Who do white men hate more, blacks or women?

That is the question posed by Nora Ephron -- the writer who gave us such sappy movies as "You've Got Mail", "Sleepless in Seattle", and "When Harry Met Sally". (Emphasis mine, of course.)

... But now there are two and we're facing Pennsylvania and whom are we kidding? This is an election about whether the people of Pennsylvania hate blacks more than they hate women. And when I say people, I don’t mean people, I mean white men. How ironic is this? After all this time, after all these stupid articles about how powerless white men are and how they can’t even get into college because of overachieving women and affirmative action and mean lady teachers who expected them to sit still in the third grade even though they were all suffering from terminal attention deficit disorder — after all this, they turn out (surprise!) to have all the power. (As they always did, by the way; I hope you didn’t believe any of those articles.)

To put it bluntly, the next president will be elected by them: the outcome of Tuesday’s primary will depend on whether they go for Hillary or Obama, and the outcome of the general election will depend on whether enough of them vote for McCain. A lot of them will: white men cannot be relied on, as all of us know who have spent a lifetime dating them. And McCain is a compelling candidate, particularly because of the Torture Thing. As for the Democratic hope that McCain’s temper will be a problem, don’t bet on it. A lot of white men have terrible tempers, and what’s more, they think it’s normal.

If Hillary pulls it out in Pennsylvania, and she could, and if she follows it up in Indiana, she can make a credible case that she deserves to be the candidate; these last primaries will show which of the two Democratic candidates is better at overcoming the bias of a vast chunk of the population that has never in its history had to vote for anyone but a candidate who could have been their father or their brother or their son, and who has never had to think of the president of the United States as anyone other than someone they might have been had circumstances been just slightly different.

Hillary’s case is not an attractive one, because what she’ll essentially be saying (and has been saying, although very carefully) is that she can attract more racist white male voters than Obama can. Nonetheless, and as I said, she has a case.

Holy Christ Almighty. Where to even begin.

I think it's fair that Ephron is saying in this piece that white males are dumb, angry, racist, sexist, and unreliable, and only are in positions of power because they are white males. Can we all be in agreement on that?

Good. Because it's all crap.

Why is it that liberals think that, if white men decide not to vote for Obama, it means they HATE black people? Or that if they don't vote for Hillary, they HATE women? Did it ever occur to them that they, like all intelligent people in the United States, don't like their politics? Gee, what a thought.

And what's interesting is how Ephron sneers at the "suffering" white men receive at the hands of mean women, and points out how these white men are "somehow" able to rise above affirmative action, feminism, and the myriad of benefits handed to minorities simply for... being a minority. The difference, my dear Nora, is that most white men don't see themselves as victims. A lot -- but not all -- of minorities, feminists, and liberals do. Therefore, when white men are presented with overwhelming obstacles, they find a way to overcome them. A lot of people who are women and/or minorities do this, too, but it doesn't fit into the "WHITE MEN IN POWER!!" screed.

It's called being in charge of your own life, and not letting anyone stand in the way of achieving your goals but yourself -- liberal victims should try it some time, rather than relying on government programs to give them the world.

And yes, this next election will be decided mainly by white men. They are the largest voting block. In a democratic society, that is the way it works. If the largest voting block was Hispanic women, then Hispanic women would decide. You can't force equality in the amount of people who vote -- although I'm sure liberals would love to. In the name of fairness, of course! To make sure minority voices are heard, they'd be more than happy to silence white male majority voices.

Right, Nora?

But, of course, we can't rely upon white men to do anything except, apparently, keep minorities and women down. And we women know this having dated them.

Nora, if you're reading this, I want you to repeat this after me five hundred times. Actually, just keep repeating it until it sinks into that hate-filled little brain of yours.

MEN. ARE. NOT. THE. ENEMY.

I don't know if you're single or not, but Nora honey, if you are, it isn't because men are unreliable scum. It's probably because you hate men and your insane ideas of what men should be send them running away from you screaming. If you are married to a white man, well... I'd be curious about how it is your husband lives with someone who apparently thinks so lowly of all white men.

And I hate to break it to you, but white men are not the only ones with awful tempers. In fact, I'd argue that women are worse than men are in the temper department. They may not be able to hit as hard or yell as loud, but women are malicious. They're vindictive. They don't forget anything. The quote "Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" is in existence for a reason. Piss off a woman, and she will want to make your life a living hell. Settling the dispute won't be good enough, oh no. This is because most women are, quite frankly, vindictive bitches -- ask any twelve-year-old girl which sex is more cruel. I dare you. And that's probably because most women are more emotional than men are. Men can be more logical; when they're in an argument, most of them are able to keep their emotions out of it. A lot of women can't.

I really don't understand the man-hating that goes on so prevalently. Why are white men looked at so much as the enemy? You can say they're "in power", but there are white male CEOs and white male blue collar workers. It isn't like every white man looks like the Monopoly guy, living in some ivory tower, pointing and laughing at the brutal sufferings of his female and minority slaves. What reality do these people live in?

Rachel wonders if it hurts to see the world that way, and kinda hopes so. I really hope so. How awesome would it be if this kind of hate, stupidity, and ignorance was painful?

I know I'd laugh.

Hat Tip: Rachel Lucas

More from Aliza Shvarts: Ranting against the "Patriarchal Heteronormative"

Oh, boy. Here's video of Aliza Shvarts, the girl I just wrote about earlier today, who made an art project out of artificially inseminating herself as often as possible, and then -- somehow -- giving herself home abortions.

Well, here's Aliza ranting against the "institution", and the "establishment", the "patriarchal heteronormative"... and a lot of other crap. Try to figure out what kind of point she was trying to make, because I couldn't figure out what she was saying. It's the definition of talking and talking without saying a word.

Is she just the definiton of a spoiled rich brat wanting to feel important or what?!

Welcome to the modern feminist movement.

Hat Tip: American Digest

Poor Little Female Bloggers

I don't remember how, but a few days ago I stumbled across this blog post about why there is apparently a lack of female bloggers on Glamour's political blog:

I asked around and heard a lot of different answers. Some say it's because the men got a head start. Jen Moseley, the politics editor at Feministing says, "I think there are a lot of female political bloggers out there. But since most of the 'old guard' big political blogs (funny that something 4-5 years old can be considered old now), were started by men, so they're still looked at as the only ones that matter."

Amy Richards, an author and one of the co-founders of Third Wave, thinks that the amount of attention focused on the boys might be more than just their first-mover status—it's an artifact of their historical control of the media. Richards claims that "Political punditry has always been dominated by men and thus blogging is likely to follow that pattern." Richards agrees that women aren't becoming blogospheric stars as quickly as some of their male colleagues. She says, "I know that women are jumping into this debate with their opinions and perspectives, but because they are doing so in spaces more likely to attract women—they aren't being legitimized."

Ezra Klein agreed with Amy about the ghettoization of female voices, noting that while male political bloggers are known as "political" bloggers, women are more often known as "feminist" bloggers. "There's this rich and broad feminist blogosphere, which is heavily female and very political, but considered a different sort of animal. Is Jill Filipovic a political blogger? Ann Friedman?" he says. Male bloggers are seen as talking about politics with a universal point of view, but when we women bring our perspective to the field, it's seen as as a minority opinion.

But does it have to be that way? Blogs are supposed to be populist and thus it would seem like women could more easily level the playing field here than in other media. Red State's Mike Krempasky says, "You'd think the internet would be the great equalizer or the ultimate meritocracy. 'far from it." Looking at my blogroll, I'd have to agree.

Argh. How do we change that? How loud do women have to shout? Or is it sadly that we have to stop seeing politics from a woman's point of view to get taken seriously?

UGH.

Whenever I read these kinds of articles, I just want to smack the author in the face. Here's what they seem to be completely incapable of understanding: if you think you're a victim, that's all you'll ever be.

First of all, is Arianna Huffington really the best example of a female blogger she could come up with? I can think of several right off the top of my head: Michelle Malkin (duh!), Pamela Geller, Em Zanotti, LaShawn Barber, Mary Katharine Ham, Rachel Lucas, Melissa Clouthier... the list goes on and on, and these are just conservative female bloggers.

Right Wing News even did two pieces on female conservative bloggers, and most of them looked at being a female blogger as an asset.

I've never had one single person tell me my opinion had less merit because I'm a woman, or that I wasn't as good as the guy bloggers out there. I've seen no evidence of a "boy's club" in the blogosphere; in fact, every single male blogger I have had any kind of communication with whatsoever has been gracious, helpful, and more than willing to assist me in building my blogging career.

And good grief, the "ghettoization" of female voices?! What the hell planet is this Megan Carpentier writing from? Because there are more male bloggers than female, female voices are being "silenced" and "ghettoized"?!

Uh, sorry, honey. Not quite. Maybe if you live in Saudi Arabia you could have a point. But here, the only thing keeping female bloggers back is... female bloggers.

Why, then, are there more male bloggers than female? The answer is simple, and it's feminism's favorite catch phrase: choice. Men, in general, are more interested in politics than women are. Sure, women are interested, but I don't think that there are as many women who are diehard political junkies like there are men. Go ahead, feminists, rip my skin off for stating That Which Must Never Be Said: that women do not have the same interests as men do. Anyways, if you want proof, look at blogosphere readership. Most people reading politics blogs are men, so it stands to reason that most political bloggers would be men as well. This also means being a female blogger is more of an asset, and not just because it gives all your male readers something to ogle at (although that's a plus, too). It means you stand out more, your blog stands out more. And that's a good thing.

Women also tend to be more thin-skinned. The insults female bloggers get are very personal, and very hurtful. They very often have nothing whatsoever to do with what you're actually writing about, unless of course you're talking about how ugly you are or perverted sexual tendencies. A lot of women just cannot take that kind of thing. It's like an arrow to the heart for them. After so much of that, a lot of them quit, because it isn't worth the stress and heartache for them.

And why does the internet -- the political blogosphere, specifically -- need to be "the great equalizer"? Why does it matter how many female vs. male bloggers there are out there? There is not one blog I read because of the gender of the author. I read them because of the content in the blogs, what the blogger has to say. I could give two shits whether it's a man or a women writing behind the computer screen. Putting the emphasis on something as shallow as gender accomplishes what? Instead of focusing on the skin-deep, why doesn't this lady focus on the ideas different bloggers put forth?

I don't know where feminists got this idea that all male-dominated careers were unfair to women unless there are an exactly equal number of women participating in these careers, but it's ridiculous. They need to get over the bean-counting. Living in a state of perpetual outrage or victimhood will get you nowhere.

So, Miss Megan, as long as you live in a mindset where Poor Little Female Bloggers can't make it in the Mean Old Boys' Club, then that's exactly what it will always be for you. Meanwhile, those of us who realize that we can make it if we're willing to work hard enough are too busy enjoying our careers as bloggers to worry about the ratio of male vs. female bloggers. Whining about female voices being silenced when it's not even remotely the truth just makes you look insecure and idiotic.

Grow up, and instead of blaming the mean 'ole misogynistic men for your failures, take responsibility for yourself. Start living in the real world. There are a wealth of intelligent, unique, thoughtful voices out there, both male and female. You don't have to be a brain surgeon to see that.

Male Castration = Good; Guns = Bad

Academia shows how tolerant it is of opposing viewpoints (read: NOT LIBERAL) yet again, this time at Colorado College. For liberals, when you spout idiotic drivel that falls in line with liberal orthodoxy, it's OK. Anyone offended is supposed to just smile and take it. Lip service is given to "diversity" and "tolerance", but those values only go skin deep with libs. Diverse skin color and gender = good, diverse opinions = bad. And nowhere is this kind of attitude more prevalent than on college campuses.

Feminists especially love this kind of special treatment. They can say anything they want about men; they can slander them, smear them, and paint them all with a very nasty brush just for the "crime" of being men. Valentine's Day is cancelled in favor of "Victory over Violence" Day to somehow fight domestic abuse. Love between a man and a woman is bad; women must stick to the sisterhood! Consensual sex is likened to rape; flirting to sexual harassment. Man-hating has become synonymous with feminism, and the most radical of these harpies usually reside on college campuses. Men, meanwhile, are supposed to just grin and bear it. One joke about women is deemed sexual harassment and can get a male student kicked off campus. Double standard? Nope, it's just "fighting for women's rights".

FIRE brings us the newest example of how feminists can say whatever they want about men with no repercussions whatsoever, no matter how offensive, and men can't say anything that might be deemed slightly offensive whatsoever without seeing retaliation.

Two students at Colorado College were found guilty of violating the school's conduct code regarding "violence" after they distributed a satirical flyer mocking a publication of the Feminist and Gender Studies program. As part of their punishment, student Chris Robinson and a second student have been required to hold a campus forum discussing issues brought up by their satirical publication. The students have turned to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help.

"One flyer that mentions ‘male castration' is not violence, but a flyer that makes fun of it by mentioning ‘chainsaws' is prohibited? Both should be protected, but the double standard and lack of respect for freedom of speech in this case is simply staggering," FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. "Colorado College is brazenly violating its own promise of freedom of expression, as well as both fairness and common sense. Colorado College should reject both double standards and censorship."

In early 2008, Colorado College's "Feminist and Gender Studies Interns" distributed a flyer called "The Monthly Rag." The flyer included a reference to "male castration," an announcement about a lecture on "feminist porn" by a "world-famous prostitute and porn star," an explanation of "packing" (pretending to have a phallus), and a quotation from The Bitch Manifesto.

As a parody of "The Monthly Rag," Robinson and a second student, who wishes to remain nameless, distributed a flyer in February called "The Monthly Bag" under the pseudonym "The Coalition of Some Dudes." The flyer included references to "chainsaw etiquette," the shooting range of a sniper rifle, a quotation regarding a sexual position from the website menshealth.com, and a quotation about "female violence and abuse" of men from the website batteredmen.com.

Shortly thereafter, Colorado College President Richard F. Celeste sent out a campus-wide email about "The Monthly Bag," stating that "The flyers include threatening and demeaning content, which is categorically unacceptable in this community... Anonymous acts meant to demean and intimidate others are not [welcome]." The e-mail asked the authors of "The Monthly Bag" to come forward. When they did less than an hour later, they were charged with violating the college's values of respect and integrity.

FIRE wrote to Celeste on March 21, 2008, pointing out that any punishment would contradict Colorado College's own policies and advertised commitments to free expression. The school's Diversity & Anti-Discrimination Policy states that "On a campus that is free and open, no idea can be banned or forbidden. No viewpoint or message may be deemed so hateful that it may not be expressed." Celeste, a former governor of Ohio, is abroad, and other administrators receiving the letter have not responded.

Two weeks after their hearing before the student conduct committee, Vice President for Student Life/Dean of Students Mike Edmonds finally wrote to the "Coalition of Some Dudes" students on March 25, stating that they had been found guilty of "violating the student code of conduct policy on violence" and that as a punishment, they would be required to hold a forum to "discuss issues and questions raised" by "The Monthly Bag." Although Edmonds acknowledged that the intent of the publication was to satirize "The Monthly Rag," he wrote that "in the climate in which we find ourselves today, violence—or implied violence—of any kind cannot be tolerated on a college campus." Apparently, according to Edmonds, "the juxtaposition of weaponry and sexuality" in an anonymous parody made students subjectively feel threatened by chainsaws or rifles.

"Not only has Colorado College wrongly punished students for expression that any reasonable person would easily recognize as parody that threatens no one, but according to Edmonds's standard, countless movies, songs, and other artistic endeavors that ‘juxtapose weaponry and sexuality' are inappropriate for the adult students of Colorado College," Adam Kissel, Director of FIRE's Individual Rights Defense Program, said. "Colorado College must live up to its own promises of free expression and allow its students to engage in robust debate and satire—even when some members of the campus community may feel offended."

Just so you know, the "violent" speech was this:

Did You Know...??
The Barrett .50 Caliber sniper rifle has an effective range of 2000 meters?

Yes. I can see how this is much more violent than talking about male castration. Male castration = good; Guns = Bad. Porn = good; Sex tips = bad.

To see the "offensive" flier, click here. You can see the much more offensive "Monthly Rag" flier here.

Two things especially jumped out at me, based on FIRE's findings. One of the worst parts of this is that the male students are being punished because of how some students interpreted the flier!

In response to several complaints about the flyer, [REDACTED] and Robinson received notice on March 3 that the flyer "was allegedly interpreted by members of the campus community as an attempt to target certain campus populations with the intention of devaluing, intimidating, or even threatening harm."

Ginger Morgan, an Associate Dean, sent a letter to the Feminist and Gender Studies Student List giving them tips on how to fight the male students and saying she would willingly speak on behalf of "The Monthly Rag". How is that objective and non-biased?

It's just incredible to me that there aren't more people speaking out against outrages like this. Why do so many women let these harpies pretend that they speak for us? They don't speak for me, they don't speak for a single woman I know, and they don't speak for most American women. And why do men let themselves be slandered without speaking out against it? How is it that parents of students attending these schools don't do something? It's your money paying for this!

And do feminists honestly not see how harmful their man-hating attitude is? Men. Are. Not. The. Enemy.

The thing is, the liberal orthodoxy revolves around having different rules for different people, and that's the law of the land in academia. There's lots of talk of tolerance and debate and diversity, but if any accidentally manifests itself, it gets squashed immediately. Free speech is touted as mandatory, but only when it's speech that fits into the liberal mandate. Otherwise, they scream and screech about how "offensive" and "harmful" it is.

And you know what? A lot of the blame goes on us for just meekly accepting it. We've become so afraid of offending overly sensitive people that we won't speak out, we won't offer bold opinions. We won't tell crazy man-hating feminists to go shove it where the sun don't shine, because we're so afraid of being labeled as intolerant or a bigot. And that should stop. We should take a cue from FIRE and be willing to stand up for our free speech. It isn't a right for liberals only; it's for everyone.

As for women? There's no shame in loving men. Or guns. We should be standing up for the men in our lives more, too -- our husbands or boyfriends, our fathers, brothers, and sons. Staying quiet does just as much harm as the crap that the man-haters spew.

Hat Tip: Ace

Sexism in the Tudor House

Today, I bring you more feminist hysteria over absolutely nothing. At Feministing, they're busy hyperventilating over this promotional shot for Showtime's new series, The Tudors:



Feministing blogger Vanessa yelps:

I'm sure some of you love The Tudors... [b]ut I find this really disturbing.

It's not the first hyper-masculine, sexist ad the show has run ... but this over the top. While it does seem like Henry IIX's character is also sexualized in other ads and the show (the series itself seems to exude sex), spousal strangulation is just not screaming "hot" to me.

(The picture actually makes me wonder if it's a precursor to Anne Boleyn's beheading, which would make it even more unsettling; although I tend to doubt SHO is trying to incorporate historical cues into their marketing.)


I'm really curious to know how fans of the show feel about this image.

I will freely admit that I don't watch The Tudors. I never have, and you know what? I probably never will. But what is it about feminists screeching with outrage over the smallest possible offenses? I mean, jeez, overreacting much?

Really, who looks at that picture and thinks that it conveys "spousal strangulation" just because his hand is on her neck? Personally, I look at the picture and see a very, very sexy ad.

And, oh no, a precursor to Anne Boleyn's beheading?! What horrible sexism was Showtime trying to perpetuate?!

Um, maybe that Anne Boleyn was, in fact, beheaded.

How sexist!

This is the other ad that Feministing is all in a huff over:



Oh. My. Goodness. Look at Henry the 8th, sitting there surrounded by women baring cleavage. How horrifying! Look at how comfortable Showtime is with objectifying women!

Will new wave feminists never realize that by getting so upset about such minor things, they're doing the feminist movement more harm than good? There are women who are truly oppressed around the world, women who suffer real discrimination. But what's really important to the heavy-hitters in American feminism is abortion -- and apparently, ads for TV shows that are too overtly sexual. Interesting, though, is how sexual ads are deemed BAD, and yet women who sleep around like men are GOOD (Amanda Marcotte can tell you all about that).

True oppression, true discrimination, takes a backseat to petty shit like this. And that's why no one takes feminism seriously anymore.

A girl in a boy's world

Feminists like to talk a lot about how women are exactly equal to men, and should be equal to them in every profession, even the "manly" ones.

Well, AG Clifton from Twelve Pounds of Fury has a perspective on what that's really like that's pretty refreshing:

The LAPD is in the process of training its first female SWAT team member and I am hearing the predictable gnashing of teeth and rending of garments because the selection process has been changed. I agree. Ladies who want to pursue that line of work should be held to the same physical standards as the men. If my house were on fire I would much rather have burly 26-year-old men come put it out. For instance. But in spite of the fact that standards have been altered, (some say lowered, I wouldn't know) resulting in two women becoming part of the newest SWAT class, maybe we could give the ladies the benefit of the doubt until we see what they can do.

For ten years I was a welder and bridge carpenter for the Piledrivers union. That is some serious hard work. A large part of the job consisted of packing lumber. Sixteen-foot-long 2X4s. You were expected to carry at least two at a time, and trot with them. Or singlehandedly lift and carry 4X8 sheets of 3/8 inch plywood. All day. Or 50lb. sacks of grout, or 98lb sacks of cement. You get the picture. There were jackhammers and bottle racks and welding machinery to be operated and moved. Nothing was small and nothing was light. A lot of men couldn't hack it. To be female and do that work you have to be one motivated chimp. And I was. I'm also gigantic, but I still had to prove on every job that I was up to the work.

I preferred the men I worked with to the other women. The guys on my crews were pretty easy to please; they just didn't want to feel like they had to do all their job and half of mine. As soon as I demonstrated I was as strong as they were (or stronger -- heh, heh.) I was all right with them. There were only very few times I may have caused an existential crisis in some caveman. "If she's doing the same work as me, does that mean I'm not actually a man?" No, honey. That's not why. The male engineers were a hoot. We'd swap puns while the tradesmen would glower at us.

Female engineers were ... different. I got the distinct vibe off them that they thought I was low-wattage or I wouldn't be out here getting dirty and beat up. I have an engineer joke: What's the difference between Mechanical engineers and Civil engineers? Mechanical engineers design weapons and Civil engineers design targets. I didn't say it was a great joke. I do the setup with a male engineer and get to the punch OK. I do the same with a female engineer and she very patiently explains to me the difference. Oy. My 'sister' tradesmen were a problem, too. They were very happy with affirmative action and demanded they only be given the easiest work. I would usually get partnered up with them and spend a lyrical eight hours doing all the literal grunt work while getting a full dose of feminist rhetoric. The next time you drive by a construction site and there's a lady flagging traffic she's probably a journeyman carpenter making $35 an hour while a $15 apprentice is busting ass doing her job.

Make sure you read the whole thing, it's really interesting.

What strikes me is how feminists want women to be able to join fire departments and police forces and construction crews, etc., without having to meet the same requirements men do. It's just another form of affirmative action, isn't it?

I'm all for women in men's jobs -- if they can do it. Two big thumbs up to this obviously bad-ass chick for being so tough. So many feminists seem to not realize that there reasons there are certain rules and regulations when it comes to training for physically demanding and dangerous jobs. It isn't to keep women down; it's to ensure the safety of those in that profession! So, if a woman can make it through the same training as any other person wanting to be a welder, or a member of the SWAT team, or a firefighter, or whatever, then more power to her.

If not, back off, lady.

An Open Letter to Amanda Marcotte

Dear Amanda Marcotte,

I've long followed your career at Pandagon, and your disastrous run as blogmaster for the John Edwards campaign, often with derision. I'd like to apologize, as I now see the error of my ways.

I see now that you only speak the truth. You understand what is in the hearts of so many women, and you articulate it so well! Amanda, I wish I could be more like you. It's so obvious now that you have no agenda to push; you simply say what so many women are terrified to say for fear of retribution from the male establishment.

It is shameful what the right-wing noise machine did to you when you were working for John Edwards. How dare they manipulate the brave words you wrote on your blog?! I now understand that they simply are too intimidated by strong, feminist, women in the spotlight and therefore organized a right-wing hit job against you. Luckily for women everywhere, though, you survived to keep on trucking over at Pandagon.

I also have to thank you for your wisdom. It's incredibly intelligent to pick your battles in life. Strategy in changing people's perceptions is key. And I think it is very wise of you to focus solely on the discrimination we women face every day here in the United States, and let the oppression that women in the Middle East face every day go. It's not our battle. Maybe once we've secured abortion on demand and women are perfectly equal in every single facet of American life, then we can move on to getting rid of FGM, mercy killings, shariah laws, and burqahs. But for now, I think it's for the best that we concentrate on real problems like abortion and defending Planned Parenthood. It's a good thing we have such smart, capable leaders in the feminist movement today like you.

I guess mainly I'm looking for forgiveness from you, and feminists everywhere, for being so mistaken. The leaders of the new wave of feminism simply know better than us regular gals what is best for us, and I understand that now. You have been right all along; men are the enemy. I've decided to forgo make-up and push-up bras as they are symbolic of caving into the patriarchal ideals of beauty -- no more waxing or shaving or slathering on deodorant and perfume to attract men who only wish to keep me trapped forever in inferiority. I deserve to be loved for myself, as our Mother Earth, Gaia, made me. That is why from now on, I'm going to live my life in the light of love by embracing lesbianism and feminism completely.

So, please accept my humble apology and let me join the sisterhood. I'm willing to work hard to fight the patriarchal establishment. All I'm asking for is the acceptance of you, and my other sisters, and your forgiveness for my ineptitude.

Sincerely,
Cassy Fiano

How dare Taco Bell let a supermodel be photographed?!

Feministing brings us today's outraged-over-nothing report, with Taco Bell's Mysogynist Hot Sauce (I'm not kidding).

The feminists are complaining about Taco Bell's new ad campaign, called "Direct Daniella", in which they've partnered up with Sports Illustrated to give some lucky customer the chance to be the photographer in a Sports Illustrated: Swimsuit Edition photo shoot.

They are, of course, offended and simply OUTRAGED!:

One of our readers sent us an email recently, rightfully confused as to why Taco Bell's hot sauce packets are now printed with a website that leads you to perhaps the creepiest ad campaign ever. "Direct Daniella" has the user follow around a swimsuit model, taking pictures of her in a weird stalkerish webcam way.

Reader Karlen wrote, "What this has to do with lousy 'Mexican' fast food is beyond me." Indeed. So I did a little digging. Turns out, Taco Bell has joined up with Sports Illustrated to promote the magazine's swimsuit issue.

Exotic, huh? It's like a big ole chalupa of sexism and grossness wrapped in some fetishization of women of color. De-licious.

See, folks, not only is this campaign steeped in sexism, but there's also some racism, fetishization, and all around creepiness.

Because Taco Bell is letting a regular Joe photograph a supermodel rather than a "professional".

Last time I checked, wasn't the entire point of modeling to, uh, have your picture taken? Am I missing something? I'm female, and I'm pretty unoffended by this.

Oh, that's right! I forgot. I've been brainwashed by the establishment. I clearly can't be thinking straight, since I don't buy into the feminist orthodoxy of perpetual outrage, where men are all EEEEEEEVIL!. Got it.

Here's how Taco Bell, the evil mysogynists themselves, describe the promotion:

Imagine standing on the shores of an exotic beach, the warm sand beneath your feet while the sun glistens off your back. You are enjoying the sound of the waves crashing behind you, when suddenly a gorgeous supermodel walks up and asks, “Are you my photographer?” Welcome to Taco Bell’s Direct Daniella interactive experience.

Taco Bell® has teamed up with Sports Illustrated and 2008 swimsuit model Daniella Sarahyba to create a one-of-a-kind online swimsuit photo shoot, Direct Daniella, where users become the photographer with the exotic Brazilian beauty. Virtual photographers can get behind the lens beginning on Tuesday, February 12, 2008 at www.DirectDaniella.com.

...

Visitors to the site will “direct” Daniella in their very own online photo shoot, set on the beautiful beaches of Grand Cayman Island. The site will feature several scenes of exclusive footage that visitors will be able to choose from for Daniella’s shoot including the model playing volleyball, lying on the beach, and lounging in a hammock. Interactive photographers can tap into their creative side and select different angles and settings to capture the perfect shot of Daniella. The site also allows users to share their photos with friends by sending them a site link or downloading their own images.

“The hotly anticipated Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue is a great vehicle to reach our core target, and we wanted to involve them from a unique, personalized perspective,” said David Ovens, Chief Marketing Officer, Taco Bell Corp. “Direct Daniella.com is a fun way to engage with our consumers online, getting them inside a swimsuit photo shoot. To grab their attention in-store, we’re utilizing more than 208 million limited-edition purple Direct Daniella.com Hot Border Sauce Packets during the promotion, the first time it has been printed without its iconic ‘sauce wisdoms’.”

Yes. This is truly shocking. Directing a supermodel for a photo shoot -- what was Taco Bell thinking?! And promoting this sexist crap on their sauce packets?! Horrible, absolutely horrible. Women everywhere will suffer because of this, I am telling you. Things like this are why women in the United States are still victims!

And this Daniella... she may think she is a willing participant. But she's just been brainwashed by the EEEEEEVIL! patriarchal establishment. She doesn't really understand what she's getting into, and therefore, this is not just mysogynistic, but sexual harassment as well! Taco Bell is forcing some poor Brazilian girl to parade around a swimsuit in the Caribbean for the enjoyment of men against her will! How dare they?!

Here's a picture of Daniella, which I think pretty clearly shows that she doesn't have much of a problem with parading around in next to nothing in exotic locales, so what these women are whining about is beyond me:


Stories like this are exactly the problem with feminism today. This is why, by and large, the majority of Americans (both male and female) ignore the feminist establishment. Women have, for the most part, achieved equality in the United States. Sure, there are some isolated incidences of sexual harassment or sexism. But it isn't a problem we face every day in the United States anymore. And fighting abortion, my friends, does not count as fighting for "women's rights". Places where women truly are oppressed, like in the Middle East, are almost completely ignored by Gloria Steinem and co. But here in America, feminists don't have much to complain about anymore, so they find ridiculous things to whine and scream about, even when it's a non-story, like this one, rather than focusing on fighting real oppression around the world.

Feminists: GROW UP. Stop overreacting. When you're ready to act like big girls, maybe then we'll start taking you seriously.

Oh, but wait. I'm a female conservative, and therefore, I'm a whore for Republicans and am brainwashed by the male establishment. Disregard everything I just said. Clearly, I can't have come up with these thoughts all on my own.

B.A.M.F. of the day

If you don't know what a B.A.M.F. is, you need to brush on your Dane Cook.

In the meantime, let's just say here's a video of the most bad-ass chick around. Wajiha Al-Huwaider is a women's rights activist in Saudi Arabia, who marked International Women's Day by driving. Doesn't sound like too big of a deal, but women are not allowed to drive in Saudi Arabia.

Way to go, chica.

