Amusing headline of the day.

“Why Feminist Mommies Are Like Pimps.�
SO true.

and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

51 Comments

  1. Posted April 30, 2007 at 11:15 am | Permalink

    Wait, that didn’t even clearly explain WHY feminist mothers are like pimps. Not to mention the fact that I don’t even know if Kim Bassinger is a feminist and that extremely few feminists would actually advocate removing fathers from their children’s lives . . . but you’d think that he could at least bother trying to live up to his headline.

  2. Ninapendamaishi
    Posted April 30, 2007 at 11:18 am | Permalink

    wow… that was a trip.

  3. EG
    Posted April 30, 2007 at 11:19 am | Permalink

    I’d remove Alec Baldwin from my kid’s life. I had a father like that. Unacceptable. Emotional abuse is still abuse.

  4. roymacIII
    Posted April 30, 2007 at 11:21 am | Permalink

    It’s on the second page, Cara- because Kiera Knightly’s mother wrote a screenplay that included her daughter doing a nude scene.
    See, she’s trying to make money off of her daughter doing something sexual. So, it’s pimping.
    It works if you assume:
    1. Knightly’s mother considers herself a feminist.
    2. No non-feminist has ever tried to make a buck off their children doing nude scenes in acting.
    3. You think that doing a nude scene acting is exactly the same as prostitution.
    4. No feminists have a problem with nude scenes in movies.
    All of which are, of course, perfectly reasonable assumptions.

  5. Posted April 30, 2007 at 11:25 am | Permalink

    Oh, I get it now, roymac. So he’s INSANE.
    And EG, I don’t know if your comment was directed at me, but I wasn’t referring to Baldwin in particular (I don’t know enough about it to comment), but the writer’s insinuation that feminists want all fathers removed from children’s lives regardless of whether or not they’re abusive, which is obviously not true.

  6. Posted April 30, 2007 at 11:29 am | Permalink

    I especially like how he apologizes for Alec Baldwin’s totally inappropriate outburst at his daughter, and then complains that men get screwed in custody battles. Not that I don’t think there are perfectly capable fathers who do get screwed by the system, picking Alec Baldwin doesn’t exactly further his argument.

  7. annajcook
    Posted April 30, 2007 at 11:37 am | Permalink

    I was disappointed that the actual opinion piece failed to live up to the standard of humor the headline did. I think The Onion should be called upon to remedy the situation :D .
    Is that natural? Does such a desire – for money – ring true to the heart of traditional mothers and the purpose of motherhood?
    I love it when people ask these totally specious rhetorical questions they think clinch their argument, when in fact they do nothing to advance it. Who in hell believes that desire for money is at the heart of parenthood? And since when is the desire to exploit your children for economic gain what feminism is about? If exploitation of children is what he’s complaining about, why drag in feminists?
    Oh, right. We’re responsible for everything wrong with the world.

  8. SarahMC
    Posted April 30, 2007 at 11:46 am | Permalink

    Whether or not they actually identify as feminists, women who do *anything* wrong are labeled feminists by the right-wing.
    Woman locks her kid in a closet? Feminist.
    Woman kills her abusive husband. Feminist.
    Woman drives drunk. Feminist.
    It makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever.

  9. Phi
    Posted April 30, 2007 at 12:03 pm | Permalink

    Of course “wholesome”, i.e. religious Christian parents NEVER exploit their kids. Why, Jessica Simpson’s father who was a minister and his wife – they would be a perfectly great example of never “exploiting” their daughters ;) .

  10. ElleMariachi
    Posted April 30, 2007 at 12:14 pm | Permalink

    Damn, I thought this was another Onion article.
    I love how the Alec Baldwin incident was turned into “Oh, he’s just frustrated that he can’t spend time with his daughter!” Man, that Kim Basinger–what a bitch! Doesn’t she know that having her ex around, calling their daughter an “inconsiderate pig” will ultimately be for her own good?

  11. SarahMC
    Posted April 30, 2007 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

    You mustn’t have read the whole article, ElleMariachi. Men have a “god-given right” to abuse their children. Women have a god-given right to… nothing.

