Archive | PayBack is a Bitch RSS feed for this section

What’s good for the goose makes the gander cry

26 Jul

Edited to add the BBC radio interview is  here:


Hey remember when this meme was doing the rounds? Feminists would post it any time a man would point out that men suffer in our society, too.




This one was popular, too.

male tears 2


and this one.

male tear 3


And who can forget Chanty Binx aka Big Red singing Cry Me A River in response to the trivial  and totally hilarious issue of male suicide?



Seems like the popularity of the #womenagainstfeminism hashtag on Twitter, Tumblr and Facebook has caught a lot of feminists off guard, and they are now reacting furiously to women who like to think for themselves with a lot of nu-uh you dumb bitch, you don’t know what feminism IS! Read the dictionary you stupid dumb cunts! Go fuck a goat in traffic!


Yeah, someone really did tweet that last one.



Here is my response. Feel free to make it yours, too.




My radio interview with the BBC will be here at 10:30AM GMT.


Monday at 12:10PM I will be on CNN’s sister network HLN to discuss the #womenagainstfeminism phenomenon, and I suspect it’s gonna make feminists cry even harder.





Aww. That’s too bad, isn’t it?


Payback has arrived, bitches! All the feminist tears in the world won’t stop us.


Lots of love,



Ladies, stop being so mean to sluts. Sluts make excellent friends! Said no woman ever, including other sluts.

2 Jun

Poor, sad, lonely little sluts of the world – what are we going to do with them? All their hard work, banging random men they meet in bars, and what does it get them? Well, other than outstanding blowjob techniques, I mean. The rewards of vagina slinging are denied to the slutty ladies who have racked up 20 partners (or more!), and this is clearly a problem.


Zhana Vrangalova, a graduate student in the field of human development in the College of Human Ecology at Cornell University (hope she’s looking forward to a long career at Starbucks) asked a bunch of women if they thought they might like to be friends with a real, bona fide, the password to my pussy is PASSWORD, sluts.

Eh, no. Even other sluts don’t like sluts.


Gosh! I wonder why?

“Sexually permissive women are ostracized for being ‘easy,’ whereas men with a high number of sexual partners are viewed with a sense of accomplishment,” Vrangalova said. “What surprised us in this study is how unaccepting promiscuous women were of other promiscuous women when it came to friendships – these are the very people one would think they could turn to for support.”

She added that prior research shows that men often view promiscuous women as unsuitable for long-term romantic relationships, leaving these women outside of many social circles. “The effect is that these women are really isolated,” Vrangalova said.

Oh dear. Well this is terrible news. Nobody likes a slut. Not even other sluts. Of course, Jezebel has to jump on the bandwagon, defending sluts from all the big meanies who think sluts are disgusting, disease ridden scourges on the sexual landscape.

And true to form, they get the details of the actual study dead wrong.


Nine out of ten women surveyed listed promiscuity as a negative trait in another woman, while men were more lax about this attribute in the female profile.

Nope. Men didn’t read the women’s profiles. Only same-sex friendships were explored. #sorrysluts

Men with a higher number of sex partners favored men who had less experience, but specified that it was due to evolutionary mate-guarding.

Nope. Men with a high number of sexual partners did NOT prefer less experienced men in eight out of ten tested attributes. Men preferred less experienced men as friends on TWO attributes: mate guarding and dislike of sexuality.

Possibly because less sexually experienced friends are less likely to make a play for your girlfriend? “Mate-guarding”. Such a confusing term. So difficult to make out what that might mean. Science is hard!


Jezebel doesn’t even get the sample size correct. 751, not 721. Come on now, Barbie. You just had to READ the number. It’s not like you had to count to 751 all by yourself.

Why do I read this shit?

Here is what I find interesting about the research: it refers to prior research that indicates men do not consider sexually promiscuous women suitable long term romantic partners. And again, this is what irritates the crap out of me about writers like the Jezebel ladies or Amanda Marcotte, who will cheer loud and hard for slutty sluts slutting it up, and ignore the fact that there are consequences for women’s behaviour.

Consequences most women will not like.

I honestly have no problem with sluts. If fucking a boatload of random men is your idea of fun, have at it. It’s your life, you do as you please. What I HATE is when women who really are not the least bit slutty listen to all the lies (coming from other women) about how empowering and liberating treating your sexuality like a commodity can be.


And it’s mostly young women who believe it. They listen to their older sisters and older women in the media and then act contrary to their instincts because they do not understand THEY ARE BEING LIED TO. And none of the big-mouthed ladies will mention that, oh, yeah, along with feeling like a total piece of garbage after sex with a man whose name you barely remember, you will be socially ostracized and considered an inappropriate romantic partner.

Go ahead and wear your slutty school uniforms, little ladies. You should do whatever the hell you want, at all times, and damn the consequences!


It’s funny that Amanda uses the words “self-respect” because that is exactly what encouraging slutty behaviour in young women does NOT do. In order to respect yourself, you have to know yourself, and then go ahead and behave in a way that respects what you know. If you honestly, genuinely are capable of completely separating sex and emotion, and it’s just straight up physical pleasure for you and nothing more, then go ahead and hump away.

Biologically, that is simply not true for most women. The simple act of hugging a man causes a spike in oxytocin levels, the hormones that promote bonding. Guess what else? Oxytocin has the EXACT SAME EFFECT ON MEN. Indeed, men produce greater amounts of the love hormone than women in response to sexual activities.

It has been assumed that women have higher levels of oxytocin than men do. While the hormone estrogen does indeed make women more susceptible to increased oxytocin, studies show that men produce greater amounts of the hormone during intimate activities such as hugging, kissing and intercourse.


So Slut Culture doesn’t just lie to and about women; it lies to and about men, as well.

Sex connects humans to one another emotionally. That is a simple biological reality. Sluts violate reality by denying the emotional connection between sexual partners. This hurts women deeply, and most of them will come to regret their sluttiness.

Sluts also hurt men by acting as if men have no emotional investment in sex. Men learn to shut down their emotional connection with promiscuous women, and the effect lasts a long, long time, something sluts don’t seem to understand.


In the words of Dr. Dre, you can’t make a ho a housewife.

Now this this is one of them occasions

where the homies not doin it right

I mean he found him a hoe that he like

But you can’t make a hoe a housewife

And when it all boils down you gonna find in the end

a bitch is a bitch, but a Dogg is a man’s best friend

So what you found you a hoe that you like

But you can’t make a hoe a housewife (wife)

So why should sluts in particular dislike other sluts? Because it’s like looking in a mirror. A promiscuous woman knows that she is untrustworthy, and she knows that she is not respecting herself. When she sees another promiscuous women, she understands that such a woman will make a terrible friend.


It’s not about competition. It’s about self-reflection. Sluts don’t like what they see in the mirror.

And neither does anybody else.

Sluts: ashamed of themselves. As they should be.

Lots of love,


“Lean In”, says Sheryl Sandberg. That way you won’t miss when you chuck your husband and kids under the bus.

14 Mar

Sheryl Sandberg’s admonition to women to “lean in” to their careers has ignited quite the debate in the media, especially amongst all the rich white ladies to whom she is speaking.  As expected, she gets lots of sneering contempt for being a rich white lady, mostly from other rich white ladies, who are just not quite as rich as Sandberg. The not-quite-as-rich white ladies resent Sandberg’s implication that they need to work a bit harder.

Kudos to Sandberg for at least admitting that the real problem with lack of women at the top of the corporate world is that they simply don’t make the kind of effort and sacrifice required to be there.  She’s absolutely correct with that analysis.


Where she goes off the rails is by suggesting that women deliberately, purposefully and strategically COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY IGNORE the needs of anyone they care about, and focus solely on themselves.  Don’t feel bad about abandoning your infants to the care of poor women, she says. Focus on your career and put those little buggers in daycare for MORE time.  Consider it an investment in yourself.

sad baby

Well, isn’t that precious?  How delightful for the children.

Most women see instantly that Sandberg is full of shit and more and more of them are choosing their children and husbands over a corner office, which is a heartening trend.  Susan Faludi, who wrote a very famous book called Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women, takes Sandberg to task on her views about the importance of mothering, but she spins it in a very interesting, and quite frankly, alarming direction.

In a piece at CNN called Sandberg Left Single Mothers Behind, Faludi lays out a vision of the future that is both depressing and infuriating at the same time.


Our economic framework is founded on women’s subjugation.


The power structure that Sandberg wants to feminize was built to cement the power of (some) men, and on the backs of (most) women, who would not only stay out of the power suites but would make all the power plays possible by assuming every backstage duty, from minding the kids to handling the least glamorous and lowest-paid work. It’s in capitalism’s DNA, and no cosmetic paste-ons at the top are going to change the dynamic without significant change on the bottom.

Faludi goes on to quote Charlotte Bunch, who claims that “class distinctions are an outgrowth of male domination”.  Faludi doesn’t appear to have any problem with that statement.


It’s such a clever little semantic trick isn’t it?  On the one hand, Faludi and her furious friends acknowledge that power is concentrated in the hands of some men (mostly rich, mostly white) and then they use that as evidence that most women are shut out of the power structure while completely ignoring the fact that SO ARE MOST MEN, and then in a nice big giant spin of the hamster wheel, they declare our entire society to be male-dominated.



In order to advance the theory of patriarchy, you need to do two things:  ignore the fact that most men are just as powerless as most women, and ignore the fact that some women are just as powerful as some men. It’s unusual to see that played out so blatantly, though.  How in the hell can you look at an argument like that and not see the flaws?  It boggles the mind.

Ah well. So it is.

Let’s look at the rest of Faludi’s article.  After declaring that male-dominated society perpetuates class as a means of maintaining their domination, Faludi turns her attention to a large class of subjugated women:  single mothers.  She has a little moan about the fact that single mothers are held responsible for their own choices, and has a little weep over the fact that in the US, taxpayers are ever reluctant to hand over their cash to pay these women for making terrible decisions.

The U.S. provides the worst support structure for single parents of any economically comparable nation, a recent major study by Legal Momentum found.–publications/worst-off-single-parent.html


And it’s only getting worse, as politicians aim to slash welfare programs, enforcement of child support, child tax credits and anything else they can think to deny single mothers, as they blame them for all that’s wrong with society.


Oh, boo hoo.  That’s so mean.  Why can’t I have a baby with no means to pay for it?  Why can’t you pay for it?  What, you’re paying for your own children?  Well too bad.  Pay for mine, too!

Now Faludi gets to the heart of her vision for the future:  why, she asks, can’t women like Sandberg CHAMPION single mothers?  Promote them as the ideal vision of what our society should be? Single mothers, you see, are the key to women’s independence.

She is an adult woman with responsibilities who is not supported by a man. Symbolically, she stands for the possibility of women to truly remake the patriarchal structure. That would require a movement built not around corporate bromides, but a collective grassroots effort to demand the fundamental social change necessary to grant independent mothers a genuine independence

Let’s look at this very carefully, shall we?

She is an adult woman with responsibilities who is not supported by a man.


Except for the 47% who receive child support payments.  From a man (potentially the biological father of the child, but not necessarily).

money tree

And except for the 35% who receive government benefits, which, astonishingly, do not grow on money trees in the fairy garden. Most of that money comes from MEN, who carry more of the tax burden than women, because they tend to make more money than women.

In the UK, for example, men pay over 70% of the taxes collected. So anyone receiving state benefits is most certainly dependent on a man.  On all working men, in fact.

Symbolically, she stands for the possibility of women to truly remake the patriarchal structure.

Leaving aside for the moment that the power structure is an aristocracy in which both rich men and women exploit the poor who, are also both men and women,  what is this power structure going to be transformed INTO?

Faludi answers her own question:

Consider instead the benefits of a campaign that bore down on the causes behind the negative endings that mar so many single mothers’ lives. It would not only be confronting a problem that affects huge numbers of women, it would be mounting a significant challenge to a system that will otherwise continue to stand between women and full emancipation.


Emancipated from what, pray tell?  And now we have the entire point of the theory of patriarchy, don’t we?  Women are to be emancipated from the domination of men.  Men will contribute two things:  sperm and cash.  Give me babies and give me money.  And then kindly go fuck yourself.


I can’t quite figure out why men object to this. It’s not like we’re going to DOMINATE you, lads.  We’re just going to make the most of what you have to offer.  Money and babies, money and babies, la la la la la.

That would require a movement built not around corporate bromides, but a collective grassroots effort to demand the fundamental social change necessary to grant independent mothers a genuine independence

Know how to grant single mothers genuine independence?  Let them pay for themselves.  Let them lie in the beds they have made.  You want to have a child without a man’s support?  Then accept that you will NOT HAVE A MAN’S SUPPORT.

Why the hell should MEN pay for a social system that is designed to reduce them to strict utilities, unless some woman graciously consents to allow them to be fathers and husbands and yet retains the right to reduce them to functionality at any given moment?


The whole point of the early women’s movement was to ensure that WOMEN were not treated as mere cattle to bear offspring, although that was never the case to begin with.  While women were considered the “property” of men, men had the corollary obligation to pay for the upkeep of their “property”.  Obviously, that is distasteful and the declaration that women are not property was both necessary and just.

How is it possible that Faludi cannot see that she is arguing for a cultural change that would define MEN as property? The collective property of all women.  And how on earth can she imagine, for one second, that men won’t fight back?

You wanna talk Backlash, Susan?


Just watch.

Lots of love,


%d bloggers like this: