Femininny Declares "All Women Are Fat!" or something...

(Well, I agree on at least two counts... one of the women in this post is a fatass, and the other is a fathead...)

I recently started following some feminist bloggers, after the Assaunge rape allegations brought their shrieking back to the headlines. I mentioned at the time that I've successfully ignored these "wymyn" (or something) for most of my adult life. Now that they've caught my attention, I can't stop. It's like a train wreck that never ends... Every time you think you've dredged the depths of teh stoopid and whiny wanna-be-a-victim mentality (Yes, wanna. These people choose to see themselves as downtrodden, and therefore they are - in feminist fantasy land, at least.), they amaze me with something new.

This morning, femininny Amanda Marcotte put up a piece taking Rush Limbaugh to task. For calling Michelle Obama fat.

Marcotte actually writes:

"In a patriarchy, all women are "fat", i.e. they take up too much space and have physical bodies that are coded as Other and therefore disgusting."

Um... No.

Not all women are fat. None of the females who reside under my roof are fat, or even moderately overweight.

Michelle Obama, on the other hand, is thick indeed. While she's not morbidly obese, she's a biggun', all right. And the idea that only a man or a brainwashed victim of the patriarchy can see that is ludicrous.

I posted about my youngest daughter's reaction to the First Lady. A healthy, active, fit & trim child, she does not respond well at all to Mrs. Obama's "Let's Move" campaign. The PSAs infuriate her. The very first time she saw the spot, my precocious one yelled at the television:

"Why don't you try it yourself, Fat Ass!"

During our discussion about it, she stuck to her guns. "Why is she telling me what to eat and what to do?! I'm not fat, she's fat!" ("Hypocrisy" may not be part of her vocabulary -- which I'll be sure to remedy -- but she certainly grasps the concept.)

Would this femininny honestly be willing to argue that my six-year-old is a part of the patriarchal oppressor society? Does that make my little girl "The Man"?

--As a side note, this child's stated goal for adulthood is world domination, with herself as supreme ruler of the universe. When she gets rolling about it at the dinner table, it's both hilarious and a little frightening. I can promise the femininnies, despite being born with female parts this girl is no one's victim. She's a badass. You whiners should take a lesson.--

Anyway... I'm not writing this to defend Limbaugh. I'm not really a fan. However, I might point out that while he's also large, he's not telling my kids what to eat.

No, I'm writing this because I am once again astounded by the contortions of logic the feminists are capable of. Admittedly, I'm not mentally limber enough to pull off some of the yoga-poses-of-rationality that Marcotte can accomplish... but her basic premise seems to be that Michelle Obama is a woman (womyn? pffft),and so she is fat because all women are fat because men need to suppress and oppress them and see them as disgusting... or something.

See? Fail. I can't even fake an understanding of this nonsense.

And speaking of mental gymnastics, I would also like to point out (because it amuses me to no end) that Marcotte closes her piece by agreeing with a man she no doubt considers a neaderthalish patriarchal oppressor.

Marcotte:

"A vulva is considered so desirable that entire magazines are dedicated just to showing it, but if it has a stray hair or labia that aren't the exact required size, it suddenly becomes culturally designated as disgusting and women are coached to feel so ashamed they should spend tons of money waxing it and even getting surgery to "fix" it."

Robert Stacy McCain:

(on surgery)

"Ouch. And, honestly, what a tragedy. I’m struggling to find a way to say this in a PG-13 way, so I’ll just say it: Lots of guys like that extra helping of cauliflower. IYKWIMAITYD.

More to the point, form follows function, natural is better, and it’s bizarre to think that women now fear being judged by the aesthetics of their genitalia."

(on waxing)

"I hadn't seen a Playboy magazine in a long time until a couple years ago when, by happenstance, I encountered someone's collection of recent issues and was stunned to discover that deforestation of the pubic delta had become de rigeur...

There is something bizarre (and arguably wrong) about glorifying an "ideal" that has no naturally-occurring example."

Heh. Now I have to figure out whether RSM is a femininny, or Marcotte is a patriarchal oppressor.

......
(Interestingly, in comment #6, Marcotte uses the term "butthurt", which would seem to put her in the "Rape Culture" camp she's always bitchin' about. It's official... she's a tool of the patriarchy. Pun intended.)

Feminists are more dangerous than Assange and McCain combined

So, yesterday I put up a piece about fact that Julian Assange stands accused of rape (based on the loosest possible interpretation of the word), and yet RSM of The Other McCain is the one on trial. In my opinion, it's actually more of a witch hunt, but be that as it may...

I was so pissed by the feminazi responses to his posts (and the comments on their blogs) that I didn't really address the original statements that stirred up the trouble. McCain has "walked it back" a bit since his first remarks... but should he have?

I don't think so, anyway.

He's simply saying that:

"If you tumble into a random hook-up with no prior knowledge of the guy’s reputation and he turns out to be a selfish brute whose standard modus operandi is repulsive, dangerous or painful, in what sense are you a victim of anything except your own stupidity?"

Some activities carry inherent risk. Among them, getting into a private (even if not sexual), secluded situation with a near stranger. Sure, you have the right... But it is wise? Is it safe?

You have the right to live in a trailer in Texas. Odds are, you won't get sucked into a tornado. But, c'mon... you've seen The Weather Channel just like the rest of us -- unless your cable was out due to your "house" being stuck in a tree, that is. Your right to do something doesn't take away the risks, which you should plan for accordingly.

You have the right to scuba dive with -- and hand-feed -- sharks. But again, c'mon... you've seen Jaws. You probably won't be devoured even as you drown. But since Peta has been as yet unsuccessful in their effort to make sharks vegan, the possibility exists and should be accounted for.

So sure... You have the right to tumble into the sheets with someone you picked up on brief acquaintance. You probably haven't just locked yourself into an apartment with Ted Bundy's apprentice. Or a serial rapist. Or a raging case of herpes. But the risk is there. Period. And, as above, it should be accounted for in your plans.

If you don't know someone, you don't know what they're capable of. And if you put your safety and health in the hands of someone you don't know, you can't predict the outcome.

The feminists do not want to accept this as fact. They would cry out that women have the right to behave as men -- to sleep with whomever they please, in whatever situation they please. Their disgust with McCain is based on his assertions that such behaviors expose women to risk and possible abuse/exploitation. (Which is completely correct.) The problem with the feminist mindset on this is that it does not take into account basic biological facts.

Men are, in general, larger and stronger than women.

Instead of reminding women of this -- and teaching them to take their risks with this basic thought in mind -- they want to emasculate men so that women are safe to act without thinking and, therefore, without consequence. Women are now equal to men in all ways but biological, but instead of accepting what evolution has produced and encouraging women to plan accordingly, the feminists want to push that inconvenient issue aside and put everyone on a level field. Since they demand women should be able to act without consideration -- and they can't negate the risks by making women bigger and stronger -- they try another tactic:

The pussification of the American male. Feminism has brought about a generation of waxed, moisturized metrosexual men who aren't afraid to cry -- but who would be worthless to protect you from a mugger. (Funny, though... when it comes to "hookups" these soft, smooth, fashionable men are often thrown over in favor of "bad boys", further proving that at a base biological level, most women still desire actual men.)

So, if feminists can't acknowledge the possible risks in stranger hookups, where do they see danger? The following quote is from Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power and A World Without Rape, edited by Jaclyn Friedman and Jessica Valenti, and is lifted from McCain's post:

“While right-wing groups certainly don’t come out in support of rape, they do promote an extremist ideology that enables rape and promotes a culture where sexual assault is tacitly accepted. The supposedly ‘pro-family’ marital structure, in which sex is exchanged for support and the woman’s identity is absorbed into her husband’s, reinforces the idea of women as property and as simple accoutrements to a man’s more fully realized existence.”

Never mind the idea that pro-family equals pro-rape. McCain addressed that. These advocates of "female sexual power" are under the impression that married women use sexual favors as a means to support themselves. Or rather, not themselves, because their selves are absorbed into the self of the husband.

Is there a single married woman in America that doesn't find this idea offensive? In a good marriage, sex isn't exchanged for anything. It's shared. Either these feminists are not married, or they don't know what happens in a good marriage. In their world, a loving husband is far more dangerous and sinister than some stranger picked up in a bar.

While the feminists rant about McCain and his (accurate) statements, they're actually guilty of doing more harm to women than all the McCains, Assanges and even Bundys of the world. By teaching women -- especially younger generations -- that the right to do something automatically makes it safe, they are creating a culture of carelessness... and all the danger that entails.

They want to equate McCain's remarks with the old "she was wearing a miniskirt so she was asking for it" nonsense. That's not what he said. I read his remarks more like this:

If you walk around the zoo wearing a blindfold and accidentally stumble into the lion's cage, perhaps you'd have been safer with your eyes uncovered and your brain turned on. Since you can't make the lion not prefer the taste of flesh, it's in your best interest to see where the cage is and walk around it.

Makes more sense than trying to make a sissy out of the lion so you can walk where you damn please.

____________
UPDATE 12/24: Welcome, readers of The Other McCain! A link from the man himself. Thanks!

While I'm not ungrateful, I'm a little puzzled that he chose to highlight this bit:

Makes My Brain Itch laments the “pussification” of American men. Actually, there’s something more complex at work.

It's the same line Tweeted by one of the feminists I wrote about above:

The Opinioness
…(@scratchermmbi) laments the "pussification" of men, thinks women & their risky behavior bring rape on themselves. #Mooreandme #rapeinmedia

I mentioned that as a side effect... and frankly, I thought it was the least of the points I was trying to make. I guess if that's what you took away from it, fine. I just didn't expect that line to be my thesis statement.


-And a belated thanks to Charles G. Hill at Dustbury, for the link. Welcome!

-------------------------
UPDATE 1/02/11: I see the feminists are popping in from the #mooreandme tag...

Well, since you're here -- and probably aren't going to like what you read anyway -- you may as well check out the rest of my posts on feminism here, here, and especially here. Cheers!