Recently in Anti-Feminism Category

This is rich.

The contraceptive pill is polluting the environment and is in part responsible for male infertility, a report in the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano said Saturday.

The pill "has for some years had devastating effects on the environment by releasing tonnes of hormones into nature" through female urine, said Pedro Jose Maria Simon Castellvi, president of the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations, in the report.

Your pee! It's killing the trees! Not to mention sperm. As if the fear of female sexuality wasn't obvious enough - best to mention that contraception is a total boner killer. Lovely.

At first glance, the True Woman conference doesn't seem anti-feminist. It's main promotional video has a sisterly kind of vibe - it's all about loving God and living a good life. The trailer above about the conference hints at anti-feminism, but it gives a nod to "career women" and is magnanimous enough to show a woman wearing a stethoscope. (Never mind the implicit notion that only some women are "true" women, that's about to be the least of our concern.)

But their post-conference press outreach reveals a more insidious message: If you love God, you have to hate feminism.

A group of conservative Christian women is seeking 100,000 signatures on a "True Woman Manifesto" aimed at sparking a counter-revolution to the feminist movement of the 1960s.

Introduced at a gathering of more than 6,000 women in early October, the document calls not for equal rights, but instead proclaims that men and women are created to reflect God's image in "complementary and distinct ways."

That includes the idea that women are called "to honor and support God-ordained male leadership in the home and in the church."

The press release intrigued me, so I checked out their website and some of the panels. Perhaps the most telling was one talk, "You've Come a Long Way, Baby!", given by Mary Kassian.

The short version: Patriarchy is fabulous, feminism is unnatural.

Kassian is particularly fond of romanticizing the imaginary perfect world of Leave it to Beaver, suggesting that life back in the 1950s (before darned feminism came around) actually was like the show.

Once married, a woman could normally count on her husband to financially support her and the children...

Pornography and rape and homosexuality, sexual perversion, sexual addiction, sexually transmitted diseases were uncommon and rarely encountered.

I don't know about your families, but back in the day my married Nana was working her tail off to support her kids because my grandfather's salary wasn't enough. And rape most certainly existed, though maybe it wasn't called that.

I never thought about drinking until equal rights came along!

Feminists are all too aware that we get blamed for a lot of ridiculous shit; everything from destroying the family and killing chivalry to YouTube "catfights."

And the idea that feminism (and women's equality more generally) is the reason behind ladies boozing it up has certainly been making the rounds lately. This article from New York Magazine, however, which argues that "drinking has become entwined with progressive feminism," takes the feminist-blaming cake. Cue scare tactic subhead:

More women are drinking, and the women who drink are drinking more, in some cases matching their male peers. This is the kind of equality nobody was fighting for.

While I don't doubt the statistics about women drinking more than in years past, the connection that reporter Alex Morris makes to feminism is based largely on nonsense: personal anecdotes, a couple of quotes, and hackneyed ideas about what feminism is. Morris even cites the Jezebel Thinking and Drinking controversy and falls back on the stereotyped notion that Third Wave feminism is "something akin to the type of reasoning that paints Girls Gone Wild participants as sexually liberated." The bullshit, it burns!

The thing that pisses me off most about this article - besides the fact that it perpetuates a well-loved lie about what young feminist are (Girls Gone Wild! I choose my choice!) - is that drinking is a serious problem for young women and men. But instead of serious, nuanced media coverage on what to do about the drinking culture among American youth, we get article after article hawing about the consequences of equality.

And frankly, Morris' argument is the exact same one used when conservatives and anti-feminists talk about "hooking up" or casual sex - that young women now "act like men" sexually. (Equality: the slutmaker!) Seriously - it's tired. Not to mention incredibly sexist : the underlying message is that gender equality is bad for women.

So if folks are actually concerned about young women and drinking, how about we talk about the consumer culture that markets liquor (something Morris touches on before quickly returning back to feminism) or how drinking is being used to blame women who are raped? Because despite the picture that Morris paints of young feminists boozing it up (cause it's empowering and stuff!), we're actually out there working our asses off. Maybe its time others followed suit.

It's that time again - Anti-feminist Mailbag! - when the readers of Feministing get a glimpse of the lovely emails sent our way. This one is really special.

hey feminazi cunt, you deserve to be raped many more times. no1 cares waht you cunts think while you bitch and moan in the kitchen. so in a nut shell you are a worthless cunt with legs and a loud mouth that should only be used for sex or slapping. Praise satan, rape and kill sluts, take drugs, and burn the world

Back off gals, he's mine!

So, I suppose we can start to put together the list of things that the Bush Administration is going to try to pull before they leave office, one of the most nefarious being the "right of conscience" rule.

via LA Times.

Reporting from Washington -- The outgoing Bush administration is planning to announce a broad new "right of conscience" rule permitting medical facilities, doctors, nurses, pharmacists and other healthcare workers to refuse to participate in any procedure they find morally objectionable, including abortion and possibly even artificial insemination and birth control.

For more than 30 years, federal law has dictated that doctors and nurses may refuse to perform abortions. The new rule would go further by making clear that healthcare workers also may refuse to provide information or advice to patients who might want an abortion.

So, essentially, even if you have the right to obtain an abortion, you may not have access to the information necessary to actually know all your options. I would never deny how smart a doctor is, but I don't really think it is up to a doctor to decide what is morally right for me or for my body. If the law has already decided that I can have access to reproductive technology, then why is a doctor allowed to tell me something different? I would like the advice I get from my doctor to be based on my health needs, not their religious and moral beliefs. I am sorry that is crazy.

According to Raw Story this change could hurt rural and poor women the hardest. Melissa Harris-Lacewell in conversation with Maddow over the subject discusses.

Harris-Lacewell explained that regulations like this "right of conscience" rule have "been the new strategy of those who have been opposed to women's reproductive rights. ... Rather than fight this out in the courts ... what you do is limit access. You limit the education that doctors are getting in medical school. You limit the ability of these doctors to practice in various states and localities. You just keep reducing, reducing, reducing."

"That has a disproportionate effect on poor women, on rural women," Harris-Lacewell stated. "Women who have private health insurance, women who have private physicians, tend to have plenty of access to a variety of reproductive rights options. Poor women and women with less access are the ones hit hardest."

Related:
Bush not done fucking with you yet.
Bush to Issue Midnight HHS Regulation.
Clinton moves to Block HHS Regulation.

Women in playing dead for photography and fashion purposes might be considered high art or cutting edge marketing, but it is usually just a tacky excuse for sexist art and the reason it is considered avant garde is because it is offensive. That type of art annoys me.

**This images are not safe for work and are potentially triggering.**

Exotified images of women of color being tortured and images put together to play to the fantasy of "savage" with sexual overtones is actually just deeply disturbing. I am well aware that you can't curtail someone's fantasies, but I argue you sure as hell can analyze them. Women's bodies placed in native and indigenous seeming contexts where they are being dragged and eluding to torture or essentially comparing their bodies to animals to be hunted is a shocking display of colonial misogyny and woman hate. This calendar should be protested.

Sometimes the hate mail we get comes in the form of long rambling craziness. And sometimes, as is this case here, it's short, sweet, and incredibly stupid.

Marriage can only exist between a couple that can reproduce. Otherwise you might as well marry a farm animal. The people have spoken and you should shut down this site.

I'm sure all the couples having fertility issues will appreciate that one.

Pam lets us know about a new anti-choice organization that's sprouted out of attempts to define fertilized eggs as people.

Apparently the defeat of the Colorado amendment made anti-choicers think it would be a fantastic idea to take their failed state initiative nationwide.

A new pro-life organization, Personhood USA, plans to assist local pro-life groups in different states to put personhood amendments on their states ballot by using the petition process.

The 17 States that allow citizens to place constitutional amendments on ballots will be the target states. Personhood USA will also help with opinion petitions to encourage politicians to run personhood amendments in other states. During the Colorado Personhood campaign, organizers were contacted by individuals in many different states with excitement and the desire to start personhood efforts in their own state.

"Praise Jesus! The pro-life tide is rising in America, now is the time for the entire pro-life movement to turn the focus off from permitting murder but attempting to 'regulate' it, to pushing for the recognition of the God given right to life for all innocent persons. Persons are humans beings from the moment of fertilization." Cal Zastrow, Co-Founder of Personhood USA.

Um...yeah. Good luck with all that. Perhaps a creepy video will help...

PUSA Promo (Web) from Endfallow on Vimeo.

Ladies, did you know that your uterus is shaped like AMERICA? Yeah, I didn't either. I'd write more about the pathetic attempts by anti-choicers to limit women's reproductive freedoms, but my Texas is cramping like a mofo.

P.S. This is what a fertilized egg looks like. Yeah.

Leah, a blogger at the college anti-feminist organization the Network of Enlightened Women, has the following gem of wisdom to share about Obama's win:

This certainly is a historic night and only time will tell if this is to be a historic night for change a new generation has been hoping for or a night of change the founders feared hundreds of years ago.

Um, for serious? That is fucked.

Remember anti-feminist Roy Den Hollander, who is suing Columbia University over its Women's Studies classes? Well the school has struck back, filing a motion to dismiss the suit, saying it "reads like a parody."

Say it with me now, "ANN FRIEDMAN."

Former Ms. magazine editor Elaine Lafferty has been working as a consultant on the McCain campaign (yes, seriously), and has a bone to pick with feminists who dare to criticize Sarah Palin.

For the sin of being a Christian personally opposed to abortion, Palin is being pilloried by the inside-the-Beltway Democrat feminist establishment. (Yes, she is anti-abortion. And yes, instead of buying organic New Zealand lamb at Whole Foods, she joins other Alaskans in hunting for food.[...])

...[L]ike many other Democrats, including Lynn Rothschild, I'm tired of the Democratic Party taking women for granted. I also happen to believe Sarah Palin supports women's rights, deeply and passionately.

M-kay, whatever floats your boat I guess. Never mind that her record indicates quite a different story. But here's the kicker:

Last month a prominent feminist blogger, echoing that sensibility, declared that the media was wrongly buying into the false idea that Palin was a feminist. Why? Well, just because she said she was a feminist, because she supported women's rights and opportunities, equal pay, Title IV--that was just "empty rhetoric," they said. At least the blogger didn't go as far as NOW's Kim Gandy and declare that Palin was not a woman. Bottom line: you are not a feminist until we say you are. (Emphasis mine)

"Empty rhetoric," hmm? That sounds familiar. The anonymous "prominent feminist blogger" is our own Ann Friedman! But it seems that naming Ann is beneath Lafferty - as is bothering to engage with her in-depth look at how Palin's rhetoric does not match her record. Making women invisible: Now that's feminist!

Is it really so hard to name the person whose opinion you're (limply) arguing against? Ann Friedman. Check it out, I can even do it in all sorts of different ways:

Ann Friedman. Feministing. Ann Friedman, Feministing. Ann Friedman of Feministing.

It's like a typing miracle! Say it together, folks: Ann Friedman.

Sarah Palin, who called herself a feminist in the infamous Katie Couric interview, is not so sure anymore...

In an interview on NBC Nightly News that aired yesterday, Brian Williams asked Palin: "Governor, are you a feminist?"

"I'm not gonna label myself anything, Brian," said Palin. "And I think that's what annoys a lot of Americans, especially in a political campaign, is to start trying to label different parts of America different, different backgrounds, different...I'm not going to put a label on myself."

You know, this is a flip flop I can deal with. Don't label yourself, Gov. Palin. Especially not as a feminist.

UPDATE: Video of Palin's change of heart after the jump.

Every time I think I couldn't love Rachel Maddow more, she comes out with something like this. Sigh.

More at Think Progress.

I'm sorry, I know I've already posted about the wacko responses to my book (excuse me, my book cover), but I just came across this and I just couldn't help myself.

Ericka Andersen at LadyBlog has written a post that has brought intellectual dishonesty to a new low. She even starts off lying:

For some thought-provoking reading, check out Jessica Valenti's "The Purity Myth: How America's Obsession with Virginity is Hurting Young Women." Cassy Fiano's post on the book today lead me to check it out for myself.

Thought-provoking reading...really? You checked it out for yourself, did you? May I ask how? Because the book isn't going to be released for another five months. So, Ms. Andersen, if you've somehow stealthily broken into my apartment or hacked into my computer, I'd really like to know.

I grew up in a Christian environment where sex before marriage was frowned upon but never was the act of sex condemned. I was never told women don't like sex as much as men or that we were supposed to use it to get husbands. I doubt Jessica has really been in the midst of this environment but as someone who has, I can tell you women and men were both encouraged to be disciplined in their sexual urges. And...I've never once heard a church leader say you were a slut or a whore if you did choose to have sex. This is an assumption Jessica makes. (Emphasis mine)

Right, I make a whole book full of assumptions. Women are never ever told they're sluts or sullied or or less than or diseased if they have sex. I must be making stuff up!

But here's the part that had me screaming to my poor boyfriend about what fucking liars people are.

The real purity myth is what Jessica is telling women: that sexual consequences be damned as long as you feel good. God forbid you have guilt. Girls Gone Wild is better for young women that purity rings, she claims, but I doubt many people would sign up for that argument.

Sexual consequences be damned? I've spent my entire writing and feminist career advocating for young women to have medically accurate and unbiased information about sex so they can make the decisions that are best for them. I have never, never, said that Girls Gone Wild is anything but a fucked up organization run by a rapist. For people like Fiano and Andersen to warp - and just lie! - about this work that I do, it's just beyond disgusting. I understand that they have no actual argument to make (being that, you know, they haven't read the book), but simply making stuff up to suit their theories is not only dishonest, it's stupid. Because I'm not going to sit quietly and let people lie about me, about feminism, about this blog, or about The Purity Myth. Every time someone publishes some bullshit like this, I'm going to call it out. Welcome to my new post series, Pure Lies.

So bring it, assholes.

Careful, my book may give you VD!

I figured that my new book would get some negative attention from conservative blogs, but I kinda thought that would happen once the book was, you know...published.

But it seems that there's no reason to wait for pesky things like the actual content of the book to start blogging about what The Purity Myth is all about. So apparently, the purpose of my book is to "turn America's teenagers into raging whores." Woo hoo!

Right Wing News: "But, these hardcore liberal feminists? For them, it's not enough to say that, 'I'm not a virgin' or 'I like to sleep with a lot of guys,' they have to come up with some kind of justification for why it's the best way to live."

Say Anything Blog: "The point is that because of feminists, our society is becoming one huge "Girls Gone Wild," with even little girls being sexualized in our culture."

The Network of Enlightened Women (remember them?): "The feminist movement has formed a strong alliance with the sexual liberation movement, although it wasn't necessary. This book represents this alliance."

Dad Reformed: "The cover says it all. I mean...... who is going to read that garbage??? Is it geared toward a mother and father to push their kids to refrain from abstinence???? I can barely type right now I'm so fired up. ...I can only wonder where she comes up with her standards, or lack there of. ALL of her stances are selfish. What is good for me RIGHT now. I am going to puke."

House of Eratosthenes: "Feminism, somehow, has come to be about everyone who can be a slut, being one."

But Cassy Fiano's post was my fave, "Putting out is SO much better for girls than abstinence." (And it's not just because her blog design uses a rose/gun combo that speaks volumes.)

Perusing LifeNews can be great when you need a laugh (or a cry). Or in this case, when you need a good reminder of why anti-feminism is so effin' ridiculous.

The title of Joan Swirsky's article really says it all: Some Feminists Love Abortion on Demand But Hate Governor Sarah Palin

The whole article is priceless, chock full of old anti-feminist standards like calling feminists hysterical, full of rage, and blaming the divorce rate on the women's rights movement. But it's the sub-headers that slayed me.

Swirsky's history of feminism, in sub-headlines: DOMESTICITY BAD, MISS & MRS. BAD, UNEQUAL PAY BAD, VALUING HUMAN LIFE ESPECIALLY BAD, SHRIKES ON PARADE.

Feminist shrikes (?) have been bad, bad, bad! Reading these articles make my head hurt. Seriously.

You know, I realized this morning how happy people like Ann Coulter and Michele Malkin must be that someone like Sarah Palin is running for VP. I mean, what does the media love more than women that manipulate the words of feminism to justify their calculated misrepresentations of important women's issues. And what do anti-feminist faux feminist women love more than seeing all their tall tales of "real" feminism come true? Palin is the perfect encapsulation of their anti-feminist dreams. But I digress.

I am just annoyed right now after reading this piece by Coulter on Townhall.com via Feministe where she blames the mortgage crisis and flailing economy on affirmative action. At a certain point, I realize that she just doesn't read. Or at least not the same news that I am reading.

Here at Feministing we get our fair share of hate mail. And for whatever reason, the last few weeks have brought in a tidal wave of emails and trollish comments (I'm sure you've noticed). So for your anti-feminist mocking pleasure, here's a recent email we got from jcwhite0825@aol.com, who thinks our coverage of Palin is a clear indication that we're just jealous of her superhotness.

Why are you obsessed with Sarah Palin? Are you jealous of her? Are you pissed that she has accomplished things without whining like a little child? Before you get all upset and call me a right-wing nut, I'm not voting for McCain/Palin or Obama/Biden. They all suck. But, you girls on feministing.com are what I would call stereotypical women. You are jealous, angry, and resentful of women who have success. It's probably because she is hotter than any of you girls on feminsting. And that is at age 44. You girls have no chance of being that hot when you are that age. Oh, before you get all upset, it is not sexism to call a woman hot. That is just something that you have made up in your mind. Your site sucks. Samhita is a major league racist. You say you are strong, powerful and independent, yet you are constantly whining about wage gaps (which don't exist), abortion (women have all rights in this arena), and rape (so many false accusations it isn't funny). Do yourself a favor and get a life. You live a pathetic existence.

PS I know you won't reply because you are weak. You are not equal to men because you openly admit this daily on your site by constant whining.

I swear, this actually brought a smile to my face (okay, more like a smirk, but whatevs). It just warms my heart to know that if we're pissing people like this off, we're definitely doing something right.

Check out this amusingly bad argument from one of University of Idaho's budding Harvey Mansfield's:

There is a difference between a good thing and the best thing. For example, a meal served with a delicious dessert is a good thing, but a meal in which every course is delicious is the best thing. Getting an A in one class is better than getting no A's but not as good as getting all A's. I think we can all understand this pretty easily. However, whether we understand it or not, sometimes we treat the good things as though they are actually the best things.

Where am I going with this? I'll tell you. When we talk about women's rights, we should consider whether they are good things or whether they are the best things, because many people treat them as the best things. Of course, I will say it is better to have women's rights than not to have women's rights, but the only way to put women's rights first is if we are willing to say -- which I am not -- that women are better and more important than humanity as a whole.

Wow. Pass the dessert and give this dude an A+ for worst logic and most irrelevant metaphors ever.

Thanks to Anne-Marije for the heads up.

Concerned Women for America, a conservative anti-feminist organization, released a statement recently calling on the media to "stop bullying" Sarah Palin:

"In its continuing game of 'gotcha' journalism and the 'politics of personal destruction,' the mainstream media (MSM) and celebrity reporters are piling on Sarah Palin," said, Dr. Janice Shaw Crouse, political commentator for CWALAC. "The personal attacks have reached unprecedented pettiness and hypocrisy. Even former journalistic giants (like the Washington Post and New York Times) are engaging in tabloid-like sensationalism and printing vicious distortions about her life, faith, experience and family. Even feminists -- who supposedly promote women's equality and the so-called 'women's rights' agenda -- are questioning a female candidate's ability to get the job done. It's past time for the bullying to stop!" (Emphasis mine)

Wow, Crouse sure is riled up about sexism! She must have been livid about the misogynist attacks against Sen. Hillary Clinton, right? Well...not so much. Check out what Crouse said about Sen. Clinton's DNC speech just last month:

Mrs. Clinton arrived to great fanfare. She had on a flashy orange-gold pants suit. She has been on Weight Watchers' diet program and looked fit. Her less-wrinkled, 60-year-old face prompted speculation that she was botoxed for prime time. The audience was a sea of white placards with the distinctive Hillary signature. Many of her supporters were teary-eyed with what might have been, while the clinched jaws of others revealed their unwillingness to accept defeat.

Stay classy, anti-feminists!

Pretending to be smart and serious is hard stuff. All of that faking knowledge takes a toll on our tiny lady brains. But don't worry, McDonald's is here to let you know that you don't have to wear flats and read books anymore!

I feel vomity.

(Transcript below the jump.)

Via Jezebel.

UPDATE: Write to McDonald's and express your dislike for this commercial here.

Harvey Mansfield is at it again, but this time he's got Sarah Palin to project all of his confused rhetoric and unexamined generalizations on. In a piece at Forbes today he argues that Sarah Palin is the shero of what feminism should have been all along--a woman cozy in sex role differences, happy to mythologize masculinity, and still ready to serve (notice the language here) in office herself (cause, gosh darn it, women are pretty clever after all). An excerpt:

All Sarah Palin did was to claim her equal opportunity to a job once held exclusively by men. This sort of equality--the opportunity to take on public careers outside the home--is something liberals and conservatives agree on. That conservatives accept it is proven by the rapturous reception she received from Republicans, who greeted her as a political savior.

This she may or may not be, but she seems to have had the effect of enthusing the base, in part because of her sex.

Now, why could the women's movement not have taken advantage of this bipartisan agreement from the beginning? What impelled it to adopt a radical feminism hostile to both liberals and conservatives? Was this feminism necessary to attack male domination and to stir up the status quo?

Harvey, #1, the definition of feminism is political, social, and economic equality. #2, equality confers that no one group of people can lord domination over another. #3, the status quo wasn't equality. WTF is so hard to understand about this equation?

As if his faulty logic and infuriating language weren't enough, he continuously pushes the tired notion that feminists are no fun, unattractive, and asexual to boot, writing that Sarah Palin is "one who knows what it is to be a woman and enjoys it," and "You may be sure that I am not the first one to notice that feminist women are unerotic."

Huh? What? I mean is this old man serious? Someone needs to send Harvey Manfield a big ass care package from Toys in Babeland, Rachel Kramer Bussel, and Jane Campion, or teach him how to use a computer so he can type in a URL: www.feministing.com. His email, just in case you'd like to tell him what you think of his piece is hmansfield@gov.harvard.edu.

Related Posts: Summers' position as #1 Harvard Asshole challenged

Of Assholeness and Assholes

Macho, Macho Mansfield

Quote of the day

Thanks to Dawn for the heads up.

Rebecca Traister at Salon has a great piece up about the "bastardization of everything feminism has stood for" - the scariness that has been the Sarah Palin/feminism talk.

In this "Handmaid's Tale"-inflected universe, in which femininity is worshipped but females will be denied rights, CNBC pundit Donny Deutsch tells us that we're witnessing "a new creation ... of the feminist ideal," the feminism being so ideal because instead of being voiced by hairy old bats with unattractive ideas about intellect and economy and politics and power, it's now embodied by a woman who, according to Deutsch, does what Hillary Clinton did not: "put a skirt on." "I want her watching my kids," says Deutsch. "I want her laying next to me in bed."

...What Palin so seductively represents, not only to Donny Deutsch but to the general populace, is a form of feminine power that is utterly digestible to those who have no intellectual or political use for actual women. It's like some dystopian future ... feminism without any feminists.

Seriously, the more this goes on the more afraid I get.

Oh, this is rich. The latest in a series of right-wingers to adopt a faux-feminist stance is Rick Santorum:

SANTORUM: Sarah Palin is the Clarence Thomas for feminists. The civil rights community, the African-American community obviously should have rallied behind Clarence Thomas an his achievement, but they hammered him because he was a conservative. And the civil rights establishment was first and foremost liberal and then for the liberal rights of -- as liberals saw it, what blacks should have in this country. And the same thing with the feminist community.

Because if there's anyone who has long been an ally of both the civil-rights and feminist communities, it's Rick Santorum. This is a man who thinks that birth control is harmful to society, that feminists tricked women into working outside the home, and that abortion rights are comparable to slavery.

And on a related note, Dahlia Lithwick has a great retort for conservatives who invoke "feminism" as a reason to support Palin:

The "new feminism" may include uncritical support for women who oppose teen pregnancy programs and for women who force rape victims to pay for their own rape kits. But I just don't see where support for women who persist in fabricating their own records is a feminist principle.

Amen to that.

Thanks to Hope for the pic.

The mainstream media seems confused these days. It appears that because Republican VP candidate Sarah Palin is a woman, she is also a feminist. And not just a feminist, but THE feminist - a sign that all is right in the world when it comes to gender equity. But how could that be, you ask? How could anyone paint Palin - whose policies make it all too clear that she's about as anti-feminist as they come - as feminism's second coming? Well, by pithy misleading headlines - that's how!

The Wall Street Journal: Sarah Palin Feminism

Townhall: Sarah Palin: A Liberated Woman

LA Times: Sarah Palin's 'new feminism' is hailed

NPR: Sarah Palin: New Face Of Feminism?

Adweek: Feminism's Next Wave

The New York Post: A Feminist Dream at the GOP

Even more interesting is that the reporters touting this Palin-as-feminist nonsense are people who pretty much know jack shit about feminism.

Take Wall Street Journal reporter Naomi Schaefer Riley, who writes that progressives should rest easy about Palin's candidacy because "most American evangelicals have wholeheartedly embraced the idea of women in the workplace." A radical feminist sentiment if there ever was one! But perhaps one should take Riley with a grain of salt, considering she's the same reporter who wrote that murdered NY college student Imette St. Guillen should have known better than to be out drinking at 3am. Victim-blamers aren't exactly bastions of feminist thought.

Karin Agness, who wrote the piece for Townhall, calls Palin a "success of feminism" and "truly a liberated woman." Agness is also the President of the Network of Enlightened Women, an anti-feminist college organization that lurves Elizabeth Hasselbeck and even (sigh) mocked a NOW conference attendee in a wheelchair on their blog.

Really, most of the "feminism" talk is coming from conservatives appropriating the language of the movement to push a ridiculously anti-feminist candidate. This, of course, is nothing new (cough, IWF, cough) and fairly transparent.

But what I find even more upsetting is the Palin/feminist talk coming from mainstream outlets who are demonstrating absolutely no knowledge of feminism. Take the Adweek article, for example, which says "Palin is a classic third-wave feminist, benefiting from all that came before her in terms of the women's movement..." So by this definition, any woman who has benefited from feminism is a feminist. So, all women are feminists? Uh, yeah.

So, please, esteemed members of the mainstream media - if you want to write about Palin and feminism, how about you get a feminist to do it? Or at least interview one of us for goodness sake - there's plenty of us around and we'll be happy to talk to you about what the movement is about. (Hint: It's a lot more than thinking any woman is a good choice for all women.)

Harbinger of the end of days.

A reader sent in what has to be one of my favorite anti-feminist articles to date. Elroy Riggs of the Central Kentucky News Journal believes he has found the reason for the increased divorce rate, the nasty little secret behind the battle of the sexes: canned biscuits.

Give a man homemade biscuits in the morning and he'll come home to you at night. The Pillsbury Doughboy with his dratted canned biscuits is a lousy homewrecker. There was a time, especially in the south, when the woman arose early enough in the morning to prepare homemade biscuits for her husband and family.

It was a simpler time, before most women joined the workforce. Women in those days served plates of piping hot biscuits, big fluffy biscuits. Cut one open and ladle some sawmill gravy over it or slap a portion of real butter between the halves and then cover that with your choice of preserves or jelly. "A breakfast without biscuits," went a famous saying, "is like a day without sunshine."

I actually find this ode to homemade biscuits more hilarious than offensive. It perfectly epitomizes the whiny sexism of entitlement: Breakfasts are ruined! What are men to eat?! What's next? Butter that hasn't been hand-churned?!

Riggs also says that "any woman who serves her family canned biscuits for breakfast in anything but an extreme emergency is guilty of apathy." (Unlike Riggs, whose impressive social engagement compels him to write op-eds about breakfast food.) But I guess he's right in a way - I am apathetic when it comes to biscuit-making. I'd even venture to say I'm apathetic to making any kind of breakfast food, save for cereal. And yet...the boyfriend stays. It's miraculous, really.

Riggs ends with a call to action that I'm betting will have women laughing their asses off rather than running to the kitchen...

It is time, women of America, to come to your senses. Halt the alarming increase in the divorce rate. Bring the homemade biscuit back to your breakfast table. We can all work together. You make 'em, we'll eat 'em. What could be more fair?

Riggs' next article: How the invention of the washing machine (bring back the scrub board!) is responsible for women's promiscuity.

Today the Washington Post covers a new book with the earth-shattering thesis that, if women want to "keep a man" they should start scrubbing floors in lingerie, learning to cook steaks to order, and giving blowjobs in between.

Is that cover condescending or what? And that's not even getting into the content of the book...

Moore's slim treatise purports to explain how women should go about sex, relationships and marriage -- according to men. Here is his mission as a self-described reeducator: "I want to express my anger and frustration as a man with the women I feel are miseducated, misinformed, and ill-prepared about their responsibilities in getting and maintaining a relationship with a man of quality," he writes in the introduction.

Moore, of course, considers himself just such a man. Read his book, ladies, and you can snag a catch just like him. Your responsibilities include cooking, staying skinny, wearing sexy things around the house and doing whatever your man tells you to do (because, Moore writes, "Here's a little secret, ladies: men never really ask for anything. They command. . . . And believe me, what you won't do, ten broads around the corner will.")

Ugh. The sad part is, he's found this method successful:

Moore's girlfriend, Khanequa Tuitt, who's at the book-signing, recalls that when she first read his manuscript, she only got past the first couple of pages before calling him to curse him out. But now she's come to terms with his views. She's started "trying to stay away from wearing frumpy, flannel stuff," even when she's cleaning, for example.

Moore also keeps it classy with a "no fatties" message:

In his book, size matters -- a lot: "The fatter you get, the more you decrease your potential single-man pool. Let me give you an example. When you go to the grocery store to shop, do you pick out the nastiest-looking, most rotten, smelliest fruit or meat you can find? Oh, you don't? Why not? . . . It's the same with men when they see baby elephant-sized, out-of-shape women."

The interesting thing is that (as you may have noticed from the cover above), the book is "presented by" Zane, a best-selling writer of black erotica. (As M.Dot at Model Minority writes today, "Zane sells because her fiction allows Black women to be sexual in a culture that refuses to acknowledge that we are sexual, a culture that calls us ho's if are so inclined to be sexual, talk about sex, or even look like we are human and have a sexual appetite.") But Zane says her name on the book is not an endorsement -- it's a warning: "There are some men who feel exactly like he does. I feel like women should be forewarned and realize what's out there."

If I didn't know better I would think it was my birthday - because it's not often that an anti-feminist organization gives you a gift like this one.

The Clare Boothe Luce Policy Institute* has put out Sense & Sexuality, a handy little anti-feminist guide to sex by none other than Miriam Grossman, author of the slut-shaming book Unprotected (not to be confused with the similarly titled slut-shaming book Unhooked).

Seriously, every page is priceless - so it's hard to know what to highlight. But here are some of my favorite tidbits.

On the biology of why dudes will fuck you and dump you:

When it comes to sex, oxytocin, like alcohol, turns red lights green. It plays a major role in what's called "the biochemistry of attachment." Because of it, you could develop feelings for a guy whose last intention is to bond with you. You might think of him all day, but he can't remember your name.

On the dangers of "hooking up":

As the number of casual sex partners in the past year increased, so did signs of depression in college women.

On why women with HPV are unlovable drop-outs:

Even though these infections are common, and usually disappear with time, learning you have one can be devastating. Natural reactions are shock, anger, and confusion. Who did I get this from, and when? Was he unfaithful? Who should I tell? And hardest of all: Who will want me now? These concerns can affect your mood, concentration, and sleep. They can deal a serious blow to your self esteem. And to your GPA.

On why you should get to the baby-making ASAP:

Remember that motherhood doesn't always happen when the time is right for you; there's a window of opportunity, then the window closes.

On wishing herpes on fictional characters:

It's easy to forget, but the characters on Grey's Anatomy and Sex in the City are not real. In real life, Meredith and Carrie would have warts or herpes. They'd likely be on Prozac or Zoloft.

But really and truly it's page 16, in its entirety, that's my favorite. Check it after the jump. Then laugh yourself to sleep tonight. I know I will.

*The organization that also brought you one of the top 10 anti-feminist videos and the "bring back the hope chest" campaign.

...and, for good measure, criticizes feminists for decrying violence against women.

On his radio show yesterday, Rush Limbaugh said,

Obama's patriotism is not being attacked in an ad. McCain's just out there saying he's putting his own personal political ambition ahead of the country's. It's -- you know, it's just -- it's just we can't hit the girl. I don't care how far feminism's saying, you can't hit the girl, and you can't -- you can't criticize the little black man-child. You just can't do it, 'cause it's just not right. It's not fair. He's such a victim.

Ah yes, those ridiculous feminists trying to convince the American people that domestic violence is a bad thing -- even if she was asking for it. And that ridiculous media, daring to publish anything favorable about a black man.

I can't say I'm surprised, though. It's Limbaugh.

Seems like an appropriate moment to republish Samhita's "fuck you" to Limbaugh:

This is rich. A self described anti-feminist lawyer has decided to sue Columbia University for offering women's studies courses because they are discriminatory towards men.

The NYT's City Room blog reports that Roy Den Hollander (pictured) -- "a Manhattan lawyer and a self-described antifeminist" who in the past year has sued nightclubs for favoring women by offering ladies' night discounts and has sued the federal government over a law that protects women from violence -- is now setting his sights on Columbia University. Today, Den Hollander filed a suit against Columbia in the SDNY for offering women's studies courses, which he sees as discriminatory toward men. His suit accuses Columbia of using government aid to preach a "religionist belief system called feminism." A Columbia spokesman declined to comment to the NYT.

In Den Hollander's suit he calls women's studies "a bastion of bigotry against men" and said its women's studies program "demonizes men and exalts women in order to justify discrimination against men based on collective guilt." He reportedly writes in the complaint: "Federal financial aid, state funds and other assistance help proselytize feminism at Columbia," in violation of equal protection safeguards of the Fifth and 14th Amendments.

If his hatred for women isn't apparent enough by his suing the federal government around VAWA, it is clear because he has sued clubs for ladies night (as Ann has covered before). As Jay Smooth just pointed out, "ladies night is for the benefit of men, you idiot! Stop getting in the way of the patriarchy!" (/sarcasm). Obviously, he has never been to a club.

For a little background on what motivates this guy, the Gothamist has some gems from the piece that Ann links about his assault on "ladies night" in the New Yorker.

Den Hollander guy sure knows how to charm the ladies; you'll recall that last summer the New Yorker spent a night out with the divorcee, who explained his life mission: "What I'm trying to do now in my later years is fight everybody who violates my rights... the Feminazis have infiltrated institutions, and there's been a transfer of rights from guys to girls." Hence the Columbia lawsuit, in which Den Hollander maintains that the university should not be using government aid to preach a "religionist belief system called feminism."

This guy might have to get a Feminist Fuck You.

Kind of hilarious.

Pic from Sweet One.

Sometimes the emails we get are too good not to share.

fuck you femenists. when the network crashes you will be raped and made subject to men. you fear this and that is why you hate us. your greatest fears will be realized. you did nothing to help society but you divided it with your hatred, legalized murder of fetuses, and your selfish squandering while you did not help your people.

When the network crashes? Methinks someone has watched The Matrix one too many times.

Making faces at NeW on 12seconds.tv

I have a lot more to say about