“‘Misandry’ Is A Feminist Issue,” Say Transactivists I Mean MRAs February 5, 2010
Posted by factcheckme in MRAs, WTF?, feminisms, kids, pop culture, rape, thats mean, trans.Tags: custody, fathers rights, fuckholes, fun fems, misandry, MRA, neovaginas, sex pozzies, third wavers, trans, transwomen
37 comments
this made me laugh and laugh. transwomen (like the MRAs and fundies) love making rules for women and feminists to follow. we are supposed to suck their metaphorical (and actual) dicks, or be outed as “transphobic”. we are supposed to accept their constructed, fake fuckholes as “female organs,” as vaginas, and appreciate it as “ironic” when they appropriate our experience, and steal our work. mm-kay.
now, according to the transactivists, feminists are supposed to take on “misandry” as a feminist issue. are they serious? yes, yes they are. they are very serious. all the fucking time. and that makes it even funnier: have you ever heard an internet transwoman say something that wasnt unintentionally funny? i havent. and i doubt i ever will, particularly after reading this, which nearly gave me a stomach cramp:
Could Bindel’s trans-phobia be fuelled by her open misandry? Is the idea of someone born with external reproductive organs becoming a woman so anathema to her? Does Bindel in fact take any responsibility for murder and violence towards trans people by the words she has published? (thanks polly).
this is in response to feminist author julie bindel, who has dared speak out against transpolitics, which is the same thing as “murder!” apparently. (that bitch! lets rape her!) but speculating as to whether bindel’s “transphobia” is fuelled by her “misandry” is like pondering, in all seriousness, ”could bindel’s hooswhit be fuelled by her glod?” because theres no such fucking thing as a glod, and a “hooswhit” is just some letters put together. similarly, theres no such thing as misandry, and “transphobia” is just some shit the transactivists made up to bash women and feminists over the head with, when we dont want men in dresses transwomen in our washrooms (if they wanted to address something that *did* exist, they could try addressing the problem of rape and the men they are afraid will rape them, if they use the mensroom. but they never do).
but even if it did exist, only a fucking MRA, a fundie, or a transactivist would say that misandry was a feminist issue. when someone misinterprets the aims of feminism as being “anti-sexist” instead of “removing the boot of capitopatriarchy from womens necks” its inevitably one of them, too. this absolutely screams “waht about teh menzzzzz?” but ten or so years ago, feminists werent falling for it. now, thanks to the fucking sex-pozzies, the third-wavers and transpolitics, this mens rights garbage has taken center stage. mens rights has taken center stage, within the feminist movement! think about this, people.
i admit i left feminist studies behind for most of the last decade, due to having other shit to do. and when i came back, it took me a short while to get back up to speed. i was there, once i realized what all this cis-business really was. this is mens rights rhetoric, packaged up with a pretty pink bow. thats all it is. its the same disingenuous doublespeak that has oprah thinking that boys and men are “falling behind” girls and women, and that even if this were so that its not fair. its the same shit that has fathers rights groups crying “sexism!” when the statistics show that women tend to get custody of children when they divorce.
because what the MRAs conveniently ignore is that when girls and women are successful at anything, its because they work damn hard for it. you know, its earned, rather than unearned. people lavished with unearned privileges dont know any better, they just dont. and in so-called custody disputes, most mothers dont have a fucking choice when MOST FATHERS DONT WANT FUCKING CUSTODY ANYWAY. the kids would be orphans if the mothers didnt step up, because men have *never* stepped up to the plate in this regard, and they arent starting now. too often, when men fight for custody in a divorce, its a fucking tool of domestic abuse by a vengeful ex-husband who had undoubtedly been abusing his wife during the marriage as well.
this is whats passing as “sexism” now? in what universe is a lack of reasonable options, and being the target of abuse considered a privilege? this topsy-turvy inversion of reality absolutely requires an MRA worldview.
as feminists have long been aware, men’s rights activists (MRAs) have appropriated the language of feminist discourse to acheive their own dubious ends, but they never really understood it. they talk about “sexism!” and things “not being fair” but this is coming from privileged, largely white males who havent the slightest fucking clue what “unfairness” really is. we saw through it then. we arent seeing through it now, but its the same appropriation of feminist discourse, and the transwomen are misusing and misreading it, just like men always have.
indeed, to accuse a feminist of being a “misandrist” is the worst kind of cliche: an anti-feminist one. for all their talk about being “outed” and how scary that would undoubtedly be, these transwomen out themselves every fucking time they open their mouths. the only people they would fool with their MRA doublespeak would be anti-feminist fuckwits who dont know any better (aka “normal people”), but they want to hang out with feminists, instead. why? this is not a rhetorical question.
not unrelatedly, the only “lovers” transwomen are fooling with their fake fuckholes are ones that dont use their hands. again, anti-feminist fuckwits who dont know any better (including statistically the poor, the uneducated, and the just-generally-bad-lover types). because fake vaginas arent organs, and they arent attached to anything. only a fucking MRA wouldnt know whether theres a cervix in there, or not, because he never bothered to look. and only a fucking transwoman would agree with the MRAs in that regard: that it doesnt really matter, anyway, because vaginas are just fuckholes, and are only good for one thing. but again, at least the online transactivists dont want to hang around the uneduated MRAs who would probably accept them *and* their fake fuckholes. why not? this is not a rhetorical question.
unless and until i discover some compelling evidence to the contrary, this is my working answer: because infiltrating, assimilating, and ultimately rewriting and dismantling feminism has been the MRAs goal from the beginning, and transwomen and their allies are fucking MRAs. thats why. we have to open our eyes to this reality. i dont think it would be an exaggeration to say that, literally, everything depends on it.
Why Am I Not Surprised? Boob Doctor Makes Positive Mammogram Result All About Him! January 31, 2010
Posted by factcheckme in WTF?, health, rape.Tags: breast cancer, caretaking, coddling, doctors, florida, health, male egos, mammogram, positive test, rape
16 comments
its not really gambling if the house never wins.
i dont normally write about myself or my family, but this was just the absolute end. friday afternoon we received some bad news: my mom had a positive mammogram result. two, actually: the first one, then a follow-up mammogram that was also positive. the next step is a surgical consult. so that part was shocking. what *wasnt* shocking is that the boob doctor somehow managed to make this experience all about him. men always do that, dont they? for christs sake. so this is the state of things, when women need medical care. enter the boob doctor.
my mom lives in florida, and the only reason i am telling you that, is this: if you ever need major medical care or diagnostic testing, do not have it done in florida. just dont. i might do some research at some point about why this is, and what the numbers look like, but there is definitely something going on in florida regarding the competency of floridian doctors. if you are a snowbird or a midwesterner, go back to new york or michigan or wherever you are from, and get your major medical care there. thats free advice.
now, knowing what she knows (and has good reason to know, and i am *not* telling you about that) about the competency of floridian doctors, as soon as she heard “surgical consult” she was already going through her mental address book (its as sharp as a blackberry, and works in tunnels) and planning a trip back home. she mentions this to her doctor, who immediately becomes offended. of course, as a fifty-something woman she has decades of experience catering to the egos of self-important men, so she didnt even tell him the truth: instead of “you butchers arent cutting into me, i am out of here” she said “my family is back home and i will need someone to look after me while i convalesce, so would you be so kind as to offer me a referral?” and the fucking cocksucking doctor was *still* offended.
i wont even go into the fact that the doctor acted like breast surgery was no more important than trimming a hangnail, or excising a fucking boil. or that he normally has his physicians assistant deal with the “wimmins trubbles”. (because what, women *arent* the inferior other?)
SHE was digesting the news that she could have FUCKING CANCER, and she was STILL smart enough to suck his fucking dick and cater to HIM. and no matter what she did or didnt do in HER moment of terror, in HER medical crisis, this fucking cocksucking piece of shit man was still making it all about himself. this woman, this mother, this patient, this possible cancer patient in front of him sucking *his* fucking dick wasnt sucking it GOOD ENOUGH. this woman who was completely devastated and still hadnt even told her husband or her daughters what had happened, who had stopped in his office for her test results and was told she needed her flesh sliced open to see whether she might die from cancer wasnt dancing FAST ENOUGH, to suit him. that she was apparently questioning his competence (even though she took great pains *not* to fucking say that!) was what was important, there. his interpretation of what she didnt even fucking say, was what he was focused on.
The Neo-Vagina Monologues January 23, 2010
Posted by factcheckme in WTF?, entertainment, health, kids, rape, thats mean, trans.Tags: essentialism, girls, menstruation, MTF, neo vaginas, pregnancy, rape, sex reassignment surgery, the vagina monologues, trans, transwomen
123 comments
like women, vaginas dont have much of a voice in a patriarchal, misogynist culture. thus, a woman playwright created “the vagina monologues.”
the title was shocking, but even more so was the very notion that vaginas, like women, have experiences. of course, born-women know that. but not surprisingly, noone ever asks about womens experiences, or those of our vaginas. now that someone has mentioned it, my vagina is pretty pissed off too. all vaginas are, thats the whole point.
vaginas are pissed off because they are treated like shit, like garbage. like toys. when in reality, vaginas are organs. organs, like hearts and lungs are organs. got that? good. and organs, like, do stuff. they are good for more than one thing. working in conjunction with other organs and tissues, organs create organ-systems. often, overlapping systems that, like, do stuff. like this:
now, a question. what other organs do we deliberately treat like shit? do we expose the heart and lungs to poisons, chemicals and irritants in order to improve them? what other of our organs are considered defective and in need of intervention, when they are working properly in their natural state? none. got that? good.
this is the state of the union when it comes to women and our vaginas. our sex. literally, our born-sex. vaginas are organs, but women are the “other.” medically, socially, and sexually, we are a defective knock-off of the real thing: men. thats going to cause some problems for us. because its a shared problem, theres a shared history there. a female-specific history, specifically related to our born-sex. think i am an essentialist for pointing that out? go fuck yourself. then, consider this common example: our first periods. menstruation is treated as if it were a disease, and women as if we are diseased, even though its a completely normal function of a healthy organ system. and many of us remember the first time we menstruated just like we remember where we were on 9/11, or when kennedy was shot (or whatever):
our vaginas are also the preferred target of men’s abuse. this necessitates men protecting us from other men, begging the question: protection from WHAT? we dont need men to protect us, we need men to leave us alone. but they never do, do they? “the vagina monologues” includes the story of one woman who, as a child, was raped by her dad’s best friend. her dad shot him, and she didnt see her dad again for 7 years because some other men sent him to fucking jail. for shooting a rapist, while the rapist’s dick was still inside the mans minor daughter:
these are compelling stories, every one of them. now i ask you, people. what would a neo-vagina have to say, if a neo-vagina could talk? this is a serious question. to help you get into character, heres a prop: this is what a neo-vagina looks like:
Oh Golly Gee, Girls Are So Confusing!!1!11 January 16, 2010
Posted by factcheckme in gender roles, kids, pop culture.Tags: boys, girls, girls are confusing, teenagers, understanding girls
28 comments
they really start playing this game early in life, dont they? boys and men have everything to gain from pretending that girls and women are “confusing.”
pretending that girls and women “dont know what we want” so what, thats a free pass to give us everything you know we *dont* want? because thats what it looks like to me.
lets start here. women are human beings, and human beings *dont want* certain things, by design. like pain, fear, uncertainty, stress, and abuse. seriously. if little junior here could just remember that, he would be, like, seriously ahead of the game, compared to many boys and men. READ THE LIST AGAIN AND MEMORIZE IT. i am not even fucking kidding. it will be the best thing you ever did.
from there, we can move on to more advanced topics, like having to share too little resources with too many people. nope, women dont like that any more than human beings like it. so stop knocking us up. but for now…just stick with the basics.
sadly, its not just boys and men who are playing this game. girls are playing along with the same tired lines, including “i want to be mysterious!” and “youre right, i *dont* know what i want!” but i am not going to post a video here of a teenaged girl playing into the misogyny of her culture. thats just not fair. plus its clear that several girls who responded to this disarmingly cute british boy typical little exhibitionist attention-grabbing male were just trying to flirt with him. also not going there.
but i did watch most of them, and this young woman had the best response so far: she basically says that if you want to understand girls, ”hang out with them and talk to them.” you know, like you do with the other humans. thats good advice.
too hard for you? or, just not really *that* interested in answering your own tired bullshit question? dont worry junior. just stick with the list. carry around a cheat-sheet if you have to. laminate it, and consult it often. no shit.
Actresses Were Harmed in the Making of These (Even Mainstream) Films January 10, 2010
Posted by factcheckme in entertainment, health, kids, pop culture, porn, rape.Tags: actors, film, injuries, jobeth williams, linda blair, mainstream, porn, rape, shelley lubben
15 comments
these actresses’ stories, and the movies they are referencing, have always bothered me. now i know why.
in the above film clip, actress jobeth williams is seen to be sexually assaulted by a ghost, and then films a special-effects scene in which she was actually injured, IN REAL LIFE. in the “E-True Hollywood Story: Curse of ‘The Poltergeist’” documentary, jobeth williams states that when she was rolling across the “ceiling” of the bedroom set, the sadistic assholes set design crew had actually added a realistic popcorn-treatment to the ceiling that caused her to be cut and scraped when she slid across it. she recalls that her knees and elbows were bleeding and blood was running down her arms and legs, and when she complained about it to the director, he said “oh dont worry about it, it wont show on film.” thanks alot, dickwad.
and actress linda blair was a minor child at the time she filmed the mega-hit horror flick “the exorcist.” and as the studio and studio executives continue to make money off that movie, linda blair continues to pay the price for having had anything to do with them. she was apparently subjected to extremely cold temperatures on a refrigerated set, working conditions which traumatized her: to this day, she “cannot stand being cold.” and its pretty common knowledge that she suffered a permanent back injury on the set, in the famous “bed jostling” scene where she was thrown about violently until she was actually injured. you know, in real life.
actress ellen burstyn was also permanently injured on the set of “the exorcist,” having
received a permanent spinal injury during filming. In the sequence where she is thrown away from her possessed daughter, a harness jerked her hard away from the bed. She fell on her coccyx and screamed in pain – this was caught on film and adds to the realism of that scene. (emphasis mine).
what is striking to me as a feminist and someone who watches movies and television is that you can easily find footage of these women being violently mistreated, and seriously, permanently injured online. as you will see for yourself if you search for three whole seconds on youtube, both the ceiling-scene above, and “the exorcist”’s bed-jostling scene have been specifically isolated for your viewing pleasure as “favorite scenes” of each film. you can rent the movie and watch the whole thing too, if you want some context with your footage of women being violently mistreated and seriously, permanently injured in the making of a mainstream film.
actors and stuntpersons have even died on the set of mainstream films, but we insist on believing that porn is somehow different. why?
“Rape Culture Simultaneously Exists, and Does Not Exist,” Say Transactivists January 3, 2010
Posted by factcheckme in feminisms, rape, thats mean, trans.Tags: agressive, entitled, male privilege, michfest, rape, sexual violence, threats, trans, transwomen, violence, womens restrooms
43 comments
what are you so afraid of?
feminists get that we live in a rape culture, where every single man is shroedinger’s rapist to every single woman. most nonfeminist women “get” this too, although they are loathe to call themselves feminists for whatever reason: hence we have the much beleaguered “bathroom dilemma” faced by men in dresses transwomen who insist on using female-only restrooms and invading other female-only spaces whenever the fuck it suits them.
but what the transactivists are saying on this issue makes. no. sense. the foundation of their argument that even non-op transwomen should be allowed unfettered access to women’s bathrooms is that *men rape, and they are afraid of being raped if they use the men’s room*. ok, i am with them so far, i mean really. men *do* rape. and i wouldnt want to have to use the restroom next to them either. HENCE THE PROBLEM.
transwomen are not women, they are men. they were raised to be aggressive and entitled, because they were born male, and raised male. because they were raised male in a rape culture, transwomen will inevitably believe that sexual violence is a handy tool with which to punish women, and many transwomen want to punish born-women so badly they cannot contain it. heres an example of this blatant misogyny and uncontrollable, sexually-charged rage against born-women who dare question transpolitics, or challenge “transwomen’s” entitlement, in any way:
But I still want to be a woman so my only realistic option now is to abduct you…keep you in my cellar…make you use loads of moisturiser on your body….then skin you & make it into a lady suit, for me to wear. {BTW, what dress size are you, I’m 5′ 11″ will you fit me?} I’m pretty sure this is an original idea.
ps. we should be together. u wank-cam?
and heres another:
Wotcha marjieworm-twat. This is great. I just read your transphobic rant & you are more barking than me. (You’re parents must be so proud of you}. As your post removes your rights as a human, I can fuck with your head as much as I want. Think I’ll do racist, not tried that before. I want you to be my black nigga slave girl. suck my muther fucking cock, you bitch. Um, how was that?
We can move onto date rape & cannibalism next if you like, in future mails. Please write back. I love you & we should be together. Quack!
now. the essence of “schroedinger’s rapist” which was addressed so well over at shapely prose (also known as “not TRANSPHOBIC! prose”) was that, as women, we have no way of knowing whether a man is a rapist until he attacks us. NO. WAY. OF. KNOWING. UNTILHEATTACKSUS. and all men are schroedinger’s rapist, to all women: thats the essence of living in a rape culture. rape is normal, because aggression and entitlement are normal, if you are a man; and its become normal for women to expect it, and to fear it, from all men. like it or lump it.
so while shapely prose is quite eloquently telling us how it is, the transactivists who just *love* reading her continue to miss the point: that it applies to transwomen, too, but not as victims. you see, transwomen are schroedinger’s rapists, too. women have no way of knowing if transwomen are rapists, until they attack us. NO. WAY. OF. KNOWING. UNILTHEYATTACKUS. its almost beside the point that we dont know if you really “feel” like a woman, or not, and we have no way of knowing. and some of us dont fucking care how you feel. we dont want to be using the toilet next to a fucking man, because of the threat of rape. you know, the one that the transactivists like to pretend exists (when it suits them) and simultaneously does not exist, when it would benefit *them* if it didnt. but thats the case. not at all.
of course, since some transwomen think that anything a woman could ever say “removes her rights as a human being,” and cannot contain their rape fantasies and threats of sexual violence against radical feminists who dare challenge them, i dare say its only a matter of time before a transwoman rapes a born-woman, in the name of feminism. and that, my friends, will be a sad, disasterous, white-hot angry day for feminists, and for feminism as a whole. and surely the transactivists would cheer it on, and herald the rapist as a champion of womens rights, and a gender-nonconformist, to boot.
what a fucking disaster this feminist-embracing of “transactivism” has turned out to be. a DISASTER. for women i mean. not for men, or “transwomen”. in other words, nothing new under the sun.
I Think I’ll Stick With “Plan C” But Thanks Anyway, Vaginal-Intercourse Extolling Heteronormative Asswipes December 27, 2009
Posted by factcheckme in WTF?, entertainment, health, pop culture, porn, rape.Tags: advertisement, commercials, contraceptive, emergency, heteronormative, plan b, rape, risk, vaginal intercourse
59 comments
this is a commercial for the new “Plan B” emergency contraceptive, which was approved in 2006 to be sold over the counter to women ages 18 and up (and just became legal in 2009 for 17-year olds) without a doctors’ prescription.
the first thing i thought upon seeing this commercial for the first time was “where are all the guys?” these women are waking up alone the next morning, having experienced a “contraceptive failure” the night before. understandably, they are mortified. horrified. freaked. been there, done that. whats *not* immediately understandable is why they are *alone* and confronting the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy alone, their male partners nowhere in sight. the guys just got up and…what? went to work? went out for breakfast? went out with the doodbros? went home the night before? WHAT? where are they?
this is the very narrative of misogyny and heteronormativity. guys: ejaculate into a womans vagina, and leave. women: stay at home and deal with the aftermath of vaginal intercourse, alone. check, and check.
heres another commercial that didnt air here, but is available on youtube. i found it extremely triggery, but its worth watching in order to rip it to shreds afterwards:
Is “Joe the Plumber” a Transwoman? December 19, 2009
Posted by factcheckme in entertainment, gender roles, pop culture, thats mean, trans.Tags: homosexuality, joe the plumber, joy behar, male privilege, pedophilia, silencing, the joy behar show, trans, transgender, transsexual, transwomen
115 comments
EDIT: this video was removed from youtube but is available here. its worth the watch. click through to observe joe the plumber in his natural habitat (embarrassing himself and speaking out of his ass) and continue below:
heres a video of a male speaker demonstrating a facet of male-privilege: demanding respect. he thinks that just because he is alive, and conscious, that he has the right to espouse his opinion (on a topic he clearly knows nothing about), and to be taken seriously, and to not be criticised, to boot!
i think we can all agree that joe is male, and he is demonstrating male privilege in this video. because from the time he was born he was never told otherwise, this man clearly thinks that hes not only entitled to his asinine opinion about *whatever* (insert any opinion on any topic) but also the god-given right to “not be chastised for it.” joy behar is no feminist, but she is an outspoken woman and she knows better. women are used to being criticised, chastised, silenced, and everything up to and including being threatened, raped, tortured and killed when we speak out, or “act up.” men arent. FULL STOP.
so knowing what we know about male privilege and how it works, including who has it and who doesnt, watch the video. then, read up on the behaviors and actions that make up transactivism, and utterly define transwomen to a “T” including agendas and communication styles, and tell me: is joe the plumber a TRANSWOMAN? because thats exactly how many transwomen behave, when they arent getting the respect they want demand, and the freedom from criticism they have been used to, all their lives.
now, i dont really think that joe the plumber is a transwoman, but in all honesty, he could be. he could be a non-operative (ie. still has his dick); lesbian (ie. still fucks women with the dick he still has); male-sexed, male-gendered, and male-identified transwoman. in other words, inside his own mind, he “feels” at odds with everything he says, feels, thinks, and sees in the mirror, but chooses not to do anything about it. ok. now, for those of you who are still with me: should this person be allowed to use a womens restroom, if the desire overcame him to do so? why or why not?
in other words, is the only thing that *makes* him *not* trans is that he self-identifies doesnt-not-self-identify as a man? honestly. what makes him a man, and not a non-operative lesbian male-sexed male-gendered male-identified transwoman?
but my main point is this, and it explains why transwomen and aggressive, entitled men behave exactly the same under similar circumstances, and the similarities are utterly uncanny. joe the plumber isnt a transwoman. transwomen are men. period.
It’s Pat!-Privilege December 13, 2009
Posted by factcheckme in entertainment, feminisms, gender roles, health, race, rape, trans.Tags: born women, childbirth, gender bending, gender role, julia sweeney, motherhood, pat, saturday night live, sex versus gender, the fistula foundation, trans
233 comments
actress julia sweeney as "pat"
theres been a lot of talk lately both here and elsewhere about what i describe as gender-bending. the trans- are doing it. the queer-identified are doing it. the GLBs might be doing it, and the non-gender-conforming straights too.
but no matter how gender-bendy any of us first-world privileged people think we are being (i make more money than my spouse, and i am a hardass! give me a prize!) one fact remains, and i think feminists everywhere need to take a hard look at it. women in other parts of the world, in *most* parts of the world in fact, and in the rural and urban-poor first-world too, are being oppressed based on not their gender, but their born-sex. how can you tell? they have a gaggle of kids following behind them calling them mommy, thats how. either that, or they are being injured or killed in childbirth. because world-wide, womens female gender-role as heterosexual wives and mothers are as rigorously enforced upon them as is their born-sex. they dont have a choice. and to whatever extent *we* have a choice there, we are privileged.
you may or may not remember the character “pat” from saturday night live, but i am certain that i am dating myself by using the reference. heres what wiki has to say:
Pat (whose full name was revealed on an episode of “Saturday Night Live” as Pat O’Neil Riley) was a somewhat overweight character with short, curly black hair who wore glasses and a blue western-style shirt with tan slacks. The character spoke in a nasally voice that sometimes squeaked. Pat apparently suffered from very sweaty palms, and constantly wiped them on his/her clothing while making a strange whimpering sound, further adding to the character’s unappealing quality. Sweeney wore no makeup and colored her lips beige to further hide any sex identity clues.
The sketches always involved the celebrity guest hosts of the show playing everyday people who encounter Pat and then go to great lengths to discover Pat’s true gender without being so rude as to actually ask (since Pat can be short for either “Patrick”, a traditionally male name, or “Patricia”, a traditionally female name). Pat remained completely oblivious, endlessly frustrating the questioners with answers that leave the character’s sex vague. The character often made statements that seemed to reveal a sex, only to then immediately confuse things again. (A typical example might be, “Sorry if I’m a little grumpy, I have really bad cramps… I rode my bike over here, and my calf muscles are KILLING me!”) In another sketch, Pat tells Kevin Nealon that his/her name is Pat Riley, same as the coach of the Lakers, “except there’s a big difference between him and me. I’m not the coach of a professional basketball team.” Other gags included Pat’s attempts at humor, which served to confuse everyone further, such as when asked what Pat is short for, the character would reply, Pat is short for “P-a-a-a-a-a-t!”, or when asked in an application for sex, Pat responded “Please!”. Another joke was when Pat was asked the full name, to which the character responded that Pat almost never referred to the character’s self by the middle name, as it was embarrassing, to which an eager audience was filled in that it was “O’Neill”, again continuing the joke.
The character was popular enough to spawn a feature length 1994 film called It’s Pat (from the lyrics of the character’s theme song on Saturday Night Live). In the film, Pat meets Chris, another sexually ambiguous character played by Dave Foley. (On SNL, Chris had been played by Dana Carvey.) They quickly fall in love and propose to each other at the exact same time. Before the wedding, however, Chris breaks up with Pat on account of Pat’s arrogance and the fact that Pat cannot decide on a direction in life.
emphases mine.
Dora Explores…Domestic Labor! December 1, 2009
Posted by factcheckme in WTF?, entertainment, gender roles, kids, pop culture.Tags: christmas presents, commercials, dora the explorer, gender roles, girls, kids, kitchen, retro, role playing, socialization, swing wing, the babble list, toys
26 comments
whats next? dora "exploring" domestic violence? or the sex trade?
i saw a commercial for this one lastnight, and i admit that somehow this has flown under my radar for at least the last 2 christmases.
see the commercial for yourself here. its really a must-see. now, i know there are many variations on the pink plastic kitchen out there for little girls to unwrap at birthdays and christmas and play with. i had an easy-bake oven when i was 7 that was a blast (until i left the plastic spatula in the oven and it melted). but ”dora the explorer” is supposed to be an adventurous girl that goes on, you know, educational adventures…that are almost (but not quite, of course) like the fun stuff little boys get to do. you see, dora is supposed to be different.
heres the product description from toys r us:
Dora’s Talking Kitchen brings Dora’s adventures into kitchen role play. Children can go on Dora recipe adventures with the help of the 5 recipe adventure maps and 28 play pieces. Also included are bilingual phrases, music and sound effects.
oh goody! kitchen-role play for children! see how they attempt to follow the patented dora “adventure” theme by having “recipe adventure maps?” how exciting! why not just have a detailed map of the aisles at the supermarket? at least that would be educational (excuse me, but where is “butterpat island” exactly? wait, its the boring old dairy case!? dora fucked me!) now, tell me truly: are they really talking about “children” here, or almost exclusively little girls? the commercial tells you all you need to know about the gender of fisher-price’s intended target.
and its just plain creepy to call anything dealing with children “role play.” kids play, they use their imaginations, but they are not role-playing. okay? role playing is for grown ups getting their skank on in the bedroom, or purging their emotional guts out on the therapists’ couch. unless…could fisher price really be admitting their true intention here: to groom little girls for the “role” of domestic laborer? why admit it? so called “girls’ toys” have been doing that for centuries,** but theres something so not right about calling this scenario “role play.” for real, thats weird.
Shelley Lubben’s “Lived Experience” as a Sex Worker and Porn-Actor November 24, 2009
Posted by factcheckme in entertainment, feminisms, health, liberal dickwads, politics, porn, thats mean, trans.Tags: anti porn, anti pornography, buck angel, feminism, fun fems, liberal feminism, libertarian, mean, radfem, radical feminism, sex work, shelley lubben, trans, transsexual
114 comments
here is a video of ex-porn actor and anti-pornography crusader shelley lubben, sitting in the lobby of the los angeles hotel in which she had turned her first trick (and unintentionally conceived her first child) as a teenaged prostitute.
part 2 is below.
i post these here because, for one thing, i wanted to point out to all the sex-pozzies who frequent my blog that not all sex-workers’ “lived experience” jives with a liberal/libertarian sex-positive agenda, although they really like to pretend otherwise.
but my main point is in regards to personal testimonies, and the fact that many liberal and so-called “fun-fems,” including transpersons and transactivists give tons of credence to sex-workers’ and others’ personal experience, (you know, when this self-reported “lived experience” supports their agenda) and value personal narratives over feminist theory. they also claim that personal narratives of sex workers and transpersons are inherently feminist, and should be deferred to by feminists in lieu of a critical analysis or examining lived experienced in context.
but feminists who favor theory over experience, or who dissect and examine lived experience in context of feminist theory are the only ones who are being honest, here, arent they?
for example, shelley lubben is an outspoken, anti-pornography and anti-prostitution crusader, who reveals the horrors she experienced while working in the industry for many years. in a series of video testimonies, she reports that she became impregnated during her first experience with prostitution, and contracted genital herpes on the porn set, among other things.
to a radical feminist like myself, shelley lubben’s story appears to be consistent with my own anti-porn, anti-prostitution stance. and i was moved greatly by her words, and by her experience of an industry that i fully agree is harmful to women, and anti-feminist. i have watched these videos over and over, and have been moved to tears, and to write. were i a fun-fem, my analysis would stop there: shelley lubben is a feminist, and her testimony is unproblematic! except that in many ways, thats not the case. not at all.
The Fallacy of Cis-Privilege November 16, 2009
Posted by factcheckme in feminisms, thats mean, trans.Tags: cis, cis privilege, liberal feminism, privilege, radical feminism, trans, transactivists, transgender, transsexual
297 comments
for those who dont know, cis- (meaning “on the same side as”) has been used by transactivists to describe people who “arent trans.” according to them, people who arent trans possess special powers, called “privileges,” parallel to the unearned privileges possessed by whites and men, who socially, politically and relationally oppress women, and people of color.
but when transfolk and transactivists use “privilege” in this context, i do not think it means what they think it means. specifically, their concept of “privilege” does not match up with my definition, or with any accepted definition of the word.
when a transwoman laments to a born woman, for example:
I wish I could understand where you are coming from, but I don’t think I ever will. I never had the privilege of growing up as a girl, with people automatically calling me she, her, girl, woman, etc. without having to think about it. I never had the privilege of being 5 years old and not having your mother beat the living shit out of you because you were trying on her makeup. I say this will [sic] all respect that is due to you: from where I sit, you are the one with the privilege.
what she has revealed is that her idea of anyones particular social or political privilege is “i have something you want.” in the case of born-men thinking that girls and women had it easy or preferable in that they grew up being recognized as female, it would be more accurate to say their idea of privilege is further diluted to mean “i have something you *think* you want” because theres no way a born-male could really know if he wanted to grow up like a girl, because as a boy/man, he doesnt, and indeed *couldnt* know what it was like.
to take a little tangent here, but to illustrate and underscore that point, i was assaulted by 4 neighborhood boys when i was 5, because i was a girl, and they wanted to look into my underpants. so, they trapped me in a camping tent that was set up in the backyard and wouldnt let me leave, and they said i could either give each one of them a kiss, or they were going to look inside my underwear. does this sound like fun to you, transwomen? frankly i would take a beating from my mother on any day of the week, rather than ever be trapped inside a closed space by a bunch of sexually predatory boys who gave me such a disgusting “choice.” i kissed them all and they let me leave. luckily.
but heres the problem with “i have something you want” = “i have privilege”. if i had a candy bar, and you wanted it, i would not have “candy-bar privilege”. if i had a nice dog and you wanted a nice dog like mine, i would not have “dog privilege.” you cant just say that any old goddamn thing i have that you want is a privilege. privilege means that there is *power* there, and girls and women dont possess any kind of gender-based power. exactly the opposite.
Sorry, Sex-Positive Transwomen: I’m Not Buying What You’re Selling. At All. November 9, 2009
Posted by factcheckme in feminisms, health, sorry!, thats mean, trans.Tags: after care, cis privilege, dilations, FTM, fun fem, male privilege, mental illness, MTF, neovagina, radfem, radical feminism, sex positive, sex pozzies, sex reassignment surgery, SRS, trans, transsexual, transwomen
507 comments
sex-pos transwomen–if i were born male, like you were, i might be “sex-positive,” too. you know: exhibitionist, pro-porn, and squeeee!-fully sexually available to men. if only….
i had been lavished with male privilege since the day i was born, and taught that the only thing that mattered was my wants, my feelings, that i was entitled to turn my desires into reality, no matter how trite, fleeting, or bizarre. if i grew up with an entirely misogynist view of women, instead of one interspersed with actual, lived, female experience. like you, believing that girls and women were emotional manipulators, that just have to cry big, black tears to get “their way“–and merely the sum of their fleshly and artificial parts–as observable by men. the clothes, the eyelashes, and always, always how fuckable they are. if i had no cramps, and no fear of pregnancy. you know, all the things you obviously think constitutes “woman” as well as the things that you dont think about, at all, which make your interpretation of “female” so deeply problematic. if i had been taught to stick my dick into anything that moved from day one, and to enjoy it.
if i had to have regular intercourse with men, on advice from my sex-reassignment surgeon, literally on pain of death: lest i lose my “use-it-or-lose-it” neo-vagina or experience life-threatening complications from (gasp) not being fuckable enough! (oh, thats rich. and how “pleasing” to men generally must one be, to ensure oneself of regular access to their sex?)
in other words, if i had grown up a man, like you, i might be as inclined as you are, to tell women that they should be having sex with men. if i literally had to have regular intercourse with men or DIE, that would color my perspective, as well. but guess what? i wasnt, and i dont.
Golden Girls House Party…Thank You For Being a Friend! November 1, 2009
Posted by factcheckme in entertainment, pop culture.Tags: 1980s, bea arthur, blanche, dorothy, florida, friendship, golden girls, miami, retirees, retirement, roommates, rose, sophia, television, thank you for being a friend, the golden palace, women, you tube
10 comments
i love the golden girls! and so does the new york jets’ running back thomas jones. this made me laugh and laugh:
Some Jets like to spend their free time tweeting on their Twitter pages or playing video games on their PS3s. Thomas Jones, the AFC’s leading rusher in 2008, unwinds by watching “The Golden Girls.” Sure, he also watches other old-school shows such as “The Cosby Show” and “Saved by the Bell,” but there’s just something about Bea Arthur.
“My favorite thing to do to relax is watch ‘The Golden Girls’ marathon,” Jones admitted yesterday during a rare interview at SUNY Cortland. “It kind of puts me in the mind-set of how things kind of used to be. When I see that show, it reminds me of those times when you could go outside and have fun and ride your bike all day. Now, you can’t even go outside anymore, you got people doing all kinds of crazy stuff and people getting killed. It’s like a crazy world.”
co-signed, thomas jones!
above is the final scene of the series. this episode just played here the other night, but i didnt realize at the time that i was watching the series finale! i might have welled up a little, had i known. another thing i didnt realize was this: there was a spinoff series called “the golden palace” that apparently lasted just one season. does anyone remember this? heres the opening of the first episode, which picks up where the series finale of TGG left off:
Sorry, Men and Fun-Fems: All Porn Is Rape, All the Time (Or, If You Are Watching Porn, You Are Watching Rape) October 27, 2009
Posted by factcheckme in feminisms, health, porn, rape, sorry!, thats mean.Tags: analysis, anti porn, anti pornography, fun fems, liberal feminism, porn, pornography, radfem, radical feminism, rape, rape culture
161 comments
i have been on the fence for years about whether porn is inherently harmful, or anti-feminist. the source of my ambivalence, and how i talked myself down from that particular fence are as important to discuss, it seems to me, as is the anti-porn position to which i ultimately committed.
for years, i felt ambivalent about porn. it didnt really do anything for me, but i was never inclined to agree with either the old-school radfems or misogynist religious proselytizers putting limitations what i should and shouldnt watch, or enjoy. i think my problem was a common problem for young women and young feminists: i was letting men and the male-identified fun-fems define feminism for me, and i was too young and uneducated to really analyze what i was seeing. not unimportantly, i was afraid of a radical feminist analysis, and what that would mean for me, should i decide i was anti-porn, as a young female, a sister and daughter (of white men), as a heterosexual, and most recently, as a professional in a male-dominated field. instinctively and intellectually i knew that coming down on the side of anti-porn would cause a problem for me. i am not a fucking idiot, afterall. most feminists arent.
i was also screwing up my analysis, in that i was giving too much credence to my own “feelings” about what i saw, and knew, about porn, and consumers of porn, having watched it myself, and dated men who ran the gamut between being literally and problematically “addicted” and “meh” when it came to using and possessing the stuff. i wrongly believed that my ambivalent feelings were somehow neutral, and unaffected by the culture i lived in–a culture that fully embraces not just porn but rape, too. i think that too is a common problem for feminists: an objective analysis that comes down on the side of anti-porn is at odds with how some of us feel, subjectively, about watching it. in other words, watching other people fuck doesnt necessarily bother me. i just didnt get that visceral “yuck” feeling like so many feminist women and religious zealots alike claim to get when watching, talking about, or analyzing porn. and i wrongly assumed that having done some rudimentary analysis and come to a conclusion, that i had done my due diligence, and that i was done.
but for all thinking people, and all feminists, its the objective analysis, not our subjective feelings that takes us into the weeds. considering that a misogynist rape-culture is the backdrop against which we all live, and against which we conduct all of our daily transactions, we would be right more often that not, if we embraced this credo: our subjective selves are not “us”. we literally cannot trust our own feelings on this issue, although our feelings are not completely irrelevant. pro-porn or even ambivalent sentiments are part of living in a rape- and porn-culture, but thats not terminal to a feminist analysis of porn. at the same time we live in a porn- and rape-culture, we also live in a puritanical and slut-shaming one. we need to know, objectively, what is informing our opinions, no matter on which side we ultimately land.
what i came up with is this. you dont have to be skeeved out by porn, to be an anti-pornography feminist. you can be anti-porn FIRST. in my experience, the ick-factor followed closely behind, once i realized what i was looking at, and talking and thinking about, when i was looking at or analyzing porn. for reasons i will more fully explain below, it was my objective analysis of the concept of consent that lead me to the conclusion that porn is rape. to be clear: i did not use an objective analysis to explain, explore, or justify my preexisting, subjective revulsion to porn. this is an important point, particularly against the anti-feminist barrage that women and feminists encounter daily, by men who are only too eager to dismiss women and feminists for being overly-emotional about every subject that affects us (as if responding emotionally to emotionally-charged subject matter is ever inappropriate). despite my ambivalence, i performed an objective analysis of porn from the perspective of consent versus non-consent, and i came to believe that its objectively, inherently harmful, and anti-feminist. that is, when i realized, objectively, that what i was looking at was rape, i began to feel revolted. so, while i could have done this sooner, even before the revulsion kicked in, its time, now, to get down off the fence, and get real. the answer to the question, i believe, is YES. porn is both inherently harmful, and anti-feminist. furthermore, i believe that all porn is rape, all the time. heres why.
New Miracle Whip Commercials…WTF? October 20, 2009
Posted by factcheckme in WTF?, entertainment, pop culture, thats random.Tags: ad, ads, advertisment, advertsing, commercials, dont be so mayo, ghost world, mayonnaise, miracle whip, new, television, thora birch, we wont tone it down, you tube
15 comments
this has got to be the stupidest idea for an ad campaign i have ever, i mean EVER seen. it has all the elements: tries too hard; generic “youthful energy” theme; and incongruence between the message and the product. it leaves me feeling confused, and irritated. is that the intended effect?
for one thing, miracle whip sucks. lets just get that very obvious fact out there, in the beginning. and…young people dont eat mayonnaise-y deli salads when they get together. ok? they just dont. it makes me wonder how old the advertising crew was, to even come up with an idea this…stupid. its just stupid! the idiocy of it, including the inappropriate special-effects and the trying-too-hard just smacks of inexperience to me…and yet anyone who was within 20 years of their bygone-youth would know that their premise here was seriously flawed. so were they too old, or too young to pull this off? how did this happen?
i am not the only one asking these questions. see stephen colbert’s pro-mayo parody here, complete with hipster mayo-eaters doing bong hits out of old mayo jars…and here is youjustmademylist.com proposing their own much-improved script (this one gets my vote, even over colbert…sorry stephen):
Fuck you world, I love Miracle Whip and if you don’t like it you can eat my creamy, white shit. Don’t try and tell ME and MY generation what condiments we should eat. Take your old man sandwich spread and shove it up your old man ass because guess what motherfucker, I’m going to eat Miracle Whip with a spoon while getting a mohawk. Look dude, I don’t care if I spill a little M-Whip on my Ron Paul poster, because that’s the way it goes man when you are fucking vibing on a jar of the Whip! Now if you will excuse me, I have to comb my ironic mustache and down a little Whip before going to my bike messenger job. Jealous?
why yes, yes i am jealous…of that author’s creativity and inspired development of my new favorite miracle-whip themed catchphrase: “eat my creamy, white shit.” brilliant!
It’s Concern-Troll Bingo! October 17, 2009
Posted by factcheckme in bingo cards, entertainment.Tags: anti feminist, bingo, concern troll bingo, concern trolls, internet, misogynists, rape apologists
2 comments
BINGO! BINGO OVER HERE!
i love, love, love these troll-bingo cards. i found this one at “A Second Thought.”
take your bingo marker and a few lucky charms with you next time you visit a thread about abortion, child support, or rape, because thats where the concern-trolls reside. check off the milquetoast, banal and cliche ”concern” sentiments as they are rattled off, and win validation of your suspicions that there are many, many rape apologists concern trolls out there, masquerading as human beings, and “liberals.” ugh.
my favorites are the variations on ”you make feminists/feminism look bad.” oh, ok! if that were the truth, and i were really damaging the movement with my words and actions, wouldnt anti-feminists and misogynists support me, and try to get me to say more? instead of attempting to intimidate and silence? its a headscratcher i know.
Gillian Anderson Interviewed on Jimmy Kimmel Live October 10, 2009
Posted by factcheckme in entertainment, pop culture.Tags: agent scully, dana scully, gillian anderson, interview, jimmy kimmel, pregnant, scully, television, the xfiles
5 comments
this is a two-part interview from 2008 with actor gillian anderson, x-files’ agent scully…as if you didnt know. i have to say, this woman is either a fantastic flirt, or just a terrific actor (or both?)
notice the way she effortlessly interacts with one of tv’s biggest goof-offs, and seems completely approachable…all the while being hugely, gorgeously pregnant. i love, love love her laugh. until i heard it here, i dont think i had ever heard her laugh before. i guess agent scully wasnt exactly a cut-up…but agent mulder wasnt a laugh-a-minute either was he?
any comments about the x-files, scully, and any feminist themes of her character or the show are welcome. or…anything else you want to say! i could google the “feminist themes of the x-files” and list some other bloggers opinions here, but i would rather know what you think. personally, i always noticed how the story-lines revolved around mulder’s life and his work…once and awhile they did a story around scully’s personal life, and it was striking. thats how i knew they didnt really do them a whole lot (sometimes you just dont notice these things until they are made painfully obvious?) remember the one where she gets a tattoo? (she ends up regretting it, and almost dying). or the one where she runs into an ex-lover in the hospital…and his daughter is still pissed at scully for the affair?
New “Old Navy” Commercials Offend…Just About Everyone October 5, 2009
Posted by factcheckme in entertainment, pop culture, porn, race.Tags: ads, advertising, campaign, clothing, commercials, gender, gender studies, mannequins, media, misogyny, nudity, old navy, race, race studies, racism, sexism, supermodelquins, television, women, womens studies, you tube
add a comment
this is the “true hollywood” -style background story to the newest old navy ad campaign known as “the supermodelquins.”
the most recent installment in this campaign playing in my neck of the woods features a “model” hawking sweater-coats who gets separated from her legs at the airport. HER LEGS. WTF? seriously, watch the whole series if you have the time. these commercials offend nearly every vulnerable population there is. starving actors, the unemployed, women, POC, and the disabled are the ones i noticed first, although perhaps not in that order. more videos are embedded below.
- the human element…where did the real people go?
first, as the economy continues to suffer and more and more jobs are lost, it bothers me that yet another franchise has taken to using non-actors to fill roles in their money-making schemes, also known as television shows, and commercials. while this may be at the very bottom of anyones particular list, the failing economy has rocked my own corner of the universe. for reals. and while i am not an actor, i can certainly empathize with professional actors that have been hip-chucked out of their industry and left unable to earn a wage, and had their medical benefits lapse, due to long-term unemployment. (the screen actors guild (SAG) has been quantifying the harm that reality-television has caused working actors since at least 2005.)
this newest old navy campaign has made living, breathing human beings obsolete, (at least in front of the camera) and i think most everyone would agree that particularly in these times, that decision was unethical. not to mention hypocritical, where old navy is relying on the disposable incomes of its customers to make its own living, but they arent giving anything back. in fact, where reality franchises have replaced union workers with non-union ones, saving themselves the money and hassle (also known as ethics and regulatory oversight) of having to deal with SAG, old navy’s decision to forgo the human element altogether seems particularly self-serving, and cruel.
