Latest Posts

Paul McCarthy and Micheal Jackson doing the washing up.
They were doing the housework even back then..

That is some title heh! You know how the equality denialists are always laying ridiculous claims about all and sundry being feminist. You have read that just as I have. It reminded me of the time that some feminastie stated that "Prostitution was feminist", I kid you not. On those occasions, it's not just a matter of having a snigger or even a laugh, nope, one had to stand up and give himself room in order to have a really good guffaw, one that wakes the neighbourhood and echoes in the street,  you have to control it in order to stop the tears running down your face. That kind of humour is really hard to beat..

If we follow the cognitive dissonance thinking capacity of those irrational gender terrorists, the "rock" issue would indeed be feminist..
The rock comes out of the ground, the ground belongs to the Earth, the Earth is now the New Gaia, that's Mother Earth to the ignorant. So therefore, the rock comes from a mother and the dysfunctional represents all mothers (they claim to) so the rock is feminist. See, it's easy if you put on your pink tinfoil cap on and fail to take suitable medication. Simple really. I just don't know how ordinary people cannot work it out, it's so obvious!!

The next article from AVfM wallows in that same mentality as we read about an insult that was made to an assumed lesbian, we already know about lesbians, apparently the feminist author wanted the men to take care of the insinuated insult, even though two women were present. They cannot even stand up for themselves now and need a man to fight their usual "hurt my feelings" battles, so nothing has really changed except now women have a plethora of rights that men have been denied and this harridan has the temerity to demand that men stand up for the privileged sex and thereby denying the existence of all those "Strong" and "Independent" women which they claim covers the world, really don't exist at all..

Time to stand up methinks, make some room, feel one coming on..


The end of tolerance

Mary Crooks, the executive director of the Victorian Women’s Trust (Victorian Women’s Trust, 2012), wrote an opinion piece in the Australian newspaper, The Age, entitled Breaking The Cycle (Crooks, 2012). This article takes up the call, so often heard nowadays, for men to speak out to end the violence against women and girls.
She starts off like this:
“True story. People hovered in the chemist shop waiting area. She felt one of the guys looking her up and down. In taking his turn to speak with the chemist, he said loudly – ‘You can always tell a depressed lesbian can’t you?’ Mildly discomforted, the chemist remained silent.”
Now how about that? She was “looked up and down”.  The poor thing! Not just up, but down as well.
And as for the loud statement, was that an insult? I can almost hear John Cleese, looking over the ramparts at King Arthur crying in that silly French accent “Your mother is a depressed lesbian.”
And a little translation for Americans: Chemist = Pharmacist.
Now, a quick “whodunit”, Who’s the problem, here? The man who made the loud comment? The woman?
O ye of limited vision! Clearly it was the chemist! Crooks explains:
“By choosing silence, the chemist becomes what filmmaker Abigail Disney describes as a ‘tolerator’ – someone who knows that another’s behaviour is unacceptable, but offers no resistance or contestation.  The ‘tolerator’ becomes complicit in the other’s action. Without challenge, the guilty party receives tacit permission to continue behaving boorishly.”
Now I know that the chemist experienced some mild discomfort and all, but really! Fuck him, right? Fucking tolerator!
So, should the chemist have reached under the counter for his shotgun? Or perhaps given the man poison instead of his hay fever tablets?
Nothing so harsh! Crooks asks:

“Why the silence? The chemist could have said with a soft smile, ‘Mate, there’s no need to talk like that,’ sending the other man a signal that his abuse was unacceptable. Lacking social sanction, his customer might think again and even change his ways.”

In other words, a fairly uninteresting event at the chemist’s shop could have had an entirely different, yet equally trivial, conclusion.
Let me turn a moment here to discuss that noted filmmaker, Abigail Disney. You’ve heard of her, right? Me neither.  I had to look her up.
Apparently Disney made a documentary about “women power” in Liberia. The Liberian women got political, wore white T-shirts,  got rid of the dictator Charles Taylor (sanctions, international pressure and government bankruptcy had absolutely nothing to do with it) and elected a woman, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf in 2006 (PBS, 2011).
You go, girls! Right?
The fact that Sirleaf was re-elected with a Mugabe or Putin like 90.7% of the vote (CIA, 2012) doesn’t cause the likes of Disney to make another documentary. Not even when the UN declares “Liberia is a source, transit, and destination country, principally for young women and children subjected to forced labor and sex trafficking.” The UN also notes that no one has been successfully prosecuted in Liberia for this trafficking since 2005 when new laws were created specifically to outlaw this practice (UNHCR, 2011).
Recently, Sirleaf was in the news again for her country’s laws which criminalise homosexuality. Sirleaf approves of the law. (Ford & Allen, 2012).
All of this is after Sirleaf has been in power more than six years. Whatever is going on in Liberia, it ain’t good. And, it ain’t Patriarchy. My guess is that’s why there’s a lack of follow up documentaries.
So that gives Disney all the credibility of the next person you meet in a bus queue. It also means she’s a “tolerator”.
Let’s get back to Crooks and the tolerating chemist. Now, of course, what Crooks wants to tell us is that it is everyday conversations like these, multiplied throughout the country, that cause an epidemic of rape and violence against women.  We go from mild discomfort to “life-long trauma” in one long continuum of violence.
So, let’s follow the logic. The chemist should have spoken up, but didn’t, so call him out as a tolerator!
But, there were other people in that shop. Why stop at the chemist? Should another man have said to the chemist, with soft smile, “Mate, that’s just tolerating bad behaviour”?
And should another, other man; let’s call him the man who saw the man who saw the chemist tolerating. Should he have said, “Mate, we just don’t need to tolerate a man tolerating.”
Where does it end?
With all this distraction, you almost forget about the woman. She, who will remain nameless, who was looked up and down, and no matter what you might think of her, was not a depressed lesbian (not that there’s anything wrong with that). Isn’t she giving anyone a soft smile and a mild, understanding, respectful, strong, affirming, gentle, caring yet confronting reprimand?
Apparently not! Crooks clearly assumes that women are not up to the task. In a world where they talk about fighting for equality, that surely doesn’t include speaking up at the chemist.  There will be no group of women in white T-shirts voting in a new chemist in this town.
No. According to Crooks, women will only be truly equal when men go to the pharmacy and speak up for them.  And, I presume, the moment men stop speaking up, women will become unequal again.
Is Crooks a feminist or a misogynist?
Is she saying that women really are equal to men, but oppressed? Or are they actually less than men? Is it really that men are superior? So superior, in fact, that they can pretend women are equal by speaking up for them whenever they need it at the chemist, but do it in soft gentle way that seems so feminine that the women think they’re actually in control?
Thankfully, Crooks resorts to the sacred babble to clear it up:
“Men need to learn and practise ways that confront and ultimately supplant the culture of masculinity that sustains violent behaviour. Increasingly, with community education and positive support, men need to be prepared and equipped to confront their male peers in everyday situations – family gatherings, staff rooms, office corridors, parliamentary life, building sites, clubrooms, online, and at the chemist shop – sending clear signals that sexist, abusive and violent attitudes and behaviour are just not on.”
So the example of the chemist shop, if I can wade through the unsupported claims, is not just a badly chosen example because Crooks doesn’t know anyone who has actually been sexually assaulted. She is quite serious. She wants that sort of tolerating to stop at pharmacies throughout the land.
Now where will men get that “community education and positive support” you might ask?  My guess would be from the Victorian Women’s Trust that Crooks runs. Is this letter an opinion piece or a fund raiser? You be the judge.

More to the article..