  12. Heather Nan
    Posted April 30, 2007 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    Notice how his book was called “Musclehead”? Gee, those abstinence only folks sure don’t understand anatomy :)

  13. Posted April 30, 2007 at 12:35 pm | Permalink

    So… he’s trying to evoke sympathy for the poor, downtrodden, loving father who only asks to be allowed to love his daughter while the mean feminist mommies try to cut men out of the children’s lives… and the best example he can come up with is… Alec Baldwin???
    You guys, I think we’re totally misreading this article. This guy is a feminist in disguise (although, not the most intellectually honest one — we’d never pretend that the “best” men to get screwed are like Alec Baldwin). No legit anti-feminist would ever put up such a straw man argument as the other side’s actual poster child.

  14. the frog queen
    Posted April 30, 2007 at 12:37 pm | Permalink

    This just has to be the best quote: “For some time the modern feminists of our society have done all they can to minimize the influence of men, assuage their own conscience for the break-up of their homes, and have turned to sexualizing their children.” I couldn’t stop laughing.

  15. SarahMC
    Posted April 30, 2007 at 12:48 pm | Permalink

    Women who make their daughters trot around on state in kiddie beauty pageants probably aren’t feminists. Just a guess. Nor are women who buy thongs for their their 5-year old-daughters.
    Why do these bird-brains associate anything having to do with sex with feminism?

  16. Posted April 30, 2007 at 12:58 pm | Permalink

    “and have turned to sexualizing their children.”
    Gotta have a hobby.

  17. Posted April 30, 2007 at 1:15 pm | Permalink

    “a father who is being manipulated in not being allowed to have full and normal access that God designed a father and daughter to enjoy.”
    Ewwwwww. Out of context, sure, but for some reason i thought of purity balls, and then my mind broke.

  18. emily
    Posted April 30, 2007 at 1:18 pm | Permalink

    The abuses heaped upon the heads of unsuspecting innocent men by the divorce lawyers paid for by their deceitful, child-hating ex-wives are myriad and mighty according to most of these utter douchebags.
    Every time in history women were given more power (to vote, to have abortions, to divorce without social stigma), men got screwed in the process. Gosh, it sure is HARD being a man these days, isn’t it?
    Ugh.

  19. EG
    Posted April 30, 2007 at 1:41 pm | Permalink

    Hey Cara, my comment wasn’t really directed at anybody–it was just me riffing on the use of Alec Baldwin as a symbol for the machinations of those Evil Feminist Mothers!

  20. Posted April 30, 2007 at 2:02 pm | Permalink

    Personally, I think this whole Alec Baldwin thing was contrived to get him publicity for his upcoming book.

  21. Posted April 30, 2007 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

    The liberated feminists in our society see this as the ultimate victory. Eliminating men from the lives of children in their book is a very good thing.
    Who the hell is he talking about? Who are these mysterious feminists who want to keep all men away from all children? What are their names? Where can I meet them?
    It’s certainly a good idea to keep abusive men away from children, but all men? Is he trying to say that all men are abusive?? That it’s just natural for men to abuse their daughters, and moms and children should just be forced to put up with it because it’s “God’s plan?”

  22. EG
    Posted April 30, 2007 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    I doubt it–or if it was, he had a real emotionally abusive asshole write the script for him. Because word for word, it was exactly the way that kind of man behaves and what he says.

  23. annajcook
    Posted April 30, 2007 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

    Why do these bird-brains associate anything having to do with sex with feminism?
    ‘Cause, craney808, we’re all frigid bitches who can never get any.
    AND, we’re manic whores who never stop doing it, while raising our children to be teenage sluts.
    Eh . . . personally, I don’t see many feminists resorting to the sexualization of their children, since, as Jessica pointed out (thanks Jessica!), we’re too busy enjoying our own sex lives ;) .

  24. Posted April 30, 2007 at 2:12 pm | Permalink

    The liberated feminists in our society see this as the ultimate victory. Eliminating men from the lives of children in their book is a very good thing.
    Once I stopped laughing, this made me very sad.
    For a variety of reasons.
    But I would settle for even a dignified world – one in which mothers didn’t take on the worst feminist attributes of porn producing pimps and rob their daughters of decency, privacy, and dignity.
    I’d settle for a dignified world that didn’t require delousing and a tetanus shot after every visit to Townhall.com.
    -GFO

  25. Posted April 30, 2007 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

    Ew.
    I stepped in Kevin McCullough.
    Now I need to go wash.
    I’m saddenned by the fact that this guy gets paid to write something that a high twelve year old could cobble together, grammar check and send in.
    “Who I Bashed on my Summer Vacation”
    Sheesh.

  26. blucas!
    Posted April 30, 2007 at 2:33 pm | Permalink

    And here I thought he’d never be able to top “Why Feminists Fear Men.”
    “Go into any women’s studies program on the campus of any major university and you will learn that women don’t need men for economic provision, physical protection, or to even achieve sexual orgasm.”
    ahahahahahahaha.

  27. EG
    Posted April 30, 2007 at 2:36 pm | Permalink

    women don’t need men for economic provision, physical protection, or to even achieve sexual orgasm.
    Funniest thing I’ve ever read–thanks, blucas!
    Love it–Oh my God! Those gals not only manage to hold down jobs, but they have figured out how to get themselves off! We men no longer have a purpose in this world! What if…what if…we actually have to be nice to them to get them to hang around with us? The horror!

  28. blucas!
    Posted April 30, 2007 at 2:40 pm | Permalink

    It’s bad though, because it just gives me the mental image of him ineptly trying to pleasure a woman. Ewwwww.

  29. SarahMC
    Posted April 30, 2007 at 2:45 pm | Permalink

    Are women’s studies programs the only places wherein those *inconceivable* ideas are being spread? Hahaha.
    Men obviously don’t need women in order to achieve orgasm but for some reason women should need men. Pfft. Do women’s studies programs have a monopoly on the knowledge that women have hands (and mouths)?
    Sadly, I’m sure he’s not the only guy who thinks a woman shouldn’t be allowed to experience orgasm if she’s not simultaneously pleasing a man.

  30. roro80
    Posted April 30, 2007 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

    Um…I don’t get it. I keep looking for another page to the article, hoping that somehow he’s going to tie the low-brow celebrity gossip he mentions in with something having to do with feminists, or pimps for that matter. I think if this article were to make any sense, we need to add a few more necessary logical jumps to roymac’s list:
    5. Celebrity gossip is in some way representative of real life.
    6. The “pimping” would never have happened if Knightly’s father were in the picture.
    7. You know what? This is a rediculous list that could go on forever. I’m having a hard time finding a single sentence in the entire piece that actually makes logical sense or is backed up by anything resembling fact.
    This guy’s a peach.

  31. blucas!
    Posted April 30, 2007 at 3:30 pm | Permalink

    To be fair, I’m pretty sure this dude’s against male masturbation as well.
    I’m equal sure it doesn’t stop him from doing it furiously while thinking about that Lohan/Knightley scene.

  32. SarahMC
    Posted April 30, 2007 at 3:40 pm | Permalink

    Even if he does oppose male masturbation, he acknowledges that it’s possible.
    Re: female masturbation, it’s not that he’s against it; he doesn’t want to believe it’s even possible!

  33. blucas!
    Posted April 30, 2007 at 3:48 pm | Permalink

    I wish he’d write an article explaining why. That would be comic gold. I’m sure we’d get and Ace-of-Spadeseian argument about how women can only get off on commitment.

  34. yesbut
    Posted April 30, 2007 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

    “Here is a mother, who seeks for her own gain to put her daughter on screen, disrobed and in sexual engagement with another girl – for the pleasure of complete strangers… for the dirty minds of those who would pay money to see such projected on large screens.”
    Yeah, apparently sex between women only happens for the benefit of others. Probably meaning men. Which is news to me, because I always thought it was about, you know… like, women. The women who are having the sex.
    Did anyone watch his video blog from the day before? Apparently 22 years old (Knightley’s age) is “barely legal.” Now I’m from Canada and all, but I’m pretty sure you can’t describe a consensual sex scene between two 22-year old women as child porn. Which he kind of does. In fact, I’m pretty sure that at 22, Knightley makes up her own mind about what to do on-screen. And I’m pretty sure she would stand to make a hell of a lot more money from it than her mom, who’s just a writer.
    I can’t believe I’m seriously arguing with this man….

  35. Gillian
    Posted April 30, 2007 at 4:00 pm | Permalink

    Let’s see, we’ve got strawfeminist, MRA crap, scare quotes, “won’t somebody think of the children??” and including a barely-relevant photo of a hot, young female celeb while simultaneously expressing shock and disgust that an adult woman’s mother doesn’t want to lock her up with a chastity belt.
    Bingo!

  36. donna darko
    Posted April 30, 2007 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

    Eliminating men from the lives of children in their book is a very good thing.

    The thing I don’t get about MRAs is their idea feminists don’t want men in the lives of children. Uh feminism has always encouraged men to do half the child care and housework. If men want equal custody they have to do have the child care. Only 1% of stay at home parents are men. Men have to change their image to one that enthusiastically takes on child care. Child custody is not a top concern for feminists because feminists would rather men did half the child care in the first place. We never marched for custody because it’s assumed we take care of them and get custody in the case of breakup. If men enthusiastically took on child care in attitude and effect, courts would award custody to men half the time.

  37. donna darko
    Posted April 30, 2007 at 4:26 pm | Permalink

    DUH!
    If only 1% of stay at home parents are men, men are not trying to change their image or enthusiastically embracing child care. This is not to say millions of men don’t embrace the role and work outside the home at the same time but MRAs should understand why it isn’t on the feminist agenda. They should take it up with the courts and try to explain to them that many men ARE embracing child care. They are BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE like we don’t have enough fucking problems besides changing men’s image for them.

  38. donna darko
    Posted April 30, 2007 at 4:31 pm | Permalink

    For those not in the know, custody is the NUMBER ONE ISSUE for MRAs and MRAs are feminist’s number one enemy. Because MRAs don’t get it.
    This is not our problem. Take it to the courts. Explain to them you want men to do half the child care.
    AHA.
    Gotcha.

  39. UltraMagnus
    Posted April 30, 2007 at 4:45 pm | Permalink

    I couldn’t wrap my mind around any of what he said. Really, if he thinks that Kiera Knightly’s mom is a “pimp” for putting her ADULT daughter who can make DECISIONS for herself, in her film then gee, I’d hate to think of what he’d think of Dario Argento, for, you know, supporting his daughter when she made a mainstream porn film, using herself as an actress to film live sex scenes.
    Do they have way too much time on their hands? He’s chastising Keira K’s mother when he knows NOTHING about the situation, when there’s yet ANOTHER sex scandal in dear leader’s camp. But something that actually affects the country should be ignored now shouldn’t it?

  40. Posted April 30, 2007 at 7:31 pm | Permalink

    See, I’m so glad there were comments for me to read – because, as I find the case to be with most conservative writings – I found it completely unreadable. I didn’t make it to the second page because I had to keep rereading things, wondering what I was missing, why didn’t I get it, and then I just had to stop because OMG he’s ILLITERATE and CRAZY!!!
    So, thanks.

  41. Mina
    Posted April 30, 2007 at 8:00 pm | Permalink

    “Who in hell believes that desire for money is at the heart of parenthood?”
    Yeah, isn’t it often totally the other way around?
    I got the impression that parenthood is at the heart of many people’s desire for money (sprucing oneself up to attract someone to have a child with, travel fares to family reunions with one’s grandchildren, and all the possible expenses in between).

  42. stellaelizabeth
    Posted April 30, 2007 at 9:27 pm | Permalink

    beyond his excellent points about parenting and his utter grasp of feminism, he sure could use a proofreader.
    and, because i’m petty:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-Yf3c5QDLI
    thish ish the author of the pieche.
    if you’re up for a quick vom, feel free to check out the clip where he calls out democrats for ‘hypocritically’ crying out against the violence in virginia but also ‘supporting the violence’ of an intact dilation & evacuation. but of course he doesn’t call it that.

  43. Thorn
    Posted May 1, 2007 at 2:03 am | Permalink

    Wait, I’m a feminist mom, but I didn’t get daughters, all I got were these sons! Does that mean I don’t get to be a pimp too??

  44. roymacIII
    Posted May 1, 2007 at 8:21 am | Permalink

    We men no longer have a purpose in this world! What if…what if…we actually have to be nice to them to get them to hang around with us? The horror!
    Curses!
    My master plan, reveiled!

  45. Shadow32
    Posted May 1, 2007 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

    “The worst feminist attributes of porn-producing pimps????”
    Pimps have feminist attributes?
    I can’t help it, I want to laugh.

  46. manda
    Posted May 1, 2007 at 1:44 pm | Permalink

    Sorry, Thorn, no pimping for you right now. You do, however, get to turn your boys into whiny little girly-men, and I’m sure you can find a way to have fun with that you evil man-hating shrew. I suppose, though, when an overbearing feminist woman gets a hold of one of your emasculated sons (assuming you don’t turn them all gay), then you might be able to pimp out your daughters-in-law. :P

  47. Thorn
    Posted May 1, 2007 at 5:27 pm | Permalink

    Manda: Oooh! I can pimp out future daughters-in-law!! Excellent!
    It means I have to be a little more careful, though. I was just going to emasculate let and let the sexual orientation chips fall where they may, but I’ll have to revise my plan on that score now. ;)

  48. smeg
    Posted May 1, 2007 at 9:23 pm | Permalink

    the problem with the whole ‘alec baldwin’ thing is that celebrity automatically puts your actions, good and bad, into “debatable discussion”. what people forget is that many celebrities are just normal people we would classify as ‘assholes’, who happen to be in a spotlight.
    alec baldwin is such a celebrity. while working as a VIP escort at a theme park, i had the misfortune of guiding mr. baldwin around the park. when we got to the spiderman show, he sat in the handicap seating, because it was in the front. i asked him to move so the people in wheelchairs could use that seating, because it is the only accessible seating for them.
    i won’t go into our fight, but i eventually kicked his ass out of the park when he started yelling, “BUT I’M ALEC BALDWIN! WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?”
    fact of the matter is it doesn’t matter if it’s the mother keeping the child from the father or vise versa… if the person is a rotten and abusive parent, the other parent should protect the child. it just so happens that there are more reported cases of women keeping the children and “closing off the father”. but every story is different and to say women as a whole are trying to ‘defeat’ men as parents is ridiculous. i’d rather have an equal partner in the task that do it alone.

  49. smeg
    Posted May 1, 2007 at 9:25 pm | Permalink

    the problem with the whole ‘alec baldwin’ thing is that celebrity automatically puts your actions, good and bad, into “debatable discussion”. what people forget is that many celebrities are just normal people we would classify as ‘assholes’, who happen to be in a spotlight.
    alec baldwin is such a celebrity. while working as a VIP escort at a theme park, i had the misfortune of guiding mr. baldwin around the park. when we got to the spiderman show, he sat in the handicap seating, because it was in the front. i asked him to move so the people in wheelchairs could use that seating, because it is the only accessible seating for them.
    i won’t go into our fight, but i eventually kicked his ass out of the park when he started yelling, “BUT I’M ALEC BALDWIN! WHO DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?”
    fact of the matter is it doesn’t matter if it’s the mother keeping the child from the father or vise versa… if the person is a rotten and abusive parent, the other parent should protect the child. it just so happens that there are more reported cases of women keeping the children and “closing off the father”. but every story is different and to say women as a whole are trying to ‘defeat’ men as parents is ridiculous. i’d rather have an equal partner in the task that do it alone.

  50. dhsredhead
    Posted May 1, 2007 at 9:36 pm | Permalink

    Ugh.

223 queries. 1.512 seconds