Banter in the Garden
|Presenting the 51st… on Guest Post: Women’s Refu…|
|Fuck off, Bob Jones,… on Risky Business|
|Daniel Copeland on Risky Business|
|Emma on Risky Business|
|Deborah on A plea for your voice.|
Tea and Strumpets
You guys remember Brody, right? Good times. Apparently March is when the trolls come out, because just over a year later, Peter wants us to know he agrees with Brody about how much we women suck.
It’s a shame “Peter” isn’t more original, because a quick Google shows that he cut and paste his (long-winded) comment from noted Pick Up Artist and MRA “Roosh”. (To whom I am not linking because I am not sending even one person his way. Feel free to Google the first couple of lines of Peter’s comment – you’ll find it pretty easy. Disclaimer: The Lady Garden takes no responsibility for personal injury or property damage caused by the rage that will ensue.) (Incidentally, “Roosh” is one of the people behind the Reddit “victims of feminism” fund, and yes, Googling that will result in some impressive head-desking.)
Anyway. If you have the stomach for some mind-blowingly poor logic and some incredible misogyny, here it is. Be entertained. Trigger warning for…well, massive douchbaggery, I guess.
I completely agree with Brody. You see, the problem with modern feminism is that it has disrupted a gender equilibrium that has existed for millenia. And yes, that equilibrium had men exerting their control and superiority over women, but it was an equilibrium nonetheless that has helped the human species perpetuate and colonize the Earth. Feminism’s successful foray on mainstream culture has destroyed that balance and made it increasingly hopeless for today’s man to land a decent woman who cherishes him, let alone one who can be a suitable mother to his children.
I will concede that some aspects of feminism are just and proper. Women should have some say of how many children they want, if they want to work, and if they want to get married (and with whom). They should not be held as sex slaves against their will. They should be rewarded based on their skills and accomplishments just like a man should, and equal pay for equal work is reasonable. However, today we have women overreaching and demanding more than their fair share. They want high positions not based on their skills but simply because they are female, continually shoving false “glass-ceiling” and unequal pay myths down our throats. They want courts to subjugate men they divorce for the most trivial of reasons, and they want to put-down and play any man who attempts to form a connection with them using a provider (beta) game that has worked for his most recent ancestors.
Unfortunately there will be no setting back of the clock. As long as women retain suffrage, our politicians will continue to appease them for votes by refusing to scale back anti-man laws. Unfit mothers will continue to keep custody rights while fathers pay support for a child who is brainwashed against him. Single motherhoodwill increasingly be glorified. And as long as American-style capitalism provides decreasing job opportunities for men, women will continue to excel in mundane office jobs that better suit their social, emotional brains instead of the factory and engineering jobs of the past that provided men with a fair income for his entire family.
I believe that today’s man can still restore his dominion in a world that is skewing against his favor by doing one thing: becoming a sexist. He must possess sexist beliefs for three reasons:
1. To have sexual relationships with women who are at least as pretty as he is handsome.
2. To assert his superiority over his female competitors in the workplace by playing the office game as well as they do (e.g. constantly bringing up accomplishments to managers, being outspoken, being two-faced, ass-kissing, and backstabbing).
3. To get laid at all.
In the past you didn’t have to believe that you were superior to women. The system was set up so that all you had to do was go to school, get a good-paying local job, and ask your mom to put in a good word with the neighbor’s cute daughter. The first girl you fucked would probably be your wife, you’d have your two kids, and you’d live the so-called American dream. Today this is not possible. Your father’s father would be unsuccessful at mating in today’s climate of feminism which has allowed a tiny percentage of alpha men to monopolize the best women. As American women become more obese and gross, there are fewer desirable women left outside of the alpha males’ harems. The nice guy is left with nothing but scraps—and those scraps have attitude.
While it doesn’t look good for you in terms of marriage, at the minimum any educated, employed man in a first-world nation should be able to sleep with a handful of decent women a year. But without having sexist beliefs, he will wholeheartedly struggle in that front. Here’s what it means to be a sexist:
Having a low level of respect for women.
Having the belief that the genders are not equal (you should nod or smile at the following quote: “A woman can do anything a man can do, as long as a man first shows her how”).
Not listening to them about anything.
Studying flavors of game based on the alpha-male model, an effective countermeasure to feminism.
Preferring the company of compliant, feminine women of different nationalities where feminism has not made strong inroads (Eastern Europe, Southeast Asia, South America).
You don’t have to hate women and you don’t have to abuse them. You don’t have to commit any crimes against them. But you must believe that you are superior and deserve more than them. With the addition of game practice, you will then be sexually rewarded for those beliefs.
It’s a sad fact that the modern feminist withholds sex from the nice guy, disgusted with his subservience, while servicing the sexist alpha man, increasing his power and rewarding him with more sexual delights than he could have experienced since the days of Itzcoatl. The nice guy is weak and starved, left sexless and alone, a pathetic specimen resigned to the brunt of jokes in beer commercials and crappy sitcoms. If he wants to be procreate, he has no choice but to rise from the ashes a sexist. The more of those beliefs he accepts, the more he’ll get what he wants in the fucked-up world we currently live in.
Enjoy the comments, darlings.
What’s important when you are writing a headline about a case of sexual assault? Making sure your headline isn’t triggering? Showing sensitivity to the alleged victim? Ensuring you’re not committing contempt of court?
Yep. Because that’s relevant.
I don’t want to get into an argument about whether a 20 year old having sex with a 13 year old constitutes rape. But this headline, ladies and gentlemen? That’s rape culture.
“We’d cover cripples, left-handers and all the rest of it.”
Seven o’clock isn’t a particularly important time slot to me, darlings, as it’s the time of day I generally get out of bed and have my breakfast champagne. But I understand it’s something that some people get a bit exercised over.
So, I sat down one night to watch this flash new Seven Sharp programme. I thought it might be interesting. I wasn’t expecting to start the day so angry I was shaking.
Let’s talk about women in the workplace, they thought. Let’s do a fine, if glib, piece about women on boards. We won’t talk about the gender pay gap. We won’t talk about work-life balance, or any of the things that are important in terms of getting, and keeping, women in the workforce. But it will be tongue in cheek, and a bit irreverent, and everything will be fine, if hardly ground-breaking.
So….then what should we do? We should get an expert on. Someone who can talk about women in the workplace. Maybe one of the unions? No, not controversial enough. Hey, this chick might know what she’s talking about? No, too…well, expert. And a woman. No one trusts those.
No, let’s get someone guaranteed to give us a good soundbite. Someone whose misogyny, homophobia and general hatred of people he doesn’t like is legend. It won’t add anything to the debate, it’ll allow him to call our host, one of New Zealand’s most experienced broadcasters, “the token female”. Why bother to actually cover a story, an important issue, when we can stir up some outrage?
And hey, in their defence, it worked. I am outraged. Couple of things, Sir Bob. There’s a myriad of reasons women don’t want to stay on after five, many of which involve childcare, and the fact that that’s how many hours they are PAID FOR. But also, it’s entirely possible they don’t want to stay on and have a drink because you are such a raging asshole. This country is dominated by women in politics? That’s why women make up only 32%of the house, and only 6 women in cabinet. COOL STORY BRO.
And then there’s this. Thanks Seven Sharp. You’ve freed up a whole half hour in the evening for me!
Paula Joye is well known for her “fashion” “articles”, in which she likes to tell women everything that’s wrong with them, in the name of making them look better. This time, she’s excelled herself at pitching fashion as a “battle of the sexes“.
I don’t want to comment on the article, except to say that you can pry my leopard print from my cold, dead hands, bitch. But, as a service to you, I read the comments. Because they are brilliant.
First up, James, with my favourite internet comment ever:
Rule number 1: if she is tattooed up, she is not marriage material. Damaged/defaced goods.
+1 for tattoos. Also fake breasts, most especially when much exposed. Ditto fake tans and large fake eyelashes and too much makeup. You look like those Jersy Shore bimbos.
You forgot the cool word of the day “Misogyny” all the sheeple’s are using it
Saw a trainee checkout worker, size 24? With jeggings tight tee and a skimpy sheer short top just this week. The visual is still in my head.
Not good, and surely the employer should have a word.
I wish I say that to all the overweight women that like to wear them near where I live. Not a good thing to see. Shame they don’t want to dress to suit their figures. And no – black leggings aren’t slimming on those of us that are overweight (and yes I’m unfortunately one of them)
The worst enemies of women are (1) themselves, (2) other women and (3) women’s magazines. If you are genuine and confident, men don’t really care what you wear. Sure we don’t get animal print but hey, if you look great overall… we don’t care. Have a nice day ladies!
LOL – I was in hairdresser recently and commented to wife on how first 1/3 of these mags is all about losing weight & who is thin or lost weight, next 1/3 is about who is fat and gained pounds and last 1/3 is recipes with ads galore all way through for weight loss mixes, pills and other products like makeup & stuff to get rid of cellulite. WTF. How low does self esteem have to be to buy those trash mags ?
Fail – Add the thong hanging out above the jeans like a plumbers crack. Almost as bad as wearing a huge bra with a singlet. Its mens equal to wearing undies over pants.
The article isn’t all about you Phillip, or you personal tastes and preferences. Nor is it about your mates or most men you know either. It’s just the majority opinion from the author’s sample.The author isn’t telling women how to act, or even what to wear. She is just telling them which clothes don’t appeal to a lot of men.Women take decide for themselves if they want to take any notice or ignore the information.So take your quest for victimhood elsewhere.
(If I go on a quest for victimhood, what do I need to take? A sword, a dragon and a short skirt? No, leggings, right? They REALLY hate leggings.)
Clothes aren’t the issue, it’s who’s wearing them, guys or girls. Muffin tops, cauliflower thighs, camel toes and the trailer park or “heroin-chic” look are NEVER going to be in. Noting worse than seeing a size 16 crammed into a pair of leopard sheen-printed leggings. If you’re overweight, underweight, disproportionate, covered in scars or tatts, then wear clothes that won’t highlight the issue. Wear something that presents you well (as opposed to trying to look the bandwagon part by wearing the latest trend). That’s about it.
I would also add Tattoos. You know the little ones on the ankle, wrist, back of the neck – the ones women think make them so unique, oblivious to the fact that almost every girl/middle-aged woman in the office suddenly has one. And no, the little star you have tattooed behind your ear is not discreet or cool.
+1 on tattoo’s, no bigger turn off than a scrag tag.
Perhaps a cigarette hanging out of one side of the mouth goes close.
Men get labelled paternalistic misogynists if we voice an opinion on behalf of women.
Do you hate men? Do you think they are all a bit useless and pointless, and now that you’ve got your “modern woman” accoutrements like a career and easy sex, wonder why they are still around? Do you refuse to let your “mate” love and provide for you?
Congratulations. You are no longer a woman.
I know, right! I mean here I was, laboring under the albeit cissexist assumption that I am a woman. I’ve always assumed that, even though my uppity ways would suggest that while I might be a woman, I’m certainly no lady.
It’s strange though. You see, apparently feminism won me all these things. A career, though odds are good I’ll still be paid less than the men in my profession. Apparently I can have “sex at hello”. Which would be nice, if I weren’t threatened with sexual assault for doing just that, and if I couldn’t remember in vivid detail the most recent time I was called a slut for wearing a tight skirt. It won me the right to parent as I like – with or without a job – but seemingly I need to cave to men over that, because I need them to “pick up the slack at the office”.
She’s right. I am angry. And probably more than my fair share of defensive. But I’m not angry because I think of men as the enemy. Trite as it is, I think of the patriarchy as the enemy, and that it hurts all genders as much as it hurts me. And Ms Venker here is apparently a High Priestess of the Institutionalised Sexism denomination.
Maybe I should just admit it. I hate men. I don’t want them around, and I don’t ever want to get married or have babies, because that would get in the way of my plans to smash the glass ceiling and have all the sex I want. With *gasp* whoever I want. Oh, and I hate porn.
So, I took the quiz. I thought i might need the 12 step programme to get over my ridiculous fantasies (of equality, perv). I thought, maybe, this was true:
…there’s nothing empowering about moving in and out of intense romantic relationships, postponing marriage indefinitely, or pursuing careers with a verve that belies common sense. There’s nothing empowering about shacking up, rejecting your husband’s surname, ignoring your biological clock, refusing to depend on a husband, or becoming a single mom.
To be truly empowered, you’re going to have to do a 180.
You mean, there’s NOTHING empowering about having a life of my own? That any man who might want to marry me might value my career and not just my capacity to breed. That (get those pearls ready for clutching) I Might Not Even Want Children. That I might want to keep my own name as a sign of my independence and that I am not just my husband’s property.
Anyway, now I’m confused. I don’t need the programme. I felt so sure I would. I felt so sure Ms Venker and Fox news and their ilk would consider me such a pointless woman, with my career and my high heels and my disturbingly silent biological clock. But. I don’t consider myself better than men. I’m not holding out for Brad Pitt. Or George Clooney for that matter. I’m (through luck rather than design) not a product of divorce, nor do I need to be right all the time. As often as possible, but not every time. Smart, stable and kind sounds lovely, though I’d throw in funny, and certain…other requirements. (Mostly grammar-related.) Even mustering the loosest definitions possible, I still only managed four yesses.
One last thing.
What exactly are “the consequences of sex”? As in
It’s all so unfortunate – for women, not men. Feminism serves men very well: they can have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever. It’s the women who lose. Not only are they saddled with the consequences of sex, by dismissing male nature they’re forever seeking a balanced life.
You’re talking about babies, right? They’re the consequences of sex? First, how delightful. Second, women are left, quite literally, holding the baby, and it’s FUCKING FEMINISM THAT IS THE PROBLEM?
Let’s play fatshaming bingo, shall we?
Don’t believe me about that first one? How’s this from North & South’s FB page?
Is sugar the new fat – and will it cause the next wave of heart disease? (No, our cover model isn’t especially fat but, like many of us, you can bet she’d like to lose a few kilos. What she probably doesn’t know is how much “hidden” sugar she’s eating.) In the new North & South –Donna Chisholm reveals some surprising new discoveries on why we gain weight.
So. North & South is clearly the new Cosmo. Vague, threatening claims about weight on the cover, and references to “breaking up”. Chuck in something about a blowjob, and the transition will be complete.
I mean, do they actually know this woman would “like to lose a few kilos”? To me, she looks strong and healthy and beautiful. But, then, what would I know, being a fatty? And OF COURSE, it’s a woman. Men aren’t fat, right? It’s only women who suffer from obesity. I’ve only skimmed the article, because I value my mental health, and smarter people than me can debunk the claims therein. Also, what I care about is how this issue is presented. But as far as I could tell, this is a stock photo. So HOW DARE someone suggest she might want to lose a few kilos?
Inside the article, there’s a few more photos. A (male) researcher, and a dude who has cut sugar out of his diet. And another stock photo of an overweight woman, back to the camera, hunched over the scales she is standing on. So: Men, capable of talking about weight. Women, just used to illustrate the story.
And this. Everyone’s favourite.
The ubiquitous headless fatty. Sigh.
Want to bet, based on the pose, she’s smiling, or pouting, or something other than looking ashamed of herself? And we couldn’t have that, could we?
trigger warning for rape, victim blaming, and a healthy dollop of institutional sexism.
This letter should have, actually, been titled “Women get dangerous message that it’s wrong to expect not to be attacked”.
It’s doing the rounds on Twitter now, of course. And of course, we’re all angry and pissed off and making arguments about victim blaming and slutshaming and OH MY GOD FUCK OFF ANNETTE WALE.
Not to mention the argument that all men are a few beers and some exposed flesh away from being rapists. You’re all hopped up on testosterone, dudes, and too weak to withstand flirting from a sloppy drunk chick.
So far, so not new. Feel free to combat those arguments in the comments. It’s not like we haven’t before.
Here’s a question though. What the ACTUAL FUCK is the “paper of record” in our capital city doing printing shit like this? Does the Dom have a responsibility to think about how this perpetuates double standards and makes it easier for rapists to commit their crimes? Or is it really just about getting people to look at its letters page?
[I’m belatedly adding a trigger warning for child violence to this post.]
“The popular public perception is that women and children need to be protected from men, but this ‘gender’ focus is misleading. Mothers killed 15 (45%) of the 33 child victims, comprising 10 daughters and 5 sons,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ. “If we’re really serious about reducing family violence, we need to talk about family violence, and our violent culture, and the role alcohol and drugs play in fuelling this environment.”
“While Family First is stating a fact, they are being irresponsible by not presenting the numbers with all the specifics. “Only two out of the 15 deaths where mothers were responsible for the child, was physical assault the cause of death. Contrast this with the 10 out of 10 deaths where fathers and step-fathers were responsible for the death of a child and were caused by assault.
Every time I think Bob McCroskie and his cronies could not be any more vile, I am wrong.
No, seriously. I was getting really sad about the lack of complete garbage being written about marriage equality. I’d even been to NZConservative, and it’s a bit sad when you can’t rely on Lucia to bring the frothing crazy.
So, again, why set out after same-sex “marriage”? The answer is it is another step in a decades-long campaign to convince everyone that homosexuals and lesbians are no different from the rest of us and deserve all the rights and privileges known to mankind.
That’s pretty clear, right? “Gay and lesbian” people (the existence of bisexuals being obviously far too confusing for Garth) are different from “us”, and NOT deserving of the same rights. Not just different, but lesser.
Garth trots out the tired, stupid old “marriage is totes for having babies” argument, but even that isn’t sufficiently stupid and restrictive for him. Marriage is for people who want to “have children and to bring them up in a traditional family environment.” It’s not entirely clear what that means, but I’m pretty sure it’s “the 1950s”.
Thing is, that’s clearly not what marriage is for. Sort of accidentally, my children have been raised in a two-parent two-child two-cat household where the man goes out to work and the woman stays home and cooks. And we’re not married. Marriage and breeding are obviously two different things that function independently of each other.
I’m also not entirely sure whether Garth thinks I can have kids. Because I’ve had sex with women, and “by their very nature, homosexuals and lesbians cannot reproduce”. I really would like to see Garth asked the question, “Should bisexuals be allowed to get married?” because I suspect he might apoplexy. Having sex with someone of the same gender is a thing you do. Having a child is a thing you do. Neither is a thing you are. Gay people have kids. Straight people have kids using IVF or surrogacy. If this is your best argument, it’s obviously, simply, clearly wrong.
Garth is honest enough to admit that he “doesn’t understand” male homosexuality. It appears there are rather a lot of other things he also doesn’t understand. For instance, “it is disingenuous to complain about rights being taken away when they have never existed in the first place”. You go tell that to Kate Sheppard, Garth. I want to watch.
Also, if you’re quoting stats on civil unions, and you use a bunch of solid, concrete numbers, and then you say “a fair number of which have since been dissolved”, we can work out that you don’t want to tell us what the number is, and therefore it’s probably approximately “buggery fuck all”. (Also, note the comment where Garth is totally taken to school on the stats, it’s a piece of genius.)
Garth, I’d missed you. I’d assumed you’d been tucked away in a little home somewhere, with a blanket tucked over your knees, writing (or cut-and-pasting) furious little columns which your nurse sincerely swore were being published somewhere, honest. I liked to think of you, in a tiny darkened room, watching educational videos to try to understand male homosexuality, and stroking your Services to Journalism.
Turns out you’re still being published. Who knew?
Trigger warning for sexual assault, assholishness, and losing all faith in humanity.
By now, you know all about the “funny” competition winner Hell pizza congratulated on its Facebook pages and its epic non-apology.
Hey everyone, tonight we posted a fan’s confession seeing it in the spirit of a prank between mates. Once we understood that offence had been taken and saw the bad light the post could be seen in we removed it, and we apologise to those offended. Lesson learned.
Because, yes, shoving your genitals in someone’s mouth: a prank between mates.
But, oh dear, people were offended, so we’ve taken it down, so those delicate little flowers stop being upset. Because no one in this country can take a joke. </sarcasm>
Now, that apology doesn’t make me think that Hell even understands why what they posted is offensive, let alone that the company is even remotely contrite. What confirms that for me is the conversation they have let go on. I was drunk, so I Read The Comments. Don’t.
Apparently, I can’t take a joke, I’m “just jealous”, teabagging someone isn’t that bad, and it’s definitely not sexual assault. We all need to lighten up, we all need to stop being so damn PC, it was funny, if someone did that to them they’d just punch them in the face and be done with it.
So far, so sigh-inducingly predictable. Rape culture 101. And were it not Hell, who has history, I’d probably be more surprised and angry. But I’m not. I don’t like their pizzas, so I’m OK. Feel free to boycott them, if it floats your boat. I doubt they give a shit about people like us.
Meanwhile, Habitual Fix has also “apologised” for their horrendous transphobic and body-shaming Manwiches ad:
Hi everybody, we are very passionate about what we do, which is doing everything we can bring you your fresh food fix every day. We believe this is something that many similar NZ businesses cannot claim and this is why you, the customer, share our passion. But to stand out in a vanilla society that’s currently happy and safely sitting on the fence, we need an opinion, to stand for something and yes, a lot of attitude. Part of that attitude is to be current and very patriotic, that’s why last week we proposed the ‘Gold coin smoothie for Val’ promotion to you.
When did “vanilla” become a bad thing? Vanilla’s a great flavour. And if someone identifies as vanilla in a sexual context – and I am uncertain if that is the connotation they are going for – then that’s actually fine. Great even. You know what’s great? Vanilla added to a hot chocolate made with really dark, bitter, chocolate. Delicious…. Sorry, where was I? Yeah. Vanilla – good. Not a catchphrase for conservatism, for people being to PC, not getting your joke. And, like all sexual preferences and identifications, not something to imply is a bad thing, and you’re a better person because you don’t “sit on the fence”.
Here’s the thing. It actually is possible to stand out in a conservative society, have an opinion, and an attitude even, without BEING A COMPLETE FUCKING DICK WHO DENIGRATES OTHER PEOPLE BASED ON THEIR APPEARANCE. Shocking, I know.
[Update: Hell has offered money to Wellington Rape Crisis. Well. This is an interesting turn of events. If by interesting, we mean extremely problematic.]