A Saudi woman activist marked this year's International Women's Day by defying a ban on women driving in the ultra-conservative kingdom and posted a video of her act on YouTube.

Wajiha Huwaidar, a leading activist in a campaign to allow women to get behind the wheel in the desert kingdom, confirmed to AFP on Sunday that it was her in the video posted on the popular website.

She said she recorded the video while she drove in a deserted area in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia and posted it on the Internet on Saturday to mark International Women's Day.

In the video, Huwaidar appeared driving calmly as few cars passed by along the almost empty road.

"Women can drive in the countryside. There is no problem with that. Some women do the school run everyday without being obstructed," she claimed.

"What is important is to allow women to drive in urban areas."

In September, more than 1,100 Saudi men and women signed a petition to King Abdullah urging him to lift the controversial ban on women driving in the oil-rich kingdom, which applies a strict form of Sharia (Islamic law).

The petition -- a brainchild of Huwaidar and other activists -- stressed that Islam does not put constraints on women such as the driving ban and points out that women already "drive in villages and remote rural areas."

A group of 47 women defied the ban on driving by roaming the streets of the capital Riyadh in 15 cars in November 1990. They were swiftly rounded up by police and penalised, while their male guardians were reprimanded.

The following year, a fatwa (religious edict) was issued by the then mufti of Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Abdul Aziz bin Baz, prohibiting women from driving cars.

Women in the oil-rich Gulf desert kingdom are forced to cover from head to toe in public, and cannot travel without written permission from their male guardian.

Here's video:


These are the feminists we should be applauding, and who should be getting credit for standing up for women -- not fakes and wanna-bes like Gloria Steinem and Hillary Clinton.

Alpha females: get off your high horse

So, this morning I was doing my daily check in with my favorite blogs when I happened across Hot Air -- specifically, Hot Air headlines. Today, a story was linked about how Alpha females can't find lasting love because men are "intimidated" by successful women.

Could these women possibly be any more predictable?

They'd had a perfect evening. The wine and conversation had flowed easily and when Clare Connell gazed across the restaurant table at her new beau, a successful merchant banker, she couldn't help wondering if he might be the one.

"It was then that he dropped his calamitous bombshell," recalls Clare, 30, an ambitious and highly successful City management consultant who earns over £200,000 a year. "He said: 'I don't know why women bother having careers. My mother never worked.' And just like that, I realised that he was sadly like many other Alpha males I meet. He didn't want a partner who was his equal, he wanted a Beta female - someone who would pander to his ego and look up to him. In short, like many successful men, he didn't want a confident business person like himself, but a woman who will stay at home and wash his socks."

Needless to say, it sounded the death knell for that relationship.

Clare is not alone. According to Nicola Cairncross, a speaker on women's finance and author of the book The Money Gym: The Ultimate Wealth Workout, the more successful a woman becomes, the harder she will find it is to meet the right man; and, she warns, the more likely it is that any relationship will founder.

Ms. Cairncross, who runs seminars aimed at helping successful women cope with their wealth, says: "Sadly, the clever, attractive Alpha woman who has set her sights on an Alpha man is likely to be very disappointed. Alpha men come home at night after a day of competing in the boardroom and the last thing they want is to compete with an assertive wife as well. He wants an easy life, someone to stroke his fevered brow, and that means marrying a feminine, girly Beta woman who doesn't have the masculine competitive traits of her Alpha sister."

Hearing women whine and complain that men don't want successful women gets on my last nerve, especially the women like this Clare Connell. Guess what, Clare? People have bad luck in relationships sometimes. It will probably take you a long time before you find your Prince Charming -- I had to kiss nothing but toads for five + years before I found mine.

Here's the advice I have to these Alpha females. If you keep going on dates with attractive, successful, smart men who keep rejecting you, didja ever stop and think that, hm, maybe the problem is you?

No, no, no, no, in today's politically correct, more enlightened world, if a man turns down a successful woman, it must be because he's intimidated by her. It couldn't possibly be because maybe she came on too strong, or seemed too needy. It couldn't possibly be because maybe they just wanted different things out of life, or that maybe he just didn't feel the spark. Nope, it's gotta be because he's intimidated by her success.

Because, you know, all Alpha men just want a woman who will lovingly do their laundry, cook and clean for them, pop out kids, and smile the entire time without ever offering a negative opinion. At least, in these women's eyes, that's how Alpha men are.

Take the situation offered. Alpha Male gives an opinion that is just shocking -- shocking, I say, shocking! His mom never worked and he thinks it's the best for a woman. Rather than showing some backbone and having a lively little debate with Alpha Male, or maybe giving him the chance to explain why he feels that way, Little Miss Alpha Female neatly puts him into the same box that she puts every other Alpha Male into without a second thought.

He thinks its best for women to stay home? He must hate all women! He can't take it when a woman is successful! And all of this can be ascertained because Alpha Male has an opinion that Alpha Female disagrees with.

Gee, maybe I missed something, but I thought it was ok for people to disagree occasionally.

And what's interesting is that these Alpha women don't want Alpha men, either. They want the Beta male as they simultaneously castrate the Alpha male for wanting a Beta female. And really, what is so horribly wrong with that? OK, so this guy would like his wife to stay home. To modern-day feminists, that's blasphemy. But really -- what is so wrong with a man preferring for his wife to stay at home? We all have ideals for what we want our families to be. Unless some guy has advocated putting a doggie collar around your neck that will electrocute you if you leave the house, I don't think most men have any intention of forcing their wives to stay home. I think most men are perfectly happy to let their wives do whatever they choose when it comes to working or otherwise.

I also have never (yes, never) met a single man who wanted a girlfriend or wife who would just smile and nod and do whatever he wanted. I have never encountered one of these men. I've never dated one, I've never been friends with one. From what I can tell, most men prefer a strong woman. Most men want a woman who isn't an idiot, who has opinions, and who is his equal, whether she stays at home or works every day. What feminists cannot seem to wrap their minds around is that a stay-at-home mom isn't a mindless drone. Maybe this guy that Clare Connell wrote off so easily grew up seeing his parents have a fantastic marriage, where his mother complemented his father. But no, he thinks a woman should stay at home, so he's an evil, woman-hating jerk who is intimidated by a successful woman.

Another woman in this article whines that a boyfriend left her when her business took off, claiming that he said he resented the amount of time she was spending on her business. I'll presume that as her business took off, it took up more and more of her time, giving her less and less time with her boyfriend. Could it be possible that maybe this guy simply wanted a girlfriend who would make him a priority, and not throw him on the back burner whenever work called? Gee, what a jerk.

The same woman said that several men have told her she is "scary" and "intimidating". I usually find that people who come across as "scary" and "intimidating" seem that way because of how they present themselves. Maybe she oughtta take a look at her attitude and mannerisms so she doesn't come across quite as "scary" and "intimidating".

Of course, plenty of these enlightened women would probably castrate me for all of this. We shouldn't have to change who we are, they'll say. Your boyfriend probably keeps you down and hates women, they'll say. You aren't a strong woman, and that's why you're letting them off the hook, they'll say.

No, no, and no. A big part of making relationships work is compromise, and if these women are completely unwilling to compromise any part of themselves, then no wonder men run away screaming. Only one woman in the article suggested that compromising could be the key to making a relationship work for these women. Compromising is not the same thing as pandering to a man's ego, which is how these "strong", "enlightened" women undoubtedly see it. And, for the record, my boyfriend does not keep me down or hate women, and he loves my career. He's my biggest fan. (So there!)

My advice to these Alpha Females who can't keep a man? Get off your high horse. Take your ego down a few notches. Cut Alpha Males some slack and actually give them a chance. Maybe let them see your softer side, rather than the confident, assertive side (it's all about balance).

But hey, I'm just a chick who writes blogs for a living. I'm not a guy, and I can't really say I know what a man wants. But I think the aforementioned advice will help these ladies out a lot.

For all you Alpha Males out there -- how would you advise these women to finally be able to keep a man?

Mother of the Year Award

I think Britney Spears may have just lost the Mother of the Year Award. No, I'm thinking it should now go to a feminist blogger, Biting Beaver, whose blog you can read by invitiation only. She's the one who enjoyed support from Majikthise, Feministing, and everyone's favorite feminist, Amanda Marcotte.

This wonderful mother apparently hates her son. By her logic, he hates women because he is a teenage boy who looks at porn (I thought just about every teenage boy looks at porn all the time, and even past the teenage years -- I'd be more worried if he didn't look at porn, personally). He also is destined to rape, abuse, hate, and subjugate women in any way possible because -- drumroll, please -- he has a penis!!

Don't believe me? Read it for yourself -- she mentions it in blog posts here and here (emphasis mine -- and there is some swearing):

I've had him read Dworkin, my site, and other places (namely OAG's site) and I still can't unseat this problem. He can recite feminist literature all day long, he can understand the tenets, the ideas behind it, how it links together but he will not allow this knowledge to stand in the way of his porn use.

I know, that as soon as my child leaves my home and moves into his own place that he will be looking at porn immediately. I know that I am raising a problem for women. I know that this child will one day grow and will fully absorb the messages that porn sends to men. I know that my child masturbates to degradation of my people (when I use that phrase I mean womyn) and that with every orgasm he will further solidify his own hatred of and superiority over, women.

I know that there will likely come a day where my son coerces a young woman into sex (rape) and there isn't a damned thing I can do about it. I look into the eyes of my son and they still sparkle like they did when he was a baby, but he's not a baby anymore, he's growing into a man and that man will have trained himself to degrade women before he leaves my home.

But he is not and the way he treats his girlfriend, his sister, his grandmother, and myself make me hate myself for not pouring him down the sink at Planned Parenthood or grabbing a rusty coathanger and doing the job myself even if it killed me.

My boys are good boys, they're smart boys, but they are boys and as such, the Patriarchy want them. The Patriarchy is doing it's level-best to assimilate my boys and bring them into the folds of Male Power and Privilege and it's my job to put the spark of empathy, the fire of self-determination and respect into their young minds to make women safer. To make their wives and girlfriends and fuck buddies safe from them, because left unchecked they could rape, they already have the equipment.

Now, if only I can figure out what to say *sigh*

Isn't that just lovely?

And of course, to new wave feminists, this is not only accepted and seen as normal, but any argument to the contrary is a sign of sexism and hatred of women.

But the best thing about Biting Beaver is that she forces her son to read her site, so he'll be wonderfully aware of how she wishes she aborted him.