Like A Girl

The filmmaker, Lauren Greenfield, created an advertisement to market and sell sanitary rags and other feminine products for the Always brand. This advertisement is a short documentary in which the filmmaker interviews folks on camera and has them act as though they are doing various physical activities like a girl. The video is titled Always #LikeAGirl and was published to YouTube a few weeks ago. At last check, the video has over thirty-four million views.

The advertisement is also accompanied by the hashtag, #LikeAGirl, on Twitter and there are thousands of folks tweeting about the video. The overwhelming response to the video seems to be positive. The video and hashtag are clever in that they invite consumers into a discussion about gender-related issues.

One of the primary issues discussed is the dive in self-confidence felt by girls during puberty—how being like a girl is supposedly the worst possible thing that a girl can be—how saying that somebody runs, fights, or throws like a girl is an insult that contributes to this decline in the self-confidence of girls.

Lauren Greenfield calls this a “confidence crisis” that is “profoundly disempowering” for girls. Greenfield also says that she is “excited to be a part of the movement to redefine ‘like a girl’ into a positive affirmation.”

The movie, The Sandlot, does a fine job of showing how this insult is typically used. Telling a boy that he plays ball like a girl is the ultimate insult to a boy, worse than scab eating, fart smelling, butt-lickers who mix Wheaties with their mother’s toe-jam.

The insult is used primarily against boys who are not very competent athletic-wise. If a boy is told that he fights, hits, or throws like a girl, it means that he isn’t valued as a man…and neither is he valued as a woman. As such, the boy is just plain old worthless.

If a girl is told she fights, hits, or throws like a girl, it means that she isn’t valued as a man either, but, assuming she identifies as a woman, she still may be valued as a woman (or girl). As such, the girl isn’t seen as plain old worthless, like the kinesthetically impoverished boy.

So, when feminists try to spin this insult, when they say that our culture disempowers women via this insult or that there is no worse insult than being like a girl, they are failing to articulate the depths of meaning within the insult. They are failing to comprehend how that insult applies to boys and men and how that insult is more harmful to those within the male body.

I don’t really expect much more from our gynocentric culture. That feminists would spin this insult as a form of misogyny is to be expected. When an ideology is primarily fixated on the problems of women, of course those ideologues wouldn’t bother to understand the nuance of the insult. Of course they wouldn’t comprehend how it harms boys more than girls. Of course they wouldn’t bother to articulate how this insult actually contributes to a culture of male disposability, sacrifice, and heroics.

The insult has more to do with reinforcing the traditional gender roles of men. Those roles are a form of cultural misandry. Those roles reinforce the notion that the male body is nothing much more than a tool—a labor machine. There is very little, if any, misogyny in the insult because it primarily targets and degrades men with a male body who don’t fit a certain stereotype—an athletic-aesthetic and prowess. It’s a way to enforce a sort of gynocentric masculinity—a masculinity marked by chivalry, disposability, sacrifice, and heroics—primarily for the benefit of women—in deference to them.  It highlights the distinction between the performance value of a man versus the inherent value of a woman.

As noted above, if the girl is told that she throws like a girl, nothing is subtracted from her value as a woman. That insult takes nothing away from her because she is…a girl. And there is nothing wrong with that. The female body isn’t typically expected to be subjected to use like a male body and neither is it expected to perform like one. So, if a girl is told that she throws like a man, she is being told that her body is mannish…and that’s probably a more harmful insult to lob at a girl who may already be suffering with self-esteem issues.

It would have been interesting to see the reactions of the folks in the video had they been asked to perform like a man. Folks likely would have walked with a swagger, opened their gait to seem macho, and moved their arms like an ape. Hidden beneath the surface of these machismo motions of the male body is the abstraction of manliness—the self that tries to exist in a space where he is valued primarily as a labor machine—something of a performing monkey. Telling a man that he acts like a man is telling him that he is valued for what he does. Our culture doesn’t really place much value on a man apart from what he does. He doesn’t have much, if any, inherent value outside of his performance. As such, his value seems tethered to the performance of his male body—while simultaneously and seemingly contradictorily being reduced to a thing of abstraction—a disembodied and disembedded self.

In contrast, a woman can do practically nothing, sitting on ass—watching TV all day. So long as she doesn’t eat like a hippopotamus and gets a couple hours of cardio or yoga workouts in every week, she has a sort of inherent value—even though she does barely anything above the level of a slob. She could be a damn princess and nobody would be able to distinguish much of a difference.

The female body isn’t expected to throw, fight, hit, or run like a male body. As noted above, if a boy is told that he throws like a girl, he is just plain old worthless…because not only is he not valued as a man in a male body, but he is also not valued as a woman in a male body. Aside from the misandric nature of the insult, it also has transphobic and perhaps homophobic implications too.

The insult, when hurled at a boy, is meant to demean and police that boy into compliance with a masculinity that submits the male body to a dominance hierarchy of status. The insult is the inverted way of saying man up or be a man. It plays on the chivalric tradition that binds men to the role of provider and protector of women through the use of their disposable male bodies.

Yet, feminists seem to see this insult as one that mostly harms and disrespects girls by supposedly being profoundly disempowering to girls. This focus on how the phrase primarily harms girls is also an example of the gynocentric and chivalric tradition that continues to perpetuate the cultural norms that place women first—at the expense and sacrifice of men.

So, the insult is more harmful to boys because it reinforces the gynocentric and chivalric cultural norms of the traditional male gender roles—something that feminists ostensibly claim to be fighting against. The population that needs liberated from these gynocentric and traditional gender roles is the male population. Women already experience a great deal of liberation from these roles. Women are empowered to be caregivers or breadwinners. Men are empowered to be breadwinners or bums.

 So, you’re a stay-at-home dad, like a girl? Why don’t you get a real job, like a man?

When I was in my early twenties, I watched Saving Private Ryan with a half-dozen or so of my friends. I’ll never forget that opening scene on Omaha Beach. I’ll never forget how my friend leaned in to ask if I was OK. I’d never really seen anything like that—the way Spielberg used the camera to move in and out of the action. The opening scene captured the fear and courage, the duty and sacrifice, the male body and heroics—the disposability of men.

This is what it has meant to be a man. Being like a man has been (and continues to be) tethered to the willingness of men to do things like in this opening scene–to throw one’s body into the water and run headlong for cover—up a beach peppered with bullets, grenades, mutilations, and death. Being like a man, like the men who stormed Omaha Beach, means using one’s hands to try and keep from bleeding out while crying out for mother. Being like a man, for thousands of men who suffered dismemberments, meant using one good arm to pick up the other arm—the one that had been blown to bits and now lays apart from one’s male body in the sandy blood-soaked beach. It means detaching. It means becoming a disembedded and disembodied self—a thing to be used like a pawn, a tool, an object-of-utility. Yet, according to feminists, being like a girl is so profoundly disempowering for women. Where is my fainting couch?

The opening scene of that movie made me feel queasy. Ever since I filled out my Selective Service card so that I could get my driver’s license, I’d wondered about what it’d be like—going to war. My friend’s father was a Vietnam veteran and had multiple purple hearts and stories from the injuries sustained in battle. He, my father, and my grandfather had tales of duress, disposability, combat, and war, but those stories were just words. The visuals from the movie gave more meaning to those words and suffering.

I’m sure that these men would not have reacted kindly to anybody saying that they do anything like a girl. However, if asked whether they’d choose to live their lives again, as a stay-at-home dad or as a veteran of war, they’d likely choose the former, assuming they had experienced liberation from their traditional gender roles.

So, when I see this moving advertisement about the confidence crisis that girls face, I can’t help but condemn it for being gynocentric, for its reinforcement of traditional masculine gender roles, for its callousness towards men, and for it being a piece of propaganda to sell sanitary rags to women and girls who may feel profoundly disempowered about being like a girl. If we want to be liberated from traditional gender roles, perhaps we should stop reinforcing them with empty, but feel-good #LikeAGirl propaganda.

Most sentences and blog posts are like a girl. They usually end with a period.

Rape, Special Snowflakes, and Amy Schumer

It’s just harder to be a woman in general, and you get treated differently in the world in general. Everyone deals with you a little differently. But I can’t complain about being a female comedian. For me, I can’t say it’s been harder. I’ve had a really nice road to where I am now and I’ve worked really hard and it’s paid off. –Amy Schumer

 

It’s just harder to be a woman. This seems to be the premise underlying most of Amy Schumer’s comedy. Going through a synopsis for each of her TV show episodes is like reading a litany of feminist grievances about how it’s so much harder to be a woman.

There’s the usual whining about menstrual cycles. And she does a lot of whining. There is a heaping helping of how women struggle with body image and how women’s bodies are objectified. There are complaints about double standards—one for sluts and another for studs. There seems to be a lot of comedy about sexually transmitted diseases. And, of course, rape is a topic in her comedy.

Amy coined the term “grape” in one of her comedy routines. The term references the so-called gray area of rape. Schumer describes this gray area in her own words:

“It’s not whether or not something is rape. It’s the gray area of how to handle it. It’s not always black and white, ‘he did that and he’s going to jail.’ It’s a really hard decision—how to handle it. Every girl I know has had a sexual experience that they’re really uncomfortable with, that was really questionable. In some cases it was absolutely rape, but they didn’t think it was the best idea for them to try to prosecute it.

So when I say the part of that joke—which I don’t say anymore because I did it on the show—‘some guys think a girl sleeping is a suggested no. That’s a no!’ When I say that, the whole joke is the hope that maybe a guy will hear that joke and know that this isn’t ok, because that comedian talked about it. And a girl will hear it and feel less alone, because she knows that it happens to other people. That’s my goal with that joke. I would never just make a rape joke to make a rape joke. It needs to have a point and be really funny. I think rape is the most horrible thing you can think of and that’s why people use it as a punch line.”

It’s all a very clever and comedic way in which to draw attention to some of the complex problems women face in regards to rape. According to Schumer, it’s also a very personal issue. During one of her appearances on “The Opie & Anthony Show,” she described her first sexual experience as rape, saying “one of my boyfriends kind of raped me. That’s kind of how I lost my virginity…I was like seventeen, hahah…we were drinking and hanging out and then I passed out and I woke up…and I go ‘what are you doing!’…I woke up to him having sex with me…We went and visited a college together the next day.”

She goes on to describe another gray area, saying “This never happened to me, but they’re like starting sex…and the girl falls asleep and the guy finishes. That’s a gray area… I don’t know. I’ve never fallen asleep, but I’ve had like two guys fall asleep while they were going down on me…I just like kneed him in the ear [and said] ‘get back to work!’”

Amy goes on to describe how it would be tough to date rape a guy who is passed out drunk or asleep, saying “That would be pretty tough…for you to be asleep, that would be so much more difficult…to rape a guy…I mean. I’ll try it.” She later describes herself as a “sociopath” and says that she likes to watch rape “porn, where the girl is sleeping and the guy wakes her up.”

This all provides a very interesting backstory to a speech given by Schumer at the “Gloria Awards and Gala” that was hosted by the “Ms. Foundation for Women” in honor of Gloria Steinem’s eightieth birthday. The speech went viral when Jennifer Vineyard published a transcript of it on Vulture. At last check, the article had over 186 thousand “likes” on Facebook and thousands more tweets on Twitter.

Schumer posted a tweet thanking those who passed around her speech.

According to those in attendance and many more who read the transcript, the speech was inspirational. Contained within was a powerful message about womanly self-esteem. There was also, contained within the speech, the description of a possible sexual assault, or, as Schumer might say, a “grape.”

 Folks were so busy indulging in Schumer’s message about womanly confidence and lauding her about it that they missed what may have been Amy’s admission of her sexually assaulting a man too “wasted” to give meaningful consent. An anonymous writer over at Thought Catalog published an article about this admission.

In Schumer’s speech, she talks about how great high school was for her, saying “I was running my high school…People knew me. They liked me. I was an athlete and a good friend. I felt pretty. I felt funny. I felt sane.” High school was great for her. She was a special snowflake there.

The transition to college didn’t go so well for her.

Schumer says that “being witty and charismatic didn’t mean shit. Day after day, I could feel the confidence drain from my body…I was getting no male attention, and I’m embarrassed to say, it was killing me.”

Schumer talks about how she put on her Freshmen 30 pounds in “record-breaking time” and blames men for being too shallow to appreciate her. She blames men for her loss of confidence. She blames men for her experienced loss of status as a special snowflake.

Clearly, college was traumatic for her. The unchecked narcissism of her female ego was forced into a confrontation with the reality that she may not be a special snowflake—that she may be alone and indistinguishable—something that men learn to deal with when they experience rejection—something that Amy had little, if any, experience with until college. She seems to be completely unprepared and not equipped emotionally to deal with rejection. She seems unaccustomed to the lack of attention paid to her throughout childhood and high school.

This is all very traumatic for her and she is desperate for attention and restoration of her status as a special snowflake. She seems to believe that she is entitled to that status and so proceeds to entitle herself to the attentions of Matt—the first guy in college to finally pay her what she is owed.

Schumer says, “He barely spoke, which was perfect for all the projecting I had planned for him.” Make no mistake about it. Matt was nothing more than a tool to Amy. She used him as a tool to try and restore her self-esteem. To her, Matt was a means to an end. She wanted him to call and pay her with attention—something that other men had refused her.

When Matt finally did call, Amy was filled with a rush of excitement and began feeling like a special snowflake again. She shaved her legs and washed her armpits, running over to his dorm room, expecting to have a fun-filled day—a new day of many forthcoming days in which Matt would pay her the attention that she deserved.

Amy finally arrives and discovers that “It’s Matt, but not really. He’s there, but not really. His face is kind of distorted, and his eyes seem like he can’t focus on me. He’s actually trying to see me from the side, like a shark…He’s fucking wasted.”

Schumer goes on to disregard any moral responsibility to actively care about Matt. She disregards the fact that he is too “wasted” to give any meaningful consent to sex. She puts the narcissism of her ego before Matt and expresses that she “wanted to be held and touched and felt desired.” She says, “I wanted to be with him. I imagined us on campus together, holding hands [so that others could recognize that]…I am lovable.”

She gets into bed with him, but he smells like “skunk microwaved with cheeseburgers.” She says that they tried kissing, but his “9 a.m. shadow” scratched her face. His “alcohol swollen mouth” was like the mouth of somebody who had just been given Novocain. His penis was too soft for penetration.

At this point, she realizes that Matt is too “wasted” for sex and not worthy to restore her status as a special snowflake. Amy begins to again feel the deficit of attention owed to her. She begins to feel alone and indistinguishable. She feels “faceless and nameless…just a warm body…” She looks around the room and hopes to “distract” herself or “disassociate” herself from the surroundings and escape the depths of her low self-esteem.

Matt starts to go down on her, but he “falls asleep every three seconds and moves his tongue like an elderly person eating their last oatmeal.” His drool is the only wetness between her legs because Matt has passed out and is now snoring into Amy’s vagina. Matt’s failure to give good head is the last straw for Amy. She “escaped from under him and out the door,” never hearing from him again.

Let’s be clear. Matt was never anything to Amy. He was nothing other than an object-of-utility—a means to an end. She saw him as a means to restore her status as a special snowflake and demonstrated no care at all about him as a human-being. His extreme intoxication and inability to give meaningful consent was seen, by Amy, as a hindrance to her goals.

Not once did Schumer express or demonstrate an iota of care for his well-being as a human-being. Not once, as a sober party, did she act on her moral responsibility to refrain from having sexual relations with a person too “wasted” to give meaningful consent. Not once did Schumer grant a concrete context to the personhood of Matt. Again, he was nothing other than an object-of-utility.

She took from him all that he had to give and it wasn’t enough. She actively engaged in her own narcissistic self-indulgence and desire for attention and status, neglecting her moral responsibility to care for another human-being.

Schumer says that she is a sociopath. Given the lack of moral responsibility and care described in her speech, I’ll take her word for it. I believe her.

Schumer’s comedy is celebrated by various feminists as a different voice—a woman’s voice in a sea of misogyny. However, it may turn out to be a voice of unchecked narcissistic female ego, wrapped in sociopathic charisma and attention-seeking. That’s not really a different voice and neither is it a special one.

It simply is a voice—one in a sea of many who routinely claim that it’s just harder to be a woman because everyone deals with you differently.

Free Cock Is Not Oppression

As you’ll answer it, take heed
This Slave commit no Violence upon
Himself. I’ve been deceiv’d. The Publick Safety
Requires he should be more confin’d; and none,
No not the Princes self, permitted to
Confer with him. I’ll quit you to the King.
Vile and ingrate! too late thou shalt repent
The base Injustice thou hast done my Love:
Yes, thou shalt know, spite of thy past Distress,
And all those Ills which thou so long hast mourn’d;
Heav’n has no Rage, like Love to Hatred turn’d,
Nor Hell a Fury, like a Woman scorn’d. –Congreve, The Mourning Bride

The Jezebel ladies are busying themselves concocting evidence of their oppression. It’s a “spectacular tale” of a man who is too weak to last more than two hours online as a woman. In this tale, a man is said to have created a fake online dating profile of a “pretty average looking girl.” His inbox quickly filled with perverted messages and offers of free cock. The man was so disgusted at all the free cock thrown his way that he had to delete the profile and spend the rest of the night “with a very bad taste” in his mouth.

The tale is suspect, but we all know that free cock is everywhere. Men give it away like it’s worthless. There is no doubt in my mind that this is probably typical of the experiences of women with online dating profiles. I doubt that it is unusual at all for a woman to get 300 messages in her inbox from men who are desperate for female affection, approval, and sex. There is no doubt in my mind that men send “dick-pics” and clamor, bother, and sometimes harass women for their affections and attentions. There is no doubt in my mind that men deal with gobs of rejection and there is no doubt in my mind that some men handle this rejection in very poor ways—becoming relatively “hostile” after being told that they are not interesting, not good enough (too poor), or, in various ways, that they are not worthy of affection and attention. The harsh reality for some men is that some women will never bestow upon them a position high enough in the male hierarchy of dominance to be “worthy” of affection, attention, and sex. We all know it’s true in-general, even if this specific tale is suspect. Free cock is everywhere.

This is something that I’ve never understood about men. If women want to ride my cock, they gotta pay. I’m the one doing all the work in bed. It’s my sweat all over her and the sheets. It’s her fucking orgasm and foreplay that is a job. Yet, men give away cock like it’s worthless. Dudes, get a fucking clue and stop giving it away! For the sake of fuck, at least make her pay for a juicy sirloin to replace all the jizzed-out protein.

All you men who give it away, all you do is reinforce the entitlement mentality of women who believe that their being present is plenty. You reinforce the idea that women don’t owe anything to the relationship—that they deserve a free-ride of cocks and that they don’t even have to break a sweat. Even the most aggressive cock-breaking volley-ball girls barely break a sweat after saddling up. You may be able to find a few coked-up girls who really get into it—the kind of girls who end up with sweaty hair, mascara, and cum dripping down their cheeks, but those girls usually have emotional disorders and are simply trying to bury their emotional problems in various sorts of drug induced escapes.

Women typically feel entitled to free cock. Don’t believe me? Rejected girls are often the most vindictive, hateful, and slanderous cunts of thunder ever unleashed upon the world of men. Try telling a girl no. Tell her, after she makes it clear that she wants your cock, that you’re not interested in giving it to her. Tell her that she isn’t interesting, that her soul is dog-shit and that she has nothing to offer other than boobs and booty, that she is a piece of shit and a total failure as a human being, that you don’t find her attractive and that she isn’t even good enough to be a cum-bucket. Tell her that she is just a white girl with bird lips and that she is never going to be any good at sucking cock and that she needs to stop pretending that she is doing any favors and learn to compensate for her inadequacies by becoming “kinky.” Tell her that her vapid life of shoes and pop-culture and materialism are soulless pursuits of dog-shit. Watch what happens. If you Jez-ladies wanna know what “hostile” means, see this rejected woman.

It’s typical for these Jez-ladies to complain that men feel entitled to a shag after paying for dinner, drinks, and a movie, being chivalrous and paying compliments, but there is nothing like the hostility of a rejected woman who feels entitled to free cock…and for doing nothing other than being present with her pussy. So, before you Jez-ladies start complaining about all the free-cock-oppression, assess your own entitlements and privileges. Before you condemn men as being “hostile” about rejection, perhaps you should consider how well most men actually do handle rejection, for hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

Free cock is not your oppression. It is your privilege. Get a clue.

Don’t Be That Bitch

Misandry isn’t a real thing. Misandry is an empty word that doesn’t refer to any real thing or any real experiences of men-in-general. Sure. There may be one-off examples of individual women who hate a particular man or men-in-general, but that’s not misandry. Unlike misogyny, there are no widely exercised cultural norms that perpetuate misandry, not of the sort that men-in-general would experience. Misandry is simply a made-up word and may as well be the present king of France or the bald emperor of Kentucky. –Some Douche

If there is any doubt about the existence of misandry within our popular culture, consider some of the blatantly misandric things said by the pop-culture icon, Nicki Minaj. In this article by Gordon Smart, she says that men want to be treated like dogs and that there is nothing wrong with being a bitch to men.

Also consider that in one of Nicki’s music videos she had this to say about men.

Find me da best ass-eater…kiss my ass and my anus ‘cos I’m finally famous. Give me all of yo money and all of yo residuals…now suck on my ass!

The prurient talk doesn’t bother me. I’m no prude. However, the blatant misandry is troublesome. Her comments are representative of speech that normalizes the dehumanization of men.

If Nicki Minaj wasn’t a significant contributor to popular culture, she’d just be a “one-off” example as described above by Some Douche. However,  Nicki Minaj is a pop icon with a large fan base of “barbz,” as she calls them—her 16+ million twitter followers. Her “ass-eating” video (the one quoted above) has almost 60 million views. She has sold millions of albums and was the first female solo artist to have 7 singles on the Billboard Hot 100, all at the same time. She recently finished up the 12^th season of American Idol, serving as a judge.

Clearly, Nicki Minaj is a cultural influence. As such, there are a lot of people who listen to her and there are a lot of people who practically worship her, as if she bestows upon them great misandric words of ass-eating wisdom.

The illiteracy of her fans is irrelevant. They love her and she is “insperation” to many of them as their “Queen Bitch” and Nicki loves her “bad bitches.” That’s her “fuckin problem,” as she barks below in one of her tweets.

Regardless of what you think about her “ass-eating” music, her misandric comments, or her cultural influence, referring to women as “bad bitches” seems dehumanizing to women. Notice how one of the commenters on the Instagram photo below wrote that Nicki is a “horrible example for young kids.” However, her bad bitch fans quickly jump in to defend the Queen Bitch, saying that she is an example of success for other bitches…because ass-eating is the pinnacle of success for a Queen Bitch and all her bad bitch followers.

Perhaps I’m simply anthropomorphizing the Queen Bitch and all her bad bitches. Perhaps Queen Bitch Nicki and all her bad bitches really are just a pack of ass-eating dogs?

If that’s the case, then I suppose it’s my bad for projecting human characteristics on the Queen Bitch Nicki and her bad bitches. Yes, bitches will be bitches, not humans-being. Apologies to the Queen Bitch and her bad bitches for thinking that they might actually be humans-being. I won’t make that mistake again, even if the Queen Bitch asserts her humanity and claims to be a “genuine human being,” as she does when asked about her role as judge on “American Idol.”

The perception that people had of me completely changed because there are no cue cards, there’s no scripts, it wasn’t me performing a song…My core is a genuine human being who roots for other people. I didn’t want to blow smoke up their ass. I wanted every contestant to leave with something that they could remember.

Funny how she believes that at her core is a “genuine human being” who doesn’t want to “blow smoke up” the asses of other people, yet, at the same time, the Queen Bitch takes great pride in being a Queen Bitch who wants others to find for her “da best ass eater.” She has moral problems with blowing smoke up somebody’s ass, but no problem at all with dehumanizing men as ass-eating dogs—too incompetent to “touch the dishes or wash the clothes,” as barked in the tweet below.

Yup, “cleaning is 50/50,” but men shouldn’t be doing dishes or washing clothes. Nope. They should only be cleaning out the Queen Bitch’s asshole, like a good dog, getting every last “cornball” and dingle-berry—paying her with “residuals.” It’s a privilege bestowed upon them by the Queen Bitch. This seems more a 99/1 split against the guy, but Queen Bitch isn’t known for doing math, so I’ll let that math problem slide like a turd off the tongue of an ass-eating dog.

Here are some more misandric turd nugget barkings of ass-eating wisdom from the Queen Bitch’s Twitter account.

Even though it might be “cute,” men shouldn’t bother with cooking either. Their hands might smell of seasoning. The Queen Bitch prefers her dogs to smell of ass. The smell of seasoning isn’t nearly as sexy as the smell of ass, not for the Queen Bitch who prefers the butthole pleasures of “da best ass-eater.” Even though these ass-eating dogs may look “cute” while trying to cook, the Queen Bitch’s dogs have to learn their boundaries.

The Queen Bitch can’t have her dogs straying far from home.

It’s important for the Queen Bitch and her bad bitches to train their dogs right, giving them a treat or a scolding accordingly.

Bitches can’t have their dogs wandering about, off the leash—eating another bitch’s ass. Nope. Ass-eating dogs must learn to crave the Queen Bitch’s treats, a mash-up of some ass with some Queen Bitch cooking; keep that cute little doggie confused about sex and food and ass-eating.

Another lesson that the Queen Bitch bestows upon her bad bitches—the importance of extending that confusion on to her children.

The Queen Bitch barks that she wants to be a mom one day and that she wants to “start becoming the woman who I want to parent my child.” I’ve already apologized for anthropomorphizing the Queen Bitch, so I won’t make that same mistake here and again. I can only assume that when she barks of having a child that she actually means having an ass-eating puppy.

Given all the above examples, it’s clear that the Queen Bitch has very little regard (if any at all) for the humanity of men. The initial misandric barks made by the Queen Bitch—the ones that dehumanized men as dogs who want to be treated like pets, those are “widely exercised cultural norms,” as Some Douche would say. If they were not cultural norms, then they wouldn’t be part of our popular culture. As Madonna and other celebrities from years past brought forward into popular culture the humanity of folks within LGBT communities, this Queen Bitch does the inverse. She brings forward into popular culture the normalization of dehumanized men.

I am a man. I am not a dog and I do not want to be treated like a pet. I certainly do not want to be “da best ass-eater” for a solipsistic narcissist like Nicki Minaj…and neither would anybody who values their own humanity. If you’re a man and you value your humanity, realize that this Queen Bitch and her pack of bad bitches are nothing but ass-eating dogs and that is all.

Asshat trips and ruins X-Files

 

Women’s fashion is a subtle form of bondage. It’s men’s way of binding them. We put them in these tight, high-heeled shoes, we make them wear these tight clothes and we say they look sexy. But they’re actually tied up. –David Asshat Douchecovny

I usually don’t give a fuck about the dumb shit that oozes out the mouths of asshat celebrities, but this vomit needs cleaned.

It’s not typically men who buy all the imbecilic fashion magazines and it’s not men who typically obsess about shoes. I couldn’t (and neither do most men) give a fuck about such things. It wasn’t typically men who watched (or gave any fucks whatsoever about) that vapid show describing the entrails of women who live in the city—“Sex and the City.” And neither is it typically men who buy and read the “50 Shades” trilogy that infantilizes women and is literally about binding women.

By Douchecovny’s vomit-logic, I suppose it is the fault of men for shoving down the throats of obese women a diet of Big Macs and junk food. By this vomit-logic, these poor and helpless women are at the mercy of and bound to men’s influence on the fashion industry. As such, men are to blame for women who suffer with all sorts of eating disorders because men rule the fashion industry. Clearly, this must be true because men give so many fucks about fashion.

The fashion industry is a way for masochistic women to bind themselves. If women want to spank themselves by wearing the latest imbecilic fashions and shoes, don’t blame men. It’s women’s own vapid and materialistic behavior. Nobody, especially men, “forces” that on them. All I (and most men) ask of women is that they get their fat asses on a fucking treadmill a few times per week and to exercise some self-control over their fucking carbohydrate intake. Nothing about that entails imbecilic fashion or ridiculous shoes or absurdist expectations about beauty. The expectation is that women be humans, moral agents in charge of making their own decisions about their health, diet, and physical fitness.

Men, on the other hand, are expected to not only do all the fucking cardio, but they are also expected to do all the fucking anaerobic weight-lifting to build mass and look like a physically useful G.I.Joe/human-tool. On top of that, men also are well expected to regulate their diet and look ripped with no fashion at all—just their shirtless fucking chest protruding out from their human-body-tool, being a symbol of their alpha-male virility and utility. “Yeah, I’m your man ‘cause I can lift heavy shit for you and ‘cause I can beat up other beta-males, baby.”

It doesn’t end there. Oh fucking no. Men are also expected to earn a living and have a well-developed mind—a mind that is marked with a fucking science degree that earns him at least 6 figures of income. Even more, that income is expected to bring security to a wife and kids because that income is expected to be rendered to a wife and kids—without which, he is not really a man, probably just a loser or a homo or a child-man who refuses to “grow-up.”

Who is “bound,” you fucking asshat?

You’ve Got It All Backwards

Comic Blasphemy Vs. Divine Feminism

I watched a video the other day of a debate between the comedian Jim Norton and the feminist Lindy West. Here is the video. This discussion between comedians and feminists regarding “rape culture” has been raging for the past year. Type “Daniel Tosh rape joke” into a search engine to learn the backstory. Much has been said on both sides, discussions about free speech, censorship, comedy-as-catharsis, the trivialization of suffering, and the contributions made by comics to rape culture and violence against women. Those are all perfectly fine discussions and I’m glad that our society is having this discourse about such things. One thing that is not being discussed in this realm of discourse is the economic concept of “consideration.”

 We don’t have to be economists or legal analysts to understand this. It’s not some obscure jargon used only by economists and lawyers. It’s an old concept that has been around for centuries and most people understand it without even knowing that they understand it. Consideration is roughly the idea of fair trade. If I give you money, you give me an equivalent value of your services or products. It’s not complicated. Most people know when they have been ripped off. If somebody steals your car, they didn’t provide an equitable amount of consideration to you. Most people know this and generally expect to give and receive consideration for all sorts of things in their daily lives. Well, reasonable people have this expectation.

 Enter Lindy West. If we view the discourse between a comedian and the audience as a sort of economic exchange of ideas, thoughts, and feelings, Lindy West is demanding that this discourse provide consideration to her without her providing an equitable amount of consideration in return. She is demanding that the discourse between a comedian and audience provide to her a consideration in the form of sensitivity to her (and others like her) regarding what she labels offensive to her delicate sensibilities. The only consideration she offers in return is the absence of her feeling offended. That is literally nothing–the absence of something. In economic terms, she is a thief and ripping us off. Most reasonable people know this, but feminists are not typically known for being reasonable. They sometimes argue that reason is a violent assertion of patriarchal oppression. In reality, feminists like Lindy West assert a gender supremacist ideology that does violence to our reasonable sensibilities.

 One example of violence-doing to our reasonable sensibilities is hypocrisy. Most reasonable people understand hypocrisy. Perhaps Ms. West understands it, but simply feels some sort of divine feminist entitlement to being hypocritical. Notice at about the 5 minute mark in the aforementioned video that Ms. West actually performs a rape joke about audience members in the club rallying to rape a girl because they aren’t doing anything better and have the free time. The joke gets a laugh and Ms. West chuckles and smugly continues with her moral correction and shaming of comedians who make rape jokes.

 Hypocrisy is offensive because it does violence to reason. Being morally excused from saying one thing and doing another is that which the divine Law-Giver does and this is what feminists like Lindy West often do. She is clearly an inconsiderate hypocrite. She does not give consideration in exchange for a comedian’s sensitivity. She does not practice what she preaches. She gives nothing in exchange for her demands. She simply asserts a sort of divine right to demand control of the narrative in exchange for literally nothing–the absence of something, her offence. Lindy West, you are a bigot, a hypocrite, a gender supremacist, and not much different than a racial supremacists. In the words of the great comedian, Bill Burr, “go fuck yourself.”

American Heroism: A Story about Doug Stanhope and Erectile Dysfunction

Doug Stanhope is one of my all-time favorite comedians. He is an artist, a true master of his craft. Of course I follow him on Twitter. A few weeks back, he tweeted about a marine who threw a fit of road rage. Here is the video. There were a lot of people criticizing the marine for going bezerk. There were many wishful thoughts for the marine’s death, some comments about his flag-draped coffin and etc. I thought those comments were a fine and comical way for people to lament about the sort of men we raise these days.

No offense to the good soldiers who signed up to protect the country and slaughter other people, but where else can murderous psychopaths go for work these days? With the faltering economy, it’s hard to make a living as a killer. Hard times are upon us and joining the military seems like a good choice for the aspiring killer. It’s a sound career move. He’s doing the right thing for his career and country, paying taxes, bills, and supporting his wife and kids. He shows up for work everyday, jazzed up on some ‘Merica…Fuck Yeah tunes, ready to do some killing, some maiming, and some torture. We spent thousands of dollars training him to be “all he could be” as a killer in the military. If he got a little confused about who he is supposed to kill, it’s something that society can overlook. Clearly, it’s easy to confuse a traffic accident with the enemy or a terrorist threat. It’s a mistake that any man could make. People should lay off the criticism of his actions. Minus his confusion, his actions were a perfectly acceptable way to resolve conflict. As such, he is good man, a protagonist, a hero in the American story.

 As with any good story, a protagonist needs an antagonist. Enter the degenerate pacifist lovers of peace who sat in their seats recording the actions of this good man. Notice how the villain sits in his car. He remains calm, only to enrage our heroic marine even further, deliberately pointing out to the marine that his silly monkey-taunts were not effective. This only magnifies the marine’s experience of impotence. Heroes who experience this lack of power must act out with ever more aggression. Violence is the hero’s only power and this power is an expression of the hero’s lack of power. America’s hero is impotent. He has no power, only violence. He is just a pawn. His life is practically meaningless. The totality of his identity is his impotent power–his violence.

 Feminists will typically point to our hero’s behavior as a shining example of male privilege, domination, and power–the patriarchy in all its glory. Feminists may point to our hero’s behavior as proof that men are vile monkeys who will abuse each other and women to compete in some patriarchal hierarchy of dominance. Feminists and his critics will say that our hero’s behavior is evidence of his power, when in fact, our hero’s behavior is evidence of his weakness.

 If this society gave a damn about men, we would give men options other than violence. We wouldn’t sell them false ideas of heroics. If this society gave a damn about men, we wouldn’t create murderous psychopaths and call them heroes. We wouldn’t call the peaceful guy who sat calmly in the car a faggot or a coward. If this society gave a damn about men, we wouldn’t teach men that their value is derived from their ability to slaughter other people. If this society gave a damn about men, we wouldn’t teach men to be some sort of heroic pawns, willing to sacrifice their lives in a blaze of violent glory for pride, for money, for woman, for some corporate entity–America. If this society gave a damn about men, compassion for men wouldn’t be a revolutionary action. If this society gave a damn about men, Doug Stanhope and others would have no reason to lament about the sort of men we raise these days.

Moral Turpitude: An Open Letter to Facebook

Feminists are pissed. According to WAM, Facebook has completely failed to produce an adequate response to feminist’s demands regarding censorship of “hate-speech” against women. WAM’s contention is that Facebook’s “inadequate” response contributes to violence against women, catering to a culture where violence against women is normalized. How could Facebook be so callous to the plight of women? What are the demands of these feminists?

1. Recognize speech that trivializes or glorifies violence against girls and women as hate speech and make a commitment that you will not tolerate this content.
2. Effectively train moderators to recognize and remove gender-based hate speech.
3. Effectively train moderators to understand how online harassment differently affects women and men, in part due to the real-world pandemic of violence against women.

On the surface, such demands seem reasonable. No moral person would deliberately support speech that trivializes and glorifies violence. No moral person acting as a moderator would deliberately tolerate gender-based hate-speech. No moral person would deliberately misunderstand how violence affects women and men. Any failure to comply with these demands is proof of Facebook’s callous attitude and contribution to the normalization of violence. In fact, failure to acquiesce to these demands is proof of Facebook’s moral depravity. As such, corporate businesses should pull sponsorship from Facebook on the grounds of moral turpitude.

