Tag Archives: Feminism

Let’s compare two feminists and their hopes for 2015

6 Jan

new year

 

Jessica Valenti is a professional victim, perpetually whining over the most trivial bullshit she can come up with, simultaneously screeching that men should stop everything they are doing and help her confront the horrors of wrapping Christmas presents and buying tampons, while blaming men for all the problems in the world. Help me, you violent, rapey, drunk assholes!

 

Cathy Young is also a feminist, although she can’t be a very dedicated one, as she still embraces patriarchal constructs like facts, logic and reason. Unsurprisingly, she is disliked by a lot of feminists, and even made it onto a list of women attacking women’s rights!!! The catfighting between whiny, harpy, bitchy moaners and rational, evidence-based, factual feminists  has never sent more fur flying!

 

catfight

 

Let’s look at these two and their hopes for the New Year.

 

Valenti gets off to a hate-filled bigoted start filled with contradiction right out of the starting gate.

 

Women and men need to do something about feminism in 2015: not just say that they are feminist, nor just share a few articles about feminist issues, but take concrete actions to make the world a better place for women and girls.

[Emphasis mine]

You hear that men??? Get off your asses right now and make the world better for women! And girls! And women, you can get off your asses too and make the world a better place for other women! And girls!

 

Fuck men and boys! Who cares if the world is better for them or not? Lol!

 

Cathy, in an affront to feminists everywhere, recognizes that women in other parts of the world needs some very basic rights, but when it comes to the United States, the struggle is for gender equality. Cathy privileges neither men nor women.

 

Do we still need feminism in 2015 and beyond—and if so, what kind? Advocacy for women’s basic rights clearly remains an urgent issue in many places around the world. Even in the United States and other advanced democracies, a movement for gender equality still has valid issues to address. Here are a few guideposts to keep such a movement from turning irrelevant, toxic, or both.

 

Jessica then goes on to bemoan the horrid, stupid, violent, frightening, monstrous men with guns running amok shooting up women willy-nilly! Ban the guns! From the men! Domestic violence is unidirectional! Women never shoot their husbands, and certainly not to avoid a messy divorce, amirite?

 

The intersection of gun and intimate partner violence also needs to be at the forefront of feminists’ minds in 2015. Last month, a Philadelphia cop Stephen Rozniakowski was arrested for killing his ex-girlfriend, Valerie Morrow, who had a protective order against him. Jason Down of Oregon had protective orders filed against him by three different women – including his ex-girlfriend Cassie Wagner. After Wagner ended her abusive relationship with Down, she was shot and killed in her home. Wagner has been charged with her murder.

 

Most women who are murdered by their partners or exes are killed using guns. The rate of these killings is so high that, according the Violence Policy Center, women are more like to be killed using a gun than “all other means combined”. It’s not enough that men convicted of domestic violence aren’t allowed to have guns. Those who have restraining or protective orders against them should also have to surrender their weapons and be banned from buying guns.

 

Modus operandi for our Jess – ignore all facts and evidence that suggests intimate partner violence is not only mutual, but women are more likely to throw the only punches. But lol! They’re hitting men, so who cares! We’re only making the world better for women and girls, remember?

 

dv

 

Cathy has a disconcerting tendency to see all the humans as inherently valuable, and cannot prevent herself from caring about men and boys in addition to women and girls. If this were Salem, Cathy would be burned at the stake for heresy.

 

stake

 

Equality should not mean that men and women must be identical in everything—it should mean treating people as individuals regardless of their gender. Too often, the debate about biology and gender pits dogmatic denial of any innate behavioral or psychological differences between the sexes against broad Mars-versus-Venus stereotypes and claims that traditional sex roles are nature’s way. It’s entirely possible that even absent any gender-specific social pressures, women would be much more likely to become full-time parents, nurses, or kindergarten teachers, while men would be much more likely to become CEOs, professional athletes, or engineers. But while many differences in personality traits and cognitive patterns may be innate, they are tendencies, not absolutes. Flexibility is part of human nature, too; and, just as many feminists exaggerate the role of socialization, many conservative critics of feminism underestimate the impact of cultural biases. We can work to reduce such biases and ensure that nontraditional choices are not stigmatized or discouraged—without demanding 50-50 parity in everything.

 

The other side of sexism must be recognized. Former Jezebel editor Lindy West has argued that such “men’s rights” problems as unequal treatment of fathers in family courts or bias against male domestic violence victims are rooted in patriarchy and that feminism is already addressing them. Unfortunately, facts say otherwise. On these and other issues, feminist activists and commentators have tended to side with women, oppose measures to help men, and promote women-as-victims, men-as-bad-guys narratives. Such double standards need to be confronted.

 

Jessica turns her attention to the genuine, life-altering and devastating effects of people being mean on YouTube, Twitter and Facebook, calling for a HugBox in which women are never challenged, confronted, questioned or otherwise treated like adults. She wants some serious technology to carry out her censorship program, because the tools right now just aren’t working. You report someone for offending you with a different opinion, or someone who has the nerve to tweet you your own words, and sooner or later, Twitter figures out no abuse occurred and the whole cycle starts again.

 

But violence and harassment against women isn’t just a problem in “real life.” We must hold companies like YouTube, Twitter and Facebook accountable for the abuse and harassment that happens on their platforms. GamerGate and a US supreme court case addressing online hate speech put to bed any questions about the ubiquity and awfulness of online harassment. Until social media platforms are forced to take hate speech seriously, we’ll be stuck with a point-and-click band-aid instead of real change. A start? Let’s see these companies put serious dollars behind tech solutions, and work with harassment experts on the best way to implement them.

 

Cathy, on the other hand, is more concerned about problems in the real world, but she still stubbornly refuses to embrace the hate and just blame men for everything.

 

The personal is not always political. Men behaving badly to women in personal relationships—unless such behavior has social and institutional support—is not necessarily a gender issue. Neither gender has a monopoly on insensitivity, rudeness, manipulation, dishonesty, or entitlement. What’s more, policing relationships in the name of ideology—for instance, trying to dictate how people should express consent to sex—is always a bad idea. Let us by all means have a conversation on changing sexual norms; but this can be done without using coercion and penalties to enforce someone’s version of healthy interaction, or focusing almost exclusively on male mistreatment of women.

 

A narrative is only as good as its facts. From “women earn 77 cents to a man’s dollar for the same work” to “one in five college women are sexually assaulted by graduation,” a number of statistics commonly used by women’s advocates have withered under scrutiny. So have some recent tales of alleged misogynist infamy, such as the University of Virginia gang rape and cover-up or the supposedly sexist firing of New York Times editor Jill Abramson. Too often, the feminist response to such debunkings has amounted to declarations that the big picture matters more than specific facts and figures. But the big picture had better be made up of accurate details. Campus rape certainly happens; so does workplace sexism. But addressing real problems requires solid research and reporting. We badly need more of both when it comes to gender issues.

 

For Jess, the issue is simple: men are assholes and the best way to show them what jerks they are is to pay women more and men less because vagina and equality.  And if Hillary loses it will because voters hate women.  Jess recommends the radical step of writing a strongly worded email to someone somewhere who will do nothing, but you can feel smug anyways.

 

These issues are hardly the only ones that require more focused action. Campus rape, domestic violence, street harassment, abortion restrictions, unequal pay and access to childcare are as important as they were last year, and, with Hillary Clinton probably running for President again, sexism in politics will likely rear its ugly head just as it did in 2008. If you tweeted about feminism last year, this year consider sending an email to your elected representative in support of a policy about which you care.

 

Understandably frustrated with trivial feminist bullshit, Cathy has a few more practical and concrete activities in mind. And of course, she keeps asserting that key issues affect all the humans, and the ones with penises matter, too. If Cathy had a penis, she would probably get castrated by the sisterhood for her dogged insistence that men are humans worthy of equal consideration.

 

Trivial pursuit is not the path to equity. Feminism is now battling the alleged scourge of men who take up too much space on public transit by spreading their legs? Not only is this selective male-shaming (social media users quickly noted that female riders are guilty of different-but-equal sins), it is also a comically petty grievance that could suggests the aggrieved have no real issues. Half of successful advocacy is knowing to pick one’s battles.

 

The biggest unfinished business of gender equality in the West is “work-life balance” and caregiving. This point was eloquently made by Judith Shulevitz in a recent New Republic debate on feminism’s future. Whatever role discrimination may play, childbearing has a major effect on gender disparities in career achievement. Even women who are satisfied with these trade-offs often feel the conflict acutely. But this tension is not just a women’s issue. In a Pew poll last year, almost as many working fathers as working mothers (50% versus 56%) said it was it difficult to balance work and parenthood. Overall, twice as many fathers as mothers—46% versus 23%—felt they spent too little time with their children.

 

Like many feminists, Shulevitz sees mainly government solutions. Others would counter that the flexibility and creativity of markets and civil society offer far better answers. But this is the kind of debate people should be having in the big tent of a true equality movement.

 

Cathy’s argument can be summed up with the following quote:

 

The perception of pervasive, one-sided male power and advantage can create a disturbing blindness to injustices toward men—even potentially life-ruining ones such as false accusations of rape. A true equality movement should address all gender-based wrongs, not create new ones.

 

Jessica Valenti? She summed up her own argument quite nicely:

 

everyone

 

If all feminists were like Cathy Young, I would have no problem with feminism at all. Unfortunately, the vast majority are like Valenti. They don’t care about anything other than themselves. They can barely make other women a priority, never mind men and boys.

 

Cathy Young might be a feminist according to the dictionary, but judging by her actions, she’s not.

 

She’s a men’s rights activist.

 

Welcome aboard, Cathy. Feel free to man-spread all over the damn place.

 

sofa

 

There’s room for everyone!

 

Lots of love,

 

JB

 

 

Guest post by Captain Weeaboo: How Gender Feminism Became the New Creationism

18 Dec

Loved this Tweet from a parody Salon account, and thought I needed to write about evo psych and feminism.

 

evopsych

 

Turns out my friend Captain Weeaboo did a pretty nice job of addressing the issues, and with permission, here is the post:

 

http://libertarianweeaboo.tumblr.com/post/105531573042/how-gender-feminism-became-the-new-creationism

 

STEM fields are generally not popular among people driven by political ideology, because STEM deals with facts as opposed to humanities which are generally based on confirmation bias and fail to have a coherent method like the scientific method. But one of the scientific fields that is most hated and attacked of them all has to be biology.

 

 
The field of biology makes a lot of discoveries that tell us a lot about the implications of humanity, biology has shown us some inconvenient truths about human nature, such as that we are in the long run not so different from animals after all. Opponents who criticize fields of biology and people who criticize most of STEM are generally ideology driven people. Anthropocentrists who want to conform the facts to make them fit in their beautiful worldview to justify their false sugarcoated lies. It all manifested itself when Darwin and Wallace introduced a scientific argument for evolutionary biology known as natural selection. It made the bold claim that animals and humans where not seperately created in their current form by a creator but rather that biological populations changed over succesive generations and that they all including humans share a common ancestor.

 

 
As expected people where absolutely outraged by this idea, they claimed that this theory of evolution was against God and the bible and considered it blatant heresy. Opponents of evolutionary biology mainly known as the creationists claimed that evolutionary biology and natural selection would justify things like eugenics, satanism, abortion, murder, selfishness and might is right morality. They purely opposed evolution not because they could scientifically disprove the theory, but because they disliked the implications of the theory and feared that it would not fit within their worldview. They where too blinded by their religious and political motivations to even consider the evidence. In modern days evolutionary biology has become overwhelmingly accepted, with an incredible amount of evidence from genetics to paleontology backing the scientific theory up, sure there are still creationist groups out there redressing themselves as “intelligent design” but i’m fairly confident science won the Evolution vs Creation war.

 

 
But now we have a new controversial field in evolution, with an entire new enemy trying to deny human nature. This field is known as Evolutionary Psychology which started with it’s older brother Sociobiology. Both Evolutionary Psychology and Sociobiology aim to seek a middle ground in the fallacious Nature vs Nurture debate and seek to explain cultures, social behaviour and intelligence through genetics and biology, Evolutionary Psychology specifically uses adaption and the principle of Natural Selection for this. The fields where popularized by men like E.O Wilson, Richard Dawkins and Steven Pinker and have till this day contributed a lot to the fields of biology and genetics. However since these fields reject the principle of a Blank Slate and that behaviour is purely shaped by culture and enviroment the field has once again gained a lot of controversy and attacks by ideology driven people scared of the implications.

 

 
In the 20th century it was first attacked by Neo-Lysenkoists like Richard Lewtonin and Stephen Gould who seeked to minimize the roles of genetics and biology as much as possible and outright rejected these fields, while they deny it, they where clearly motivated by political views and fear of biological determinism rather than actually opposing the science behind it. Now in the 21st century a whole other enemy has arrived to attack Evolutionary Psychology, these people specifically criticizing the role of EP in gender.

 

 
They are known as the Gender Feminists, people who view gender as a purely social construct and who seek to eliminate and destroy gender roles as they view it as harmful. These people completely reject the idea that gender has any biological influences, they believe that there is no difference between men and women from a genetic standpoint and that gender is essentially a blank slate molten by environment and culture. As such these feminists directly deny and hate Evolutionary Psychology with a passion, believing it enforces a patriarchy and viewing masculinity as superior, even going as far as to say that the field promotes rape.

 
These viewpoints are generally enforced in pseudoscientific fields like Woman Studies and Gender theory, fields that are strongly influenced by postmodernism and run rampant in academia. If you want to know more about these people i strongly recommend the Norwegian documentary “Hjernevask” which exposes the clear ideological motivation behind Gender Studies while providing clear scientific evidence against it.

 

 
Do you notice how extremely uncanney Creationism and Gender Feminism is? Both strongly oppose evolution in favor of a field that fits their own worldview, and both believe that accepting these evolutionary principles would lead to bad thing. Creationists believing it would lead to eugenics, racism, satanism and social darwinism. While Feminists believe it would lead to patriarchy, sexism, gender roles and biological determinism. While there are many other pseudoscientific beliefs SJW’s hold such as denial of transmedicalism (also known by tumblrites as truscum) and even more crazy the Otherkin/Headmate cultures, I want to mainly focus on feminists social constructionism and their criticism of Evolutionary Psychology.

 

 
Ironically most of the notable criticism of Evolutionary Psychology are self-proclaimed skeptics who you’d usually expect to make fun of such pseudoscience. Rebbeca Watson also known as the Skepchick is an atheist/skeptic notable for attempting to force feminism into the skeptic community. She poorly attempted to attack Evolutionary Psychology but has been excellently rebutted by real skeptics. (Credits to Ed Clint)
http://www.skepticink.com/incredulous/2014/12/12/science-denialism-skeptic-conference-redux/

 

 

Overall here are some of the most notable criticisms of Gender Feminists who tend to attack Evolutionary Psychology.

 

 

1. Evolutionary Psychology enforces Gender Roles and patriarchy
Fallacies: Is/Ought, Appeal to Consequences.

 
Many gender feminists argue that if it is indeed true that genetics and biology plays part in gender that that would mean that people can justify gender roles based and going back to some kind of Hunter-Gatherer society where men are masculine and women and obedient since that is what biology dictates right? The problem with this argument is that it blatantly lumps an is with an ought. Just because the two genders may be biologically different does not mean that we ought to live different. Also should be noted that EP does not entirely reject the enviromental contributions to gender, again it’s a middle ground of Nature and Nurture.

 

 
I myself am a strong supporter in libertarianism which means i support individuals to aim for their own life, liberty and pursuit of hapiness which means i oppose limiting someone’s own freedom and pursuit of hapiness through lumping them into a gender role, i strongly believe a child’s growth is based on his/her own exploration. So you can say that i do not support enforcing traditional gender roles in society. That being said however we should neither completely reject gender differences alltogether and pretend that we can basically raise kids as if they’re the complete other gender. Take David Reiner’s case, he was part of an experiment in order to prove that gender was a social construct, he was biologically a boy but was raised as a girl after medical advice and when his penis was destroyed in a failed circumcision. So was this experiment evidence that gender was learned and not biological? Nope. He killed himself.

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

 

 
So trying to appeal to consequences like this is absolutely nonsense because consequences aren’t a one-way street. Cases like David Reimer clearly show the dangerous consequences that can come by believing gender to be a social construct.

 

 

2. Evolutionary Psychology promotes Racist and Sexist views
Fallacies: Strawman, Appeal to Consequences, Appeal to Emotions

 

 

Quite the contrary, Evolutionary Psychology generally looks at behaviour from a genetic and neurological viewpoint, which includes all races and sexes. And that has actually shown that there are far more genetic similarities. Evolution maintains that humans are one species which means they share pretty much the exact same basic featrues. Sure there are differences in races, sexes and even individuals but these differences tend to be minor and not something EP pays that much attention to.

 
What Evolutionary Psychology is saying that just like how natural selection and genetics shaped our physical properties it can also shape our psychological properties since physical and psychological properties are essentially based on adaptations. And yes just like there are physical differences in races and sexes there are some psychological differences, but again these are so extremely minor compared to the large functions of he human body that it’s entirely irrelevant.

 

 

3. Evolutionary Psychology promotes rape
Fallacies: Strawman, Guilt by Association, Appeal to Consequences, Association Fallacy

 

 
This is probably without a doubt one of the biggest reasons EP has a poor reputation among feminism. This argument is based on the book “A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion” which was a book introducing a EP solution to rape and maintain that rape is inherently biological as an evolutionary behavioral adaptation. It is generally accepted that this is the reason why a lot of animals including Ducks, Great Apes and Dolphins rape but when it comes the humans the subject is obviously controversial.

 
However feminists claiming that because this exists means that EP is wrong is absolutely ridiculous. First of all most EP’s maintain that there is no evidence for this hypothesis in the first place and consider it as possible at best. Second of all even if it is true that it is a biological adaptation it again does not equal that rape can be justified. I believe that studies about the biological nature of rape should be encouraged in order to know more about the psychology behind rape so that we can take measures to prevent it.

 

 

4. Evolutionary Psychology cannot be tested and is therefor unfalsifiable
Fallacies: Unwarranted Assumption

 
This is actually one of the few objections to EP that isn’t clearly motivated by politics. They maintain that when Evolutionary Psychologists make hypotheses they are mere stories that cannot be remotely tested in science like we can test Evolutionary Biology through experimenting with isolating Bacteria to watch them evolve.
Instead of using my admitted limited knowledge on the details of EP research to give examples of how to test these hypotheses here is another great article by Ed Clint providing exactly that.

 
http://www.skepticink.com/incredulous/2012/09/13/how-are-evolutionary-psychology-hypotheses-tested/

 

 

5. There are cultures today and in history that did things different therefore EP is false and everything must be cultural

Fallacies: Nirvana Fallacy, Cherry Picking

 

 
This is a common argument i hear as well, especially in the context of hunter-gatherer societies where they show examples of cultures where the men are the gatherers. Though this is a common misconception of Evolution and science in general. Natural selection does not mean everything has to be absolute, with everything there will be exceptions and contrasts to what is generally expected, same goes with evolutionary biology and statistics. The point is that in general these societies act very much the same.

 
As for hunter-gatherer societies specifically these generally happen under specific circumstances rather than being a manifestation in the culture itself. For example men only gather when food especially meat is scarce and women tend to only hunt for small catch. It’s not that these people do not follow the hunter-gatherer rules but rather that they adapt to different circumstances at times.

 

 

My conclusion is that feminism has turned into a very fringe postmodernist ideology that aims to silence and criticize legitimate science that does not conform to their ideology, and as such are pretty much an example of modern day creationists. I wish that feminists would move their blinders and realize that there is so much more amazing and complex issues in EP rather than gender differences or stuff like that. Who knows.

 

 

Dr.JudgyBitch and a million of her closest friends head back to school

4 Sep

After blogging for a little over ten months, yesterday judgybitch.com hit the one million page views milestone!
champagne

Yay! We started off with quite a few haters who spent oodles of time crafting lengthy screeds explaining why I am a complete idiot and detailing how I should be raped and then murdered, invariably with appalling grammar and sentence structure.

F

Ah, there is nothing quite like the pleasure of hitting “delete” on a 5000 word hate comment. The cyber equivalent of “fuck off”.

Owing to diligent moderation and pretty much zero tolerance for trolls, we now have a core group of readers who are either interested in learning about our ideas, or interested in contributing their own experiences and observations, and I must say, this blog gives me more pleasure than I ever would have anticipated.

So thank you, dear readers. Both Pixie and I are humbled and gratified by your presence, thoughts and support.

phd

Now, having said that, life is about to undergo a very large change that I am just beginning to grasp the ramifications of. My PhD is officially underway, and I have taken the first baby steps towards organizing my lit review, which I expect will take up the better part of the next six months.

A lit review involves reading all of the published research surrounding a particular topic so that A) I understand the topic; and B) I can spot the gaps in both knowledge and theory that need to be filled in.

My topic is Entrepreneurship and Innovation, with a sub-focus that crosses both strategy and finance. In order to earn a doctorate, I am required to conduct research that addresses an actual, real world problem, AND I am required to contribute in some way to the theory that informs my subject matter. Most doctorates go off the rails because they do one thing and not the other, and both requirements must be satisfied in order to be awarded the degree.

ticker

I feel confident that I have chosen my topic well, and that I will indeed fulfill both requirements. The real world problem that I am addressing is fairly straightforward: how can investors, especially venture capitalists, accurately value pre-IPO biotechnology companies? Venture capitalists are always looking for opportunities to invest in companies BEFORE they go public or get acquired by a larger organization, because that’s how you reap the big rewards.

But how do they know which companies are the ones that will succeed?

heart

I’m focusing on two variables that affect how companies are valued at the nascent stage: one has to do with whether or not any given company is part of an established cluster. Should companies working outside established clusters automatically disqualify as objects of interest to investors? Minneapolis, for example, has a biotechnology cluster concentrated on cardiovascular technologies and diagnostics. There is no question that working inside a cluster has measurable, quantifiable benefits, but does that mean investors should ignore companies in Wisconsin who are also developing cardiovascular biotechnologies?

Current literature says yes. The risk profile for companies outside clusters is too high.

I’m going to test what impact distance from an established cluster has on biotechnology companies ultimately securing the capital to go public.

That variable contributes to BOTH knowledge and theory, but just to be certain, I’m going one further, and testing out an analytical technique called a proportional hazards regression that uses one variable as a hazard against which all other variables are tested. At the moment, most variables are analyzed using standard logistics regression, but there is a well-known problem with those regressions, which tend to overstate prevalence ratios. That problem disappears when one variable is singled out as a hazard. Of course, the technique will only work when one of the variables CAN be singled out as a hazard, but in entrepreneurship literature it’s common to have an easily identifiable hazard.

cox

I didn’t come up with the technique myself, of course. I have borrowed from the field of epidemiology, which is almost always concerned with some sort of hazard, and thus prefers the proportional hazards regression, also called a Cox regression.

My goal is to have the technique accepted as a standard analytical methodology in business research, too. That’s my real contribution to theory.

It begins with surveying the literature on clusters, the value relevance of non-financial information for pre-IPO companies and the efficacy of the biotechnology sector in attracting venture capital.

coma

Are we all in a coma yet?

The reason I am telling you all this is that my priorities have shifted. Obviously, taking care of my family and home is the first thing on my list, but the blog has now been bumped down to third place after the PhD. What that means, I have yet to fully understand. At the moment, I expect to be able to keep up my posting schedule, but if a few days go by without any new ranting from me, you can safely assume that I have a school related deadline that has occupied my attention.

I’d like to take a few minutes here to tell you the story of how this blog came about.

letter

After Pixie’s son was born with a very serious, life-threatening medical condition five years ago, I took up the habit of writing her regular letters, which kept her company during long hospital vigils, the outcome of which was almost always unknown. I wanted the letters to be a way for her to physically feel how very much I loved her and cared for her and LittleBear and Mr.PPP, and mostly, I wanted to give her something that was light-hearted and uplifting and to offer a respite from the terror of not knowing if her baby was going to survive the latest round of operations.

Pixie and I came to be full time mothers on very different pathways. My choice was deliberate and I never, ever doubted that I would raise my own children with their father in the bonds of marriage. I set up my life to realize that goal, including the eventual transition back to the workforce, which I am now beginning. Pixie had full time motherhood thrust upon her by her son’s medical issues. She gave up a promising career as a visual artist and documentary short film maker (there’s actually lots of money to be made in short films for corporations, schools, organizations, etc) when her son was born. It is pure speculation to think about what she would have done had LittleBear been born perfectly healthy – she may have given up that career anyways, but life offered her no real opportunity to test that commitment.

We both felt the sting of becoming “invisible” and being sneered at by other women for our foolishness in depending upon men and motherhood to validate our lives and provide our incomes. It wasn’t long before our letters evolved from discussions of Jennifer Aniston’s weight to serious critiques of feminism and the expectation that we sacrifice our most cherished desires on the altar of cash flow. And because we both have sons, we took a keen interest in what the future looks like for them.

sons

Over the course of years, we honed our observations and shared our fears and anger with one another, until one day last October, we skyped and Pixie looked as shell-shocked as I have ever seen her.

LittleBear was dying.

Gangrene had set in to an abdominal wound and the medical team had gently suggested that Pixie and her husband prepare for the worst. All they could do was wait. And there is nothing worse than that feeling of utter helplessness, while you cradle your baby and wait.

I desperately wanted to distract Pixie from the waiting.

I know! Let’s write a blog! We’ll call it JudgyBitch!

Sitting beside her son’s bed in the pediatric ICU, Pixie created the website you see and we brainstormed the content. Every day, she sends me articles and suggestions for what to write and even though we don’t agree on everything, we both agree that the perspective JudgyBitch offers is one sorely missing from the cultural conversation.

And one million other people seem to agree.

Pixie may not appear to be hugely involved in the blog, but she very much IS. She is a sounding board, an editor, a confidante, and most importantly, a dearly loved friend whom I respect and admire.

LittleBear survived the gangrene, and is now the picture of blooming health. His condition can still erupt into life-threatening at any moment, and he has many more surgeries and procedures ahead of him, but for the moment, the sun is shining and he is safe.

This has been quite an incredible journey for us, and I am so pleased to have been able to share it with so many other people. So many people on the blog feel like friends. People I have known for such a long time.

Thank you.

Here’s to the future! Dr. JudgyBitch and her five million friends!

Five million?

Hell. Why stop there?

We want to speak to everyone in the whole world. Even the ones who hate us. Darth Vader turned from the Dark Side eventually, so there’s hope even for feminists, right?

darth

Hope springs eternal. What other choices are there?

Lots of love,

JB

%d bloggers like this: