a group and this bravado helps prevent them getting stressed. They also look after each other. While men may do this by watching each other's backs, for monkeys this means picking insects and fleas out of each other's fur.
Even natural factors like cold weather appear to be less of a problem for the apes when they are out with their mates.
Dr Young added: 'Male macaques form social bonds similar to human friendships that buffer them against day-to-day stressors.
'If male primates live in multimale groups they usually fight fiercely over access to females, but males can develop friendly relationships with a few group mates.
'The strength of these "friendships" has now been shown to buffer against the negative effects of social and environmental stressors.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)