As a moral lesson for Facebook and as an attempt to instill at least a bit of virtue into this vile corporation, let us walk the grounds of moral turpitude for a moment. Let us deliberately support speech that trivializes violence, tolerates gender-based hate-speech and misunderstands how violence affects men and women. What would that speech be? Who would support that speech? What would be misunderstood about the effects of violence?

As we walk the grounds of moral turpitude for a moment, try typing into a search engine the phrase “violence against.” You will get scores of pages linking to articles and information regarding violence against women. Of the first 50 results, I counted only two results about violence against men.

 

That’s right. Searching for “violence against” leads to information about violence against women. The language itself and search engine results reflect this sort of negligence against men and about the violence done to them. However, violence against women receives a sort of special status and notice. This elevated attention to violence against women is a sort of de facto discrimination against men. This focus on violence against women minimizes and trivializes the savage violence that men experience every day in this world. It is men who are overwhelmingly brutalized by a “justice” system that throws them into cages for non-violent drug crimes. It is men who are overwhelmingly slaughtered on battlefields and glorified for being great at slaughtering other men. It is men who are overwhelmingly homeless. It is men who are glorified for their brutality against other men in the ring as “sportsmen.” It is men who suffer overwhelmingly from sports related head trauma. It is men who juice their bodies in order to be glorified as objects of utility for a sports team. It is men who suffer the trivialization of violence done to them by society, by women, and by other men. We are often too busy elevating the violence against women to some sort of superior status, some sort of slight against the divine, in some ridiculous feminist pissing-match about which gender is the longest suffering long-sufferer in the history of long-suffering. That is a walk along the grounds of moral turpitude.

Those are the grounds of moral turpitude and along those grounds we see the lack of care, understanding, and compassion for the lived experiences of men. If feminists gave a damn about equality, they would be screaming about violence against men. They remain silent. The more they scream about violence against women, the louder is their silence about violence against men. This silence is hate. This silence is ignorance. This silence is bigotry. This silence trivializes and glorifies violence against men. This silence distorts the “real-world pandemic” of violence against men. This silence is violence. Nobody notices. Nobody cares. Feminists are pissed.

[Correction: Content has been edited by the editor of the content. :-)]

Steroids, Rape, and Male Privilege

Feminists are pissed. Jose Canseco outed his accuser. I grew up watching Canseco and his “Bash Brother,” Mark McGwire. They hit the long-ball a lot and they struck out…a lot. Canseco’s nickname was “Jose Can-strikeout.” He was as bad at striking out as he was good at hitting home-runs. Even though his career was plagued with injuries, I remained a fan throughout the 90s and was glad when he outed his story of steroids in baseball. Everybody knew that steroids were rampant among baseball players, but nobody said anything. So long as the fans were happy, so long as records were being broken, so long as attendance soared, the media, the owners, and the trainers all looked the other way. Baseball players had the relative freedom of anonymity to juice their bodies as they pleased. Long-ball was in. Small-ball was out. Even the drunken fans knew that something was wrong, but we didn’t care.

In an age of slut-walks and post women’s sexual liberation, why do we care about anonymity for the rape accuser? The whole point of granting the privilege of anonymity to an accuser is to minimize the shame of the accuser. Do we still need to grant the protection of anonymity to rape accusers? Do women really need a white knight to ride in and protect them from shame? Are women such delicate flowers of moral purity that they cannot be strong enough to endure the publicity of their sex life? I think not. Anonymity is a special privilege granted to women and denied to the accused men. Strong women shouldn’t have to suffer alone and anonymously. Anonymity is for the weak. Strong women should come forward and be public about their sexual history. Strong women should have no shame about their sexuality, being raped, or talking publicly about their victimization. Taking refuge in anonymity perpetuates their victimization indefinitely. 

The occurrence of steroid abuse in baseball was perpetuated by the refuge of anonymity. Countless players were made victims by this anonymity. Home runs were not the only things to soar during the steroid era. The rates of ligament, tendon and other steroid-specific and related injuries to professional baseball players also soared throughout the steroid era. Had there been transparency about the abuse of these performance enhancing drugs, steps could have been taken to ameliorate the problems. Instead, we cared more about the long-ball than we cared about the bodies and spirits of these men. The anonymity perpetuated the disposable nature of these men, making them victims to the whims of society. These men are valuable only insofar as they perform and so long as their performance can be enhanced by the anonymous abuse of these drugs, nobody cared. Enter Jose Canseco. He came forward, from the refuge of anonymity, to shed light on and make transparent the abuse of these drugs. He deserves much credit and respect for coming forward to make the story public. He also deserves credit for coming forward to make public the name of his accuser. 

This is the 21st century. Although remnants of sexual shame may still exist in some areas within the bible-belt of America, I doubt they ever existed in Las Vegas. Given the location and the state of women’s sexual liberation, there is no good reason for rape-accuser anonymity today. As the anonymity of steroid abuse made men into victims, so too does the anonymity of the rape-accuser make men into victims, destroying their reputations, livelihoods, and lives. It’s time to end the special privileges granted to women. Rape-accuser anonymity is a special privilege rooted in the antiquated idea that women are morally pure and that sex and sexuality is base and immoral. Again, this is the 21st century. Jose Canseco is still a hero and he has hit another homerun, but this time he did it on Twitter.