As is so often the case, parody can’t keep up with the absurdities of the real thing:
1. Men hate me when they rape. I am lucky enough not to have been raped (yet), but I still feel that hate….
2. Men hate me when they use porn. They hate me when they come to my sisters being abused and raped. They hate me when they reduce me to two hands and three holes. They hate me when they use porn as a manual for sex, when they equate my worth to my ability to act like a porn star….
3. Men hate me when they type ‘rape virgens’ into google, or ‘cut breasts fuck’, or ‘three men brutally rape woman’. (Check out the sitemeter posts over at the Den if you really need more evidence).
4. Men hate me when they harrass women in clubs, on the streets, in the park, in bars, on the beach, at the bus stop….
5. Men hate me when they buy lads mags and calculate how much their girlfriend costs per fuck.
6. Men hate me when they ask their girlfriends to get a boob job to spice up their sex life.
7. Men hate me when they make malicious, sexist jokes. Men hate me when they laugh at malicious, sexist jokes. You think I don’t know that you really mean it?
8. Men hate me when they question women’s right to equal pay / to have an abortion / to have sex without getting pregnant / to do anything that they have the right to do.
9. Men hate me when they buy women’s bodies.
10. Men hate me when they sell women’s bodies.
11. Men hate me when they pay money to control women in a strip club.
12. Men hate me when they write and profit from lyrics like this (Grab your titties for BIG)
13. Men hate me when they laugh at an anti-rape protest.
14. Men hate me when they attempt to justify/ deny /defend any of the above.
She left off number 15. Men hate me when they laugh at me for being such a self-centered, myopic little moron. I particularly enjoyed number eight, asserting that questioning any woman’s legal action is equivalent to hating her. I marvel that anyone can read this and still believe that granting women the right to vote was anything but a complete and predictable disaster.
I think I’m going to join Emily’s List. The USA is doomed anyhow, so just for kicks, let’s see what would happen with a female President and a 100 percent female Senate and House of Representatives. My guess is that the tattered remnants of our civilization would be conquered by the militarily fearsome Grenada-Cuban alliance within eighteen months.
Third Wave feminism is the gift that keeps on giving. The First Wave was tragedy and the Second Wave was farce, the Third Wave is unconscious self-parody. Feministing describes it best:
Young, middle-class, college-educated white women are rarely given the opportunity to speak on our own behalf on issues that affect our lives and futures because we’re so horribly and obviously oppressed. Feministing.org provides a platform for us to comment, analyze, whine about our unending victimization, and (best of all) COMPLAIN CEASELESSLY!
Captain Ed defends Miz Malkin:
What people who engage in these kind of tactics — on either the right or the left, it’s all the same — is that the attacks reveal themselves as haters, not the object of their scorn. If they dislike what Michelle says, then they should counter her arguments with their own, or contradictory facts. Pareene shows what happens when the critics have neither. They engage in ad-hominem attacks designed to humiliate their opponents and to either get them to respond in kind or to withdraw from the debate althogether. It’s a cowardly tactic besides being immature and (in this case) misogynistic.
I disagree with the good Captain here for multiple reasons and the number of the reasons shall be three. There shall not be five reasons, neither shall there be two, except in that I proceedeth on to three.
1. The vast majority human beings are incapable of rational argument. The normal person rationalizes an emtional position, he does not think the matter through, reach a logical conclusion and then patiently examine the conceptual steps from start to finish. One has merely to look at how many people couldn’t resist hurling the Nazi label last week despite the fact that the accusation made no sense whatsoever on multiple levels. Since most people have no idea how to go about either methodically constructing or criticizing an argument, why be surprised when they don’t?
2. Me So Michelle is currently the foremost example of a media whore and she deserves to be treated like one. If the woman would engage in substantive discussion, which she repeatedly and reliably refuses to do – I know the Captain is well aware of this, considering how she ducked me on his own radio show – then she would have grounds for complaining about being treated unfairly. But since she won’t do so, she deserves the treatment she gets. What incentive is there for anyone to provide her with counterarguments? Why should anyone bother taking the time to do research and assemble facts that prove her wrong? Her response will be the same as if one simply calls her a stupid Asian skank and has done with it.
Hey, I’m still willing to have a factual, refereed and insult-free debate on the military necessity for WWII-era Japanese internment with her. Is she? And if not, then she and her defenders should simply admit that she has no interest in substantive criticism and stop whining about the ad hominum attacks.
3. Name-calling is loads of fun. If it wasn’t, we wouldn’t do it. No doubt RAW would insist that we are merely indulging our inner primate and playing out virtual dominance games through metaphorical feces-flinging, but regardless, name-calling is a fundamental and time-honored form of human interaction. There are places for civilized and refined behavior, but save the cucumber sandwiches for the tea parties. The Internet is more akin to a vast sewage system than a Victorian social network anyway, so whether you run a little treatment plant or dump more than your fair share of filth in to the pipes – and why does The Reaper’s Hairball spring insensibly to mind here? – you might as well adjust to the stench and learn to tune it out.
Daniel, my adversary in last week’s economics debate, and his wife just lost the baby she was carrying. If you’d like to offer your condolences, you can do so here:
I hope that God will soon grant them another child as well as the fortitude to cope with their grief.
Amer requests a review:
Instead of hotdogs ,how about a comment on the “Da Vinci Code” Movie?
We are all just waiting to hear what you have to say about it.
I’m afraid I have absolutely nothing to say about it, since I have neither read the book nor do I intend to see the move. My own THE WORLD IN SHADOW came out simultaneously with Mr. Brown’s ANGELS & DEMONS from the same publisher; the similarity in titles made me curious enough to have a look and scanning a few pages caused me to laugh and put it down.
My only opinion is that from a marketing view, Mr. Brown is to be congratulated on presenting a more accessible and conventional version of Eco’s excellent FOUCAULT’S PENDULUM, which was based on the same historical book about the Knights Templar used by Mr. Brown. Obviously Mr. Brown and Messrs. LaHaye and Jenkins, like Mrs. Rowlings, have figured out what so many other writers have not, namely, what lots of people like to read.
As for the lack of critical acclaim, that doesn’t mean the movie won’t be a blockbuster. Unless Mr. Brown’s writing improved dramatically from ANGELS AND DEMONS I doubt you’ll find many positive literary reviews of the book either. I personally tend to find some level of amusement in the horror of the would-be members of the writing elite at the success of such books, even if I share their disdain for the substance of such shallow and crudely shaped beststellers.
Anyhow, rather than discuss books that everyone else is discussing, I’d rather recommend some better writers. Tanith Lee writes the most beautiful prose out there today, although her stuff is creepy, occultish and darkly disturbing. Paradise, Paradis or Paradys, by any name it is excellent. Chiara Zocchi’s work is deeply emotional, she is able to evoke childhood emotions like no one since Ray Bradbury in Dandelion Wine, and it’s bordering on criminal that she hasn’t been translated into English yet. Lois McMaster Bujold’s new fantasy series isn’t conceptually groundbreaking, but it’s solid, entertaining and better than anything else that’s out there these days with the exception of the brilliant China Mieville.
If you haven’t read it yet, go out and buy IRON COUNCIL. Of all the writers of my generation, he’s the only one I envy.
ESPN reports a resurgent America:
Watch out, Takeru Kobayashi. Here comes Joey Chestnut.
Chestnut, a 22-year-old civil engineering student at San Jose State, ate 50 hot dogs and buns in 12 minutes Thursday at the Las Vegas qualifier for a spot at the table at the Nathan’s Famous Hot Dog Eating Contest….
Kobayashi, who flies to Coney Island each year from Japan for the hot dog eating championship held July 4, holds the world record of 53½ hot dogs and buns. He has won the last five contests, but in two of those victories he ate less than 50 hot dogs and buns.
“This could be so critical to our sport,” said George Shea, chair of the International Federation of Competitive Eating, which sanctions more than 100 eating contests, including the Nathan’s event. “It’s never good for the same athlete to win so many years in a row. The Fourth of July has been stolen from Americans because of Kobayashi’s dominance and now America has someone who they can get excited about.”
Clearly a defeat of the intimidating Kobayashi by Chestnut will merely be the first great step in restoring America’s rightful place of primacy on the world stage.
I’m sorry, what’s that you said about bread and, what, circuses? I couldn’t quite hear, I was snarfing down a chili dog and watching ESPN.
WHEN the Senate voted by a stunning 83-16 in favor of a reinforced fence along the Mexico border yesterday, it showed that lawmakers are feeling get-tough winds blowing from the grass roots. Even 2008 presidential prospects like Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.) voted for the 370-mile fence, and several Democrats who first voted no switched nervously to yes.
I’m not in the least bit surprised that the Senate – and the American people – should completely reject my position stated earlier this week. (I mean my actual one against the border fence, not the mass murder of the insufficiently Aryan imputed by the illiterate critics.)
The significant thing is that Hillary did precisely what I predicted several months ago and voted for the fence, thus adroitly positioning herself to the “right” of the Republican hierarchy. This is exactly what she needs to do to guarantee her victory in 2008 and Dear Jorge is playing his role to perfection by alienating the Republican base.
Two uniforms, one team. That’s all you need to understand to grok the game.
And sure, it may look obvious now, but I seem to recall more than a few skeptics when I first explained the scenario back in the summer of 2004.
I wonder if Americans will see that fence quite so favorably by the time the sixth year of the Lizard Queen’s reign of terror rolls around?
Fred Reed, who has seen more war first hand than the entire Chickenhawk Brigade combined, tries to explain why the Iraqi Occupation was lost some time ago:
To the Warrior, to doubt the war is treason, aiding and supporting, liberalism, cowardice, back-stabbing, and so on. He uses these phrases unrelentingly. We must fight, and fight, and fight, and never yield, and sacrifice and spend. We must never ask why, or whether, or what for, or do we want to.
The public of course doesn’t see it that way. In 1964 I graduated from a rural high school in Virginia with a senior class of, I think, sixty. Doug took a 12.7 through the head, Sonny spent time at Walter Reed with neck wounds, Studley I hear is a paraplegic, another kid got mostly blinded for life, and several, whom I won’t name, tough country kids as I knew them, came back as apparently irredeemable drunks. (These were kids I knew, not all in my class.) It was a lot of dead and crippled for a small place. For what?
Cowardice? I was on campus in 1966 on a small, very Republican, very patriotic, very conservative, very Southern campus. The students, and their girlfriends, were all violently against the war. So, I gather, were their parents. Why? Were they the traitors of the Warrior’s imagination? No. They didn’t want to die for something that they didn’t care about.
This eludes the Warrior. Always, he blames The Press for the waning of martial enthusiasm, for his misunderstanding of the kind of war we are fighting. Did the press make Studley a paraplegic? Or kill the guy with all the tubes who died in the stretcher above me on the Medevac 141 back from Danang? Did Walter Cronkite make my buddy Cagle blind when the rifle grenade exploded on the end of his fourteen? Do the Warriors think that people don’t notice when their kids come back forever in wheelchairs?
They don’t get it.
The reality is that Iraq was never going to attack the United States. Nor is Iran – North Korea already has its nukes and isn’t using them for anything except to keep the USA off its back as it starves its people and does otherwise Bad Things.
No amount of exaggeration is going to convince the vast majority of Americans that democracy in Iraq is worth the life of their child. Based on the evidence, I’d argue that democracy in America isn’t worth such a lofty price either.
I respect America’s soldiers. I like them and am comfortable with them, being from a military family and all. But I also loathe the politicians who spend their blood so freely and callously, usually in a cause that is of no benefit to America whatsoever.
The march of technology can be delayed briefly but it can never be arrested. Today North Korea has The Bomb, tomorrow Iran will, and in fifty years, it’s entirely possible that your neighbor will, if he is so inclined. History is replete with examples of central governments attempting to control the spread of military technology; last night I was reading a dictate of Charlemagne’s which forbade the export of burnies, iron chest armor.
We are currently seeing a race to determine if power can be globally centralized before the advance spread of technology renders such centralization suicidal. In such a race, the Way of the Warrior has little, if any, role to play. He will surely again have his day, regardless of who wins out, but he has little to say with regards to the victor.
At least Parenthetical Remarks read the whole thing, both versions, no less. Unfortunately, as you might expect from the sort of blogger who finds Andrew Sullivan inspiring, he is unable to take two seemingly discordant facts and reach a logical conclusion:
Apart from advocating that the U.S. government emulate Hitler in an effort to rid the country of its illegal immigrants, Vox’s article is a bizarre rant against a border fence. Why? “The problem with a fence is that it works both ways,” and building it would lead to “a self-imprisoned people”. What if we have to flee a tyrannical U.S. government at some point in the future? We don’t want no stinking fences in that case.
So, Vox Day appears to be both a fascist sympathizer and a paranoid. Talk about a classic combination! Chocolate and peanut butter don’t have anything on Vox.
Throw an unusual haircut into that Gordian knot and, well, obviously the whole thing is a hopeless conundrum beyond the best minds of the blogosphere.
I suspect you’ll be seeing more of these five names together in the future:
In the legends of the University of Chicago, the late, irrepressible Jason Aronson etched a memorable place with a dissertation that encompassed Louis Hartz and the Earl of Shaftsbury: “Hartz, Shaftsbury, and Marx: An Unsuitable Trio.” But just a couple of weeks ago, Aronson’s strange grouping was superseded by what could be called an Unsuitable or Implausible Quintet: Roberts, Stevens, Souter, Breyer, Ginsburg….
But… but… Roberts is a conservative! That he is, just like the man who hired him, George W. Bush. Oh, he’ll vote with Scalia and crew when it doesn’t matter, to be sure. But when it counts, I expect he’ll be right there with the other Republican-nominated liberals.