Posts Tagged 'anti-feminism'

The Handjob’s Fail

handjobOoooh, looks like someone didn’t get an invite to Margaret Atwood’s Christmas party!

Further to this post about an idiotic parent’s shriekout over “The Handmaid’s Tale” at a Toronto area high school, the NatPo’s Barbara Kay also wrote about the story, and I can’t let her verbal gallstone pass without comment.

Never one to miss a feminist-bashing opportunity (whether real or imagined), and stroke her brain-damaged readership into a feverish circle jerk of misogyny, Kay weighs in on the story with characteristic sourness, describing Atwood’s book a “nasty trifecta of feminist bigotry”. It goes downhill from there:

A Handmaid’s Tale isn’t drivel because of the sex and violence, the parent’s concern. It is drivel because it is a scaremongering fantasy cut from whole ideological cloth, whose principal purpose and effect is to stir up hatred of men.

And for over 20 years I thought it was a fictional story about an imaginary futuristic dystopian society. But wait — she’s just getting revved up. Kay then takes furious issue with the book’s premise that the Republic of Gilead (probably modeled on the Islamic Republic of Iran) is a fundamentalist Christian theocracy. Ridiculous! Because as we all know,

Conservative Christians are the last people on earth to impose government-run programs of any kind to govern private sexuality.


Conservative Christians are the last people on earth to impose government-run programs of any kind to govern private sexuality.

Say what!??

Conservative Christians are the last people on earth to impose government-run programs of any kind to govern private sexuality.

That’s the point where the column spun out and burst into flames. Because as anyone who’s been paying attention knows, conservative Christians spend an embarrassing amount of time obsessing over private sexuality and longing to invite the state into the bedrooms of the nation. In fact, they think of little else — the economy could crash and burn around them and they’d still be whining about abortion and gay marriage.

It’s just another one of Kay’s typically delusional anti-feminist, anti-secular and anti-progressive diatribes, using a book that it’s questionable if she’s even read cover-to-cover to support her case. In other words, a nasty trifecta of wingnut bigotry, full of sound and fury, signifying sweet fuck-all.

Feminism: You don’t get to set the terms


Shorter “da wolfe” on the CBA’s ‘Best Feminist Blog’ thread: “Because Sarah Palin was subjected to sexism, I am justified in nominating a non-feminist in the feminist blog category.”

No, really:

I have trouble understanding the offence too, because I am offended. I’m offended that women like Sandy of Crux of the Matter would be not a feminist because of being pro-life… I’m very offended because my perception of Palin’s candidacy is that more than completely disagreeing with her like Balbulican for some it became ok for her to be painted with an image with sexist overtones. skdadl says I’m hung up on her femininity, Charlie Brown. To a degree – and yet mostly in my attempt to not do so – but what I’m really hung up on is people like Heather Mallick who said something in her CBC column about Palin’s “presumption of being a woman”.

Where has this guy been? Offering Sarah Palin as an example of sexism is like getting to Happy Hour at midnight — hello Hillary Clinton? Hello any number of female politicians over the years (that we’ve been allowed into politics)? Even the Iron Lady herself, Maggie Thatcher, was subjected to horrendous sexism. Sexism is as old as politics itself, and it doesn’t ask to see your party affiliation. The difference is, who’s defending women against it? (Hint: it wasn’t conservatives until Palin entered the scene, and even then they erroneously characterized it as “misogyny”, ironically while themselves referring to Palin as a “MILF”.)

Listen: when Palin’s candidacy was first announced, one of the most highly-trafficked feminist blogs in the US, Shakesville, started a “Sarah Palin Sexism Watch”, as they’d done with Hillary Clinton and discussed about others, to defend Palin against the sexist comments and attacks that were sure to come. Not because the bloggers at Shakesville agreed with Palin’s candidacy or her policies (not by a long shot), but because that’s how feminism works.

Obviously there was no corresponding “Hillary Clinton Sexism Watch” from any right-wing sites.

And that’s why it’s inappropriate and unacceptable to nominate non-feminist bloggers to a feminist blog category. We don’t get to *re-define* feminism just because we think the current definition is “too narrow” — feminism is confirmed by word and deed, and it is what it is, not what you think it should be.

Nominating a blogger who says “I’m no feminist” to the Best Feminist Blog category is like nominating an NDP blogger as “best conservative blog” — it’s disrespectful, immature game-playing. And feminist bloggers, real feminist bloggers, get rightfully pissed off about it. Want to be nominated in the feminist blog category? Then be a feminist. If not, fuck the fuck off.

Bullshit as usual

Yo, SUZANNE!  If one of the goals of Status of Women Canada is “an auditor-general for feminism”, why can’t I find it anywhere on their website?


There you have it:  a goal of SWC that’s so huge and threatening that SUZANNE’s been talking about it for 2 years… yet it doesn’t appear on SWC’s website.   In other words, it’s bullshit, and just typical of the lying douchebaggery so near and dear to the shriveled hearts and vacant minds of right-wing feminist-bashers like SUZANNE.

It’s an easy game to play:  just come up with a shriek-worthy phrase that’s bound to make your pinhead readers blow their loads with rage, and repeat as necessary.  “Auditor-general for feminism” — SHRIEEEEK!  That’s a good one, conjuring up ghastly images of Feminazis on the March, kicking in the doors of  Your Home with their Jackboots of Feminist Supremacy!  Unfortunately it doesn’t have much basis in reality.

Few if any of SUZANNE’s anti-feminist talking points do.  Absurd expressions like “feminist supremacy” and “rewriting all laws to conform to feminist thought” don’t stand up to scrutiny because they don’t add up to meaning a whole lot in the real world.  And when you ask the question — what exactly does it mean, can you provide examples, context, you know, good-faith debate-type stuff, what you get is…

SOW!  LOL!  Hyuk hyuk!  Sows at the trough!  Duh yuk yuk yuk!

People like SUZANNE don’t debate in good faith, they spew propaganda for the benefit of their idiotic readership, who are being told what they want to hear and won’t ask questions.  It’s a mistake to engage them respectfully and expect them to respond in kind — their arguments are so weak and easily-derailed, anything that might lend their opponents any legitimacy is unacceptable.  Ultimately any attempt at good-faith debate always comes down to this:haloscancom-comments_1229364143338

Open debate is not only a waste of time to a propagandist, but threatening, since it exposes their dishonesty.  So when things get too hot they declare it pointless, falsely attribute some idea that their opponent has never said they hold, and move on.

This has been yet another installment of “Why It’s A Waste Of Time To Engage Them, They’re Only Fit To Be Mocked And Ridiculed”.


Magnum Opus (Dei)

In which SUZANNE has a multiple anti-femgasm in five parts.  To wit — the Table of Cuntents:


I guess this means we wasted a stamp on her invitation to our Post-Sexist Gender-Neutral Marxist-Lesbian Patriarchy-Smashing Holiday Party.

Maybe if we changed the word scrawled across our party pinata from “PATRIARCHY” to “FEMINISM” she might reconsider?pinata-copy1

Mac Security Portal
Rose's Place
Blogging Change


  • 642,481
[Most Recent Quotes from]


%d bloggers like this: