I make no apologies for the title nor how it may ruin the camp (or erotic) value of bad 70s television
Clarice Feldman, American … Fuck You:
Newtown: Just Leave Us to Grieve in Peace
Shorter (or the last port before Jungle):
- Shame on you, dirty liberals claiming kinship with the Sandy Hook shooting victims to pursue your political agenda of trying to make sure this never happens again. I’m so upset at you, I need to claim ownership and spokesmanship for the victims in order to pursue my political agenda of ensuring that these shootings continue to happen every couple of months!
No no no no no no no nononnonono! Not doing it!
Mona Charen, National Knows Her Place:
Chivalry: The Opposite of Good Manners?
I need a break from trying to mango retrieve wingnut responses to Sandy Hook*. Something refreshing. Something enjoyable.
Like… ooh. Mona Charen, the delightful moron who managed to lose an argument against her own spellcheck software has a new article. Even better it’s an attempt to understand and exploit some genuine academic research.
Ah, it’s like Satanmas come early!
Shorter (or the last port before Jungle):
- This academic article about how women rationalize non-cartoonish bigotry as not being that bad proves conclusively that non-cartoonish bigotry isn’t that bad. Take that, feminists!
(girlish squeal) And it’s even about feminism and sexism! Oh thank you, National Review gods, you know exactly what I needed! Now if only there was some painful myopia to sprinkle on the top-
Chivalry is back in the news.
Yep, chivalry sure is all anyone is talking about these days! I mean, a google news search for chivalry turns up what must be… nearly 5 stories in the last 4 days (most by wingnuts following the same talking points as Mona) versus the approximately seventy bajillion articles on the Sandy Hook shooting released in the last 4 picoseconds alone.
And it’s not like she can even pull the bullshit “oh some of the male heroes only saved those ungrateful bitches out of chivalry” shit some were peddling after the Colorado shooting what with nearly all the fallen heroes of this shooting being brave and under-appreciated female public school teachers.
I guess, sometimes real life can just be all “inconvenient” to attempted talking point pimping, can’t it, Mona? So what’s the real reason for your sudden interest in the “nice” sexism known as chivalry?
The always alert Charles Murray of the American Enterprise Institute draws our attention
Ah, of course he does. Well, if ole Charlie No Talent of the perpetual fail machine known as the AEI directed you to write about it, I guess you had no choice but to follow.
Actually, let’s take a moment to process just how incredibly pathetic it is that she’s the talking point outlet for Charles Fucking Murray. That’s like barely one step above being the talking point recipient of Glenn Reynolds. Or Mona herself.
draws our attention to an item in the Psychology of Women Quarterly.
Eeeeeeeeee! Sorry, for my continued girly excitement, but it is always so refreshing when wingnuts stupidly decide to go after genuine academic scholarship in their usual “enlightened” fashion.
So today’s wingnut target for bastardization is the article “Why is Benevolent Sexism Appealing? Associations With System Justification and Life Satisfaction” published back in August in the “Psychology of Women Quarterly” written by Kathleen Connelly in partnership with Dr. Martin Heesacker both of the Department of Psychology at the University of Florida. The article itself is sadly still behind the academic paywall, but luckily having shelled out the $25! for the article I can confirm that the abstract is a pretty strong summary of its main findings. And let’s be honest, if Cheapass Murray and his attack schnauzer read anything other than the abstract I’ll eat my brand new hat.
So what’s the article about? Well, here’s the abstract:
Previous research suggests that benevolent sexism is an ideology that perpetuates gender inequality. But despite its negative consequences, benevolent sexism is a prevalent ideology that some even find attractive. To better understand why women and men alike might be motivated to adopt benevolent sexism, the current study tested system justification theory’s prediction that benevolent sexism might have a positive linkage to life satisfaction through increased diffuse system justification, or the sense that the status quo is fair. A structural equation model revealed that benevolent sexism was positively associated with diffuse system justification within a sample of 274 college women and 111 college men. Additionally, benevolent sexism was indirectly associated with life satisfaction for both women and men through diffuse system justification. In contrast, hostile sexism was not related to diffuse system justification or life satisfaction. The results imply that although benevolent sexism perpetuates inequality at the structural level, it might offer some benefits at the personal level. Thus, our findings reinforce the dangerous nature of benevolent sexism and emphasize the need for interventions to reduce its prevalence.
So basically, due to internalized sexism and having been raised in a status quo of an unequal system, many men and women see “nice” sexism as a refreshing break from the more obvious and archaic sexism as exhibited by say, the current Republican party and so are less likely to recognize it as oppression at all, are more likely to justify and defend it against those who speak out against it, and may even see it as an overall positive thing in their lives because hey, it’s not like those small oppressions and inequalities are the same thing as like being abused or being raped or something.
Which is pretty much obvious to most people who have been paying even the slightest bit of attention to issues of gender and sexism. The real definition of “the personal is political” is all about trying to recognize how inequalities in one’s personal life are actually caused and exasperated by social and political issues of inequality. And many of us have stepped into some accidental sexism that we didn’t notice at first because “why would we, it’s just the way the world is”. And certainly looking back, we can boggle at how women even put up with the level of sexism and inequality back in the early 60s and earlier and wonder at how much of our current interactions between the sexes will look just as archaic and inexcusable to our grandkids or great-grandkids.
So let’s see how Mona misses the point entirely!
A new study on what the authors are pleased to call “benevolent sexism” (which, as Murray translates, seems to mean gentlemanly behavior)
Because, of course, thinking for yourself is NOT LADYLIKE! A proper woman lets men decide what words mean lest they accidentally get conscious-raising on them!
Yeah, don’t let any of that nasty education get on you, or bother doing even the most rudimentary google research on what “benevolent sexism” actually means. Hint, it’s not benevolent for the receiver of the sexism, it’s just easier for the deliverer to justify as “positive” for the recipient of the sexism.
Much easier to do what you’re told.
On an unrelated note, how is that conservative outreach to young women voters coming?
found that both women and men are happier when men behave like gentlemen.
Yeah, that’s not even close to what the article found. Like even in the same ballpark. Fuck, it’s not even in the same solar system.
But hey, it wouldn’t be a wingnut’s understanding of academic research if it let little things like facts and reality get in the way of a good confirmation of what you already want to believe.
This being a sociological publication, though, the findings are not written in English, but rather in academic argot.
Snrk. Yes, those damn academics writing in their weird space language that is completely impenetrable to anyone else… Oh, wingnut anti-intellectuals, so very proud of being too dumb to even look up words on wikipedia lest they get some accidental knowledge on them and become infected with the liberal cooties that make you care about petty things like social injustice and oppression.
It makes you so completely voluntarily brain-dead that if someone were to savagely rip into you and your culture, you would gleefully cite it as a confirmation of how awesome you were… oh wait!
It’s full of sentences like this: “A structural equation model revealed that benevolent sexism was positively associated with diffuse system justification within a sample of 274 college women and 111 college men.”
Like here for example. Yes, let’s “translate” this completely impenetrable spaceman garble piece by piece into proper Amurican english.
A structural equation model is a statistical technique for finding causal relationships (that is X causes Y) that is very useful because it can be used with qualitative data (like “I feel sad”, “I feel happy”, etc…). In short, they did some math shit to make people’s feelings into fancy math they could use to test whether or not things are related to each other in meaningful ways.
Benevolent sexism, we defined above.
So we move to positively associated which doesn’t actually mean “yep, it’s super positive and a hearty endorsement”, but just means, yup, we sure did find a significant, possibly causal, connection between the two things we were studying. It’s standard science for “yup this thing sure does exist”.
Diffuse System Justification is a way to refer to the way people are motivated to support an unequal and shitty status quo even when they are being personally fucked by it because it’s what they are used to and besides everything works okay the way things are and change is all scary because change brings in the unknown and we reflexively fear the unknown and suspect it will be worse than what we have now even when changes usually are either neutral or for the better.
In short, “we don’t need no stinking feminism! Back in my day, women knew their place and everyone was happier back then”. It’s basically the rallying cry of every conservative as they cling bitterly to “what I have always known”.
And the last bit is just the numbers of who they surveyed.
So yeah, she quoted the article preemptively bitchslapping her. Ah, Mona, you never disappoint in your myopic publishing of your own self-fails!
Oh, and I should mention here that I have never taken a psychology course in my life. All of these terms? I learned what they meant with a simple google search and without straying off the first page of results. It took me less than 10 minutes total to learn what they meant.
That is the level of work that Mona and her fellow professional anti-intellectuals see as “fundamentally impossible” for the poor common prole.
Yeah, just going to let that sink in for a second…
If you spend more than $100,000 on an education in women’s studies, you can learn to be this impenetrable too.
Yeah, Kathleen Connelly and Dr. Martin Heesacker are from the Department of Psychology not the Women’s Studies Department and all the terms they use are standard Psychology terminology, not “Women’s Studies” terminology.
I mean, yes, I know this is the standard pre-emptive smear job because Mona’s remaining neuron was bright enough to notice that “benevolent sexism” may not have been intended in a positive manner and she wants to make sure her knuckle-dragger readers remember that they are supposed to reflexively hate all eggheads and education, but still… Worth pointing out just how off the mark she is here.
The authors of the study were quick to warn readers about what they’d discovered.
See? Last remaining neuron.
“Our findings reinforce the dangerous nature of benevolent sexism and emphasize the need for interventions to reduce its prevalence.”
Because, yeah, duh, as the study discovered, people aren’t really quick to notice “soft” bigotry as a big enough deal to recognize or fight against. And as the backlash against feminists who dare point out “soft” bigotry goes, there’s a painful social cost in even daring to see and call out this bigotry, leaving it to continue unchallenged. I mean, after all, why should women even care? Are you some humorless feminist or something looking for excuses to be angry? Do you want to be so picky you never get laid again?
Yeah. A bit of an issue there and why a lot of modern feminist thought tries and cover both the subtle sexism and the cartoonish man tying a woman to the train-track sexism and note how the defenses of both tend to say the same exact things.
Right. Though it seems to increase the life satisfaction of both sexes, it must still be eradicated.
Oh, wow. This is why it is so worth it to be actually intellectually curious and why it’s worth it to know things. It allows me to throughly appreciate just how intensely moronic Mona’s misreading here is.
“Life satisfaction” doesn’t mean “happiness”. It’s a self-reporting of one’s perception of their own happiness. So yeah, it doesn’t actually cover say people being genuinely happier, less stressed, more content with their life, but only whether or not they even perceive that their lives are shitty or not. It’s like the impoverished mother drowning in debt who loudly talks about how “she has nothing to complain about” and how “there’s plenty more worse off”. It’s the origin of the huge numbers of people below the poverty line who think they are middle class simply because they’re white or how the Dunning-Kruger effect leads morons to assume they are unrecognized geniuses.
Saying something increases “life satisfaction” means very little unless it correlates with actual, real improvement in one’s life and happiness. Otherwise, we know it by a more common name:
And that dear readers, is what we call education leading to a real increase in one’s happiness level AND life satisfaction.
When feminists set out to remake the sexes back in the 1970s
Oh, what heady days those were. Feminist sculptors working with the very clay of our being designing whole new sexes into the night. Fluberts and shlinks were only the tip of the iceberg my friends. I still have a special place in my heart for when they hand-crafted a spendulik. A sex of such rare and wondrous complexity that one needs to acquire a triple PhD in academic gobbledygook to even begin to describe what it is.
Sniff, those truly were the days!
they seemed to choose all the wrong traits to emulate or eliminate.
Let’s see, 1970s, so that would be second wave. So “traits to emulate” would have been “ability to work outside the home”, “ability to do sports”, allowing both genders more freedom and flexibility to be who they are naturally rather than feeling that they might as well commit suicide if they didn’t conform to the rigid standards in place. And “traits to eliminate” was mostly things like rape, child molestation, physical and emotional abuse, and dickheads thinking that a woman’s only place was in the home suffering from feminine mystique related breakdowns.
I think we have a living example of what society you get if we made sure the “wrong traits” weren’t “emulated or eliminated”. I believe it is called the Catholic Church.
Women were encouraged to match the promiscuity, aggressiveness, and irresponsibility of men.
But remember, it’s feminists who hate men and view them as barely functional man-children who couldn’t possibly be expected to look after themselves. Oh, IT’S ALWAYS PROJECTION, will there ever come a day when you won’t turn out to be true?
In other words, women were to model themselves on the worst men.
Oh, of course, it’s only the worst men. So women went from being beneath men to being equal… to the worst of men.
Hey, conservatives, how’s that outreach to female voters going?
Meanwhile, the best traits of traditional men — specifically their most chivalrous and protective impulses — were to be maligned, mocked, and resented.
And if infantilizing women as if they were subhuman child-like creatures who should never be allowed outside the control of a male master and owner really was the pinnacle of male behavior, then I doubt that modern feminism would be anything other than a mass-acceptance of the quickly-abandoned subculture of female separatism.
Luckily for all of us, it turns out most men aren’t as horrible as anti-feminists assume they are and it’s perfectly possible for men to be egalitarian in their daily lives or at least strive to be.
Well, don’t tell those nasty feminists about that. I’m sure they’ll have a giant conniption fit about-
What’s that? The feminists are the ones who regularly point this out while anti-feminists and people suffering from System Justification are the ones who assume that men can’t help but be sexist towards women and the gender and sex non-conforming?
Huh, well, isn’t that awkward to the narrative.
Still dancing on Mitt Romney’s political grave, feminist writer Gina Barreca told the Washington Post’s Gene Weingarten that Romney would be a “terrible, terrible date.” (Leave it to a feminist who wants women to be taken seriously to evaluate a presidential candidate as a potential date.) Why? Because he’d be chivalrous. “Chivalry is the opposite of good manners. It’s infantilizing. It’s contempt masquerading as politeness. The chivalrous guy is establishing roles; he is the protector, you are Limoges. Your job is to let him be masterful. In my experience, when you are standing on a pedestal, there’s not much room to move around. That’s by design.”
…You’re a fucking moron.
Okay, yes, I know, goes without saying, but really knowing everything I know (and I’ve written articles about her losing fights against her spellchecker and trying awkwardly to argue that the beliefs that “it’s impossible to get pregnant from rape” and “manly sperm create more male heirs” were somehow reasonable logical statements), this still makes me want to slap my hand against my forehead and ask what the fuck is wrong with her.
Gina Barreca is a humorist. This “Washington Post article” that Mona tries to pretend is some serious interview is a motherfucking humor column she does with Gene Weingarten for the Lifestyle section of the Washington Post.
This is literally the equivalent of someone angrily quoting Dave Berry as a “prominent journalist” failing to get serious about Florida’s alligator infestation.
And the irony is that even when Gina is presenting a deliberate caricature of a feminist taking humorous issue with a meaningless aspect of Mitt Romney’s character, she’s not actually wrong.
Chivalry is infantilizing, archaic, and is often used as the thin social veneer to disguise contempt and disrespect as a “favor” to women who are expected to pay a much higher social cost in “return”. And I speak as a person who used to deliberately try and be chivalrous when I was a kid. As practiced by many, what is referred to as “chivalry” and what conservatives consider “the best of male behavior” is often a social trap for women pretending to offer positive rewards (i.e. near treatment as a human being but with loads of condescension) in exchange for dramatically limiting what a woman can be lest they “violate the social contract”. Failure to do so by being a messy human being who doesn’t fit in narrow boxes is usually punished all the harder because the men were “trying to be nice” before the woman threw it all away.
You can see how much “nicer” such faux-polite cultures are simply by looking at how women are treated in the Deep South or in Fundamentalist Christian households. Yeah, there’s a reason a lot of young women run screaming into the night away from such households despite how “polite” and “nice” said cultures want to seem to be.
Emily Esfahani Smith isn’t buying the chivalry-as-disguised-power-grab line.
What’s that? The other professional anti-feminist whose paycheck also depends on telling sexist men that there’s no such thing as sexism and who received the same marching orders from the AEI** agrees with you that chivalry is like tout suite awesome? UNPOSSIBLE!
Surely, witchcraft must have been involved for such an amazing coincidence to occur!
Writing in The Atlantic, she notes (as Rich Lowry has highlighted)
Ooh, and now Rich Lowry is even involved. I’m not sure we can stuff any more hacks into this piece without triggering peak hack***.
the contrast between the Titanic and the Costa Concordia — two sinkings 100 years apart.
Oh god, we’re not going where I think we’re going are we?
Three-quarters of the women on the Titanic survived, while three-quarters of the men died. In 1912, men would have been ashamed of themselves if they had failed to protect women — even at the cost of their lives.
Yep, they really went there.
So yeah, the Titanic. That famous sunk ship wherein the stingy egotistical rich ass boat owner and captain didn’t bother to include a proper amount of lifeboats because “it ARE unpossible to sink big boats, adoy”. The ship wherein rich passengers famously cast off in their lifeboats at half capacity carrying along their actual fucking luggage in places where more living breathing people could go.
Where women were mostly aided in their survival rate by the fact that first class women made up over a third of total women aboard whereas first class men were only a little over a fifth. I mean, yes, there was the famous bit about “women and children first” which was enforced on one of the sides of the ship but that’s not really what sane people fixate on when they think about the Titanic disaster and the injustices that occurred on it.
But hey, if you really want to open a “supposedly benevolent sexism hurts men too” argument, you’ll find many a feminist in strong agreement. Which would be one among many of the reasons why they’ve criticized the system and worked to create an egalitarian model in its place.
Was that “contempt masquerading as politeness”?
1. You’re strawmanning a humor column. The bar is officially so low, the only way not to clear it would be to tunnel under the earth, so how on Earth did you manage to knock yourself out on the underside of the bar?
2. You’re a fucking idiot.
3. As above, codes of gendered behavior hurt both sexes and we’re well rid of them. Hence why in this time of “increased talk about chivalry”, only you and your assorted gang of Charles Murray sockpuppets are bothering to talk about it.
On the Costa Concordia, early in 2012, men shoved women aside to get into the lifeboats.
The Costa Concordia, much like the Titanic also had a colossal moron for a captain, with the over-promoted idiot deciding to ignore all his instruments to guide his massive cruise ship directly into the rocky shoals of the coastline.
4,252 people were on board. Unlike the Titanic, only 30 were confirmed dead (2 more missing and presumed dead) and 64 were injured. None of those dead or presumed dead died because lifeboats were unavailable to them. Instead they were killed either in the initial crash or because they were in a part of the ship where they were trapped and couldn’t get to where the lifeboats were.
So for all the supposed “pushing and shoving” that was so “intemperate” and totally the fault of women not being meek and mild enough to “deserve” chivalry, their chance of survival in the 2012 crash were meteorically higher simply because ships are now forced, by the evil Government no less, to carry enough lifeboats for everyone. Also, because we now recognize that one is not more worthy of life and survival simply because of one’s social class or one’s perceived gender.
Oh well, at least the women had more room to move around than on that darn pedestal.
Yes. Yes, they did. Because they were nearly all alive. Because no one actually died from “being (supposedly) shoved aside”. Instead of only 75% of women living in a tragedy with the “gracious” benefit of the most “benevolent” sexism the early 20th century could manage, we got nearly 100% with all the nasty brutish humanity we’d expect from a cruise ship catering to entitled American tourists.
So yes, you just reinforced not only the point that women in sea-accidents were better off in rude modern times with its government-enforced policies of having adequate lifeboats than in the caring arms of chivalrous bullshit and “free-market” decision making.
As a bonus, you also demonstrated Kathleen Connelly’s study about how Diffuse System Justification is used to perceive one’s life as totally being better in a system that’s actually worse for them.
Any more own goals and the crowd is going to start assuming you’re on the other team’s payroll… comrade.
Smith reminds us that chivalry arose in response to the violence and barbarism of the Middle Ages.
Which would be why the popular name for the amorphous period popularly referred to as “The Middle Ages” is “The Age of Chivalry”. Yeah, all that fancy pageantry of how kind and nice and loving the upper classes were didn’t at all temper their violence and barbarism, or reduce the amount of rape, murder, genocide, and wars the “chivalrous” class got up to. For all the Disney packaging of the “princess fantasy” to little girls, there ain’t no woman alive who’d really genuinely choose that life over the “decadent” world we’ve got now. Not really.
“It cautioned men to temper their aggression, deploying it only in appropriate circumstances — like to protect the physically weak and defenseless members of society.” Obviously many men failed to fulfill the ideal.
And here I was thinking that obvious crock of shit was simply the garderobe springing a leak.
We’ve always had boorish behavior. But wasn’t it preferable to label boorish behavior as such, rather than celebrate it as a victory for sexual equality?
Of course, which is why it’s so sad that modern feminists celebrate sexism, violence towards women, general violence, and hateful slurs…
Oh… by “boorish behavior” you didn’t actually mean real bad behavior and hate towards women; you more meant the way those uppity kids don’t automatically respect their elders and use the curse words and listen to the rap music, didn’t you?
Yeah, turns out young women (who are equally “boorish” by that idiotic notion) don’t really give a flying fuck about the faux-concern about “civility” and the way that bullshit often gives a free pass to hateful bigotry as long as it’s presented with a smile on one’s face and with proper blanching at “bad words” or “heavy emotions”.
You know, like the way Uncle Phil rants about how you’re an evil harpy demoness who is destroying America, but you’re the real bad guy when you call him a “fucking bigot”.
The chivalric code persists to this day, despite the best efforts of the feminists. When a shooter opened fire at an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater, no fewer than three young men protected their girlfriends from bullets with their own bodies — and died in the process.
Yeah, the Men Right’s fucktards were peddling this shit pretty hard after the shooting. About how men were chivalrously dying to protect women and how this is both unfair and why women should shut up forever about their “genuine oppression” shit.
And it was and still remains just that, shit.
Not only is it a disgraceful vile obscene act to try and reduce these automatic acts of genuine concern for loved ones into some sort of “just so” story to reinforce systematic sexism, twisting a genuine action of heroism and love into a reinforcement of paternalistic behavior and “benign” hate, but it’s also not really the whole story.
There turned out to be a shit ton of heroes that night at Aurora. Those three men may have gotten the bulk of the attention, but there were a host of other heroes, both male and female who risked their lives to save others. 19-year-old Emma Goos rushed to help the injured and helped keep a man with head wound alive while the shooter was still firing. 13-year-old Kaylan (no last name given) risked her life to try to save the life of Veronica Moser-Sullivan, a 6-year-old who was the youngest victim of the shooting. 21-year-old Stephanie Davies was hugged by Obama for the bravery she showed saving the life of her friend Allie Young, keeping her alive through a bullet wound to the neck and refusing to leave and informing 911 of what was going on, thus putting her in serious danger of being killed herself.
I could make a pithy comment about how the heroism of the women got so much less attention than the heroism of the men and how there are far less stories about the heroism in the Sandy Hook shootings because the main heroes there are all heroines, but frankly, no. They all deserve better than that.
Smith includes an anecdote that sums up the case for chivalry. Samuel Proctor, pastor of Harlem’s Abyssinian Baptist Church in the 1970s and 1980s, tipped his hat to a lady. She was offended and demanded, “What is that supposed to mean?”
He replied: “Madame, by tipping my hat I was telling you several things. That I would not harm you in any way. That if someone came into this elevator and threatened you, I would defend you. That if you fell ill, I would tend to you and if necessary carry you to safety. I was telling you that even though I am a man and physically stronger than you, I will treat you with both respect and solicitude. But frankly, Madame, it would have taken too much time to tell you all of that; so, instead, I just tipped my hat.”
Why, how pithy that self-reported story by said pastor is. And how difficult it must be to say one would do those things.
But as nice as those could be (in a world where they could be decoupled from the accompanying social expectations placed on women in exchange for mere words of support they didn’t ask for and seldom were done in practice), they, at their best, remain a poor substitute for genuine egalitarianism and respect as a person.
Women don’t need random men on the street to “protect them from threatening people on the elevator”. They need men to stop threatening them on the elevator. They don’t need random men on the street promising they’d carry them like porcelain dolls if they catch a spell of the vapors with their weak little lady constitutions. They need egalitarian romantic partners and friends who can get their back when they are genuinely sick with a real kick-you-in-the-pants flu even if that just entails making sure their cat is fed or they can pick them up some canned soup and Dayquil. And they freely give that back, not because it is simply expected that women will drop everything to care for men, but because that’s what romantic partners and/or friends do for each other. They don’t need to be told that they are deigned to be respected with an unhealthy dollop of “but I can totally overpower you if you don’t turn out to deserve it”.
They need genuine respect. And genuine allies. People who won’t turn on them and join the douchebag chorus at the drop of a hat. People who won’t treat them like something not-entirely equal nor not-fully human while pretending that’s a kindness. People who will check their privilege and actively work to improve themselves. People who will call out douchebags and recognize sexism and not be rapists or abusers and most importantly people who will recognize that this is the minimum standard not some grand favor to be done in exchange for sex and lowered standards at home. In short, people who understand that women are people and don’t try and pretend that archaic and constricting gender bullshit is the favored alternative to real transformative change.
They need at the very least, people who are willing to at least try to improve themselves and this broken system we find ourselves in, which hurts both men and women alike, instead of a chorus of throwbacks still clinging to the delusion that the old ways were somehow tenable or even better.
In short, what they need a fuck less of is System Justifying assholes like you and a bit more of those nasty brutish rabble-rousers that give said System Justifying assholes the vapors.
‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. Surgeon General’s Warning: Mango diving for wingnut responses to Sandy Hook may be hazardous to your health. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™
*Yes, I realize I’ve yet to actually do a proper post on it, yet. I’ll write one when I can get through a wingnut article without vomiting up the blackened and tarnished remainder of my soul.
**Seriously. Neither writer even bothered to hide the fact that Charles Murray told them to try and obfuscate the article as actually supporting chivalry. I’m honestly a little offended at the absolute lack of effort both women give their hackitude. I mean, fuck, you sold away whatever remained of your soul and your mind to eternal servitude to the crazy party and let Charles fucking Murray dictate your talking points and you don’t even bother to bring your A-game? C’mon, have some self-respect, sisters! Just because you are working for the enemy trying to sell us all out by penning condescending “appeals to women” arguing that if we just stop seeing sexism as sexism we’ll be happier doesn’t mean you have to also write in a way that’s embarrassing to the sex!
***Either that or the most terrifying orgy in the history of the universe.