Lazy Gonz.

Well, folks, Gonz issn’t lazy -  just busy.  And it’s not my wont to bore people with the trifling details of my life, so let me just use the term “Up to my ass in alligators.”

It sucks, because there is so much in the news worth commenting on.  It seems like this happens to me every fall.

A lot of it has to do with the up coming election.  Singularly unenthused doesn’t begin to describe it.  More Republican rule would be a disaster.

Trouble is, a switch to democratic rule would be, God Help Us All, worse.

I am hoping for democrat control of one house of congress, to insure that for at least the next two years, nothing can get done, and no further damage can occur.

And busier than a one legged man in an ass-kicking contest.

Will write in the A.M.  Just tired.

Sheila asks:

What does what a few fringe members of the feminist movement say have to do with feminism?

Ah - glad you asked.

It’s the UNCONTRADICTED opinions of these extremists, plus their continued presence as honored guests - feminists of consequence, as it were - at your table that has all in the world to do with it, m’dear  It’s one thing to not drum feminists out of the club because of disagreements over conclusions, methodology, et. al.  These are - allegedly - disagreements in premise, though.

And no, you’re right.  You don’t have to do anything.  But if you won’t take the albatross off of your neck, don’t blame me for pointing out that you are accessorizing with it.

You all do not - WON’T - do anything about your extreme fringe.  Nothing.  Not a blessed thing.  No correction - hell, you only timidly disagree with them, if indeed at all.  What the hell are people supposed to think?  That you don’t like them or agree with them after you pour their wine and offer them an after-dinner mint?

“I think female criminals should be tagged, I think women should pay extra taxes since they suck out most of the giveaways and are the biggest freeloaders in society, and I think that since women contribute less economically the brden should be on them to prove they can support children before they are granted custody.”

Imagine, for a moment, some man saying that with a straight face.  We’ve a lot in the MRA/FRA movement who read here.  What would be the reaction of, say, Glenn Sacks, Steve Baskerville, and such if I were to get in a national media venue and start saying that?

I can tell you what it would be - I’d be called on the carpet.  My statements would be denounced.  If I wanted to address a gathering of the Men’s Movemet, I’d be told “No.”

That isn’t even hate speech - it may be hateful, but it is not talking about raping, beating, mutilating, killing - all legal remedies to a postulated problem.

And the mainstream FRA/MRA movement would be quick to label me an outsider, not part of the movement, and would never pass by the opportunity to properly refer to me as a woman-hating whack job.  Even if I repented and did the whole sackcloth-and-ashes routine, my reputation would be forever tarnished.
Now - what happens when a feminist says things like that? How do the feminists react?

And I am not going to tell you.  You go look for yourself.  Look how it is treated when a feminists talks about implanting tags in men.  Look how feminists react when one suggest men should pay extra taxes because most criminals are men.  Look at what discussion results when a feminist suggests that a father should have the burden of proof on him to be granted custody, will he be able to properly “nurture” and “care” for the child.  Those are real examples, people.  These are all things that have been bandied about feminist circles.  And I am not going to point to a specific link or another, and be accused of cherry-piking an “extremist” site - you go look for yourself, and prepare to be astonished at it.

KLAN SUPPORTER!

“It is time again for the Margaret Sanger at the Ku Klux Klan Rally Art Contest. This year’s contest will highlight the 80th Anniversary of Margaret Sanger’s speech to the the women’s branch of the Silver Lake Ku Klux Klan. In her own 1938 autobiography, Margaret Sanger An Autobiography (1971 reprint by Dover Publications, Inc. of the 1938 original published by W.W. Norton & Company) Sanger indicates at pages 366-367 that the she got along quite well with members of a New Jersey branch of the Ku Klux Klan at her 1926 speech, eventually getting a “dozen invitations to speak to similar groups.”" 

And even more at the site

This will build, but I am going to take it a piece at a time. First, I am going to take a look at a common tactic of feminists which is used to deflect criticism of them. Ask them what they are, and you will often get a glib definition, or a snarky link to an online dictionary, like Mirriam-Webster .

Main Entry: fem·i·nism
Pronunciation: ‘fe-m&-”ni-z&m
Function: noun
1 : the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes
2 : organized activity on behalf of women’s rights and interests

Okay - that is two definitions. Let’s look at the first, since that is the one tossed out most often. (The second, even the feminists don’t use, as a Radical Muslim woman might well argue that clitoral amputation, the hajib, and getting beaten by your husband further the rights and are interests of women.)

Do I believe in the political equality of women?

I am a libertarian. It is one of my guiding principles that everyone should have political equality. I want nobody either as a ruling aristocracy, a dependant, or servant class. So, the answer is obviously yes. Thing is, part of tht equality is that I don’t believe in segmenting out a portion of society, and dedicating resources to them above others. I don’t believe, ultimately, in “Women’s Commissions” or “Men’s Commision’s” or any such thing as organized and subsidized public parts of the political process. Private and self supporting? Another thing entirely - they have a right to exist. But not to public funds.

What about the economic equality of women?

Well, again the answer is yes - but it becomes a question of equality of opportunity, and not of results. Hell, I believe women should be able to try out for the NFL - the fact that I don’t see any of them making it isn’t sexism, or misogyny. I don’t believe in lowering standards, bending rules, or making accomodations in the private sphere for anyone. I feel for deaf people - but, sorry, they can’t be telephone operators. I feel for blind people, but I am not going to hire one as a proofreader. And so on. And so forth.

Social Equality?

First define it - and the only thing I can come up with, at least as far as “what can be done” is equality before the law. Society - culture - custom; these things define themself. No law in the USA says we have to eat dessert after dinner. If you eat it first, you won’t have the Meal Police breaking down your door - but you will be thought odd. You may not have it served to you in that order if you are out. Some people might even ostracize you here and there.

But it isn’t illegal to eat your dessert first.

Like anti-smoking rules - I don’t mind at all when a business voluntarily goes smoke-free. Where I get my knickers in a knot is when they go into the private property of someone and tell them what otherwise legal behavior they may or may not allow. If you told me I couldn’t have unmarried friends over and let them sleep in the same bed, it is the same principle - you are invading my private home, and dictating to me what I may or may not do. You want to change society? Fine. Persuade. Write. Speak. But don’t bring the government gun with you. When social customs rule what will be legal and illegal, it is no different thn a theocracy. Law should be based on, first, crimes against people and property in the criminal sphere, and second, fraud and breach of contract in the civil sphere. Not upon forcing your particular set of values on everyone through the guns of the police, or economic arm-twisting.

So - where does that leave us? Often I have spoken that people disagree in two ways - either in principle, or in process. As evidenced above, as far as principle goes, it could be said, “Holy Crap - Gonz is a feminist!”

Now, can you actually say that with a straight face? It’s laughable. Obhviosly then, that glib and trite answer is no answer at all. Belief in those principles is insufficient to be a feminist. I differ in process as to how those principles may be implemented, which is what makes me non-feminist, or anti-feminist.

Some feminists are out where the disagreement stops there. We only disagree in process.

The problem is, there is a significant chunk of feminists out there with whom I disagree in principle - they are NOT about any sort of equality. They believe in the superiority of women. Whether as payback, or whether they believe men should take a back seat to women, or what, process doesn’t even enter into it - we diverge on principle, they are doing wrong, and there is no right way to do a wrong thing.

The former is political asshattedness. I am not going to support a socialist solution to anything, no matter who it serves; and let’s face it, the non-liberal/socialist feminists like Wendy MacElroy are few, far between, and even not recognized as feminists by the vast and overwhelming majority of feminists. (And why they continue to hold to the pipe dream of reforming the term “feminist” and hanging that albatross around their necks is beyond me.)

That latter, though, are plain and simply dishonest. BUt - and this is important - feminists who say crap which is contrary to the principle of equality aren’t shown the door of the feminists club.

Chew on that. IWF? Ifeminists? You’ll see them and similar women referred to as “faux-feminists” or other similar terms all. The. Time. They disagree with the process. Your Dworkins, and others who have promulgated anti-male speech, preached female superiority - disagreeing in principle - are welcomed. Such women are happy to use the means, the process, advocated by feminism as a stepping stone; but they would gladly go much further - and have.

It’s not rocket science. People who believe in the principles set forth by this definition? Not feminists because they don’t advocate the process. People who embrace the process? Good feminists. “We can’t be the ideology police…” No? You have no problem with it when it comes to Laura Bush, Wendy MacElroy, and dozens of others.

The process is more important than the principle. And when principle takes a back seat, a movement becomes unprincipled.

Glib, soundbyte answer? Status: Debunked.

Okay - end of part III. More later.

Jeff Burkhart tells a tale of woe about female behavior in bars.

Jeff - I was a bouncer for years.  It ain’t new.

I used to work in strip clubs.  Long time readers will know I am a big man, and a student of the martial arts going into my teens, so when I was younger it was a natural avocation for me.  I could go a whole month without even breaking out my mace on the men.

