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

Anti-Christian Bias?

Do UC schools discriminate when they refuse to give credit for classes based on textbooks by Bob Jones University? According to the perpetual-victim Evangelical set, yes.

Now, it’s obviously problematic if religious discrimination is actually going on. But refusing to accept a science credit for a creationist “biology” class doesn’t seem all that unreasonable to me. A student simply won’t be able to compete in an upper-level bio class if all he learned is “God created the earth in seven days, and Darwin was wrong.” Similarly, he’s gonna have a hell of a time in an upper-level lit class if he’s been reading nothing but the Bible and C.S. Lewis for four years, and all he’s been taught to do is extract Christian messages from the books he reads.

Religious education is fine. But when the religious part of it trumps everything else, to the point where students aren’t really learning the things that will prepare them for academic life in college, it seems that the problem is with religious schools not doing their job, not with colleges discriminating.

“She Was Asking For It”

This post by Nick Kiddle over at Alas has caused quite a stir. You can see Nick’s follow-up here. To summarize, Nick went out one night for the express purpose of picking up men for sex. She met two men (paratroopers), and went back to their camp. In the process of engaging with these men (it’s not clear whether or not they were having sex, or what kinds of sexual activities they were engaging in), Nick noticed that one of them was no longer wearing a condom. She told him he could either get another condom and put it on, or they could stop. He didn’t agree to either of her solutions. She put her clothes on and left. Nick writes:

If he had persisted, if he had penetrated me despite my objections, that would have been rape. I had consented to sex, but I had made it clear that condoms were part of the deal. When the condom vanished, so did my consent.

In the following post, Nick writes:

In my ideal world, men would not be tempted to commit rape. Sexual encounters would be handled with negotiation, not with one partner’s insistence on getting what he wants at the expense of another. Men would respect the desires of women to control what happens to their bodies, whether they’ve known each other for ten minutes or ten years.

And in my ideal world, the fear of rape could not be used as a justification for slut-shaming.

Seems reasonable enough to me. But it’s not so clear to some other folks:

Read More…Read More…

Equal-Opportunity Crappy Dating Advice

It seems like every feminist blogger has written, at some point, about the crappy dating advice that comes by way of Cosmo and Glamour and whatever other “women’s” publication helps us out by claiming that you too can attract every man you want if you just follow these 10 simple steps. There are a million reasons to be irritated by such advice — it assumes men all think the same way, it assumes all women are only interested in men, it assumes men can basically be tricked into liking a woman if she tosses her head the right way, and it generally encourages women to behave deferentially and to lie about how they really feel. Not good. But via Wonkette, now those “nice guys” who get NewsMax in their email boxes get to deal with the same shit we do. Only with way more unnecessary capitalization, and over-use of the phrase, “Don’t be a WUSSIE!”. Full text after the jump.

Read More…Read More…

Feminism Killed Natalee Holloway

Is there anything these people can’t blame feminism for?

Because of politically-correct feminist imperatives, girls now know more about sex but less about the opposite sex. There was a time when girls were told that boys were vastly different from them, possessing stronger libidos and bodies. Girls were taught to avoid placing themselves in compromising situations; they were armed with the facts upon which good judgement rested and safety depended.

Now, though, such counsel is sacrilege. Girls’ minds are filled with notions of the sameness of the sexes, with its corollary that they can go where their sisters of yore feared to tread. Why, God forbid that we should tell them that, like it or not, they are the more vulnerable sex, and that this fact of life should inform their thinking.

Not that I’m laboring under the illusion that modern girls are all sugar and spice and everything nice. Owing to feminism, which liberated the fairer sex from common-sense, morality, restraint, and chastity, quasi-harlotry now infects much of contemporary womanhood. A lady close to my heart said it best: “Forty years ago you knew who the bad girls were; now you know who the good girls are.” And now we have a whole generation of girls-gone-wild.

Because knowing about sex and believing that you have the right to go out alone is what’ll rape and/or kill you. Not, you know, actual rapists and murderers.

But equal with feminism is bad parenting — you know, the people who would let their daughters (and it’s just daughers) go on “hedonistic” vacations to Spanish-speaking countries.

Let’s be blunt, one way a daughter could frame this is, “Hey, Mom and Dad, can I go to Cancun for spring break (or to celebrate, or some other occasion)?” But translated that often means, “Hey, Mom and Dad, can I go to Cancun, where I’ll most likely have sex with some libidinous boy you don’t know from Adam – maybe even with lots of boys – drink, smoke, and perhaps even do drugs?” That sounds crazy but is, in essence, accurate. Crazier still is that the parents’ answer is often “yes.”

Now, I’m not a big fan of the entitlement issues that come along with kids who think they “deserve” an exotic vacation for high school graduation or for simply existing. But that aside, at some point parents have to evaluate whether or not they trust their kids, and they have to let their children grow up and make their own decisions. Were I a parent, would I let my 15-year-old go to Aruba alone? Probably not. But do I hope that I’ll know my 18-year-old well enough to be able to reasonably evaluate whether or not they’ll go on a sex-and-drugs spree in a foreign country.

The “girls gone wild” culture is, as far as I can tell, a non-existant part of the majority of young women’s personal experiences, and to be honest I’m sick of every female in my generation being associated with it. Young women are not all running amok flashing our breasts for beads and enticing innocent high school boys into having sex with us. Those of us who do engage in certain behaviors that this author would criticize — sexual performance to please a male audience, etc — do so as a response to a lot of complicated social factors, and it’s over-simplistic to just call those women heathen sluts and assume that their experiences are universal for young women. Hell, I went to Mexico for spring break last year with six other people, and it wasn’t exactly an exercise in unrestrained hedonism — we were in bed by midnight every night, and woke up by 9am (we did drink Pacifico and pina coladas in the pool all day, but that’s about as wild as it got). I’m sure there were plenty of people there who were a lot crazier than we were, and that’s fine — but just because their experience is more visible doesn’t make it more common.

Of course, what no one seems to be pointing out is that, even if we assume that “girls gone wild” are everywhere, it’s men who are videotaping them, encouraging them to behave a certain way, rewarding sexualized and male-pleasing behavior, and making money off of them. Feminism has never said, “You go, girls! Get naked for that guy and let him make millions off your ass!” We just see the dishonesty in slut-shaming and pinning all the blame on women.

Being White Is Hard

You know, those darkies are really ruining New York City when a nice white lady can’t go to the beach because she finds it disgusting, and when all those colored folks dirty up the public pools (before you know it, they’ll be letting them use our drinking fountains, too!).

To the Editor:

As a white woman who lived my first 18 years in the Inwood section of Manhattan and the past 13 years living in the Bronx, I’d like to say there are plenty of public places I cannot go based on my skin color.

There are no public pools I would feel comfortable in, and I have no desire to travel to a less desirable area to use one. I don’t go to Orchard Beach because it’s just disgusting. I can’t go to state parks, even those in Rockland and Northern Westchester Counties, because of the lack of security, noise and filth often created by those who reside in New York City.

So those who live in East Harlem may feel slighted because there are too many white people using the facilities at Randalls Island, but I have felt slighted my whole life in this city for the same reason. Only when you’re white, you’re not allowed to say anything, nor does anyone do anything about it. You just learn to deal with it.

Colleen Sussmann
Morris Park, the Bronx

Colleen, you’re welcome to move to Salt Lake City at any point.

via Gawker.

One School I’m Glad I Don’t Go To

Liberty University. Talk about fear of sex. Check out their code of conduct, and let’s consider what kind of values it demonstrates (this list is compressed):

A $10 fine and four reprimands for:
-Violating the “hair code” (that is, long “feminine” hair for men, or too-short “manly” haircuts for women)
-Horseplay
-“Unauthorized borrowing” (where I come from, we call this “stealing”)
-Improper personal contact (anything beyond hand-holding)

A $25 fine and six reprimands for:
-Going to a dance
-Improper social behavior (why do I have a feeling that most Liberty University students aren’t exactly skilled at what’s considered “normal” social behavior?)

A $50 fine and twelve reprimands for:

-Attending or possessing an R- or NC-17-rated film
-Entering the space above ceiling tiles (what?)
-Participation in an unauthorized petition or demonstration
-Students of the opposite sex visiting alone at an off-campus residence
-Possession and/or viewing of sexually explicit material

A $250 fine, 18 reprimands and 18 hours of community service for:
-Association with those consuming alcohol
-Committing a misdemeanor
-Racial or sexual harassment
-Sexual misconduct and/or any state of undress (get naked, get fined)
-Entering bedroom of the opposite sex on/off campus or allowing the same

A $500 fine, 30 reprimands, 30 hours community service, possible administrative withdrawal:
-Abortion
-Sexual assault
-Committing a felony
-Failure of three Christian/Community Services without reconciliation
-Drug possession
-Involvement with witchcraft, séances or other occultic activities
-“Immorality” (I think this means fucking)
-Spending the night with a person of the opposite sex (otherwise known as “immorality”)
-Refusing an alcohol or drug test
-Unauthorized weapon possession
-Possessing or consuming alcohol

Huh. Now I realize that private schools are generally allowed to limit the Constitutional rights of their students. But a fine for signing a petition or protesting or visiting a member of the opposite sex off campus? A fine for doing anything more than holding hands? Holding abortion, “involvement in witchcraft” (aka any non-patriarchal religion), consuming alcohol and refusing a drug test on par with committing a felony or sexually assaulting someone? Damn. If I went to Liberty, I’d be considered as bad as a rapist for what I’m doing this very second.*

I *heart* Falwellian “values.”

*that is, practicing witchcraft while having my 100th abortion and simultaneously refusing a drug test. All while blogging. Feminists, you know.

T-Shirt Hell

tshirt

Who are the people who buy these shirts? Promoting female stupidity, vapidity and competition is awesome.

(Good t-shirt update below the fold)

Read More…Read More…

Alito and Spousal Notification

Much has been made about Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito’s opinion in which he believed it to be Constitutional to require a married woman to inform her husband before she had an abortion. Glenn Sacks writes an op/ed in today’s LA Times lambasting all us “hysterical” women who kinda like our reproductive rights, and claiming that Alito stands up for the reproductive rights of men. Now, I would love it if Alito stood up for reproductive rights, male and female alike. But that’s not what he’s doing. What’s particularly interesting about the spousal notification issue is that those on the MRA side seem to completely ignore the grounds on which Roe was decided — that is, the Constitutional right to privacy.

Read More…Read More…

Nazis, You Suck

but Doug Giles kind of understands.

Sure, he’ll take a strong anti-Nazi position — look, Nazis, you guys failed to take over the world, so clearly the movement is a loser. Better luck next time. Pick up a Marvin Gaye record and move on. But, as much as Doug dislikes people who follow dead movements (Communists, for example), he dislikes people who more actively dislike those people even more. Black people, for instance, whose constant, unending looting makes them appear “sub-human” to folks like Doug (Nazism, what?). Mr. Giles lives in fear of these folks, who inexplicably become angry when a group of neo-Nazis show up in their neighborhood to protest their very existance.

I mean . . . what’s going to set them off next? Long lines at Taco Bell, sold out tickets to Snoop’s concert, no booths available at the Olive Garden, a two-week waiting period for 22” rims?

…Because being angry at Neo-Nazis who tell you you’re sub-human is sort of like being angry when you can’t get your Taco Bell fast enough. And, really, the Olive Garden? Wouldn’t something about fried chicken and watermelon be a better racist reference? Jeez, Doug, get it together…

The cherry on top of this multi-layered, dysfunctional cake is that we’re told we have to understand the plunderers . . . yea, feel their pain. Look, I understand getting ticked off and wanting to mess someone up. I feel that way at Starbucks every morning when I’m standing behind a JLo wannabe who uses nine words to order her coffee. It’s all I can do to keep from pile driving her skull with a big French coffee press from their display rack for eating into my schedule and for polluting the atmosphere with her preening self-love.

Dude, you’re in Starbucks. If you don’t want to hear someone use nine words to order their coffee, get a 50-cent cup of black from a cart on the street (50 cent! Black! What am I thinking??). And what was that snide comment earlier about black folks getting mad about long lines at Taco Bell? Pot, kettle, etc etc.

And is anyone else disturbed that the simple act of a woman ordering her drink at Starbucks is enough to send Doug into such a rage that he wants to pile drive a coffee press into her skull? That is genuinely frightening, and it sounds like Mr. Giles needs some help.

Since this great land is still the land of opportunity, my suggestion to the violent ones “without” is this: Why don’t you take all the energy you normally exert in choosing which bandana you’ll wear to hide behind, what moving vehicle you’ll pelt with a fist- sized rock, how much crack you’ll smoke before breakfast, determining what alley has the best bottles for Molotov cocktails and what hole you can slink into post-riot and focus that get-up-and-go into getting your GED, going to college and giving your life to Jesus, Moses, Buddha, Tony Robbins, Oprah or someone of higher power?

Right. Because Doug gave his life to Jesus, and now he only fantasizes about breaking the skulls of young women who have the audacity to waste his precious time by ordering their coffee. Particularly when those women are Puerto Rican, or otherwise resemble JLo (perhaps it’s the amazing ass that infuriates him?) That, my friends, is far more productive and laudable than reacting when Neo-Nazis show up on your doorstep.