Archive | Assholes RSS feed for this section

Most women don’t kill their babies and leave them in dumpsters. Most men don’t rape drunk women, even while drunk themselves. So why are men taught NOT to rape, but women aren’t taught not to kill? I call bullshit.

9 Apr





Way to go, Canada!  Men’s human rights activists are back in the news in Canada for another “offensive” poster campaign in which all women are painted with a brush that applies to only a few women.


Sound familiar?


The poster not only highlights the utterly insulting absurdity of the original “Don’t Be That Guy” campaign, but also points to a legally enshrined form of discrimination against men in Canada:  only female persons can be convicted of the crime of murdering their newborn children, and just to rub a little salt in the wound, the poor wee dears are not to be sentenced to anything exceeding five years.  The babies, of course, are sentenced to death regardless of their gender, but that’s such a trifle, no?




What happens in Canada if a male person kills his newborn? Well, first of all, it rarely happens.  Male persons are significantly less likely to kill newborn infants than female persons, when the child is less than 24 hours old. Once the baby survives the first 24 hours, then male persons are slightly more likely to kill the child. Regardless of how old the child is, as long as Cupcake can prove she “has not fully recovered from the effects of giving birth to the child and by reason thereof or of the effect of lactation consequent on the birth of the child her mind is then disturbed“, she can be sentenced to no more than five years.


Obviously men don’t lactate, but are their minds disturbed by the birth of a new child?  The law says “fuck you we don’t care if you have a penis and kill a baby you are going down”.  Science says, well, actually, men do undergo some fairly dramatic and measureable hormonal changes following the birth of a child, and if hormonal changes are mitigating circumstances that permit female persons to be convicted of the lesser offence of infanticide, then why aren’t those changes used to explain why male persons might kill newborn babies?


Misandry? Actual, literal discrimination on the basis of gender alone? Pffft. It’s not a real thing.


But let’s get back to those posters.  The original posters were intended to urge “men to heed their consciences and not take advantage of incapacitated or unwilling partners”. But do men do this?  What is the evidence?


Oh darn.


When researchers at the University of Toronto and the University of Washington observed young people’s behavior in bars, they found that the man’s aggressiveness didn’t match his level of intoxication. There was no relationship.


So wait, you mean men can get fully and completely loaded, just shit-faced drunk and they still won’t rape anybody?  Well my heavens, how can that be?  Who, pray tell, is doing all this raping then?


Sexual predators deliberately target intoxicated victims.


Sexual predators?  You mean rapists?  You mean it’s rapists who rape women and not just random guys in bars who have had too much to drink?


Don’t Be That Guy – a behavioural marketing campaign sends the message that sex without consent is sexual assault. We are sending a visual message to men between the ages of 18 and 25, graphically demonstrating their role in ending alcohol facilitated sexual assaults.


Men between the ages of 18 and 25?  And where is your evidence that men between the ages of 18 and 25 are particularly prone to alcohol facilitated sexual assaults?  According to RAINN, the average age of a rapist is 31 years old.


You’re not even aiming at the right target, assholes.


And even if you were in the right ballpark demographically, it still wouldn’t excuse the accusation that every male person in the demographic needs to be learned up about how not to get drunk and rape, because most men aren’t rapists. Even the wingnuts at Occidental College agree that most rapes on college campuses are committed by serial rapists.


So explain to me again why all men between the ages of 18-25 should be smeared with the rapist label and treated as if they are latent monsters who only need that one last Budweiser to release the Great Rape Monster lurking within their twisted, maimed pathetic male person souls?


What would the reaction be if we treated all women as baby killers until they prove otherwise?  What would it be like to have every prenatal healthcare clinic feature posters reminding women not to murder their babies?






Some might call it hate speech. 



Personally, I’m not a big fan of the whole concept of hate speech.  The legal definition of hate speech in Canada focuses on the effects, rather than the intention of the speaker, which is all fine and dandy.


“The repugnancy of the ideas being expressed is not sufficient to justify restricting the expression, and whether or not the author of the expression intended to incite hatred or discriminatory treatment is irrelevant. The key is to determine the likely effect of the expression on its audience, keeping in mind the legislative objectives to reduce or eliminate discrimination,” they decided.

I prefer a much more simple remedy to hate speech.




Go ahead and put up your shitty, hateful, factually inaccurate posters about rape.


But understand this:  What goes around?


It comes around, too.




Lots of love,





Jezebel has some trouble understanding Camille Paglia. Let’s help them out.

17 Dec


Camille Paglia has a written a new piece for Time Magazine, called It’s a Man’s World and it Always Will Be. Camille has the audacity to point out that if men are “obsolete”, then women will soon be extinct.

Oh dear.  Cue the shrieking harridans over at Jezebel.  They demand to know just what Camille means by that! How could that be possible? The increasingly clueless and defiantly obtuse Erin Gloria Ryan has some questions for Dr. Paglia.

Let’s help her answer those, shall we?

 A peevish, grudging rancor against men has been one of the most unpalatable and unjust features of second- and third-wave feminism [Citation needed].

Men’s faults, failings and foibles [Like? Aggression? War? Rape? Dick-waving? The Jackass franchise? What?] have been seized on and magnified into gruesome bills of indictment [By whom?].

By whom?  Are you kidding me?  ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?!?!

How about by Jezebel?

Men are rapists (especially MRA men)!

Assholes who don’t know how to clean but can be trained like dogs to do so by the truly dedicated!

Boys are gross!

Jezebel hates men!

The end of white men!

Fathers are not really that important after all!

blah blah blah blah …. Basically the entire site is devoted to pointing out any flaws the ladies can find in men, all the while ignoring the fact they would have no power, clean water, communications or computer technology and would essentially be screaming messages back and forth between grass huts without men, a point Camille has made in the past.

Ideologue professors [Who?] at our leading universities [Which ones?] indoctrinate impressionable undergraduates [How? Are you implying that young people internalize ideologies simply by hearing them once? How is this indoctrination occurring] with carelessly fact-free [Odd hyperbole] theories alleging that gender is an arbitrary, oppressive fiction with no basis in biology [Bold statement. Source?].

This is almost too laughably ridiculous to warrant a response.  Has Erin never heard of the women’s studies department?  Almost every liberal arts oriented university has one, stuffed full of professors that do not study women, they study “feminism”, which is not the same thing.

Creating whole departments of ethnic, gender, and other ‘studies’ was part of the price of academic peace. All too often, these ‘studies’ are about propaganda rather than serious education.

Thomas Sowell 

People internalize ideologies by hearing them once?  What? Show me the university degree that can be earned after one class.  Impressionable undergraduates are typically enrolled for four years.  Four years is more than sufficient for complete indoctrination.

If you want carelessly fact-free, just consider your questions at the beginning of the paragraph.  Who? Which ones?  Are you seriously patting yourself on the back for your epic take down of Camille? Really?  That’s what Camille means by “fact-free”, toots.

And now you are denying that feminism considers gender a fiction with no basis in biology?  Really?  Here we go with the “fact-free” again.  Google “gender as a social construct” and tell me what you get.  Seriously.  Go do it.  It’s not a bold claim at all.  It’s pedestrian at this point.  Feminism claims that gender is a social fiction with no basis in biology.

There is no gender identity behind the expressions of gender… identity is performatively constituted by the very ‘expressions’ that are said to be its results.

Judith Butler

Is it any wonder that so many [How many?] high-achieving young women, despite all the happy talk about their academic success [Cite examples here, otherwise it just sounds like you’re talking out of your ass], find themselves in the early stages of their careers in chronic uncertainty or anxiety [See previous note about ass-talking] about their prospects for an emotionally fulfilled private life [See two previous notes about the origin of talking w/r/t Your Ass]?

Here we go with all the stupid facts again.  The Anxiety and Depression Association of America reports that approximately 40 million people aged 18 and over suffer from anxiety issues, which is the most common mental illness in the US, and women are twice as likely to be affected as men.

Happy talk about women succeeding academically? Oh you missed this article?  And this one?  And this one, too? They’re all from Jezebel, you moron.

When an educated culture routinely denigrates masculinity and manhood [Clarification needed here to explain what your argument even is. What is manhood? What is masculinity? A John Wayne movie? Like, Iroquois manhood? Mustaches? Fatherhood? Dressing in plaid shirts? Dying of prostate cancer? Can the men be gay? Can the men be peaceful? You’re assuming your audience understands dog whistle shorthand that only exists in your brain.] then women will be perpetually stuck with boys, who have no incentive to mature or to honor their commitments.

Well color me fucking SHOCKED that Jezebel has no idea what masculinity or manhood means.  Here’s a starter course for you.

From my long observation [Anecdata], which predates the sexual revolution [Cut this; reminding readers that you formed your opinion before hippie-times doesn’t add to your cred; it makes you seem doddering], this remains a serious problem afflicting Anglo-American society, with its Puritan residue [Sounds like a euphemism for dried ejaculate; cut].

Anecdata?  Dr. Paglia has been teaching at universities since 1972.  Her book Sexual Personae topped the bestseller lists in 1990, a rare accomplishment for a scholarly book.  She has been active in universities as an educator for over 40 years. That’s hardly “anecdata”.

Doddering”? Charming.  I’m surprised Erin didn’t pull out the fat and ugly arguments to go along with “old”.  All praise the sisterhood, huh?  What was that about critiquing other women on their thoughts and ideas again?  No?  Just call her old and be done with it?

How clever.

“Ejaculate”?  That icky boy stuff?  Ew, gross.

How mature.

In France, Italy, Spain, Latin America, and Brazil, in contrast, many ambitious professional women [How many?] seem [Ugh] to have found a formula for asserting power [Statistics? Something? Back this up please? Careful with the “Latin America, sexy feminist wonderland” stereotype; easily disprovableor at least vehemently argued againstAlso kind of in line with troublesome “sexy brown chick” trope you keep going back to; careful here] and authority in the workplace while still projecting sexual allure and even glamor [Oy.]. This is the true feminine mystique, which cannot be taught but flows from an instinctive recognition of sexual differences [Girl what are you even talking about here? Get some new cultural references].

Want facts?  Probably not, but here are some anyways.  This report might help.

Quantitative research was conducted in France, Germany, US, UK, Brazil, Mexico and China.  Qualitative research was conducted in France, Germany, US, UK, Brazil, Mexico, China, Japan, South Korea, India, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Philippines and Indonesia.

Nearly 70% of women globally think that being beautiful helps them get what they want out of life, and the same number believe that the relationship between happiness and beauty is directly proportional. 93% of women said they felt more confident overall when they knew they looked beautiful.

Careful now.  This may not be racist at all.  Rather inclusive if you ask me.  That’s kind of foreign to feminists, though, isn’t it?

After the next inevitable apocalypse [Okay. That is your argument. Men aren’t over because the world is ending. Okay. Okay. Got it.], men will be desperately needed again [Again, not sure you established that men aren’t needed now…]!

Not sure you established that men aren’t needed now.


That needs to “established”, does it?  Okay, here you go.  All information taken from the Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Oh, sure, there will be the odd gun-toting Amazonian survivalist gal, who can rustle game out of the bush and feed her flock [Who is this piece about? Women who have children without men around? Childless young women with academic accomplishments? Why is the subject of this piece constantly morphing?], but most women and children will be expecting men [Citation needed] to scrounge for food and water and to defend the home turf [Just to review: we’re now arguing that gender roles must exist because after a theoretical apocalypse, women and children will “expect” men to fend for them? That’s what’s happening here? Okay.].

Most women want breadwinner husbands?  Uh, yes.  Yes they do.

‘Women with young children are going back to the very traditional division of labour in which they want the husband as the breadwinner.

‘Having tried full-time working themselves they have found the home much more interesting and want to be enabled to have that.”

Stupid facts, again!

Indeed, men are absolutely indispensable right now, invisible as it is to most feminists [Citation needed], who seem blind to the infrastructure that makes their own work lives possible [Who hurt you, Camille?].

Citation needed?  Go back to the top.  Men are obsolete.  The end of men.  Are men necessary?

 It is overwhelmingly men who do the dirty, dangerous work of building roads, pouring concrete, laying bricks, tarring roofs, hanging electric wires, excavating natural gas and sewage lines, cutting and clearing trees, and bulldozing the landscape for housing developments [Who is this argument against?].

It’s not an argument against anything.  It’s pointing out the reality.  Facts.  I know, Erin, facts confuse you and make you feel all wobbly inside.  Don’t worry.  You can stick your head back in the sand very soon.

It is men who heft and weld the giant steel beams that frame our office buildings, and it is men who do the hair-raising work of insetting and sealing the finely tempered plate-glass windows of skyscrapers 50 stories tall [Ok.]. Every day along the Delaware River in Philadelphia, one can watch the passage of vast oil tankers and towering cargo ships arriving from all over the world [Don’t mention that you hang out in Philadelphia; undermines credibility].

Aw, no argument left? Just an insult against Philadelphia?

How very, very clever.

These stately colossi are loaded, steered, and off-loaded by men. The modern economy, with its vast production and distribution network, is a male epic, in which women have found a productive role—but women were not its author [They just made every man who ever existed inside of their bodies; nbd]. Surely, modern women are strong enough now to give credit where credit is due!

Hey, looky, looky.  We actually agree!  Women’s greatest contribution to society is to be a mother to children.

They made every man who ever existed.  Erin, you do realize that human reproduction requires that icky ejaculate you were grossing out over not so long ago, right?

Women:  they made every man

Men:  they made every man AND THE WHOLE FUCKING ECONOMY, TOO.


It’s due.

Lots of love,


Breakup with your girlfriend and post nude selfies to a revenge porn site? You should be in jail! Go on two dates with a guy, get dumped, then send sceencaps of sexts to his BOSS and you’re just a misguided narcissist? That seems fair.

27 Sep


Ah, is there anything more fun and self-affirming than capturing that perfect nude sexy selfie? Run it through a few filters, give yourself some “blurred lines”, fuzz up the harsher contours, add some shadows, cascade a little peachy glow over the whole thing.


You look gorgeous!


I’ve done it myself. The first person to hack my husband’s phone will get an eyeful! The copies on his phone are the only ones in existence (right, honey?), because I delete them off my own phone so when I use Fruit Ninja as a distraction for my four year old, there is no chance of accidentally posting racy shit to Twitter.




So the question of the moment is “who owns the photos on your phone”?


I’m not the only narcissist amused by taking sexy selfies, and I’m far from the only one to polish those shots and then press “send”. The data for exactly how many people send sexy selfies is kind of all over the place, and most of the research looks at teenage sexters. You get everything from 1% of teenagers between 14-18 have sent sexually explicit texts OR images , to 40% have done one or the other. Far more people admit to RECEIVING sexts than sending them.


This is probably a self-reporting problem. Something tells me if we actually examined the data contained on phones, we would get a startlingly difference answer.


Again, using self-reporting, the PEW Research Council comes up with the following number for adults, based on a telephone survey with 2252 adults over the age of 18. That’s a good sample size, assuming it was drawn randomly from all over the country. The PEW Council is usually pretty reliable.




I’m in the 30-49 category, where 5% of people admit to sexting, but curiously, 17% report having been the recipient of sexts. PEW doesn’t offer a gender breakdown, but who wants to bet it’s mostly women who say they haven’t sent sexts, but they HAVE received them?


Just a guess.


Once you have decided to press send, who owns that image?




The topic of “Revenge Porn” is being debated pretty ferociously in the media these days. Most examples almost always feature a woman who has sent sexy nude selfies to a man, who then posts the said selfie on a so-called revenge porn site after an acrimonious break-up.


This leads to embarrassment and discomfort for the woman. She wants to decide whom, and under what circumstances, gets to see her nude body.


Fair enough.


I’m not convinced we need a law to address this particular issue, when a little foresight and self-control on the part of the offended women ought to do the trick.


If you are the sort of woman who truly, deeply cares that images of your nude body are not widely circulated around cyber space, the solution is kind of simple, no?


Don’t create them. Don’t give them to other people.


In the alternative, only send photos that won’t cause crippling anxiety should they be made public. Keep your goddamn clothes on. Is it really that hard?


Personally, I wouldn’t give a crap if someone DID hack my husband’s phone and stole images of me. Meh. Whatever. I sent them to my HUSBAND, and I am not the slightest bit ashamed. And there are already laws in place to punish people who STEAL photos. Stealing is not the same thing as giving freely. If the thought of those images being freely available freaks you out, DON’T TAKE THEM AND DON’T GIVE THEM AWAY.


Rather than turn this into a huge discussion of privacy law and copyright infringement, I want to discuss why men posting sexually explicit images of women without their knowledge or consent (although I would argue if you GIVE AWAY these images, you should probably just assume they will be shared eventually) has created a giant cultural scream to THROW THE BUMS IN JAIL, but women posting sexually explicit TEXTS from men doesn’t get the same reaction.


Anthony Weiner anyone? Where is the shrieking chorus demanding that Weiner’s privacy be respected?




Look at this little cupcake. Her name is Quin Pu.




After two dates – TWO!! – Quin felt she was in an established relationship with this poor schmuck, and when he declined to attend her birthday party with 125 of Quin’s closest friends, she lost her little mind!




I was stunned into paralysis. I had no words–this never happens–and I just felt short of breath. There were many things that pissed me off, but I was so flustered I couldn’t even articulate them. Again, this is a serious problem for a writer and effusive communicator.


So Quin sent back the following response:


text 2


After two dates, she gets a break-up text and decides to fuck with his professional life by sending his executive committee copies of sexually explicit messages?



According to the New York Times article, revenge porn can have devastating consequences and should therefore be criminalized.


The effects can be devastating. Victims say they have lost jobs, been approached in stores by strangers who recognized their photographs, and watched close friendships and family relationships dissolve. Some have changed their names or altered their appearance.


“It’s just an easy way to make people unemployable, undatable and potentially at physical risk,” said Danielle Citron, a law professor at the University of Maryland, who is writing a book on online harassment.



Oh, I see. Well that’s a problem we need to bring the full force of the law down on, and punish those terrible people men.


Where’s the cry for Quin to be arrested?


Now, to be fair, Quin hasn’t gotten nearly the reaction she imagined. Most people have quite rightly condemned her as a snobby, self-absorbed bitch who probably shouldn’t date anyone ever again.


Some people are down with Quin, but most aren’t.


haynes • 14 hours ago

The problem isn’t the breakup–the problem is he made plans with her for a day, and then totally spazzed out and backed out of the plans. That is not cool, nor okay. If you say you’re going to do something, do it. He deserves a bit of humiliation.


A little humiliation? Actively trying to destroy his professional life is not a “little humiliation”.


Quin, meet Adria Richards. Didn’t work out so well for her.


What are we to make of this not unexpected set of double standards? When men take revenge on women by posting sexually explicit photos they likely LEGALLY OWN the right to, they should be charged with a crime.




But when women post sexually explicit TEXTS from men with the explicit intention of harming that man professionally, it’s just a bit of poor judgement?


You know, I think we have it right in the latter situation. Quin is a fucking bitch, but that guy who went out on TWO dates with her and felt compelled to send sexually explicit texts should have exercised better judgement.






Anthony Weiner got nailed to the wall for his cringingly unpoetic sexting AND explicit selfies, and as far as I’m concerned, the minute he decided to press send, he accepted the consequences. And the same goes for women. The minute she presses send, she accepts the consequences of that.


This whole conversation seems to me to be a perfect illustration of what I find such bullshit about modern women: you can’t have it both ways. If men are going to be held accountable for the contents of their digital legacy, then women need to be held accountable, too.


Or we can all just grow up and accept responsibility for our OWN actions!


That IS an option.


We don’t need more laws. We need more grown-ups. Both men and women alike.


Lots of love,




%d bloggers like this: