Lying Media Bastards

April 15, 2007

Sexist Assholery and Its Discontents

This is pretty great, the Anti-Feminist Bingo Card. “If you find yourself getting frustrated in a feminist conversation with someone who seems to just Not Get It, have a peek through the card. Odds are your antagonist will have used 3, 4, 5 or more of these somewhere along the line.” Including all your faves, like “I’m an old-fashioned gentleman,” “women just can’t be objective on gender issues”, and “can’t you take a joke?”

Related is the “How not to be an asshole: a guide for men”. It’s an angry reaction to male dismissal of female concerns regarding harassment/abuse/threats, particular of the online variety. Maybe, it proposes, fellas should spend less time talking about shit they don’t know about.

[both via Pandagon]

Posted by Jake on April 15, 2007 9:52 pm

24 Comments »

  1. womens liberation?!

    women, you better get back in that kitchen and “liberate” me some dinner!!!

    :)

    Comment by Matt H — April 16, 2007 @ 6:00 am

  2. ive got a better idea for a book:

    how to not be an irrational nutcase: a guide for women
    or
    no one cares what you say if you have tits: a guide to life for women
    or
    no one likes a fat chick: reasons for weight loss in women

    god i could go on forever…

    Comment by Matt H — April 16, 2007 @ 6:06 am

  3. So wait, are you being sarcastic, or a prick?

    Comment by Jake — April 16, 2007 @ 8:28 pm

  4. I do believe in feminism. That said, some conversation can get slightly medieval sometimes, a la:

    “What do you mean ‘girl’?” came the response from his female friend.
    “I didn’t mean anything by it,” said the young man.
    “We’re women.”
    “Women. How old are you?”
    “Nineteen.”
    “See? You’re young enough to be a girl.”
    “Okay. Boy.”
    “Come on.”
    “See how it feels?”
    “How does it feel? I’m obviously not a boy.”
    “Why does that offend you?”
    “Because it’s not accurate.”
    “Sure it is. How old are you?”
    “I’m 21.”
    “You’re a boy.”
    “Whatever.”
    “See? That’s how the whole patriarchal structure works. By using diminutive, demeaning names men can keep women down.”
    “I don’t mean it that way.”
    “Sure you do. You just don’t know it.”
    “If I don’t know it, how can I intend it?…Why are you smiling?”
    “Because you can intend it by being part of the male dominated power structure.”
    and on and on…

    Comment by Charlie Baker — April 17, 2007 @ 5:35 am

  5. Hi Jake - nice to meet you, and thanks for the link.

    Comment by lauredhel — April 17, 2007 @ 6:02 am

  6. no, im being 90% honest and 10% sarcastic. most women are crazy. period. just for the record most men are fools/simpletons also.

    it just than men act as they are sopposed to by nature, violent and agressive/protective. women are trapped in a never-ending consumerist lifestly (fasion, celebrity worship, gossip, ect..) and seem to be concerned with frivilous and just plain silly things in life as a group. men are just plain dim witt-ed overall, but that does not support econmic and moral irresposibility as popular women’s culture dictates (fasion industy, makeup industry, ect…). i am shure most feminists wold say that they do not support that kind of female culture but i dont see any other women doing a damn thing anytime soon. too involved readin’ cosmo or “O” magazine …

    without men society will fall. women would probly make the world a better place if they were in charge but ONLY if men were in the picture to protect it from assholes.

    one group cant persist without the other. therfor neither group is better. therfore feminism is just plain silly and ill-informed.

    so yes get back in the kitchen and take care of the children. . .
    its way better than the 9-5 work day. id rather stay at home and watch toddlers, its EZ!!!

    sadly i am pushed in the the archetypal male role as a father and wage earner. . . discrination is a bitch isnt it?

    Comment by Matt H — April 17, 2007 @ 6:57 am

  7. right on!!!

    Comment by Rodger-dodger — April 17, 2007 @ 9:20 am

  8. one day, walking up the stairs of the subway, a man grabbed my ass. i looked back and he leered at me, with a look that said, “what are you going to do about it?” i turned around and kicked him down the stairs.

    if y’all are violent and more aggressive by nature, than i believe we’ll just have to respond with the only language you will understand: castration.

    Comment by that's ms. solanas if you're nasty — April 17, 2007 @ 11:22 am

  9. Hey Matt,

    I checked out my bingo card -

    let’s see, you hit 8 spots.

    None in a row, although I was pretty impressed
    with the wide variety of misgynostic
    excuses you had.

    Thanks for playing.

    Comment by AFeminist — April 17, 2007 @ 11:30 am

  10. P.S. Roger Doger,

    I saw the movie. Roger Dodger
    is a washed up, bitter and sardonic
    playboy who is emotionally void.

    He was constantly upstaged
    by his nephew through
    all the movies, and women
    thought he was a big asshole.

    And they say nowadays we can’t
    find reflections of ourselves in
    popular culture.

    Comment by AFeminist — April 17, 2007 @ 11:32 am

  11. yeah your view is all geat ans stuff but….
    i dont hear any rational rebuttal, just insults.

    a poem and a fucking “bingo” card?
    great arguing points…
    how about a responce/rebuttal?

    or am i just right.

    spare me Afeminist. . . go back to the dyke bar!

    Comment by Matt H — April 17, 2007 @ 1:15 pm

  12. Matt H, did it hurt when you fell down those subway stairs?

    Comment by prhead — April 18, 2007 @ 4:51 pm

  13. yawn…

    Comment by Josh — April 19, 2007 @ 5:06 am

  14. again more insults with no rebuttal…. c’mon now…. change my mind…..

    by the way i never said i supported physical abuse of women at all…

    it’s typical of you to assume so though. your to involved with making up insults that you cant even form a rational argument.

    Comment by MATT H — April 19, 2007 @ 6:34 am

  15. Matt, you’re demanding a “rational rebuttal” to your random assertions? You have yet to say anything worth reading, let alone arguing with.

    Comment by Jake — April 19, 2007 @ 7:04 am

  16. this sounds very rational to me and not just assertions….

    it just than men act as they are sopposed to by nature, violent and agressive/protective. women are trapped in a never-ending consumerist lifestly (fasion, celebrity worship, gossip, ect..) and seem to be concerned with frivilous and just plain silly things in life as a group. men are just plain dim witt-ed overall, but that does not support econmic and moral irresposibility as popular women’s culture dictates (fasion industy, makeup industry, ect…). i am shure most feminists wold say that they do not support that kind of female culture but i dont see any other women doing a damn thing anytime soon. too involved readin’ cosmo or “O” magazine …

    women are simply superficial creatures as a group. are they born this way? no. are they conditioned, yes. duid they choose to accept this way of life? yes! therfore it is thier own problem.

    without men society will fall. women would probly make the world a better place if they were in charge but ONLY if men were in the picture to protect it from assholes. (and life heavy things :P )

    one group cant persist without the other. therfor neither group is better. therfore feminism is just plain silly and ill-informed.

    that being said, i have yet to hear any rebuttal from anyone. simply saying that its not worth a responce is a cop out and just plain lazy. tell me why you think i am wrong….. i want to hear it from you. what i said is truth, you want deny it, but you cant, so you hide and say its not worth a rebuttal….lame. :(

    Comment by MATT H — April 19, 2007 @ 7:50 am

  17. The reason people are saying that your wibble is not worth a response is because you’re not actually presenting an argument, you’re presenting a mish-mash of opinion with zero evidence or theory behind it. You seem to think your remarks are startlingly original “Gotchas!”, but anyone who’s been involved in discussing these issues seriously for more than five minutes has heard it all before.

    Your protection-racket argument is just nauseatingly menacing. Wow. It says a lot more about you than it says about the world.

    I’m not going to touch your broken ev-psych argument with a bargepole, because your base assumptions are (a) wrong and (b) rooted in primary-school stereotypes. But if you really want people to engage with your argument, perhaps you could start by explaining in what way violence and aggression is a “morally responsible practice”? Include references. Ta.

    Comment by lauredhel — April 19, 2007 @ 9:47 am

  18. it just than men act as they are sopposed to by nature, violent and agressive/protective. women are trapped in a never-ending consumerist lifestly (fasion, celebrity worship, gossip, ect..) and seem to be concerned with frivilous and just plain silly things in life as a group. men are just plain dim witt-ed overall, but that does not support econmic and moral irresposibility as popular women’s culture dictates (fasion industy, makeup industry, ect…). i am shure most feminists wold say that they do not support that kind of female culture but i dont see any other women doing a damn thing anytime soon. too involved readin’ cosmo or “O” magazine …

    Honestly Matt, did you just come upon this site with a friend and decide to dick around? If you’ve never actually been exposed to different forms of debate and argument structure, I can see how you might think your ‘argument’ was ‘rational’. If you’re going to speak in generalizations, you better have something to back it up to disprove any resistance from a counterexample. So let’s say if you wanted to say something like men act as they should by nature, and women have socially constructed personalities, you better have evidence against those who raise the argument that women show ‘natural’ things like ‘maternal instincts’, and men have artifical interests like being into fashion (we are in the age of the metrosexual). And if you’re going to say you don’t see women doing anything about it, you better have an excuse for all those groups that show up when you type ‘feminist’ into a search engine. Anyway, I’ve handed you your ass long enough, learn to debate then speak. Cheers.

    -Alyssa

    Comment by Alyssa — April 19, 2007 @ 10:59 am

  19. violence has moral uses. such as protection. if you will notice i specifially denoted that violence PUT ON WOMEN is not what a ment. that is wrong. perhaps i should have simply used the word “protective”. obviosly i dont advocate sposual abuse.

    I love how “lauredhel” trys to psycho-analyze me, cute. honesty allways makes people unhappy.

    question:

    who fights the wars?
    who builds the homes and tends the fields?
    MEN.

    shure women can do this also, but men do it better. men are genetically and evolutinarily built to defend and construct. women are evolutionarily and geneticaly built to bear children and forage. this is not debatable. it is fact, read some anthropology. i dont mean this in some sort of “angry-male” way, please understand it is simply fact, we are animals.

    i am not saying that we should force any gender into a specific role, you have the right as a humanbeing to do as you please, but we cant deny that men and women are different yet equal. neither is better.

    i just feel that men constantly get a unfair bad wrap for simply being themselves. women get a free pass to do as they please without any questioning of thier motives because that is “discrimination”.

    Dont forget wokring men BUILT THIS COUNTRY, FOUGHT IT WARS, AND CONSTUCTED ITS GOVERNMENT. women would not even have a country to debate this in if it was not for men, yet they are allways considred pigs or wife abusers by the Law. they get the SHAFT from divorce courts almost 100% of the time also. unfair. this is because of feminism.

    Feminism is conter productive. it forces people to pick sides and supports inequality.

    as i said before:

    “one group cant persist without the other. therfore neither group is better. therfore feminism is just plain silly and ill-informed.”

    In addition it is not a “school yard” stereotype to consider women to be superficial and concerned with frivilious things. this is a fact in america, (not all but most) young american women and thier spending habbits fules this evil economy in america. the person in the american home that makes the major financial decisions is the wife (FACT). corperations spend millions upon millions on this market because its so profitable and so eager to buy buy buy!

    Popular womens culture is nothing but a huge consumerist gang-bang that perpetuates itself and, to be honest, keeps them wrapped-up in the same streotype they all say they are not a part of.

    what women do you know that dosent flip-out over shoes? very few. women are thier own worst enemy. you never see a man spend thousands on chlothes or shoes or matching blinds or a “qute” purse would you? just plain silly.

    shure men are shovenistic and can be assholes but women are fucking crazy/catty and consumer ho’s. so were both morons, neither is better.

    just come to tearms with it and GET OVER IT LADIES!!!

    that about sums it up. . .

    Comment by MATT H — April 19, 2007 @ 11:00 am

  20. one extra thought:

    women are not BORN the way i say, they are conditioned to act that way by society HOWEVER. . . at an older age most make a consious decision to continue to act that way. therfore that is thier own fault.

    Comment by MATT H — April 19, 2007 @ 11:06 am

  21. Ahh - just realised perhaps you’re relying on anthropology writings from decades ago, along with your own last-night-over-pizza opinion-slamming. I’ve read plenty of anthropology, thanks, just did a double major degree in anthrop and linguistics. (Just, as in, fininshed it yesterday.) The anthropology I learnt had a strong emphasis in questioning and debunking much of the taken-for-granted essentialism of yesteryear, critically examining methodology, scrutiny of the writer’s background and biases. When a pile of assertions is as poorly constructed and offensive as yours, the checkboxes go off, and it’s all over.

    So I’ll just pick out a point or two that you might be able to use in your next stoush:
    1. Read some current anthropology and sociology. Learn from it. Even a 101 book might help you get started, but really higher level stuff is in order to learn more about gender relations, social inequality, power differentials, the mass media, capitalism and economic systems, and so on. Pay particular attention to the fallacies of “essentialism” and “universalism”.

    2. I doubt I’m debating in your country, so don’t try to pull the “WE DEFENDED YOU YOU LAZY SCUM” rouine on random strangers. Not relevant, not interested. It’s one for the card, though, so I thank you for that.

    3. Your blinkered observation that men get a bad rap and women get a free pass for everyday behaviour is too far divorced from reality to catch hold of. I’d suggest making friends with several women, asking them about this, and listening to their answers. Not interrupting, not talking over them, not insisting they listen to your opinion - just listen.

    4. Interesting that you are all resolute on it taking two sexes to make a world, but somehow women construct a frilly high-priced femininity for themselves out of sticks and bones. No?

    5. >what women do you know that dosent flip-out over shoes?

    You’re talking to her. I have better things to do. Your choices now are to
    a- argue from exceptionalism
    b- call me a hairy legged feminist who’s only a feminist cos she can’t get laid
    c- consider that perhaps your assumptions about all women don’t apply to all women, not to even a large proportion of women. Clue: if you don’t want to see women buying shoes, don’t hang out in shoe shops. Another clue: that’s a metaphor.

    6. Spill chucker.

    And now, out of respect for Jake, I shall sign off and sign out, as I suspect he doesn’t really want people feeding you.

    Comment by lauredhel — April 19, 2007 @ 11:21 am

  22. Can’t edit. Just adding: one second you say “men are genetically and evolutinarily built to defend and construct. women are evolutionarily and geneticaly built to bear children and forage.”,

    and the next you say

    “women are not BORN the way i say, they are conditioned to act that way by society .”

    It’s like watching your sociological imagination germinating right here. Let’s hope it doesn’t fall on fallow ground. The potential is there.

    Comment by lauredhel — April 19, 2007 @ 11:24 am

  23. never said ALL women are anything … i said most, check you reading.

    i dont care what new anthro. says, humans are animals, women breed/forage, men protect/construct. humans are simply animals that a good at problem solving. (just for the record universalism is total bullshit)

    so angry lauredhel . . . my truth hurts eh?. . .

    i never said anyone is better than anyone, if you disagree then your supporting inequality…

    and for the record, yes MOST feminist are that way because no guy in thier right mind would fuck them . . .

    sorry i upset the wonderful and all mighty “jake” . . . how dare he have a free exchange of ideas . . . thats just crazy. im not spewing hate i am simply stating my views and you dont have to listen if you dont want to. i love this site, its news is great and everyone is not afraid to speak thier minds.

    nothign wrong with disagrement, it spars discussion. i would hope jake likes that….

    thanks for the good times . . . everyone i show this to just passes out laughing. awsome.

    Comment by MATT H — April 19, 2007 @ 11:36 am

  24. ****************************
    as far a the conditioning comment i was speaking of the consumerist lifestly, not the genetic stuff. simple misunderstanding, perhaps i should have been more specific, my bad.
    ***********************************

    Comment by MATT H — April 19, 2007 @ 12:24 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)



Fatal error: Cannot redeclare class CM_client in /home/lyingmed/lyingmediabastards.com/xml.php on line 287