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.
“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!
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?
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.]
Trigger warning for rape
So this, this right here, this person you like and laugh at and respect in other ways, this person is currently the personification of male privilege.
Thinking that it’s part of a “dialogue” when a woman gets singled out in a comedy club and has someone “joke” about how funny it would be if she was pack raped there and then, that is privilege. It is something only someone who is fortunate enough to not be threatened by rape culture can afford to think.
The fallout from a woman being threatened with rape in a comedy club for the purposes of a “joke”, is only beard-strokingly interesting to people who have never been told that what they’re wearing could get them into trouble. To people who don’t have to think of survival strategies on a daily basis, to the point where they’ve perfected LOUD FAKE CELLPHONE CONVERSATIONS while walking home in the dark. To people who haven’t memorised which neighbours stay up later than others in case you have to run to their door. Or which shoes you can run in and which you can’t. Or which of your boyfriend’s friends you don’t want to get a ride home with. Or what you’d say if you needed to leave somewhere fast.
Rape “jokes” (no matter how public they become) are not part of a dialogue. They are part of a systematic and institutionalised violence against women everywhere and always.
The reactions to those jokes are not part of a dialogue, they are fucking survival strategies. They are attempts to try and protect ourselves, our sisters, our daughters, our mothers, from the ever-present threat of rape, which is now even more dangerous because apparently it’s funny. They are attempts to get people to please stop scaring the shit out of us, or reminding us of something we’re trying to forget, or what could be in our futures, or what has definitely happened to women we love.
It must be really nice to have the ability to enjoy those pleas as part of some interesting anthropological discussion which benefits everyone apparently, because Louis CK got reminded he doesn’t have to worry about it.
There I was, watching Newt Gingrich losing his shit in the Republican primaries, calling women sluts, and wryly smiling about the infamous all-male panel on contraception. I fell in love with Obama all over again. And I was all smugly, well, we women in New Zealand are so lucky, with our relatively easy and cheap access to contraception.
Aren’t we? AREN’T WE? Yeah, well, until the Government comes along and decides that it doesn’t like poor women, and their grubby little oiks, and so it’ll Put A Stop To That.
Now, if you follow me on Twitter, you may know that this has made me very caps-locky, swearingly, rantingly angry. I will try to be slightly more reasoned here, but I can’t promise this post won’t descend into me ANGRILY BANGING MY HEAD AGAINST THE KEYBOARD.
So. Some thoughts.
1. Why is this even a welfare issue?
Yes, all women should have access to safe and cheap contraception. And the way we know how we’re getting safe contraception is by talking about it with our doctors. Not our WINZ case managers. In fact, via Nikki:
In making an informed decision about contraceptive use and choice of method, all
women, including young women, must be provided with full and unbiased information about all of their options, including the expected risks, side effects, benefits and costs. This is provided for under rights six and seven of the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumer Rights.” From Women’s Health Action‘s paper on welfare reform
So, why is this coming from welfare? Why is Paula Bennett not involved? (If you think you can stomach listening to her, she is here. TLG is not responsible for any damage to your desk or computer from the repeated head-banging.)
Because why? Because poor women are bad and evil and shouldn’t be costing the taxpayer more than they already are! God. Why are they even pretending this is about contraception? It’s about pretending to save money and stopping poor people from having more babies. Because I don’t know if you got the memo? But poor people are bad.
Will WINZ staff be educated in contraception, and advising people on how to get it and what they might need? Will it be explained what an IUD id, and how it works, and what the benefits and side effects might be?
Let’s be clear. If we actually want to do this, to increase access to contraception – especially for young people – then it should be universal, available to any gender, and not based on income.
2. Oh, but come on, aren’t you laydeez overreacting? “Being able to access” is not the same as “have to use”.
Well, first of all, we’re not talking about condoms here, sunshine, we’re talking about long-term IUDs and hormonal implants. So, this has long-lasting effects for the women who choose to “access” it. Five years is a long time, particularly in a woman’s reproductive life.
Secondly, if you don’t think WINZ staff would ever pressure someone into doing something like this, then you’ve never been on a benefit. WINZ staff are required to push policies like this. If you don’t think WINZ staff intimidate and coerce their clients, you are remarkably naive.
And thirdly? What’s to stop them, in a year, turning around and saying – you didn’t take the opportunity for the contraception, so we’re docking your benefit. Oh, you got pregnant while you were still on a benefit, so we’re going to punish you by making you go back to work early. OH WAIT. THEY ALREADY DID THIS.
Being on a benefit isn’t a measure of how clever or moral someone is, and this policy is fucking patronising. Nor, given the fact it will be aimed at women and their children, is it hereditary.
3. Um, there’s this other person involved? I think he’s called Dad.
(Big sloppy kiss to whoever can tell me where I stole that line from.)
Why is this being aimed at women? Why are free vasectomies not being handed out? Or giant bowls of condoms on the front desk at every WINZ branch?
Is it really appropriate for a government to target young women for long-term contraception? If the Government really wants to address these issues, why is it not putting money into much more comprehensive sex education, better, cheaper and easier access to healthcare, and many, many more employment options? Or is that just not punitive enough?
This is only scratching the surface – have at it in the comments. And Deborah has a great post at her place.
Seriously, NZ Herald? This is what passes for election coverage?
I was going to write a whole screed here, rant and rage and encourage people to write to you or boycott you or something. But actually, seriously, I give the fuck up.
Martin van Beynan wrote a silly piece on Slutwalk: Models to offer our daughters.
Tallulah and Emma responded: Models? We’ll give you models.
And MvB has written another piece in response, ‘though we note that he has done so without the courtesy of a link. (Basic net etiquette for newbies, Martin: if you are responding to someone’s argument, it’s polite to link to it, so that readers can see the arguments for themselves.)
I think the title of his latest effort says it all really.
When the Lady Gardeners saw this piece by Martin Van Beynen in Saturday’s press, there was shouting, sick feelings, and someone may have broken some of the tiles out by the pond. And so, we decided to shamelessly steal an idea from Femininsting and do a round table of sorts. (Not like the round table in the Garden where we sit and drink kir royales and talk about boys! and periods! and our slutty, slutty sex lives. Apparently.)
Tallulah: I attended SlutWalk in Wellington. I was not scantily clad, far from it, and I can report that I could count on my fingers the amount of women that were. Of course, you and I may have very different definitions of what “scantily clad” implies. Because, I would suggest, if not wanting your daughter to see women in their skimpies, you might want to keep them away from the ballet. Just sayin’. Also, if you’re looking for role models, how about NOT Cinderella, a simpering child who doesn’t stand up to her family, is basically the posterchild for domestic abuse, and waits around for a prince to rescue her. Unless, of course, that’s what you want for your daughter. I suspect if is, given you suggest the way forward for women is Redemption Through Housework.
The thing is, you really don’t like women very much, do you? We should be hard-working and chaste, and stand by our men, agreeing with them, no matter what. Apparently at all the “dinner parties” I go to with my “husband” (I live a very different life to you, Martin) I should just let him spout his “brilliant and noble” ideas, and keep my pretty little mouth quiet. Because that’s supporting him. You know, Martin, no man worth his salt, no man worth my time, has ever wanted that kind of support.
There is actually too much in this column of yours for me to argue with, and I am sure some of the other ladies will pick up the slack. But you know how you want women to hit the books? Perhaps you could do that yourself, and find out what SlutWalk was about, why your victim-blaming bullshit is harmful, and why it wasn’t about our right to dress like tarts. Go on, I dare you. Learn something.
Emma Honest, ‘Lulah, it’s like van Beynen read my How to Be an Opinion Columnist column as a genuine how-to, because he’s done every single thing in there. Factual inaccuracies: check. Strident opinions offered on things you know absolutely nothing about: check. Treating groups you don’t belong to as if they don’t contain people: check.
So yeah, van Beynen’s characterisation of SlutWalk couldn’t be more wrong. He clearly just didn’t care enough to pay attention to its actual message. And of course he had the assistance in his ignorance of people like that Stuff photographer by the bridge who was only taking pictures of women in fishnets.
And here’s the thing, for me, the reason I get so fucked off when people tell lies about SlutWalk. Anything you say about SlutWalk you say about rape victims. There were people there for whom being on the march was a huge emotional strain, but who felt it was so important that it was worth putting themselves through that, worth standing up in public for the first time and saying “Yes, I was raped, and no, I am not in any way to blame for that.” I’d like van Beynen to try putting himself in that position, imagine being one of those people, and then I’d like him to read what he said about them.
When women take to the streets to pursue the right to dress like tarts, you can see why I am often forced into the realms of fiction to find exemplary womanhood.
Those people, male and female? Would make fabulous role models for children.
Also, the car crash metaphor? Fucking seriously? Also, you know what? If I’m walking down the street and I get hit by a car, nobody gives a FUCK what I’m wearing.
[We have emailed Mr van Beynen for a response to this post. Fingers crossed! TS]
[Update: Mr van Beynen did not respond to our email, nor did he bother to join the conversation here. Mainly because I’m sure he’d like us to shut our mouths along with his wife. His ‘response’, such as it is, is here
I (Tallulah) have just one question (for tonight) Martin, did you really just tell rape victims to stop being so touchy? Jesus. ]
My Twitter feed exploded last night, imploring me to hear what a National backbencher had had to say about Slutwalk. I have transcribed it here, in case you don’t want to watch the triggering. (If you do, it’s here on “chapter 2”.)
Quinn: “They’re there when I am on my way to the swimming pool at 6 in the morning.”
Wallace: “Do you think there’s something to this idea that they kind of ask for it, just in a little way. Because I know that the viewers watching this will be saying that”
Quinn: “I think there’s a real issue with young ladies getting drunk.”
Wallace: “So that’s the real issue?”
Quinn: “I can tell you, in Courtenay Place at 2 or 3 in the morning…”
Wallace: “…So it’s about the drunken behaviour, it’s not about what they are wearing?”
Quinn: “No, it’s about drink and behavior.”
Wallace: “Heather Roy, what do you think about this, Slutwalk Aotearoa.”
Roy: “I think alcohol is certainly a contributing factor, but it’s not just young women that are getting drunk, there’s plenty of young men.”
Trevor Mallard: I just want to…can I….it can never be an excuse to rape a women because of what she wears or what she’s had to drink. That is just wrong.”
[It continues, but that is the gist…]
Paul Quinn has since half-heartedly apologised on Twitter, saying
sorry I did not hear what she had said So my answer was totally out of context & know that short skirts are not provocation
But I still have some questions.
And Trevor Mallard…thank you. Just, thank you.
[just a warning. Some of the comments on this post became extremely triggering, so tread carefully. We’re sorry.]