Feb 18, 2010
Misandry
An Interview with Angry Harry
Harry don't appear Angry to me...... well not at the moment.
You won't find any better....
Harry is Boss!
Feminists are a Bunch of Irrational Ninnies
Feminists are a Bunch of Irrational Ninnies
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
By Carey Roberts
I’ve been waiting all day to unload this, so sit down and get ready for a good belly-laugh…
Remember Susan Estrich? She was Michael Dukakis’ campaign manager for his disastrous presidential run in 1988. But washed-up liberals don’t shrivel up and blow away, they reinvent themselves as pundits and news analysts.
Apparently Ms. Estrich, the Grand-Dame of feminist victimology, has taken great offense at Apple Computer’s decision to name its newest electronic gizmo, iPad. So last week she penned a column called “The Value of Diversity.” Blazing away with her gendered six-shooter, Estrich issued this scathing pronouncement:
“Is there a woman in America who did not laugh, or at least roll her eyes, the minute she heard that the newest, hottest tablet computer from one of America’s most ingenuous companies was going to sound like a feminine hygiene product? The iKotex is what most people I know are calling it, with apologies to Kotex.”
The moral of Estrich’s preposterous complaint? That Apple needs to bring more women into the upper echelons of corporate decision-making.
Really, how can anyone with a claim to sanity come to view the name of a cute digital device as proof of gender oppression?
This isn’t the first time Ms. Estrich got her wires crossed.
Eight years ago Clara Harris ran over her ex-husband David, as their daughter sat in the front seat of the car. I’ve seen the tape, it’s sickening to watch the violent woman repeatedly drive her car over David’s prostrate body. The woman was later convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to hard time.
But Estrich thought the woman’s actions were completely justifiable. “Who could blame [Clara] for getting into her Mercedes and running him over?,” Estrich later asked.
Lindsey Harris, who had pleaded with her mother to cease the slaughter, took issue with Estrich’s bizarre rationalization. The young woman denounced her mother’s rampage as “the ultimate act of selfishness, caring only about obtaining revenge and thinking not one bit about how her horrible act was going to affect me or my brothers, Brian and Bradley.”
Amazingly, there are other persons out there who believe Clara Harris was doing what any woman in full possession of her senses would do.
One such person is Regina Barreca, PhD (gb@ginabarreca.com), professor of feminist theory at the University of Connecticut. Berreca bills herself as putting the “funny in feminism” — but a passing glance at the titles of her books reveals a lady with a well-honed ax to grind: “I’m With Stupid: One Man, One Woman, and 10,000 Years of Misunderstanding Between the Sexes Cleared Right Up,” and “Perfect Husbands (and Other Fairy Tales).”
And what does Berreca have to say about husband-killer Clara Harris? Repeatedly running over her ex was a “great moment of revenge,” she lucidly explains. That adumbration of the truth graces the current issue of Psychology Today.
And then the grand brouhaha over the recent Super Bowl ad featuring former Florida quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother Pam. Conveying a soft-sell pro-life message, the advertisement shows the muscle-clad football player playfully tackling his mother.
Almost everyone in the universe knew it was a joke.
Except for National Organization for Women president Terry O’Neill, who pitiably proclaimed herself Highly Offended: “I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it.” Railing against the network airing the ad, O’Neill exclaimed, “I think CBS should be ashamed of itself.”
Five years ago Susan Estrich had a very public hissy-fit when she discovered only a fraction of the L.A. Times op-eds were written by women. A few days later the Times ran a piece by Charlotte Allen explaining the relative dearth of female writers: “Ideological feminism has ghettoized and trivialized the subject matter of women’s writing.”
Once upon a time, feminists haughtily proclaimed their movement was intended to eradicate the stereotype of air-headed women who couldn’t think calmly or act rationally. Funny how feminism has become a gaudy parody unto itself.
More from Mr. Roberts here....
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
By Carey Roberts
I’ve been waiting all day to unload this, so sit down and get ready for a good belly-laugh…
Remember Susan Estrich? She was Michael Dukakis’ campaign manager for his disastrous presidential run in 1988. But washed-up liberals don’t shrivel up and blow away, they reinvent themselves as pundits and news analysts.
Apparently Ms. Estrich, the Grand-Dame of feminist victimology, has taken great offense at Apple Computer’s decision to name its newest electronic gizmo, iPad. So last week she penned a column called “The Value of Diversity.” Blazing away with her gendered six-shooter, Estrich issued this scathing pronouncement:
“Is there a woman in America who did not laugh, or at least roll her eyes, the minute she heard that the newest, hottest tablet computer from one of America’s most ingenuous companies was going to sound like a feminine hygiene product? The iKotex is what most people I know are calling it, with apologies to Kotex.”
The moral of Estrich’s preposterous complaint? That Apple needs to bring more women into the upper echelons of corporate decision-making.
Really, how can anyone with a claim to sanity come to view the name of a cute digital device as proof of gender oppression?
This isn’t the first time Ms. Estrich got her wires crossed.
Eight years ago Clara Harris ran over her ex-husband David, as their daughter sat in the front seat of the car. I’ve seen the tape, it’s sickening to watch the violent woman repeatedly drive her car over David’s prostrate body. The woman was later convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to hard time.
But Estrich thought the woman’s actions were completely justifiable. “Who could blame [Clara] for getting into her Mercedes and running him over?,” Estrich later asked.
Lindsey Harris, who had pleaded with her mother to cease the slaughter, took issue with Estrich’s bizarre rationalization. The young woman denounced her mother’s rampage as “the ultimate act of selfishness, caring only about obtaining revenge and thinking not one bit about how her horrible act was going to affect me or my brothers, Brian and Bradley.”
Amazingly, there are other persons out there who believe Clara Harris was doing what any woman in full possession of her senses would do.
One such person is Regina Barreca, PhD (gb@ginabarreca.com), professor of feminist theory at the University of Connecticut. Berreca bills herself as putting the “funny in feminism” — but a passing glance at the titles of her books reveals a lady with a well-honed ax to grind: “I’m With Stupid: One Man, One Woman, and 10,000 Years of Misunderstanding Between the Sexes Cleared Right Up,” and “Perfect Husbands (and Other Fairy Tales).”
And what does Berreca have to say about husband-killer Clara Harris? Repeatedly running over her ex was a “great moment of revenge,” she lucidly explains. That adumbration of the truth graces the current issue of Psychology Today.
And then the grand brouhaha over the recent Super Bowl ad featuring former Florida quarterback Tim Tebow and his mother Pam. Conveying a soft-sell pro-life message, the advertisement shows the muscle-clad football player playfully tackling his mother.
Almost everyone in the universe knew it was a joke.
Except for National Organization for Women president Terry O’Neill, who pitiably proclaimed herself Highly Offended: “I am blown away at the celebration of the violence against women in it.” Railing against the network airing the ad, O’Neill exclaimed, “I think CBS should be ashamed of itself.”
Five years ago Susan Estrich had a very public hissy-fit when she discovered only a fraction of the L.A. Times op-eds were written by women. A few days later the Times ran a piece by Charlotte Allen explaining the relative dearth of female writers: “Ideological feminism has ghettoized and trivialized the subject matter of women’s writing.”
Once upon a time, feminists haughtily proclaimed their movement was intended to eradicate the stereotype of air-headed women who couldn’t think calmly or act rationally. Funny how feminism has become a gaudy parody unto itself.
More from Mr. Roberts here....
Feb 12, 2010
Naomi Wolf: sleep is a feminist issue
Naomi Wolf: sleep is a feminist issue
Sleep, say US feminists, is the next big issue for women to address — doing less and enjoying more duvet time is the way to go
Just as Virginia Woolf noted in A Room of One’s Own that one can’t “think well, write well, love well” if one has not “dined well”, so it would seem that women in particular can’t function well if they haven’t slept well. Two of America’s leading feminist super-achievers are on a crusade to get us all to have a lie in, or at least to take a nap.
Arianna Huffington, the powerhouse publisher of The Huffington Post, and Cindi Leive, the equally indomitable publisher of Glamour, have joined forces to identify women’s sleep deprivation as “the next feminist issue”. They cite studies that indicate that women are more sleep-deprived than men, including one that says American women are getting 90 minutes less than the seven to eight hours recommended for someone to be well and perform well.
The pair make a persuasive case that female exhaustion is undermining women’s creativity, judgment, and relationships. What does it profit us to win the whole world only to experience it cranky and irrational from fatigue?
But much as I admire Huffington and Leive, their advocacy for their sleep campaign reveals part of why we are driving ourselves to exhaustion. The pair argue, rightly, that: “The problem is that women often feel that they still don’t ‘belong’ in the boys-club atmosphere that still dominates many workplaces. So they often attempt to compensate by working harder and longer than the next guy. Hard work helps women to fit in and gain a measure of security. And because it works, they begin to do more and more of it until they can’t stop. But it’s a Pyrrhic victory: the workaholism leads to lack of sleep, which in turn leads to never being able to do your best. In fact, many women do this on purpose, fuelled by the mistaken idea that getting enough sleep means you must be lazy or less than passionate about your work and your life.”
Related Links
If we sleep more, they argue, women will become more powerful. “After all, we’ve already broken glass ceilings in Congress, space travel, sports, business and the media — just imagine what we can do when we’re fully awake.”
This is true, and important. But I think we need to add another set of reasons to persuade women to drop it all for a bit and take a nap. For 20 years, the powerhouse feminists of the West have been superheroines: Huffington and Leive rightly cite examples ranging from Madonna and her musculature to the ladies of Congress, but then argue that if we just slept more we could do more.
Read more here.......
(I for one wish some Feminist would sleep all day long. Even if we heard them snoring it would be better than the incessant lies and nagging they do. NOW Get some sleep!)
Sleep, say US feminists, is the next big issue for women to address — doing less and enjoying more duvet time is the way to go
Just as Virginia Woolf noted in A Room of One’s Own that one can’t “think well, write well, love well” if one has not “dined well”, so it would seem that women in particular can’t function well if they haven’t slept well. Two of America’s leading feminist super-achievers are on a crusade to get us all to have a lie in, or at least to take a nap.
Arianna Huffington, the powerhouse publisher of The Huffington Post, and Cindi Leive, the equally indomitable publisher of Glamour, have joined forces to identify women’s sleep deprivation as “the next feminist issue”. They cite studies that indicate that women are more sleep-deprived than men, including one that says American women are getting 90 minutes less than the seven to eight hours recommended for someone to be well and perform well.
The pair make a persuasive case that female exhaustion is undermining women’s creativity, judgment, and relationships. What does it profit us to win the whole world only to experience it cranky and irrational from fatigue?
But much as I admire Huffington and Leive, their advocacy for their sleep campaign reveals part of why we are driving ourselves to exhaustion. The pair argue, rightly, that: “The problem is that women often feel that they still don’t ‘belong’ in the boys-club atmosphere that still dominates many workplaces. So they often attempt to compensate by working harder and longer than the next guy. Hard work helps women to fit in and gain a measure of security. And because it works, they begin to do more and more of it until they can’t stop. But it’s a Pyrrhic victory: the workaholism leads to lack of sleep, which in turn leads to never being able to do your best. In fact, many women do this on purpose, fuelled by the mistaken idea that getting enough sleep means you must be lazy or less than passionate about your work and your life.”
Related Links
If we sleep more, they argue, women will become more powerful. “After all, we’ve already broken glass ceilings in Congress, space travel, sports, business and the media — just imagine what we can do when we’re fully awake.”
This is true, and important. But I think we need to add another set of reasons to persuade women to drop it all for a bit and take a nap. For 20 years, the powerhouse feminists of the West have been superheroines: Huffington and Leive rightly cite examples ranging from Madonna and her musculature to the ladies of Congress, but then argue that if we just slept more we could do more.
Read more here.......
(I for one wish some Feminist would sleep all day long. Even if we heard them snoring it would be better than the incessant lies and nagging they do. NOW Get some sleep!)
Feb 4, 2010
Tim Tebow's 30-second Super Bowl ad
Tim Tebow's 30-second Super Bowl ad has already provoked plenty of criticism.
(Dave Martin/AP)
By Sally Jenkins, Washington Post Staff Writer
February 2, 2010
I'll spit this out quick, before the armies of feminism try to gag me and strap electrodes to my forehead: Tim Tebow is one of the better things to happen to young women in some time. I realize this stance won't endear me to the "Dwindling Organizations of Ladies in Lockstep," otherwise known as DOLL, but I'll try to pick up the shards of my shattered feminist credentials and go on.
This Story
* How to be pro-choice on Super Bowl Sunday
* Ad bringing Super Bowl into the culture wars
* Super Bowl ad isn't intolerant; its critics are
As statements at Super Bowls go, I prefer the idea of Tebow's pro-life ad to, say, Jim McMahon dropping his pants, as the former Chicago Bears quarterback once did in response to a question. We're always harping on athletes to be more responsible and engaged in the issues of their day, and less concerned with just cashing checks. It therefore seems more than a little hypocritical to insist on it only if it means criticizing sneaker companies, and to stifle them when they take a stance that might make us uncomfortable.
I'm pro-choice, and Tebow clearly is not. But based on what I've heard in the past week, I'll take his side against the group-think, elitism and condescension of the "National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time." For one thing, Tebow seems smarter than they do.
Tebow's 30-second ad hasn't even run yet, but it already has provoked "The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us" to reveal something important about themselves: They aren't actually "pro-choice" so much as they are pro-abortion. Pam Tebow has a genuine pro-choice story to tell. She got pregnant in 1987, post-Roe v. Wade, and while on a Christian mission in the Philippines, she contracted a tropical ailment. Doctors advised her the pregnancy could be dangerous, but she exercised her freedom of choice and now, 20-some years later, the outcome of that choice is her beauteous Heisman Trophy winner son, a chaste, proselytizing evangelical.
Pam Tebow and her son feel good enough about that choice to want to tell people about it. Only, NOW says they shouldn't be allowed to. Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikinis selling beer is the right one..
Skipo......
Tebow's ad, by the way, never mentions abortion; like the player himself, it's apparently soft-spoken. It simply has the theme "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life." This is what NOW has labeled "extraordinarily offensive and demeaning." But if there is any demeaning here, it's coming from NOW, via the suggestion that these aren't real questions, and that we as a Super Bowl audience are too stupid or too disinterested to handle them on game day.
(I thought Feminist hated the super bowl?.. Ah.. who cares!)
Read more here.........
(Sally proves that unlike feminist she disagree without getting mad. I luv her reference to NOW, "National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time" or the, "Dwindling Organizations of Ladies in Lockstep," otherwise known as DOLL. Nice Call by Sally)
I'm a Gator Fan also but I got to shout out a "Roll Tide Roll!"
(Dave Martin/AP)
By Sally Jenkins, Washington Post Staff Writer
February 2, 2010
I'll spit this out quick, before the armies of feminism try to gag me and strap electrodes to my forehead: Tim Tebow is one of the better things to happen to young women in some time. I realize this stance won't endear me to the "Dwindling Organizations of Ladies in Lockstep," otherwise known as DOLL, but I'll try to pick up the shards of my shattered feminist credentials and go on.
This Story
* How to be pro-choice on Super Bowl Sunday
* Ad bringing Super Bowl into the culture wars
* Super Bowl ad isn't intolerant; its critics are
As statements at Super Bowls go, I prefer the idea of Tebow's pro-life ad to, say, Jim McMahon dropping his pants, as the former Chicago Bears quarterback once did in response to a question. We're always harping on athletes to be more responsible and engaged in the issues of their day, and less concerned with just cashing checks. It therefore seems more than a little hypocritical to insist on it only if it means criticizing sneaker companies, and to stifle them when they take a stance that might make us uncomfortable.
I'm pro-choice, and Tebow clearly is not. But based on what I've heard in the past week, I'll take his side against the group-think, elitism and condescension of the "National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time." For one thing, Tebow seems smarter than they do.
Tebow's 30-second ad hasn't even run yet, but it already has provoked "The National Organization for Women Who Only Think Like Us" to reveal something important about themselves: They aren't actually "pro-choice" so much as they are pro-abortion. Pam Tebow has a genuine pro-choice story to tell. She got pregnant in 1987, post-Roe v. Wade, and while on a Christian mission in the Philippines, she contracted a tropical ailment. Doctors advised her the pregnancy could be dangerous, but she exercised her freedom of choice and now, 20-some years later, the outcome of that choice is her beauteous Heisman Trophy winner son, a chaste, proselytizing evangelical.
Pam Tebow and her son feel good enough about that choice to want to tell people about it. Only, NOW says they shouldn't be allowed to. Apparently NOW feels this commercial is an inappropriate message for America to see for 30 seconds, but women in bikinis selling beer is the right one..
Skipo......
Tebow's ad, by the way, never mentions abortion; like the player himself, it's apparently soft-spoken. It simply has the theme "Celebrate Family, Celebrate Life." This is what NOW has labeled "extraordinarily offensive and demeaning." But if there is any demeaning here, it's coming from NOW, via the suggestion that these aren't real questions, and that we as a Super Bowl audience are too stupid or too disinterested to handle them on game day.
(I thought Feminist hated the super bowl?.. Ah.. who cares!)
Read more here.........
(Sally proves that unlike feminist she disagree without getting mad. I luv her reference to NOW, "National Organization of Fewer and Fewer Women All The Time" or the, "Dwindling Organizations of Ladies in Lockstep," otherwise known as DOLL. Nice Call by Sally)
I'm a Gator Fan also but I got to shout out a "Roll Tide Roll!"
Feb 2, 2010
Action Alert Standing with men of Scotland
Misandry in DV Enforcement OK with Dept. of Justice; Men in Scotland Disagree
January 15th, 2010 by Robert Franklin, Esq.
Here's a petition that's worth signing. It seems that the Scottish Parliament is amenable to actually hearing from citizens about topics that are important to them. So this organization that calls itself Men in Scotland has a petition on domestic violence. Here it is in full:
Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all publicly funded action (campaigns, publications, action plans, projects, training programmes, etc.) on domestic abuse/violence are overhauled to fully acknowledge the extent to which men are at the receiving end and to address the needs of male victims and their children.
As you can see, it's a modest request - that public monies be spent so as to publicize and deal with domestic violence in ways that reflect its actual occurrence. That would seem to be not only the most basic common sense and the most basic fairness, but also the most intelligent way of trying to lessen the incidence and impact of DV. After all, if you ignore half the victims and half the perpetrators, you're not going to address the issue completely.
Into the bargain, here in the States, we've some impressive studies that show that the surest way for a woman to avoid becoming a victim of DV is to not initiate a physical fight with her partner. So by pretending that women don't commit domestic violence, we remove from those very women the most important tool they have for avoiding injury at the hands of a partner.
The petition can be signed by anyone; you don't have to live in Scotland to do so.
And here's a little item from the U.S. While Men in Scotland is trying to make DV law and practice gender-neutral, we in the U.S. already have policies in place to prevent just that. It's a publication by the Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. It's a gem.
Read more here.......
January 15th, 2010 by Robert Franklin, Esq.
Here's a petition that's worth signing. It seems that the Scottish Parliament is amenable to actually hearing from citizens about topics that are important to them. So this organization that calls itself Men in Scotland has a petition on domestic violence. Here it is in full:
Calling on the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to ensure that all publicly funded action (campaigns, publications, action plans, projects, training programmes, etc.) on domestic abuse/violence are overhauled to fully acknowledge the extent to which men are at the receiving end and to address the needs of male victims and their children.
As you can see, it's a modest request - that public monies be spent so as to publicize and deal with domestic violence in ways that reflect its actual occurrence. That would seem to be not only the most basic common sense and the most basic fairness, but also the most intelligent way of trying to lessen the incidence and impact of DV. After all, if you ignore half the victims and half the perpetrators, you're not going to address the issue completely.
Into the bargain, here in the States, we've some impressive studies that show that the surest way for a woman to avoid becoming a victim of DV is to not initiate a physical fight with her partner. So by pretending that women don't commit domestic violence, we remove from those very women the most important tool they have for avoiding injury at the hands of a partner.
The petition can be signed by anyone; you don't have to live in Scotland to do so.
And here's a little item from the U.S. While Men in Scotland is trying to make DV law and practice gender-neutral, we in the U.S. already have policies in place to prevent just that. It's a publication by the Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. It's a gem.
Read more here.......
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