Come ladies night, I could open two some times.

In my state - Indiana - the genitals have to be covered.  Guaranteed - GUARANTEED - that a dozen times a night some woman would be trying to rip the speedo off of one of the male dancers. (And yes, ladies - most of them ARE gay.  Guys - same thing.)  If a guy got out of line with one of the female dancers, it was rare that I had to do more than pull him off pervert row and instruct him on manners and the law; not that standing head and shoulders over him and outweighing him by a good hundred pounds or more ever hurt in making my point.  Nine times out of ten, though, even removing a woman’s hands from a dancer would wind me into a fight - and most times with her friends, too. Sometimes even random women would object to men putting their hands on women. We usually put two extra people on security on Ladies night, and went in no less than three strong when we had to.

I have been attacked with bottles, hair picks (Sharpened, too!) keys, purses - I even got attacked with a live hamster once.  (Long story - I’d almost feel sorry for it, but I hate rodents.)  All by women.  The only times I ever needed medical treatment was at the hands of women.  And breaking up fights between women were the worst.  First of all, they don’t fight like men - they fight to disfigure and cause pain, not put the other one out.  They first turn on you, and get even madder.  You can’t use too much force - I didn’t even use half the force on this one woman that I’d have used on a man of similar size, and I wound up dislocating her arm.

The comes the theatrics.  I know a couple holds that are immobilizing, but plain do not hurt -they are just joint-locks.  You can’t even hurt yourself by struggling.  Jesus H, though, you’d think I was driving red hot needles under their fingernails.

And then comes the sobbing and going limp.  Dropping purses - a favorite tactic - drop the purse, and start screaming about it.  Somehow they actually thought I wouldn’t drag them out the side door into the mud puddle, and toss their purse in it too.  There was one good thing about that, though - once they were unkempt and muddy, they went home and didn’t try to get back in and make more trouble.

Another thing I noticed - guys handle rejection a lot better than women.  A guy would offer to buy a drink, and even if he was gotten snotty with, it’d be a rarity that he’d do more than mumble as he left.  Women took no really personal.  They’d go off on it all night - assuming they didn’t go ballistic and get kicked out of the bar.  I guess if you reject them, you must be a “faggot.”  Hell, they’d go home with guys they obviously didn’t like just to prove they still had it.  Honest to God - women talk about men being abies when they don’t get sex?  Try telling a woman “no” sometimes if you want some real hysterics.

After I got enough seniority I was finally able to beg off on ladies’ night.  And I did, too - even overtime couldn’t tempt me most weeks.

Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww….

Hang on.  Mmmm.  MMMMMM!

*sigh* Damn.  Tried real hard to feel sorry, but I just couldn’t do it.

Here is a lesson in basic economics, you socialist fucktards.  Why can’t Air Amerika sell liberal views?  Besides that fact the Garofolo was a tired and tedious bitch, Randy Rhodes is a pale and shrill imitation of Howard Stern (only sans the nuts), and Al Frakenfurter just isn’t funny?

Bing-fucking-o.  Because the Biased Liberal Mainstream Media has been giving the Left-wing POV away for free for decades.  Conservative talk radio succeded why?  Because people were hungry for another POV - and one which didn’t pretend neutrality.  Why is FOX news viciously sodomizing C-SPAN, CNN, and such on cable?  Because they let someone other than a constant stream of left-wingers speak, and (Horrors!) even give them their own shows.

And people are just sick of listening your stupidity, which is why you all have to hide how liberal you are to win national elections; and the Dhimmicraps are only pulling ahead in polls now due to Republitard stupidity and dishonesty rather than any real embracing of their agenda.

More on the topic of Strawfeminists, inspired in part by Happy Feminist from the posts below.

Where to start?

I can tell you the things you have to believe to be one of any grioup I identify with. I can also give you things you CAN’T hold to. If you want to be Christian, you have to believe in God, and Jesus, and the Nicence creed. Deny the authority of the Pope as the Vicar of Christ? You ain’t Catholic, then. Espouse socialiism? Turn in your Libertarian card. If you believe that men shuld lose due process due to the “seriousness of the charge” of rape or DV and you’re not a Men’s Rights Advocate no matter how much you might profess everything else.

It’s just that simple. Some things people are fuzzy on. Yes, you may vote for a pro-abortion politician if you feel their stances on other things are more important, and remain a Catholic in good standing - but that depends on what the other things are. Liberation theology is condemned.. Death Penalty is not as serious. I am not saying by any means that no grey areas exist - as they do. What I am saying is that there comes a point in time where you have to have a sign which says “You must be this tall..” and another point where the lifeguard blows the whistle and ejects you from the pool. If you don’t it’s meaningless.

And it has to be more than glibness. Hell, I believe in “radical equality” of the sexes. Fugginay, I bloody INSIST on it. It’s my application of it that makes me not a feminist. You do equal work - draw that equal check (But my definition of equal work tends to make feminists cringe). I don’t want to take away the vote from women. You want to abort yourself into being unable to carry a baby to term - be my guest, long as I ain’t paying a penny of the tab. And so on, and so forth. You demand so special accomodation due to your sex, well, fine, but prepare to give elsewhere, then. Nobody is about to call me a feminist. But by the glib, sound-bite definition that is so popular I am - so it is not a great leap of intuitive thought to conclude that said definition is woefully inadequate.

It’s very chic and trendy for feminists to circle the wagons and close the hatches on the bunker when they get criticized. Yeah, they go apeshit when one of their own calls SAHMs - especially educated ones - sellouts for staying home. Try to get them to say “Which is it?” and you might as well try to nail jello to the wall. SAHM’s are good. SAHMs are sellouts. Women should have the choice to stay home. Women should not. (Shades of Simone de Bouviour[sic] - don’t have the inclination to look her name up) And these two mutually contradictory, mutually exclusive positions, are said to be equally “feminist.”

Hogwash. Pure and unadulterated Bullshit. Unmitigated mendacity. Utter nonsense. Any doubt of my opinion on that?

It is just plain nuts. If I tried to sell someone a bill of goods that Libertarianism is about small government on the one hand, but hey, we’re a big tent so we will accept the big government ideals too, they’d lock me up as barking mad.

I was a Republican for years. Worked on Ronald Reagan’s campaigns. I went through a long period of time saying, “Hey - this clown is no Republican!” when RINO asshats like Arlen Specter would start in with their crap. Eventually, though, I said - “Well, Gonz - they are Republicans now. Which means you aren’t anymore.”

Maybe it wasn’t up to me to kick anyone else out of the Republican Party - but it sure as hell was up to me to stay there or leave. The “Big Tent” balderdash became way too much to swallow. I started criticizing Republicans.

Maybe that is the disqualifier for Feminism - criticize it. Is it? It sure seems it. I’m reminded sometimes of the old Nixonian doctrine of “Never criticise a fellow Republican.” It seems that no matter how inflammatory something might be, if it is said by a fellow feminists, it can never be condemned as beyond the pale. Maybe - MAYBE - it might be pronounced “unfortunate” but that is a weak weasel word. I mean, if I were to seriously advocate what some feminists say (Only in reverse) you can bet your bippy that I’d be getting a note from the MND management telling me that it was time to come to a parting of the ways. I have read all manner of atrocious thing over the years that gets bandied about feminist sites and blogs, and actually treated almost reverentially at times. Musn’t criticize. Musn’t be “judgemental.”

Look - I would not tolerate a Libertarian Party that spoke of some race - some religion - in terms of subhumanity. I would expect my party to condemen them, to lock them out of the conventions, to de-link to them - the whole nine yeards. I would expect public denunciations and disavowals. In short, I would expect them to be judgemental, and to police themselves, and kick extremists out. If they refused - said they “couldn’t” I would draw the obvious conclusion - that such bigots were Libertarians in Good Standing, and that the party endorsed their filth. Then *I* would leave and not sully my good name with the label of Libertarian. It’s not that hard. It’s called “Integrity” and I am not so enamored of the term “libertarian” that I couldn’t drop it. Let some feminists do all but advocate a final solution for the “Man Problem” and if it even gets mentioned, it gets rationalized away as some metphor or something.

I have seen this scenario play out over and over - some young lady proclaims her non-feminism, and she gets absolutely savaged, until she says why, and starts citing the anti-male hate speech from promient, feted, feminist icons. She gets told, “Well that doesn’t represent *all* feminists?” No? Does it represent some? How many is some? Why do you have a button with her picture on it, then - does it represent you?” There are never any answers - just the same trite, canned, pat answers.

It’s not too hard to see that this is a way for feminists to not take a stand - refuse to stand anywhere, and it is hard to attack you. It is, though, dishonest, or seen so by a great many people. Fewer and fewer young women are identifying as feminists - like liberal churches, when you don’t really stand for anything solid, it is hard to make converts. They are losing out in the court of public opinion, legislatively great strides have been made against feminist agendas including reform of Child Support, Paternity Fraud, and Joint custody laws. The Feminist DV model is down. Once sacred cows are being challenged, and rolled back - often times successfully.

Oh yes, it is bitterly spken of that we erect “strawfeminists” and knock them down. Okay - but how do we manage to name these so-called “Strawfeminists?” We talk about feminists wanting to take away from women any choice to work or not - you must work. “STRAWFEMINIST!” we hear. “Linda Hirshman!” we respond. Then there is the sound of crickets. We’ll hear the tired, lame, and weak, “Well not all feminists..”

Yeah? Show where she has been disavowed. There is a lot of hand-wringing and talk about how “We don’t need to divide into warring camps here” - and that is well and good- but implies an acceptance of her ideas at some level. Back in the day, feminists used to be a lot more politically savvy. I mean hell - any movement, philosophy, religion, ideology, what have you has extremist whack-jobs. We in the FRM/MRM have a few. We have no problem with marginalizing them. You’re not going to find us collecting money for a defense fund for some guy who has murdered his family, though we may well say “There but for the grace of God Go I, and for the Character of most men go many others.” I can understand the rage of a man who snaps and does something horrible - but I can still think it is horrible. I’m not going to turn him into a Poster Child for Father’s Rights.

I have to ask - and it’s a fair question - why defend ideas if you find them abhorrent? If feminism “isn’t about sticking it to men” then why when you have someone who talks about just that in so many words treated with kid gloves? Is that really an ally - an image - you want? You know, it’s not like you are silencing them, you’re just not allowing them to speak from your soapbox and in your name. What are people supposed to think - you defend them, make excuses for them, allow them to wear the team jersey, and speak from your pulpit - and the rest off us are supposed to believe that you don’t back them? Is that it? That she’s an aberration - a STRAWFEMINIST? She’s “out there” but is still given a place of honor? Do we all look like we just fell off the turnip truck?

The whole “fun feminist” controversey that brought this up is in many ways a distraction, but it is also fundamental. A woman wants to behave in a feminine manner - and not an androgynous one. She believes that men and women are different. She likes being a girl - even if it is “expected” of her. Is she a sellout or not? Is she a full feminist - and the “gender as a construct” crowd wrong? Is she wrong? Are both wrong? (And both may certainly be wrong, but if the one is right, the other must be wrong; the positions are mutually exclusive, they cannot both be simultaneously right, and that is just elementary logic). I know many girls who avoid feminism because they like to be girls. They don’t want to be associated with the notion of “Gender as a construct.” Even if I bought a lot of the other premises of feminism, it’d be a deal-breaker for me, too; I could not ideologicaly align myself with a group that gave any credence to such a fundamentally flawed and scientifically unviable position.

And the refusal of feminism to define itself - to take a stand - is what raises these questions, and they are not going to stop being asked. I can guarantee, as the house opposite, we for one are not going to stop asking them; if feminism wants to play chameleon, and try to be everything to everyone, and not be pinned down, and hide themselves so they can’t be challenged - we can work with that, too. It’s very easy to connect the dots that someone hides what they believe in because they are ashamed of it, because it is mendacious. The ducking and dodging sends its own message. Adpting a bunker meentality and retreating to it works for us, too - we win the field. You get to preach to the choir. I can live with that.

So, Hippychick Jessica at Feministing seems to have no problem with co-ed contact sports.

Field Hockey, to be specific.

Uh-huh.  Now, while there may be many women around who resemble a linebacker for the Chicago Bears, I seriously doubt they could actually do it.  Look - I’m a forty something guy with a bad back.  I routinely - as part of my workout - outdo women’s records in weightlifting, and I am not the gym champ - far from it.  I doubt that any sane woman around - even an athlete in her prime - would care to play contact sports with me, at the level I play.  Hell, I’m probably half nuts to do it, but I’m not quite ready to slap the “old” label on me yet
Human beings are a sexually dimorphic species.  Period. Flat out.  The scientific evidence is indisputable.  Hell, the ancedotal evidence is indisputable.

You know, I  - as a rhetorical device - often advocate elimination of sex segregation of sports teams as a way to combat Title IX.  I do it as a form of reductio ad absurdium.  Because it is absurd.  It is one thing to have pre-pubescent boys and girls play sports together - even contact sports.  Past puberty?

Ridiculous.  Utterly ridiculous.

“Happy” Feminist, Amyndagon, and Jill at “Feminista” are in full handwringing mode about “Fun” feminists, among others all over the Feminaziosphre.

Now, you go anywahere in the Femherroid Never-Never Land and start talking about sour hags of feminists, and you will immediately get them - and many others - chirp about “Strawfeminists!” and how they are, a mere stereotype of dumpy, frumpy, sensible-shoe-wearing, hairy legged feminists; all manner of eye rolling, and how they “Don’t know of even ONE person” in the feminist side who is like that, and they are so rare, yadda, yammer, drone.

So rare, in fact, that a couple days of discourse is spent in pissing and moaning about them, about how such feminists discredit them as unfeminist.

Oh - there is also no movement for conformity.

What a fuckin’ joke.

UPDATE: Since the “Happy Feminist” has commented - and done so in a civil fashion of discourse - I will reinforce my longstanding policy of returning civility with civility and respond.  Check the comments on this post for her input.

You’re missing my point, I’m afraid.  The deal is not with the commentors on a blog, or even what you say, but with the whole idea of “Well this is *NEVER* a problem with feminists, and it’s so insignificant that we have to devote a who inter-blog thread to it.”  Sorry, but I have a bit of cognitive dissonance with that, and you should too.

Contrary to most talking points, a lot of stereotypes exist because they have some truth to them.  The “Hairy-legged Manhater” is not a caricature - it is not a “strawfeminist” - she is in fact a very real and very vocal and very influential breed of feminist; and you all cannot  - or will not - rein her in.  You know such a feminist, I’m sure.  I know several.  I’m willing to bet all but a statistically zero percent of people also know AT LEAST one.  Here’s a tip - I bring her up. Jane Random Feminist pooh-poohs her as a “strawfeminist.”

Who do you think has credibility - ethos - after that?  You’re a lawyer.  You’ve done the communication and debate classes.  I know I don’t have to break out the crayolas for you.  “What Elephant?” makes Jane Random look like an idiot.  I don’t have to do anything after that but roll my eyes and restrain a snicker.  And you all wonder why you are losing ground faster than a batallion of French Infantry in front of a Panzer Division.
Hell, Happy - I know men who try to get into the MRA movement who fit the stereotype that Liz!, the Countess, and others try to push.  And know what?  I acknowledge them, condemn them, and move on.  I have no use for men who do crap like that.  What I object to is being painted with the same brush out of some “Statistical Morality” based on dubious statistics to begin with.  Hell, I think a lot of men deservedly lose custody.  As many, though, if not more, get treated like absolute crap in the Star Chambers that pass for Family Courts these days.

\

C’mon - if there is no push for some kind of orthodoxy, seriously - why the devotion to a discussion of it?

The example on your blog is just an example of devoting time and space to a problem that allegedly is non-existant - I have no hidden agenda here; it’s a direct question - if the oft described “strawfeminist” stereotype isn’t a problem - why is it such a big issue?  And on more than just the three examples I cited of blogs?

I have absolutely no dog in the specifics of the fight.  If wearing lip gloss makes you a sellout, a Feminist-in-good-standing, a lipstick lesbian, or whatever it is immaterial to me.   This is an issue for you all, though, and one in which “Well we can hold mutally exclusive positions and still be sisters in arms” is wearing thinner and thinner.  Like it or not, sooner or later, you all are going to have to decide what it means to be a feminist, what you must believe/practice to be one, and what you can’t or be excluded.  The “Big Tent” doesn’t work.

Allow me to complete the misogynist trifecta, as one of Samhita’s commenters turned the phrase.

Once again, MBC (Male birth control) has jumped out in the news, this time from MSNBC. And as I have warned before, the femherroids are damning with faint praise early in the game.  Except for a few of the men going “Hell, yes, I’d use it” it’s a pretty7 lukewarm response for the most part, and Vervain is quick to find it a statement of woman-hating.

Ahem.

Let’s try the “Misogyny Trifecta”  from my end.

MBC will result in:

1) No more “Trap Him” pregnancies.

2) A reduction in Paternity Fraud

3) Women having to treat men as equals in the reproductive process, and negotiate in good faith.

You can take it to the bank that when it becomes closer to reality, there will be a big push to declare it “different” and to demand men get “permission” to use it; because once men have a say in reproduction, those same predatory women as will call for it (with silent assent and covert support of feminists) will lose their power over men when it comes to sex, reproduction, and children.  They will not stand quietly while men take control of their lives in that respect, and refse to negotiate with a woman who refuses to negotiate with them to begin with.

Yeah, Gonz the Papist Dog is gonna blog about a Catholic Thing again. Suffer.

Anyway, seems his Holiness Benedict XVI is set to issue a universal indult for the Tridentine (Pre Vatican II Latin Mass) Mass sometime by the end of November, putting the onus on Bishops to forbid it (Entirely!) or it can be used. Which, no doubt, will get Liberal Catholics BVDs in all kinds of knots as people return to Orthodoxy instead of the cultural relativism that has infected modern Catholicism.

I say, “Happy Day!” Now maybe I won’t have to drive miles and miles to go to a Mass.

Well, seems Amp has sold himself out to Pornographers, which has the feminist blogosphere all a-twitter.

Of course, the feminists are eating each other over it, which amuses me to no end.  Pro-sex vs. anti-sex feminists.  Can men be feminists? Can they be trusted?

So - which hypocrisy will win out?  Will they form up the pink wall of silence, kind of like when they shielded Bill Clinton when he assaulted and sexually harassed all these women - or will he get kicked out of the She-Man Male Haters Club, the club that supposedly has no credentials and such?
Yeah, I know, revelling in the dissention among your foes is petty.  But do it anyway.   Rejoice when they do your job for you - and remember - such division is only possible where hypocrisy runs rampant.

Two ways people diasagree - principle or process.  When you agree in principle, that is where process is the only obstacle, and that can be resolved.  Disagree in principle though - the only way to resolve that is to rationalize double standards, and embrace hypocrisy.

This should be most entertaining.   Someone get me a beer and pass the pretzels.  You sit down, too, just move those books out of that chair.

Ain’t this fun?

Bulletin - Men invented Humanity

In news certain to get the granny-panties of feminists everywhere in an uproar, most of the 1.23% difference between Humans and Chimpanzees can be found in the Y Chromosome.  Which is nothing new, of course - long have I had the opinion that if we had a “Matriarchy” we’d still be living in mud huts because of what seems to be an inate female fear of risk.  Go with the known, the safe.

I especially like this quote:

As far back as 1972, Elaine Morgan, a feminist, writing in The Descent of Woman, noted that in fact the role of females hadn’t changed much from chimp to human. Mothers nurse and care for their offspring in basically the same way chimps do. In terms of social role, there really isn’t much difference between human females and other animals.

Or, as one feminazi said, “As far as reproduction is concerned, men could drop dead as soon as they impregnated the female, and we’d never notice.”  Well, true dat.  This is found everywhere in the animal kingdom.

All of them LOWER life forms.

Far as civilization goes, though, guess who is just along for the ride?

Of course, this will be seen as misogynistic - I mean, God forbid men actually claim some usefulness for themselves, and it is heresy to sugest that the male part of the dynamic might be the reason that the human species is not an evoluntiary dead end, like the female dominated bonobo.   The key here is “Dynamic.”  What gets the doctrinaire womanists all a flutter is the notion that their pet (and scientifically unsupportable) theory of the fungibility of the male and female is just so much bunk.

Feminists are eager to deny the intrinsic and innate qualities of the male and female because they do not value them at all - and they are not only no friend to men - they are the enemy of woman, too.  Deny the female, and the species ends.  Deny the male, and it stagnates, becoming no more than an animal.  That is your feminist paradise, there.

Well, first off, the title: “Nervous Men Killed Off the Office Romance“  Yep, once again - MEN are to blame.  The favorite whipping boy.

That’s right, guys - you won’t befriend women, network with them, and open yourself up to charges and lawsuits, so you are holding them back, you pigs.

I like this quote:

They found that 75% of male workers constantly considered the risks of being accused of sexual harassment when talking to female colleagues. Humour was considered one of the most risky areas.

Conversely, only 5% of women said they had to watch what they said around men but 66% noticed that men seemed inhibited.

Gee.  I wonder why?

HE has consensual sex with a 15 year old female student - 25 years

St. Clair County Assistant District Attorney Gwendolyn Connelly said the teacher-student relationship was key to the prosecution of the case.

“He was a teacher and she was a student,” Connelly said. “It’s about trust and authority.

SHE has consensual sex with a 15 year old male student - 2 years

Yeah.  I know.  “Different.”

Firemen who don’t want to man a booth and hand out fliers at a gay rally = BAD

Islamicist Cop who doesn’t want to guard the Israeli Embassy = Good 

Yeah.  It’s “Different.”  Gotcha.  What-the-fuck-ever.

You know, I am about sick of this clown and his pack of goat buggering inbreds.  The last bit of extortion from him over the funerals of the dead Amish girls is just plain beyond the pale.
What we need is to have action taken against this moron.  I mean, even though he is a Democrat, and one of Al Gore’s good buddies, he’s constantly used as a club by the left wing to illustrate “Right Wing” hate.

It would be very easy, for instance, to make a godhatesgoatfelchinglatentfaggotphredphelps.org site, and to begin to, say, post photos, videos, and indetifications.  They do one of their protests, follow them.  Get license numbers.  Run checks.  Post names and addresses of the people who he sucks into this.  Phone numbers.  E-mails.  Drive the paranoia up so high it is too expensive for them to protest after they finish paying for their security.  They announce a protest, start checking the motels in the area to see where they stay.  Protest them.

Hell, anyone can buy a hundred dollar disposable car and chain some axles together.  Gee, be a shame if their darn van couldn’t make it to the site because it was unable to leave the parking lot.  Just a prank, after all.

And if someone - God Forbid - should happen to, may it never happen, glean names and take one of the fucktards out - or a few of them - well, even though it would free up valuable oxygen for higher life forms - say, bacteria - it would be a horrible tragedy, wouldn’t it?

Just saying.

...calling “Bullshit!”

Big fucking deal. So you get a nasty email. Grow the fuck up. It’s no more “evidence” of any rampant misogyny, or dangerous times to be a woman, or any other of the pathetic hyperbole that so often gets whined about by feminists. Someone hates you. Some cretin sent you a drooling email. And that ruins your day? You give them that much power over you? What a fucking loser. No wonder your “cause” is becoming more and more fringe every day, it is served by a bunch of damned cowards; “stwong and indepwendant wimmin” who break down in tears when they get a lick of criticism. Christ in a fucking Chariot Driven Sidecar, Susan B. Anthony must be spinning in her grave. These are her heirs? Wilting flowers who get all teary-eyed and go into a deep funk because they get a fucking nastygram?Give up the blog, and fucking get therapy. It’ll do you more good. And if you can’t take an attack because you’re such a delicate fucking flower, take up knitting instead.

And Jesus H, folks - these gutless, weak-sister, crybaby, craven soreheads are the ones who you let intimidate you and set policy out of fear they’ll do what? Protest? Cry some more? GAH!

You know what, people? Hardly a day goes by when I don’t have some buffoon sending me some diatribe that is so rambling and incoherent the spittle from it damn near stains my monitor; seriously, I can imagine these baboons putting white-out on their monitor, it is so bad sometimes. Most of these don’t even have entertainment value for me to post them, tearing them apart doesn’t even rise to the level of grenade-fishing in a barrel. I have had members of the Religion of Piss threatening me, homosexual activists, feminists, liberals, illegal aliens and all manner of the rest of the dregs of humanity promising me pain and misery in this life, or the one to come. Some Feminist Wiccan bitch sent me an email that was an “inpotance spell” a few months ago, and which “cursed” me to be born a woman - and a “lessbian” - in the next life. I gotta tell you, I am shaking in my boots, and every time I have sex I am just awed at the way the “inpotance spell” works. (I wonder - maybe she mispelled the incantation - anyway….)

You know - there’s a way to tell a credible threat. The clown who gave me my old address in an email, and promised to come get me - well, he wound up spending a weekend in jail. (Word of advice - make sure you’re not from a state where I have a cousin in the State Police - just a hint.) I’ve gotten people fired for idiotically sending me abusive shit from their company email. A ranting email from an anonymous shitheel should tell you something about the liklihood they will actually have the balls to do anything.

But I don’t sit here and get fucking depressed because there are people in the world who hate me. Remember Gonzo’s Laws - If I offend a asshat, that is the greatest form of applause for me. I write precisely TO piss people off. I want to piss you off at some of the inanity that passes for matters of consequence to some of these wet behind the ears, spoiled, rich white left-wing sacks of shit. I want to piss them off so they froth at the mouth and reveal their true colors. I want to point, and get people laughing, so we can cry in one voice “Look, they ain’t wearing no clothes!” If we all look at the big, bad, mean paper tiger of Political Correctness and start giggling and singing “Who’s afraid of the Big Bad Wolf?” it will cause it to lose power.

I can’t do that unless I am mean as a snake to these fucknozzles. And it follows that I am going to piss them off and be hated for my efforts. So? And that has power to ruin my life how? I should whine about it why? I fuckin’ rejoice! I mean, these dickmunchers are constantly referring to me as “mullet” something - hell, they are too fucking dumb to even know what a mullet is! So when I hit a nerve, and a collection of crybaby liberals whose only original thought died of lonliness a decade or more ago starts wailing and gnashing their teeth, I have a Coke and a smile and say “Mission Fucking Accomplished, Gonz, me bucko!”

And that’s the name of that tune.