Anti-feminist Mailbag (whiny bitches edition)

For some reason the last couple of days have brought us a lot of fun emails. Here are some snippets from my favorite – in which the emailer keeps insisting that they’re a woman. (From experience, I’d say this insistence generally means it’s a man writing – but either way, it’s irrelevant. Being a woman doesn’t make your wack-ass ideas any more credible.)

Honestly, what are you trying to accomplish with this website? I’m a woman, and have been trying to understand what this new wave of feminists are trying to achieve (for instance suffrage in the past). And I just don’t see it. All it is women complaining about anything and everything. All you do is bitch and bitch and bitch. Reading this website makes me hate women.

I mean, hate myself! (I also kind of love the irony of someone writing us an email complaining about us complaining.)

Feminists of the past were trying to make change, and they did. You’re just making the majority of the population hate you and not take you seriously. Also you should learn that, honey, stereotypes are based on fact. There are some things that guys do better than chicks and vice versa. Deal with it.

Yeah, honey! For example, us chicks are awesome at things like using belittling names for women to put them in their place. Also, sweeping generalizations.

I can only imagine how much you’d bitch about having to do construction work on a highway day after day. We are lucky enough to live in a society that if that’s what you want to do, then you CAN do it. So from one woman to another, you really need to keep your mouth shut.

From one feminist to an asshole: No thanks.

Regardless of sex or gender or anything, NO ONE wants to be around a whiny bitch. Then again if that’s what you want to be than go for it. You’re doing a great job.

Thanks! Now can I have that promotion to raging cuntmonster you’ve been promising me?

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

88 Comments

  1. Auriane
    Posted August 24, 2009 at 10:39 pm | Permalink

    Oh, and by the way, it was another woman, Margaret Sanger, who paved the way for the men who then went on to invent the modern pill. Along with writing books on the subject — starting in 1916 — she also invented the first family planning clinic in the US in 1916 before a white male in power (Anthony Comstock) threatened her with prison and defamation of character. Sanger later moved to France, where she worked more freely on her research in an effort to help families plan the number of children they had.
    For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

  2. Auriane
    Posted August 24, 2009 at 10:40 pm | Permalink

    Oh, and by the way, it was another woman, Margaret Sanger, who paved the way for the men who then went on to invent the modern pill. Along with writing books and pamphlets on the subject — starting in 1914 — she also invented the first family planning clinic in the US in 1916 before a white male in power (Anthony Comstock) threatened her with prison and defamation of character. Sanger later moved to France, where she worked more freely on her research in an effort to help families plan the number of children they had.
    For more info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

  3. Gular
    Posted August 24, 2009 at 11:16 pm | Permalink

    In my world, men do the choosing. But, then again, men choose the men.
    On the whole, I really can’t participate in this de-rail since, you know, I don’t live in the heteronormative world the troll does.
    Just sayin’…. (not directly at you, though, hellotwin! :-) )

  4. Gular
    Posted August 24, 2009 at 11:19 pm | Permalink

    Your friend sounds like a terrible human being for manipulating two people like that. At least, that’s my perspective.

  5. Gopher
    Posted August 24, 2009 at 11:22 pm | Permalink

    But theyre not. One has been taught to think like that and hate themselves the other was the instructor.

  6. Gular
    Posted August 24, 2009 at 11:22 pm | Permalink

    I

  7. Gular
    Posted August 24, 2009 at 11:24 pm | Permalink

    DAMMIT! stupid “smart” text!
    I *heart* the mailbag
    I *don’t heart* the troll

  8. Opheelia
    Posted August 24, 2009 at 11:26 pm | Permalink

    before, women had the power of the cradle, womb, and kitchen; now they have those plus almost equal power in other realms to the extend that men are barely needed.>>
    I have provided some terms you may find useful.
    So it’s the advancement of women into the world of men that has you concerned? That’s called sexism. And no one here is saying that society doesn’t need men or is advocating for their removal from it.
    I’m more than happy to share the power of the cradle and the kitchen. (The womb is pretty one-sided, though my partner and I will make decisions together about if and when to have children. That’s a characteristic of a healthy relationship, and I also advocate for the related skills to be taught to all people.) The power of the kitchen is not as magical as you seem to think. (We get men to do what we want or we’ll burn dinner? Or *gasp* refuse to make anything so he starves because he doesn’t know how to make Kraft noodles? Insert diabolical laughter!) And the power of the cradle? That’s called parenting, and it sounds like you advocate for fathers to participate as well.
    Feminists aren’t trying to take all the power from men. We want to have an equal share of it. Despite your opinions, we have not succeeded at equality, and we certainly haven’t succeeded at the uprising you’ve described. It sounds a little like you want to go back to the good ole days of “Behind every great man, there’s a great woman.” I don’t want her standing behind him, I want her next to him, so they can support one another.
    I’m not afraid of men trying to be better parents or cooking meals, and I’ve never heard anyone say that they were. When we finally level the playing field, it will be better for everyone, regardless of gender identity.

  9. Gopher
    Posted August 24, 2009 at 11:32 pm | Permalink

    TROLL!!
    ” That doesn’t change the fact that women have control over many more realms outside the economic and political that men will *never* occupy. ”
    That doesnt even make sense. So ladies that means you have to give up any public/economic and political arena and omit defining your society that you inhabit because you have a uterus.
    Fuck, what a dipshit. Typical MRA blather.

  10. Gopher
    Posted August 24, 2009 at 11:39 pm | Permalink

    Always gotta worry about those baby crazed ladyfolk trying to impregnate herself using used condoms to get that child support payment!!!!!What a scary world!!!!

  11. Gopher
    Posted August 24, 2009 at 11:45 pm | Permalink

    “before, women had the power of the cradle, womb, and kitchen”
    Hey dude you can have that shit all to yourself!!!To deny yourself this ‘power’ would be misandrist.
    Isnt the world a horrible place!! Whites are racist against, heterophobia runs rampant and misandry is openly poracticed and tolerated!!!!LOLOLOLO!!! And the sun revolves around the earth too!!!And if you sail to far you’ll fall off the earth!!

  12. Gopher
    Posted August 24, 2009 at 11:47 pm | Permalink

    “before, women had the power of the cradle, womb, and kitchen”
    Hey dude you can have that shit all to yourself!!!To deny yourself this ‘power’ would be misandrist.
    Isnt the world a horrible place!! Whites are racist against, heterophobia runs rampant and misandry is openly practiced and tolerated!!!!LOLOLOLO!!! And the sun revolves around the earth too!!!And if you sail to far you’ll fall off the earth!!

  13. Gopher
    Posted August 24, 2009 at 11:55 pm | Permalink

    It takes two to tango so why shouldnt he pay for it? How is that ‘duped?’ The guys had minds of their own. Youre just a misogynist that casts anything a woman does as evil because youre an ass. I bet the story’s made up anyways. It sounds made up just to bolster your sexist bullshit.

  14. Gopher
    Posted August 24, 2009 at 11:59 pm | Permalink

    “am i being a prick here?”
    —————–((YES!!!!))———————

  15. Sabriel
    Posted August 25, 2009 at 12:49 am | Permalink

    Hey Gular! Just remember:
    & # 60 ; 3
    And pound sixty semi-colon three.
    That will get you your heart: <3
    or you can do:
    & hearts
    Which will get you an actual heart! For example:
    Sabriel &hearts Feministing.

  16. roxie
    Posted August 25, 2009 at 12:51 am | Permalink

    am i being a prick here?
    YES!

  17. vaseline
    Posted August 25, 2009 at 1:24 am | Permalink

    >>so we should provide abortions for anyone whenever they want it? would that not create a lot more abortions in the first place? >if a woman is assured of an abortion whenever, wherever, her behavior might change, for the worse.>i need a new car, should i be provided with that just because i want it?

  18. bukowski's back
    Posted August 25, 2009 at 2:28 am | Permalink

    “First of all, you just went from saying “Abortions are so cheap and available!” to saying “Why should we make abortions so available?” That’s a tad stupid.”
    i said no such thing. the quotes are yours. abortions should cost whatever the market dictates they should cost. if a NGO wants to set up a program that subsidizes abortions, that’s their prerogative, but using gov’t sanction to funnel vast resources to providing abortions, which very, very few women actually *need* is a subsidy. when you subsidize something, you get more of it. it’s a basic economic tenet.
    the issue at hand is that you all seek egalitarian ends for *every single issue*. how can we make everything in this world, abortions or cars, available on demand for everyone?
    and why should we buy into the argument that abortions should be available to anyone, wherever they live, and whatever their socioeconomic condition? *you* may think it’s of utmost importance, but you’re in the minority.
    OK. availability of abortion may not affect *your* behavior, but *in the mother fucking aggregate* women’s behavior will be altered. as i stated above, subsidies create more of the subsidized behavior.
    i got railed earlier by women who said that men can’t complain about war or raising children that aren’t their own using the “they signed up for it” argument. well, a pregnant woman – in 99.9% of the cases – signed up for her pregnancy. she may have an unwanted pregnancy, but she didn’t have unwanted sex. we all have to deal with the consequences of our actions to some extent. it would be nice if doctors all across america wanted to provide abortions in every small town, but the doctors don’t find it profitable, and they can’t be forced into work they don’t want to do.
    btw, Carl Djerassi “invented” the Pill. perhaps sanger did a lot to promote the idea of it and funding for its research, but she didn’t *invent* it. get a clue. also, sanger thought abortion is immoral.

  19. WickedAnnabella
    Posted August 25, 2009 at 5:02 am | Permalink

    Oh, sometimes I can’t resist the bait! Here’s a little something to think about, sir, using asterisks just like you!
    *Family courts tend to side with women because raising children is still seen as mainly the woman’s job. Guess who wants to change that? Hint: the answer starts with “f” and ends with “-eminists.”
    *Yes, we have uteri. Sorry, it’s not our fault. That does not in any way mean we have “an innate power of sexual choice which supercedes [sic] and rules most behaviors of men.” I’m not even sure what that means- basically you’re upset that women (theoretically) can refuse to screw you? Feminists are all about having more parity in romantic relations (Women asking men out! Women having casual sex!); unfortunately many men out there will reject women who act outside their traditional gender role as too aggressive or slutty.
    *You get called creepy when you are creepy. Pretty much every woman alive has been harassed, groped, insulted, followed, assaulted, and worse by men “expressing [their] inherent attractions.” Women are not obligated to respond positively your attentions. You are not obligated to enjoy the attention of women, either! The next time an unattractive, sweaty woman twice your age and twice your size follows you down the street telling you in great detail the sexual things she’d like to do to you in spite of your repeated requests that she leave you alone, I give you full license to call her creepy.
    *Our education system is not “feminist inspired” (whatever that means). And yes, feminists would like to see both girls and boys reach their full potential in school. There is no feminist conspiracy to raise a generation of brainy girls and uneducated boys.
    *Yes, men work more dangerous jobs than women. And women work more low-paying, low status jobs than men. As gender equality increases, we have more women in those dangerous jobs, and I imagine we have more men working in traditionally female fields, too. I suggest you take a job with Merry Maids and strike a blow against gender segregation in the workforce.
    *First, war isn’t about the “protection of society.” And second, according to a recent New York Times article, “[i]t appears that more girls and women are now missing from the planet, precisely because they are female, than men were killed on the battlefield in all the wars of the 20th century.” Men go to war, women get abused and killed in a myriad of ways because their lives are less valued. Everybody loses. Feminists want to change that.
    *Uh, the crash had much more to do with deregulation than “socialist policies.” And while women haven’t lost as many jobs, we are still less likely overall to be employed, more likely to live in poverty, face harsh financial penalties for getting pregnant, and are paid 20% less then men on average.
    *Yes, women cheat on men. Men also cheat on women. Sometimes a child results from said cheating. How is that misandry?
    Also, Mr. MRA troll, couldn’t you have come up with a more creative handle than a Bukowski shoutout? Cliché, my friend, cliché.
    (Bless me father, for I have fed the troll.)

  20. asseenontv
    Posted August 25, 2009 at 7:05 am | Permalink

    My last comment was a joke, but I don’t agree with what you’re saying.
    I think that men and women both need to be taught to have sexist attitudes and more importantly both can be taught not to.
    And the sad truth is that women do frequently perpetuate sexist attitudes. I have seen many women attack and discredit their rivals by talking about their sex lives and accusing them of being sluts.
    It’s comforting to think that there is some “instructor” out their creating the sexism, but ideas really have a life of their own. And any successful idea has learned to live in both men and women.

  21. alixana
    Posted August 25, 2009 at 8:31 am | Permalink

    That sort of thinking is going a little too close to patriarchy = men, which I never like because it doesn’t seem very accurate or helpful when it comes to dismantling it. As a society, we uphold these things, regardless of what sex we are. Men have less reason to dismantle it, because it benefits them more, but they’re not exactly the sole perpetrators of it.
    And really, once you do the analysis, patriarchy teaches men to hate themselves, too, what with the you-can’t-show-emotions, you-can’t-be-as-good-of-a-parent, and the whole masculinity deal. I don’t know how any guy comes out of that conditioning feeling secure and comfortable with himself.

  22. Jennifer S.
    Posted August 25, 2009 at 10:10 am | Permalink

    Childbirth doesn’t happen in a void. Women are rational actors, and if they want to have an abortion, it’s probably because they know they can’t support a child in the way they would like to. When mothers who don’t have access to reproductive services or can’t afford them have children… what happens to those children? They are subsidized, because our government isn’t such a harsh free-market paradise as to let the children of the poor starve in the gutters. So, the government will be paying to support these children that the mothers knew they could not afford to be having for decades, versus a subsidy of a few hundred dollars to give the mother access to the reproductive services she needed. I think that abortion is much more than a hard economic issue, but if you insist on painting it as such, subsidizing it makes a lot of sense!
    Of course, looking at it this way requires a shift away from thinking that pregnancy is the punishment that women get for being sluts…
    And if you really believe that every woman who has sex is signing up for pregnancy, am I to believe that you never in your life have sex with a woman who doesn’t feel comfortable with having a child right at this instant?

  23. sangetencre
    Posted August 25, 2009 at 10:36 am | Permalink

    (Bless me father, for I have fed the troll.)
    Save 5 Hail Maudes my child, and all is forgiven.
    (Your reply covered exactly what I wanted to say. Thank you.)

  24. Gular
    Posted August 25, 2009 at 11:58 am | Permalink

    heh yeah. I just am so used to messengers and facebook that I just put the “less than three” on default.
    Do you know the ♥ for a broken heart? That was going to be the second one, but I failed at Feministing. T__T

  25. Gular
    Posted August 25, 2009 at 12:04 pm | Permalink

    *socialist policies in government have led to a recession (he-cession) in which 80% of all lost jobs are men’s. most of the jobs being created, in the public sector, are predominantly occupied by women.
    Actually, it was lack of socialist policies like overseeing the banking industry which led to this “he-cession”. If the US were more socialist and taking more preventative action against known risky business behavior, then the banking panic wouldn’t have happened which led to the collapse of the rest of the economy.
    Government oversight was actually the answer to this. I’m fairly certain, but I’m not historical economist, that the majority – if not all – recessions and depressions in the US were caused by an unregulated market, which is pretty much the opposite of socialism.
    Someone correct me if I’m revisioning history on this.

  26. Gular
    Posted August 25, 2009 at 12:08 pm | Permalink

    Personally, I think that the female in “female punk band” intimates that it’s the group making a statement about the word vagina that isn’t also a statement about sexual orientation or exploitation by men.
    Generally speaking, I agree with you that the modifier is largely unnecessary, but I think in this instance it may be needed.
    Just some pleasant food for thought.

  27. roxie
    Posted August 25, 2009 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

    I have a feeling this http://fugitivus.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/a-few-things-to-stop-doing-when-you-find-a-feminist-blog/ was written SPECIFICALLY FOR YOU!
    Please read that link before you ever comment on any feminist blog ever again.

  28. hellotwin
    Posted August 25, 2009 at 2:13 pm | Permalink

    Yea, that was very hetero-normative of me. Thanks for pointing it out.

  29. Gopher
    Posted August 25, 2009 at 2:58 pm | Permalink

    So apparently you think women and men started sexism simultaneously? Liek women would just choose to start a degrading, oppressive line of thinking autonomously and on their own without any enciuragement from someone else. I dont think so. One WAS the instructor the other learned. You dont seem to get that part.

  30. Warren
    Posted August 25, 2009 at 3:03 pm | Permalink

    The haters hating the haters. It’s good to see you hate actual debate on what you think is important. You’d make a double plus good little minion spouting the party rhetoric. I don’t hate feminists, why would I put that kind of negativity in my life towards a bunch of douchebags who believe in the almighty patriarchy and that 1 in 4 chicks is going to be raped by either myself or some other male bastard. I used to be like you in my own politics, it was all consuming, that’s why I don’t hate you, I pity you, but don’t hate. You’re all so very tough, tough grrrls with a Billy Idol sneer.

  31. TroubleBaby
    Posted August 25, 2009 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

    It must be nice to be so incredibly privileged that you can choose to ignore the fact that 1 in 4 women are sexually assaulted. Most of us have to live in reality, though.

  32. Gular
    Posted August 25, 2009 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

    Oh no! heat of battle and speaking in generalities does that sort of thing. I don’t want you to get the wrong impression.. I just thought it the best place to respond to the discussion… thus what looks like the entirely awkward call out of you!!!
    Apologies!

  33. jumpcannon
    Posted August 25, 2009 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

    Abortion, contraception and other methods of family planning are all parts of reproductive *health care.* Access to them benefits all genders.
    Behavior has nothing to do with it. It is silly to view pregnancy as a “serves you right” punishment, and restrict access to people. People have sex, and everyone has the right to decide the shape of their families, how/when they develop, whether they want a lot of kids or none.

  34. asseenontv
    Posted August 26, 2009 at 1:06 am | Permalink

    I think sexism was started by people who are dead now. Now it is carried on by both men and women for sure. I’ve known women who perpetuate sexism, not because they hate themselves but because they see it to their advantage.
    This includes both conservative women who like to attack women who are different from them and generally unprincipled women who like to accuse their female office enemies of sleeping around and being sluts.
    Do you think Sarah Palin and Phyllis Schlafly hate themselves? No, they love themselves more than you will ever love yourself.
    Am I saying that sexism comes primarily from women? No. It comes primarily from men. But I think it’s rather silly to think it comes from some secret cabal of men who meet in an underground lair who conspire to trick women to hate themselves.

  35. Darkmoon
    Posted August 26, 2009 at 5:21 am | Permalink

    I’m sure many women would be more than happy to share the “power” you think they have. Unfortunately, some men make THEMSELVES redundant in this, by virtue of the privileged “I have penis, I rule” attitude which makes them incapable of even attempting domestics beyond a ball game, horsing around or strangling infants when they get too mouthy.
    It isn’t up to women to make men more worthwhile on the homestead. It’s up to the men and I can assure you that the few mothers I know with stay-at-home husbands really appreciate it.
    The efforts of men who actually try are not unsung. I think that certain kinds of men believe they only need to do the “Kodak moments” to be good fathers. I can’t help but think you are the same.
    Men can be just as good at caregiving if they give a care.

  36. Darkmoon
    Posted August 26, 2009 at 5:40 am | Permalink

    “yes, there is misogyny in this world, but there’s also misandry.”
    Ah yes, the old diversionary tactic. After all, blatant hatred against women doesn’t matter when compared to the trials and tribulations men must face every time they go for a prostate exam. Heaven forfend that women have the right to choose their own mates.
    I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but women ARE allowed to choose who they sleep with and you aren’t entitled to fuck whomever strikes your fancy just because you’re male.
    Let me paint this picture clearly for you, Mr. Privilege. Imagine that some strange woman you’ve never met and don’t find particularly attractive comes up to you at some random social gathering. Imagine her persisting after you’ve already politely declined her advances.
    Now imagine her shouting a dirty name at you when you try to walk away.
    You bitch about women having a choice in dating, yet half of the guys that complain like you do have severe double-standards. You are fat and ugly yourselves, yet you expect beauty queens to spread their legs wide open for you. You haven’t seen your toes for years, yet you make fun of overweight women.
    No, women don’t hold all the cards in dating. We simply have the final say in who we do or do not fuck, and if it’s unfair to you that you can’t get a supermodel just because you want one, maybe it’s unfair to us that we can’t get a Johnny Depp just because we want one.
    Double. Standards. You’re allowed to be selective but women aren’t. Fucking prick.

  37. bukowski's back
    Posted August 26, 2009 at 6:59 am | Permalink

    in response to the discussion concerning “reproductive rights”:
    as i’ve said before, i believe that if a woman wants to have an abortion, she can have one. but that doesn’t imply that she has a *right* or a *guarantee* to one. this is our fundamental difference.
    take the argument to its logical extent…if everyone wants something and is guaranteed that something, how is it paid for? who pays for it? what dictates the line of demarcation between what should be provided and what shouldn’t? why are abortions so much more important than cars for those who want cars? why not put all “reproductive rights” funding into research for cancer or AIDS…who determines what is proper? do we stop only when every woman who wants an abortion can have one immediately? what’s the metric? just some fundamental questions here that center more around economic philosophy than judgment of reproductive rights.
    i suppose i’ll be shot down though just because i don’t just say that I agree with abortions on demand at any cost.

  38. TroubleBaby
    Posted August 26, 2009 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

    Here’s a hint: bodily integrity. If you can’t understand the difference between a woman being able to exercise control over HER OWN BODY and someone WANTING A CAR, there’s no hope for you.

Feministing In Your Inbox

Sign up for our Newsletter to stay in touch with Feministing
and receive regular updates and exclusive content.

209 queries. 0.723 seconds