Archive | Equality Backlash RSS feed for this section

A few thoughts about traditionalism and adults who depend on other adults

28 Oct

 

vacuum

I am often mistaken, especially on Twitter, as a “traditionalist” woman attempting to revitalize gender roles to enforce an old-style division of labor in which women exploit and take advantage of male labor, effectively rendering men disposable commodities designed for women’s comfort.

 

Nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Every single day of my life I am deeply, profoundly grateful for the serendipity that allows my husband and me to have the family and life we do. One of my biggest complaints about feminism and the modern dialogue about family life is that it deliberately discourages both women and men from actively planning for the future they want and so many people end up deeply unhappy when they discover they have not made the choices that allow them to have any practical choices at all. This comes about because we simply do not discuss with our children how things like college majors and job choices will impact family structures and I personally believe that is a deliberate strategy on the part of Marxist feminism in particular to render the family a meaningless unit, incapable of supporting the individuals within, leaving society with no choice but to expand the control and power of the state.

 

And that pisses me off.

 

At no point was I ever encouraged to consider how my educational aspirations would affect my choices in life. I was taught, like most of us, to pursue my passions and interests and do what I found interesting and fulfilling. Like most 18 year olds entering college, I thought watching movies was pretty fun and it certainly interested me, so I enrolled in Film Theory. How very clever of me. There are basically three things you can do with a degree in Film Theory

 

  1. You can continue on and take a PhD in the subject matter and pray to all the gods that ever existed in the entire history of the universe that you can land an academic job (the odds are not in your favor)
  2. You can pray to all those same gods that you land a job as a film reviewer (the odds are still not in your favor)
  3. You can don a green apron and start perfecting your mochawhappachino skills.

barista

I came to my senses after one summer deploying my Barista of Arts summa cum latte degree and enrolled in an MBA program, but I went there still not understanding how my choices would play out and impact my later life choices. I could have taken management accounting which would have been a useful skill, but I found international strategy so much more interesting, so that is where I specialized. Again, how clever of me. Not one person around me was having any discussion of any kind about how these choices would affect the life I wanted for myself and the family I imagined. And even when self-proclaimed feminists are specifically asked to discuss this issue with women, they refuse to do so and turn the conversation back to pantsuits and corner offices. Feminists actively discourage women from making their family plans a priority and they ignore men completely when it comes to this issue.

 

I lucked out. I met my husband in graduate school and we had shared values and goals that we discussed with one another, almost in hushed tones, as if what we were planning was unspeakable in polite society. “I would like our children raised at home. Would you?”

 

And so it all played out. My husband makes sufficient income to support us comfortably, – again a stroke of luck and not a deliberate plan. His job allows him to do a significant portion of his work at home, meaning he has been deeply involved in our children’s lives from birth. He is not gone 16 hours a day while I hold the fort and the children barely recognize him.

 

And that all comes down to luck.

 

It shouldn’t.

 

I am not a woman at home, dependent on my husband for my income because I believe that is the right and proper role for women and men. Nonsense. I am here because at no point was I ever encouraged to think about making choices that would allow me to be economically productive while being the wife and mother I wanted to be, so I made stupid choices. There are so many occupations that are more friendly to the family life my husband and I both wanted, but I didn’t make them. I take responsibility for that, but I am also angered and disappointed that we do not encourage men or women to consider their family plans when the time comes to make these decisions.

 

Here is how I deal with this issue with my own children: when my children express an interest in a particular career or occupation, I encourage them to think about that in terms of a family. When my son says he would like to be a cardiologist, I ask him if he thinks he would like to be married and have children. Would you like to see your children? A cardiologist works long hours and has to deal with emergencies and he will miss many dance recitals and baseball games but he will have a lot of money and do very important work. I do not discourage my children from any interests, but I do ask them to consider how that interest will impact the life they want for themselves.

 

I do not believe that men and women have set, concrete roles to play in society. I very strongly believe that the ideal way to raise children is at home with a loving parent present, but whether that is mom or dad makes no difference to me. Two parents working alternating schedules so one is always home, a fulltime daddy, a fulltime mommy – what matters is that children are being cared for by a loving parent.

 

That doesn’t happen by accident. It takes planning.

 

The only place I have encountered that is willing to even discuss these issues is the men’s rights movement. The ability to plan and make choices that allow for flexible, non-traditional, non-rigid family roles is deeply tied to men’s rights. Men’s right to choose parenthood is profoundly important. A whoopsie – baby does not necessarily have an impact on a woman’s life or choices because she has choices. And she can impose legal responsibility for those choices on a man, who has no say at all. This has an obviously enormous impact on what choices are open to men who know they can be held legally responsible for children they did not intend and do not want. Lack of reproductive rights severely restricts men’s choices.

 

The discussion over shared parenting leads directly into the debate about who is the better caregiver for small children – women or men. The answer is very simple: men and women are equally capable of being loving, caring parents. Until men have the legal right to be assumed caregivers for their children, men’s care-giving choices are again severely restricted.

 

The epidemic of male suicide is linked directly to the emotional vulnerability of men and how we do not have places in society for men to safely and openly discuss the challenges and stresses of their lives. Daddy groups would go a long way towards addressing this need for men to safely and openly discuss their own issues, free from the thought-policing of feminists and in ways that are specific and comfortable to men.

 

And what happens when men try to gather and speak about these issues? What happens when women and men come together to address how the enforcement of traditional gender roles affects all of us?

Feminists call in bomb threats, pull fire alarms, scream into bullhorns, blow noisemakers and harass and verbally abuse the men and women who have gathered to talk.

 

cake

Feminists talk big words when it comes to gender roles and gender equality, but the reality is much more like having their cake and eating it, too. Feminism is not interested in having men abandon their traditional roles as stoic, silent providers. They just don’t want women to live up to the inverse of that kind of rigid thinking about gender, but the truth is that traditional gender roles can be suffocating for some people. Traditional gender roles can be chains that bind, for men and women both.

 

I am not against the traditional division of labor in families. I consider it none of my damn business who gets up when things go bump in the night or who cooks dinner or who kills the spiders. What I do care about is that those roles are not rigidly enforced either through social conditioning or by refusing to discuss the issues that tend to lead to traditional gender roles.

 

I want them to be choices, carefully considered and freely made.  By both men and women.

 

As it stands, women have far more choices than men because they can legally hold men responsible for their own choices and yet reap the spoils of men’s care and labor through family courts. Given the starkness of men’s choices, is it any wonder they either reject marriage and family completely, or adhere to traditional provider roles where they at least have some chance of surviving the devastation of family breakdown?

 

No one is served by this situation. Women have taken full advantage of socially engineered freedoms that give them the chance to modify or outright reject traditional feminine roles, or to fully embrace and enjoy those roles. Men have no such freedom. I have yet to meet a feminist willing to discuss how men’s lack of legal rights restricts their choices in a way women would never tolerate.

 

There is a word for this situation: gynocentrism. Women do not want to perch endlessly on their pedestals, waiting for their knight in shining armor. They want to get on and off the pedestal at will, depending on what they want at any particular time. Men are still expected to be shining knights. They do not get to dismount their steeds and must live to serve women. How the hell is this equality?

 

I love that my husband supports me and does not require me to earn an income. I love that I have spent a huge part of my life caring for our home, our children, our family. I love that I am allowed to choose what parts of the feminine I wish to embrace. I am also ridiculously fortunate. Lady Luck smiled on me.

 

That’s unacceptable. As the saying goes, “luck is not a factor”. Or it shouldn’t be.

 

True freedom, true equality, true choices – they will only come about when men and women have equal rights under the law. Men’s rights will push the conversation about families, children, careers, choices into the open. If women can’t impose legal or social responsibility on men, they will have to start talking to them.

 

My guess is that lots of men will be more than happy to accept traditional male roles, in exchange for wives who accept traditional female roles. Lots of men will negotiate a balance with their partners that works for everyone.

camo

 

But there will also be a ton of men who grab the camo diaper bag, kiss their corporate wives good-bye and head to the park for Daddy and Me playday.

 

And that’s a good thing.

 

Lots of love,

 

JB

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

free

 

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?

 

poster

 

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?

 

Disgusting.

Cruel.

Demonizing.

Unfair.

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.

 

holla

 

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

 

But understand this:  What goes around?

 

It comes around, too.

 

karma

 

Lots of love,

 

JB

 

 


Slutty feminist WOMEN with fucked up personal lives are heroes. Slutty feminist MEN with fucked up personal lives are mentally ill traitors. Really now, Hugo, you didn’t see this coming?

3 Aug

It’s interesting to me to see the compassionate response the complete meltdown of male feminist Hugo Schwyzer has elicited from the very men he has repeatedly attacked for their supposed “misogyny” and hatred of women.

hugo

Paul Elam at A Voice for Men expresses his sorrow at the mess Hugo has found himself in, and places enormous truth value on Hugo’s claims that he suffers from a fairly serious mental health problem.

To be completely honest, for the first time I actually feel sympathy for this troubled soul. His unchecked sociopathy and childlike lack of governance over his base impulses have led him to a place few gender ideologues will ever go: To simultaneous personal and professional destruction.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/sycophants/schwyzer-bows-out/

William Pierce at The Spearhead has similar thoughts:  Hugo has some crazy in his pants, and while Pierce doesn’t demonstrate quite the compassion that Paul does, he takes the prospect of Schwyzer being suicidal quite seriously, although he is quick to place the responsibility right where it belongs. Fair enough.  Men do commit suicide at alarmingly high rates that amount to a national healthcare crisis.

Finally, I’d like to point out how topsy-turvy things are when we have male feminists fooling around with porn stars and flying to Ukraine (Lord knows what Hugo was up to there) while manosphere writers cause scandals by settling down in monogamous relationships. It’s a crazy world out there…

Hugo, when you behave in this manner, it isn’t your critics who are causing your problems: it’s you.

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2013/08/01/hugo-schwyzer-caught-with-pants-down/

I’m not criticizing any man who lines up behind Hugo, or demonstrates empathy or concern.  In fact, it’s a pretty terrific example of exactly how NOT cold-hearted and quasi-violent men who question feminist ideology are towards those who routinely attempt to shame them into silence.

comfort

When a man is hurting, other men at least pause to consider that someone here is hurting.

That’s a pretty beautiful sentiment.

When it comes to Hugo, I don’t share it.  Not for one second.  I think Hugo is being a total pussy and missing out on a fantastic opportunity to point out the fucking hypocrisy of the ideology he has thrown himself behind professionally and personally.

step off

What Hugo should be saying is “Step off, bitches.  You do the same shit and spin it as liberation and freedom. My personal life is none of your goddamn business”.

Let’s start with the Grande Dame of feminism herself:  Simone de Beauvoir.  She supposedly had an “open relationship” with Jean Paul Sartre, and she pursued him for her entire life.

lonely

Yet in this lifelong relationship of supposed equals, he, it turned out, was far more equal than she was. It was he who engaged in countless affairs, to which she responded on only a few occasions with longer-lasting passions of her own. Between the lines of her fiction and what are in effect six volumes of autobiography, it is also evident that De Beauvoir suffered deeply from jealousy. She wanted to keep the image of a model life intact. There were no children. They never shared a house and their sexual relations were more or less over by the end of the war, though for much of their life and certainly at the last, they saw each other daily.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/jun/10/gender.politicsphilosophyandsociety

Is de Beauvoir a pathetic simpleton who can’t get it through her head that her cheating genius will never, ever ruck up with a ring and a dress?  Is she mentally ill to allow her life to be dictated by a man who openly sleeps with other women while she seethes at home alone with jealousy?  Does anyone question her feminism because she plays the role of the dupe?  All her passions governed by one man, whom she cannot have?

Nope.  She’s a goddamn hero.

fear

Erica Jong launched sluttiness as a virtue in 1971 with her book Fear of Flying.  Married four times, she reveled in the fuck and run mentality.

“The zipless fuck is absolutely pure. It is free of ulterior motives. There is no power game . The man is not “taking” and the woman is not “giving.” No one is attempting to cuckold a husband or humiliate a wife. No one is trying to prove anything or get anything out of anyone. The zipless fuck is the purest thing there is. And it is rarer than the unicorn. And I have never had one.”

The book is one long erotic fantasy of just grabbing and banging whatever guy gets your motor running, and women embraced the challenge rather thoroughly, all the while lauding Jong for her audacity and the liberating effects of zipless, no strings attached fucking.

Eat, Love, Pray?  Hell yeah, ladies, ditch your husband and kids and go on a sex and food tour.  It’s good for you!

eat

Sex and the City?  Ladies, if you are not cultivating greed, avarice, tons of stupidly expensive shoes and bedposts notched to toothpicks, you are doing feminism WRONG!

sex

…to dismiss the programme entirely on the basis of its shortcomings as a feminist text would also be to lose out on what it does deliver. Just to take the most headline-grabbing example, that includes some pretty frank discussion of sex, in which female sexual pleasure and agency is obviously considered a fundamental right, rather than a privilege.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2008/apr/16/women.film

Ladies, you have a fundamental right to be a slut!  Okay, I’ll buy it.

Why don’t men have the same fundamental right?  Why doesn’t Hugo?

Granted, Hugo has been a bad, bad boy.

prof

Sex with undergrads.

http://www.hugoschwyzer.net/tag/teacher-student-sexual-relationships/

A botched attempt to murder a girlfriend while high on who the hell knows what.

http://www.xojane.com/issues/hugo-schwyzer-controversy

Cheating on his wife with a 27 year old sex worker.  NSFW.

cheating

http://therealpornwikileaks.com/hugoleaks-male-feminist-hugo-schwyzers-sexting-scandal-exposed-nsfw/

All the while railing against older men lusting after younger women.

http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/06/its-okay-to-call-a-guy-creepy/277256/

And cheering for monogamy.

http://jezebel.com/5982801/the-war-against-monogamy-is-bullshit

Yeah, so Hugo is a giant fucking hypocrite.  This is news?  The real question is why, Hugo, do your lady friends get a pass for all their shitty behavior without anyone questioning their ideological commitment or veracity, while you are driven to the brink of suicide by doing the exact same shit?

Riddle me that.

Sex with students?  When the teacher is a woman, that’s just all good fun!

playboyteacher2

“There is still a double standard out there, and it’s almost a joke — ‘Hey, he got hit on by some pretty teacher, what’s he complaining about?’ ” said Ramsland, who has worked with the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit. “Many don’t see it as much of a crime, and one of the factors that women are getting off easier is some don’t see them as a big of a threat as a man.

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_18726100

Getting a pass for attempted murder?  There are too many to even cite, but I love this woman who hired a HITMAN (who was really a police officer) to kill her husband and she got the full out pussy pass.  No penalty of any kind.

Women’s justice groups are urging the Supreme Court to stand by a decision that acquitted a Nova Scotia woman for trying to hire a hit man to kill her estranged husband due to years of abuse.

The abuse was so severe the husband was awarded custody of their daughter.  Must have been really bad, right?  Or complete and utter bullshit.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/06/14/case-of-woman-acquitted-of-hiring-hit-man-to-kill-abusive-spouse-goes-to-top-court

Older women lusting after younger men?  Why, that’s just natural!  All that young, virile sperm.  And the muscle tone of a young man!  Ooh, baby.  Bring it on.

younger-men

As women decline in fertility, their sex drive gets a supercharge in order to maximize their remaining baby-making chances, new research from the University of Texas at Austin reveals. Women in the low-fertility group (ages 27-45) were much more likely to report having more sex, wanting more sex, and having more (and more intense) sexual fantasies. “If you’re trying to maximize your remaining fertility, it makes sense to seek out a younger partner because his sperm is healthier,” says lead researcher Judith Easton.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/201101/field-guide-the-cougar

And monogamy?  What’s that?  Why should women embrace that dreary old shit?  I particularly love this story, plastered everywhere, about how Simon Cowell knocked up his best friend’s wife!  She is apparently delighted to have snagged the BabyMama Crown from the grasping hands of the other members of the Aching Ovaries Brigade.

simon

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2383825/How-Simon-Cowells-lover-Lauren-Silverman-joined-celebrity-elite-despite-humble-origins.html

None of these issues, or women, are being called out on feminist media sites. Nothing to see here.  La la la la.  The top stories on Jezebel?

What to do with your slobbery drunk friends?  Fuck ‘em, is basically the advice. Gosh.  Lovely to see women lining up in each other’s corners, no?

http://jezebel.com/what-to-do-with-your-barfy-blackout-drunk-friend-950590611

What to do when your period is so heavy you can’t go to work!  Jesus.  How heavy does it have to be? What is your job?  Shark tamer?

http://jezebel.com/i-cant-come-into-work-today-because-im-menstruating-p-1001094616

lindy

Lindy West, who gets bigger with every new post, had a breastmilk lollipop.  Ewww. Do you have suck everything that comes near your mouth, Lindy?  Really?  No limits at all?

http://jezebel.com/i-sucked-on-a-breast-milk-lollipop-and-lived-to-write-a-963078087

The rest of the stories are just as compelling.  Jezebel has lots to say, but very little of it focuses on the issues that Hugo is being excoriated for all over the feminist media.

Hugo, ask yourself why.  Why is it that WOMEN get a pass for doing all the same shit you do, or at the very least are met with some pretty deafening silence, while YOU are basically being deprived of your ability to make a living or contribute to society in a way that you want to contribute.

Notice something else, too.

Look carefully at who came to your defence.  It wasn’t the pack of fucking bitches who are willing to toss you under the bus for committing the exact same infractions they extol when women are the protagonists.

It was men.  And a few men in particular.

Tightrope

You’re a fool, Hugo, if you cave into the demands that you present yourself as mentally damaged, in need of medications and self-flagellation.  Your lady friends might forgive you this time, but you will always walk that tightrope of being barely acceptable and you will always be the first one they sacrifice.

You went to the Dark Side in search of cookies, Hugo, not seeming to realize that feminists HATE cookies.

http://judgybitch.com/2013/08/01/do-not-give-feminists-cookies-feminists-hate-cookies-no-cookies/comment-page-1/#comment-18070

Come into the light.  We have cookies, and everything else too!

walking_into_light

Start here.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/

And please, whatever you do, do not give them the satisfaction of destroying you utterly.  They won’t mourn you.  Not for one second. Don’t become another tragic statistic.  Your crimes were not crimes at all.  Being human is not a crime.

Even if you happen to be male and human at the same time.

Lots of love,

JB

[We all survived the surgery, just so you know, and everyone is happy and healthy back at home]

%d bloggers like this: