Archive | Women RSS feed for this section

Why are there no Big Important Women™ in tech? Uhm, because your ideas suck and you’re all pansy-assed cowards?

3 Feb

 

crying-woman

 

What do Mark Zuckerberg, Steve Jobs, Bill Gates and Jack Dorsey all have in common? They’re men. They’re white. They’re heterosexual (AFAIK). They’re smart.

 

None of that counted for shit. Sorry, feminists. Whine your little guts out til the end of the freakin’ world. Being a straight, white male had nothing to do with why those men are famous and rich beyond measure. I’ll let you in on a little secret: there is one reason, and only one reason those men are the giants of the tech world.

 

A brilliant idea.

 

See, that’s the whole point of capitalism, and why it works the way it works. You see a problem (often when others don’t even realize it’s a problem yet) and you solve it in a way that is brilliant, efficient, user-friendly and reasonably easy to manufacture.  You don’t need money to make your idea happen. At least, not your own money. You need venture capital.

 

VC

Venture capital happens when someone has some extra money lying around they would like to turn into more money. Venture capitalists invest in new ventures in the hopes that the new venture will turn their money into more money. It’s really that simple.

 

Money creates more money when invested wisely.

 

How do you convince venture capitalists to give you money? That’s also pretty easy. Have a great idea and then sell it. Your great idea won’t get anywhere if you don’t know how to sell it. Mumble and stare at the floor and downplay how it works and you are not likely to find anyone throwing bags of cash at you. If you don’t think it’s a truly great idea, why the hell would anyone else?

 

Great idea + knowing how to sell = venture capital.

 

Get a load of this pity party for women in tech, in Newsweek. What Silicon Valley Thinks of Women is a giant sobbing, blathering mess that ignores our two key means of getting venture capital. The women in question have a shitty idea that won’t work, and they are mumbling, stammering simpletons who can’t express themselves. Two strikes and you’re out, ladies.

 

The gist of their idea is that women need to connect with other women in tech so they can help each other out professionally because vagina. Women should not cultivate relationships with other professionals in their areas of expertise because men are gross and might look at their asses. Their genius idea is called Glassbreakers. Oddly enough, venture capitalists are not throwing oodles of cash their way because misogyny and sexism, amirite?

 

Here are just a few reasons why Glassbreakers is a stupid idea that won’t work.

 

door

 

First of all, the answer to sexism is not more sexism. By creating an app that connects humans with vaginas to other humans with vaginas you are leaving out half your potential market. Really well thought out, ladies. Let’s assume that no men will assist colleagues with great ideas if those colleagues have vaginas and then exclude them from women’s networks based on that assumption.

barbie

 

Secondly, the idea that women are going to genuinely help other women is laughably naïve. Heaven help any woman in tech who is above average pretty, who thinks other women are going to help her. Virtually 100% of women will aggress against a peer they perceive as sexy. Women will not only refuse to help an attractive woman in tech, they will go out of their way to demean and harm her. Women who achieve power over others (#BanBossy!) are hated pretty much by everyone, but by other women in particular. Lady Bosses are often petty, mean-spirited drama queens and women are each other’s own worst enemies. Why would tech be any different? This story in particular makes me laugh: a feminist went to work for a feminist organization and ended up hating those bitches and quitting. Lol. Yeah, Glassbreakers is such a great idea! Let’s connect women professionally so they can actively destroy each other! That should work! Who wants to invest?

 

book

 

Thirdly, by their own admission, the developers are addressing a problem that doesn’t exist: sexual harassment and sexist behaviour. Eileen Carey, one of the devs, “claims she has only rarely experienced sexual harassment or even sexist behavior”, but in the next heartbeat claims “bias and harassment are endemic in her profession.”  So which is it? Rare or endemic? And they wonder why venture capitalists are not chucking money at them?

 

And finally, both developers admit they are pathetic cowards when it comes to selling their ideas. After rambling and mumbling all over the place, one investor had to outright ask Carey if she wanted funding. Way to sell that concept! If women are incapable of the “swagger” and “confidence” of men, how are they going to be capable of mentoring each other? If women habitually understate their accomplishments, how are they going to convey anything the slightest bit useful to one another?

 

Glassbreakers hasn’t attracted funding because venture capitalists hate women. Nonsense. It has failed to attract funding because it’s a crappy idea the developers themselves can’t get behind.  If women in tech want to improve their positions, they need to do two things: grow a set and have better ideas. Easy peasy. Sitting around whining and crying that teh menz are mean, casting about for someone to blame other than themselves, and looking for any excuse to avoid asking the tough questions are the things holding women back. Who wants to bet the majority of these mewling children identify as feminist?  Funny that Marissa Meyer didn’t experience any of these terrible roadblocks, and thinks feminism is a crock of shit, too.

 

Hey women in tech who aren’t really killing it, if you’re looking for someone to blame, try a mirror.

 

And then get back to work.

 

Lots of love,

 

JB

 

 

 

 

Some women are totally clueless about their own bodies. Obviously, that makes men terrorists. New heights in utter idiocy.

2 Sep

Let’s start with this.

terrorism

I’m……

I can’t……

WHAT?!?

Is that a typo?  She meant IGNORANCE, right?  She just has one fucked up autocorrect.  IGNORANCE is having sex your whole adult life, giving birth to six children and never having an orgasm.

This is terrorism:

wtc

It beggars belief the two things could be compared.  Orgasms and the deaths of thousands of people. Wow.  Just wow.

One of those moments where I can’t think of a single thing to say that doesn’t involve advocating beating the crap out someone.  So I’ll say nothing….

I like the six children thing a lot.  Which countries have average birthrates over 6.00?

Niger                     7.03

Mali                       6.25

Somalia                                6.17

Uganda                                6.06

Burkina Faso      6.00

Burundi is pretty close, coming in at 5.99, and Zambia gets close with 5.81, so let’s include them.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html

africa

So it’s just those nasty black African men who are terrorists?  I’m kind of disappointed that artist Sophia Wallace didn’t paint ALL men as terrorists because women don’t know how to masturbate, but we can count on feminism to single out bloodcurdling black men for special treatment, can’t we?

Six babies!  No orgasms!  A life of sex!  Terrorism!  Save me from the black men in Africa!

men

Sophia Wallace, you see, apparently took off her Klan robes long enough to come up with a clever little art project called “Cliteracy”, designed to convince women several things simultaneously:

cliteracy

Our sex organs are bigger and better than men’s.  Yee-haw!

size

Women are really good at masturbating.  Double yee-haw!

masturbation

Women are entitled to pleasure.  Well, duh.  We’re entitled to everything!

enititled

The right of every individual citizen to vote in elections is turned into a lie if we don’t talk about women’s sexual pleasure.

democracy

I’m not sure how that works, but if we can believe that failing to reach orgasm is terrorism, why not accept that the same situation leads to the corruption of democracy?  Once the earth is flat, does it really matter where the dragons be?

dragons

No really.  I’m not making this up.

Though the project may seem limited to the discussion about women’s bodies and female sexuality, Wallace insists that it’s really much, much bigger than that.

Not only is the project for everyone (“I love seeing men standing up for the clit,” Wallace says, adding that this is a conversation that liberates people of all genders), but she says that the clitoris can be seen as a “metaphor for freedom, body sovereignty and citizenship.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/28/cliteracy_n_3823983.html#slide=2852310

Pop Quiz:  who can explain the anatomy of a male orgasm?  The actual physical mechanics of it?  I’m sure we have all noticed that a male orgasm is almost always accompanied by a discharge of fluids that, depending on the circumstances can lead to laundry, a baby, a rejuvenating facial or a meal, but aside from that, who can explain exactly how it works?

Not me.  I really don’t know. There are some muscle contractions involved that result in extreme pleasure and force the discharge from the tip of a man’s penis, but other than that, fucked if I know how it all works.  What muscles are involved?  How deep into a man’s body do the contractions go?  Do the testicles contract?

I dunno.

Don’t really care, either.

Seriously, who gives a shit?  I know how to produce one, and take pleasure in doing so, but other than that, I’m afraid I’m not dick-literate.  I’ll bet the majority of men aren’t particularly dick-literate either, and can’t describe in anatomical detail how their own pleasure works. Again, who cares?  I can’t describe digestion in any particular detail, nor have I ever come across a situation where my life depended on distinguishing the transverse colon from the ileum (and yes I had to google “digestive system” to even come up with those words).

So what?

As long as I know how to eat, what difference does it make?

“Cliteracy” as a concept seems to accept as a baseline that women don’t know a single thing about their own bodies, and if they do, and fail to communicate that to sexual partners, it is somehow the partner’s fault.  Which is rather like saying it’s my partner’s fault if I don’t eat because I failed to tell him I wanted him to put the food in my mouth.  If I starve to death, well, that’s because he’s an asshole who never figured out that I expect to be hand-fed.

feeding

How do men discover their capacity for orgasm?  Ha, ha, I’m just kidding.  We all know the answer to that.  They wait until some willing woman comes along and shows them how it all works.  And if that never happens….well, they are just lost little duckies, with no sovereignty over their own bodies, no freedom, no hope, no future.

duck

I’ll just wait for my Princess to come and show me how my penis works….said no 12 year old boy ever.

“Cliteracy” could have been an outstanding project if it had followed two simple guidelines:

Your pleasure is your own

You are responsible for discovering and communicating what you like and need

If “Cliteracy” had been aimed at WOMEN, without attacking or reducing men to clueless fumbling idiots, it might have gained my admiration.  But of course it had to be derailed with the standard feminist operating procedures of:

Accept no responsibility ever

Cast yourself as the victim

Blame men (black men if you can)

Claim unsupportable, absurdly exaggerated consequences

Assert feminism as the solution

It really amazes me that something as astonishing as dates that conflict by over 100 years make it past the editors at Huffington post.

“It’s appalling and shocking to think that scientifically, the clitoris was only discovered in 1998,” Wallace told The Huffington Post from her Brooklyn studio last week. “But really, it may as well have never been discovered at all because there’s still such ignorance when it comes to the female body.”

Again, WHAT?!?!?!

The clitoris was NOT discovered in 1998!  Two paragraphs later, the article contains the following:

…the true anatomy of the clitoris had actually appeared in scientific literature as long ago as the mid-1800s.

Either claim, quite frankly, is completely stunning.  The Kama Sutra is thought to have been composed somewhere between 400 and 200 CE, and it contains a wealth of positions dedicated to maximizing female pleasure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kama_Sutra

Édouard-Henri Avril painted a very famous depiction of cunnilingus in 1906, and many more erotic images that were used to illustrate novels like Fanny Hill. Female pleasure was no cultural mystery even in the modern era.

You can see the painting here (NSFW)

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Detail_of_%C3%89douard-Henri_Avril_%2823%29.jpg

There is even some speculation that cunnilingus (or other method) assisted orgasm evolved as a sperm retention strategy so that men could be assured it was actually their own swimmers who claimed the podium, and not the sperm of some interloper the missus fancied for an afternoon of fun.

Female orgasm may play an important role in sperm competition…Men perform various behaviors to facilitate their partner’s orgasm, including vaginal penetration, cunnilingus, and manual vaginal or clitoral stimulation, and the induction method may affect the degree to which sperm is retained (Levin, 2001; Masters and Johnson, 1966; reviewed in King and Belsky, 2012).

http://www.epjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/EP11405414.pdf

The idea that female orgasm is some new thing that men are deliberately ignoring for the purposes of punishing/oppressing women is completely laughable.

Here is the one, key slide that Wallace gets right, and in my opinion, it gets directly at the heart of things:

lying

The reason you are having bad sex ladies is because you are LYING.  Is that really so hard to figure out?  How in the name of god do you expect men to understand what gives you pleasure if you LIE to them about it?  How can any sane woman not understand that lying about what gives her pleasure will likely result in very little pleasure?

bark

Stop lying.  Assume some responsibility for your own pleasure.  Learn your own body.  Don’t blame men if you can’t even figure out how to give yourself an orgasm.  Learn how to communicate, and if you can do that without barking out orders like a Marine Drill Sergeant, so much the better.

Ask, and ye shall receive.

70%

The idea that 70% of women are going sexually unfulfilled strikes me as another pile of steaming bullshit.  You know what leads me to that belief?

The popularity of Brazilian waxes and other grooming of pubic hair.

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/fashion/features/the-politics-of-pubic-hair-why-is-a-generation-choosing-to-go-bare-down-there-8539673.html

Older feminists like to posit that women groom and/or remove their pubic hair in response to either the pornification of culture or men’s uninhibited pedophilic tendencies.  The latter always makes me laugh, because I’m sure all those ladies only date men with beards, right?  No preference for men who exhibit that pre-pubescent look of no facial hair?

shaving

Fucking hypocrites.

It’s actually rather simple to explain why younger women in particular keep their ladybits neat and tidy:  it’s because no one likes hair in their food.

hairball

http://judgybitch.com/2012/11/27/brazilians-are-just-good-manners-theres-nothing-worse-than-hair-in-your-food/

And here’s a hint, just for the lads:  always look at a woman’s feet.  A woman who has neat, pretty, groomed feet is likely to be well-groomed everywhere else, too.

feet

There.  I just made y’all a bit more cliterate.

You’re welcome.

Lots of love,

JB

Men like virtual sex because they find it arousing. Women like virtual sex because they have low self-esteem, and you can’t really expect much more from men anyways, right? Keep those standards low, and men won’t disappoint!

5 Aug

I’ve mostly been ignoring the whole Anthony Weiner sex scandal thing because I don’t find Anthony all that appealing and I have no particular desire to see or read about his wiener. I also don’t get all that fussed about politician’s sex lives, nor do I give a shit what his wife has to “put up with”.  She wants to be the Mayor’s Wife and she’s made her deal and it’s none of my damn business.  As long as Anthony isn’t texting his crotch shots to me, I don’t really care.

weiners

But I really had to click on this New York Times Op Ed on “Weiner’s Women”, because I expected to find a nice example of poor lady victims with wieners all over their phones, fainting and blushing at such monstrous acts.  Heh.  Maybe I should take a peek at one of those screencaps and check just how monstrous we are dealing with?

It’s actually even better than just the usual pearl-clutching and denial of agency I have come to expect from any commentary on the role the women played in dressing up the dachshund.

dog

Susan Jacoby goes one better on the rosy-cheeked maiden meme, and tries her best to understand what this whole sexting thing is about.  She begins by tossing a bone to Weiner’s poor wife, who is apparently being regularly deprived of bones, or at the very least, she has to share them with the other bitches.

bitches

People ask how Mr. Weiner’s wife, the soulfully beautiful and professionally accomplished Huma Abedin, can stay with him. My question is why hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of women apparently derive gratification from exchanging sexual talk and pictures with strangers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/31/opinion/weiners-women.html?_r=1&

Soulfully beautiful and professionally accomplished? Ho hum.  Let’s not leave out graspingly ambitious and strategically adept.  The lady wants the Mayor’s Laurels, and if she can’t get them herself, she will hitch her wagon to the wiener who CAN get them. Like she didn’t know she was handing her bun to a Ball Park Frank of epic proportions? Oh, bullshit.

city hall

She knew.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2013/04/13/anthony-weiner-huma-abedin-and-power-ambition/T9ktqo6345YDUVg2ZASOEK/story.html

And so what?  Who cares? It’s her life.

Then Jacoby puts an interesting little spin on her analysis, agreeing that the ladies who participate in this kind of virtual carnal exploration are in fact fully aware and conscious of what they are doing.  Why do they do it?

Because RAPE, for one thing.  It’s safer than going out into the world with all those dangerous, predatory men who lurk around every corner waiting for an unsuspecting virgin to traipse by. In New York, I suspect the wait would be a long one.

These women are not victims of men like Mr. Weiner (or of ordinary, obscure sex seekers in the digital world) but full and equal participants. There is no force involved here; people of both sexes are able to block unwanted advances. Women are certainly safer on the Web than they would be going home with strangers they meet in bars.

But aside from rape, there is the simple fact that men just suck and the lower your expectations when it comes to having sex with one, the better off you will be.

bar

The morality of virtual sex, as long as no one is cheating on a real partner, is not what bothers me. What’s truly troubling about the whole business is that it resembles the substitution of texting for extended, face-to-face time with friends. Virtual sex is to sex as virtual food is to food: you can’t taste, touch or smell it, and you don’t have to do any preparation or work. Sex with strangers online amounts to a diminution, close to an absolute negation, of the context that gives human interaction genuine content. Erotic play without context becomes just a form of one-on-one pornography.

Nor do I consider it worse for women than for men to engage in this behavior. But I do suspect — because I concede the validity of the numerous studies concluding that men are more interested in and aroused by pornography than women are — that women who settle for digital pornography are lowering their expectations and hopes even more drastically than their male collaborators are.

I guess Jacoby doesn’t know that imagining you are eating some calorific, this-is-why-you’re-fat treat can actually mollify hunger cravings?

choclate

Ever wished you could cut down on the amount you eat without going hungry? It turns out all you need is a good imagination. Scientists have found that going through the mental motions of eating, say, a chocolate bar, will help.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2010/dec/09/imagine-eating-lose-weight

Weiner’s lady seem to be more inclined towards sausage than chocolate, but no matter.  The imagination is a powerful thing that can absolutely bring satisfaction without all the pesky need to actually put it in your mouth and swallow.

God, I’m so immature.  Penis jokes.  Makes me giggle every time.

I wonder what studies Jacoby is referring to when she cites men as more interested in and aroused by pornography?  She is clearly not accounting for literary pornography, AKA the romance novel, which appeals overwhelmingly to women.  To the tune of a billion dollars a year.

http://publishing.about.com/od/BookAuthorBasics/a/Romance-Novels-About-The-Romance-Fiction-Genre.htm

That’s a whole lot of lady porn.

book

“Reece, I’m gonna come.” He sucked in a breath as I sped up. “I need…I want you to—“ His hips rose off the bed, forcing his cock through my grasp. If the light was on, I could have seen him. Known whether his eyes were open or closed. Maybe he frowned.

All I knew was his lips parted beneath mine as he gasped for air, and when I kissed from the corners of his mouth along his jaw, he moaned softly.

“Daniel?”

“I want more.”

http://smexybooks.com/2011/12/smexys-top-ten-favorite-sex-scenes-of-2011.html

Wowza!  I might have to hit the bookshop later today.

But okay, let’s say it really IS only men who enjoy pornography and find it arousing.  How do we get from “men like porn” to “any expectations of intimate connections with men are impossible so lower your standards”?

I say Jacoby wants to have her cake and eat it, too.  She wants to give women agency and responsibility, and yet still find a way to blame men for the fact that some women like the titillation of virtual sex.  Her feminist ideology requires her to cast the woman simultaneously as equal and oppressed, which is generally not difficult for feminists to do, but the whole sexting thing has Jacoby thoroughly perplexed.

sex

As a feminist, I find it infinitely sad to imagine a vibrant young woman sitting alone at her computer and turning herself into a sex object for a man (or a dog) she does not know — even if she is also turning him into a sex object. Twentieth-century feminism always linked the social progress of women with an expanding sense of self-worth — in the sexual as well as intellectual and professional spheres. A willingness to engage in Internet sex with strangers, however, expresses not sexual empowerment but its opposite — a loneliness and low opinion of oneself that leads to the conclusion that any sexual contact is better than no contact at all.

Susan, here is word for you to look up that I think will assist you in understanding why “vibrant young women” might like to engage in a little explicit pictorial exchange with men they do not know:

Narcissism

narcisissm

True story:  I find it very amusing and arousing to take naughty pictures of myself and send them to my husband. While I expect he gets some pleasure out of that, it’s really just a way for me to confirm my own appeal. Check me out! Don’t I look fabulous?

wall projector

I once sent some photos to Mr. JB’s Blackberry, which he then unthinkingly plugged into his laptop which was connected to a wall projector.  He had intended to retrieve a file which he would then be using for a presentation, and his Blackberry decided to download all his image files for safekeeping.

balckberry

And they were all duly projected onto the wall.  Six feet high.

Oops.

Thank god there were no women at that presentation!  Mr. JB learned very quickly how to prevent private images from being automatically downloaded after that episode.

It really rather amazes me that Jacoby doesn’t seem to get that virtual sex can be incredibly affirmational for WOMEN, who are really just confirming their own appeal.  It’s a relatively safe way to become the lusted after heroine of the romance novel narrative.  The fantasy of devastating appeal can be digitally controlled, altered and manipulated at the woman’s discretion and for her pleasure.

romance

Deep down, what does a man really think of himself when he must feed his ego with phony gasps of erotic pleasure from strangers in a digital vastness? What does a woman think of herself in the same arid zone of sex without sensuality?

I think we’ve isolated Jacoby’s problem right here.  Phony gasps of pleasure?  Done to assuage a man’s fragile ego?  An arid, dry zone?  No sensuality?

It’s normally rather cliché to suggest that frigid bitter harpies loosen their corsets and try getting laid, but in Jacoby’s case, it seems that just might be the very thing!  And for heaven’s sake, stop faking your pleasure!  Trust me, your man’s ego can take a little direction.

If it makes you uncomfortable, Susan, you can try a few practice runs.  Get yourself a nice photo app and try out a few poses.  Learn to ask for what you want.  Rehearse a bit.  And you don’t need to go it alone.

selfie

Get yourself a sexting partner.  And then shoot for Carnegie Hall.

You know how you get to Carnegie Hall, right?

violin

Practice, practice, practise.  And check your camera roll auto-backup settings.

Just in case.

Lots of love,

JB

%d bloggers like this: