In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

The Destruction of Israel: Blame Feminism.

Jill

…right. The leader of Israel’s Men’s Rights party says:

“Seeing as we live in an extremist feminist state, the entire system is unjust, including the courts, welfare services, the police, and the government,” he told Ynet. “The feminists are destroying every good part of this country. A country that doesn’t respect its men has no right to exist.”

Schlusser is especially grieved by the courts’ child custody policies, and claims that one out of every two fathers loses the right to see their children as a result of messy divorces. He says this policy does inestimable harm to the children, especially the males among them.

“Children have a right to see their fathers. Otherwise they will lose their sexual identity. The child that sees a woman in control, in contradiction to nature, may turn homosexual,” he claims.

But Schlusser has a plan to counter the damaging effects of feminist court policies. “The first thing I’ll do if I get into the Knesset is pass a bill for children to be transferred to the father’s custody primarily, and only afterwards every case will be examined,” he said.

When asked regarding his thoughts on equality between the genders he said, “In the past I was pro-equality, but I’ve seen that women don’t know how to accept equality. If you’re good they try to take over. I know this from the 20 years we’ve existed.”

Well Godspeed, sir, and good luck with that pesky 51% of the electorate.

Also the fault of feminism: Human trafficking, rape, and sexual violence. Not even kidding.

16 thoughts on The Destruction of Israel: Blame Feminism.

  1. Seeing as we live in an extremist feminist state

    Bwahahahahah!!! Oh! Oh! Tell it again! That’s the funniest joke EVAR!!!!!

    Ye gads, this dude is serious.

    “In the past I was pro-equality, but I’ve seen that women don’t know how to accept equality. If you’re good they try to take over. I know this from the 20 years we’ve existed.”

    I’m willing to bet that this so-called “equality” was really some stale-ass crumbs from the marster’s table that dudes such as himself were trying to pass off as prime rib.

  2. Here’s what kills me about this business – I think that we should be concerned about disproportion in custody settlements, and we should be aware of the ways our society are bad for men at the same time that they privilege men. The problem is that the loudest voices yelling about it are stupid ass motherfuckers.

    I attended a Men’s Studies conference a few years back, and it was cool frikkin’ awesome. Lots of thoughtful, justice-minded individuals interested in figuring out what it means to be a man (and they actually embraced the diversity within that term! there were papers focusing on intersections of race, gender identity, language, class, body shape(!), and all that fascinating stuff). *Sigh* Why can’t they be the voice of the men’s rights movement?

  3. Schlusser is especially grieved by the courts’ child custody policies, and claims that one out of every two fathers loses the right to see their children as a result of messy divorces.

    You mean the policy of having the primary caretaker be the primary custodial parent? No, that didn’t have sexist origins, no siree.

  4. one day i will be able to tell my children about the “extremist feminist state” that is israel. uh huh. sure. how far we’ve come.

  5. Dang, the last time I was in Israel, the Western Wall only had a tiny women’s section, I had to wear conservative clothing in some neighborhoods to avoid being stoned, and my tour guide felt free to pinch my cheek and pat my head. Now it’s a feminist state? A lot has changed in the past six months, I guess.

  8. The child that sees a woman in control, in contradiction to nature, may turn homosexual.

    Oh, right. I forgot about that entire generation that turned OMG-GAY during the four years that Golda Meir was Prime Minister of Israel.

  10. “Seeing as we live in an extremist feminist state, the entire system is unjust, including the courts, welfare services, the police, and the government,” he told Ynet. “The feminists are destroying every good part of this country. A country that doesn’t respect its men has no right to exist.”

    When asked regarding his thoughts on equality between the genders he said, “In the past I was pro-equality, but I’ve seen that women don’t know how to accept equality. If you’re good they try to take over. I know this from the 20 years we’ve existed.”

    I bet this guy doesn’t get many dates.

    I’m guessing that he’s a big admirer of the Saudi Arabian view on women’s rights.

  11. I do think that parents should share the custody (50-50%) as both parents have to be equally involved in the raising of a child (the patriarchal culture says raising the child is mostly a women’s thing. That is particularly evident in Brazil, where I live. Here, we have paid maternity leave for women, thankfully, and it lasts 4 months. Fathers have it too…. But it only lasts 5 fucking days). But we also have an NGO that defends the 50-50% custody. Its biggest spokespeople are… men. That means want to get involved. Many of them refuse the “macho man who doesn’t want to deal with the kid” setereotype. And that`s awesome. It’s good for the children, it’s good for women. It’s a move towards equality and we gotta support that.

    So I think this guy has the right cause, but he`s defending it for the wrong reasons. His speech is just full of prejudice. “Women don’t know how to deal with equality”??? What’s with these guys that always think they know how WE are supposed to feel? He’s the one who can’t deal with equality as he’s whining about losing some of his privilege.

    Also, he has that ridiculous way of thinking: “kids without fathers turn gay”. That is stupid on so so many levels. First, there’s no scientific evidence for this. Second, my father’s father died before he was born… And he’s straight! Duh. Many boys have single mothers and they don’t “turn” gay because of that. Actually, that’s what’s most stupid about it: the thought that people can just “turn” gay. As if it was something lying underneath all boys and then something as small as playing with a doll could trigger it. If that was true, then their argument that homosexuality is “unnatural” would not apply — otherwise there would be no need to reinforce “macho” behavior so much. AHA! Gotcha! Stupid ass.

    Also, I don’t hear people saying that girls raised only by their fathers will become lesbians. On the contrary: they would become “decent” and “respectful” women! So that shows that people like this politician are more mysoginists than homophobics. The bottomline is that don’t want their sons to “turn” gay because he’d be acting “more like a woman”.

    This makes me so so mad.

  13. This made my head do one full rotation:

    Males can be a violent, dangerous, terrible species, and usually only become decent and outwardly civilised through the intense process of socialising in the patriarchal family.

    Men are evll and can’t be trusted, therefore they must be trusted?

  14. thank you for filing this under Assholes…you have made my day…maybe my whole weekend!

    I don’t like calling people assholes and leaving it there, because it doesn’t raise anyone’s consciousness to do that, but ya know, on a Friday, when we let our hair hang down just a little bit (or some of us wicked women, I hear, spend too much time at those Feminist Bars!!!), I can do with a bit of calling an asshole an asshole…and he can stay hit as far as I’m concerned…

  15. @ Marjorie, I’m with you 100% on all counts – took the words right out of my mouth. It makes it that much more frustrating when bigoted people use important issues in their own right to support their sexist agendas.

  16. “I do think that parents should share the custody (50-50%) as both parents have to be equally involved in the raising of a child (the patriarchal culture says raising the child is mostly a women’s thing. “

    Just reading a paper the other day that judges are coming around to the idea that slicing a kid in half isn’t good for the kid. Kids need a stable environment, and moving house and school district every 6 months fits no reasonable definition of “stable”. It does, however, fit the definition for “control freaky parents who use their kid as a way to seek revenge against their ex and generally fuck with their kid’s emotional well-being”.

    No, both parents do not “have to be involved with the kid’s life” if that involvement creates instability. This is about what’s best for the child, remember?

Comments are currently closed.