Feminist Tarantulas

I don't know if any of you are familiar with Fred Reed's great, anti-PC online column Fred on Everything, but I love reading his articles. I especially enjoyed the following funny, yet highly accurate, article on radical feminists; be prepared to laugh...unless you happen to be a radical feminist....

http://www.fredoneverything.net/COL1.shtml

Feminist Tarantulas

A Rural Male Reflects On Feminist Incivility, While Calculating Windage

Maybe I'm just a country boy at heart, and lack sophistication, and don't see things the way I should. But when I watch one of those radical-feminist women heave onto a podium, like the forehaunches of an under-nourished giraffe but with more hair on her lip, and start hollering and carrying on about what slugs and bandits men are, I start thinking of the curative powers of a shotgun full of rock salt.

I recommend a 12-gauge duck gun.

It's the incivility of these feminist people that gets to me. Most of them seem to have the manners of a guard dog , but without the utility. (I know, I know, I'm going to get angry letters. From guard dogs.) For pure bile, you can't beat a radical feminist. The average specimen can turn out bad temper for hours on end, like lumber from a sawmill, and any of it sounds like all the rest. The following, which gives the flavor, is from Andrea Dworkin, who I gather is a sort of museum-piece siege howitzer for feminism.

It's pretty much how they all talk. Listen:

"Men use the night to erase us...The annihilation of a woman's personality, individuality, will, character, is prerequisite to male sexuality, and so the night is the sacred time of male sexual celebration, because it is dark and in the dark it is easier not to see: not to see who she is. Male sexuality, drunk on its intrinsic contempt for all life, but especially for women's lives, can run wild, hunt down random victims, use the dark for cover, find in the dark solace, sanctuary, cover."

I do?

How does a man respond to such a broadside? The prose could use some lubrication, of course, and maybe a new set of plug wires, but I'm talking about the content. My first impulse is to reassure the poor woman: "There, there, Andrea, you're safe, nights just don't get dark enough." My second impulse is to wonder just how much radical feminists know about male sexuality, and what book they read it in.

I like to picture myself on a Saturday-night date in high school, parking on a back road.

My date: "You're driving kind of funny. I reckon it was the beer."

Me: "Why, no, Sally. I'm drunk on my intrinsic contempt for all life."

Sally: "You're so silly. Come here."

Me: "Soon...soon. Do you mind staying here by yourself for a bit?"

Sally: "Huh?"

Me: "I need to, uh, you know, run wild for a few minutes. Hunt down a few random victims. Use the dark for cover. Guy stuff."

Sally: "You nuts or something?"

Me: "It's...night, Sally...the sacred time of male sexual celebration."

Sally: "You're gonna do it out there?"

OK, I understand that the radical feminist ladies are a few french fries short of a Happy Meal. They can't help themselves. What I can't figure is why more-or-less grown-up editors publish all this clucking and scratching as if it made sense. And I also don't understand how the rules got fixed so that a Dworkin can say anything at all about men and get away with it--but men can't say anything back.

Any loon feminist can accuse men of being rapists, killers, sadists, and Marines. These are pretty serious charges. A fellow could take exception to them. But if I say something comparatively innocuous in return, such as that I weary of being harried by a rat-pack of diesel-fired tarantulas who mostly look like Rin Tin Tin's littermates--why, they get mad. (Yes, I know, that was a three-animal zoological-automotive metaphor. Patent applied for.)

I figure if radical-feminist ladies can talk ugly about us, then we can talk ugly about them. And we're probably better at it, which they might bear in mind.

What I say is, if you have pool-hall manners, you ought to expect to play by pool-hall rules. Any guy who doesn't work for the Washington Post knows this. Go into the wrong bar, and somebody will likely hit you over the head with a pool cue. Nothing wrong with that. But the assailant will grant you the right, while questioning your ability, to smack him on the head with your cue. Symmetry. Reciprocity. Conservation of parity.

Not those feminist people. They want to swing cues. They don't want to get swung at. I say let's treat'em equal.

It'll happen. Some day before long I'll be talking about something sensible, like a '57 Chevy with Carter AFBs and a three-quarter Isky and 17 coats of hand-rubbed Orchard Mist lacquer that looks like Chinese emerald carving if they'd done it right. Sure enough, some dog-biscuit feminist is going to sniff, "Ah, yes, boys and their toys. Boys will be boys. Intrinsic contempt for...."

And I'm going to say, "Mercy, lady, mercy. Yes, we males are a sorry lot, sinners all, and neck deep in iniquity. The shame of it bores into my soul. Now you go stand in the middle of Dupont Circle at high noon, with a pair of seven-by-fifty binoculars, and look real carefully all around, and point to one thing, with a moving part, that was invented by a radical feminist."

Then I'll go for my duck gun.

The Criminalization of Men

I'd like to thank a good friend, Eric, for sending me this link.

Most married men have an inkling of the obstacles they might face in the event of a divorce. Chances are they'll lose their home along with their right to see their children more than every other weekend, they'll be ordered to pay support for the children they're no longer allowed to parent or raise......thanks to new legislation, they may also be fitted with an electronic GPS tracking bracelet.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=72215

LAW OF THE LAND

Electronic cuffs planned for dads
'I don't see any safeguards. This presumes men guilty'

Posted: August 12, 200810:28 pm Eastern© 2008 WorldNetDaily

Illinois has joined a growing contingent of states to adopt a law that will put electronic GPS tracking bracelets on men who have not been convicted of any crime, but might be involved in a messy divorce.

The plan, named in memory of Cindy Bischoff, who was attacked and murdered by a former boyfriend, was signed into law just days ago and is scheduled to take effect Jan. 1.

And while its goal of protecting women and children from out-of-control husbands and fathers is good, it goes too far and violates the civil rights of innocent fathers, according to a lawyer for a group that will challenge it.

"Electronic tagging devices can be appropriate as a condition of parole or probation," said attorney Jeffery M. Leving, who is a nationally known fathers' rights advocate, the author of "Fathers' Rights" and "Divorce Wars" and founder of DadsRights.com. "The Cindy Bischof Law goes far beyond this, placing long-term electronic tags on men who have never been found guilty of any crime."

According to a website set up in memory of Cindy Bischoff, there are about a dozen states, including Washington, Minnesota, Utah, Colorado, Michigan, Oklahoma, Louisiana, Florida and Massachusetts, that now have similar provisions. The campaign's goal is to prevent what happened to Bischof from happening to others.

But Leving said there are major constitutional issues that need to be resolved.

"The law carries a presumption of guilt," Leving said, "without the benefit of a trial, yet the foundation of our entire criminal justice system is based on a defendant being presumed innocent until proven guilty."

He said such restraining orders are not unusual.

A recent article by two leaders of the State Bar of California's Family Law Section said such orders "are increasingly being used in family law cases to help one side jockey for an advantage in child custody." And the Illinois Bar Journal has described them as part of the "gamesmanship" of divorce.

But Leving said the full impact of Illinois' new law is that judges can order anyone – mostly men and fathers – to wear a GPS tracking device if they simply are accused of violating an order of protection, with no court conviction or adjudication required.

In fact, he said, "such orders are generally done ex parte, without the accused's knowledge and with no opportunity afforded for him to defend himself."

Such lack of information for the men can result in unknowing violations, Leving said.

"A man can accidentally be in the same park or mall as his ex-wife/girlfriend, and
the electronic monitoring device could lead to his arrest even if he never actually saw her. Some men have even been tricked into violating the orders by former spouses. The device will make this easier-a woman could call her estranged husband, tell him she needs him to come to her house because of a crisis with their children, and then have an electronic record of his violation," he said.

"Perhaps such a drastic measure would be warranted if the men forced to wear the devices had meaningful and fair trials, and were found to be guilty of violent or dangerous crimes. However, the Bischof Law empowers judges with the ability to mandate the GPS tracking device on anyone who is accused of violating an order of protection," he said.

"Unfortunately, the rush to protect the abused is so incredibly aggressive that the rights of the accused have been violated," Leving said. "I don't see any safeguard in this law. This law basically presumes in these situations [men] are guilty."

He said his organization will work with lawmakers to make them aware of the potential pitfalls of their new law and will watch cases as they develop to
pursue a court challenge to its constitutionality.

So, if you're a man getting divorced and things get a bit messy, and, let's face it....chances are they will get messy; your soon to be ex can make an accusation and you'll be wearing a GPS tracking bracelet.

Last I checked, there was still a fair amount of debate and uproar over the concept of forcing convicted pedophiles to wear tracking bracelets due to the violation of their rights......apparently men going through divorce don't deserve quite the same level of consideration.

Honestly, I don't really know why I'm surprised, it's only a hop skip and jump from what judges are already doing with restraining orders. Already a man can be criminalized, forced out of his home and from the lives of his children on nothing more solid than an accusation.

If that wasn't bad enough, now men can be treated like criminals and required to wear tracking bracelets; no evidence needed, no burden of proof, testimony of witnesses or even a trial required.....nothing more than an accusation.

I don't know about anyone else, but I find the amount of power and control a bit frightening. Women are being given the ability to do little more than point their finger and men can be treated like criminals who have relinquished their rights. Perhaps I've watched 'Gladiator' one too many times, but I get this unsettling mental image of roman emperors dealing out life and death through a simple thumbs up or down gesture. It's too much....too much power in one place with no corresponding accountability. Too many men who are being presumed guilty, their freedoms and rights being stripped away without sense, reason or even the right to due process.

Thank You Anon

I just wanted to take a minute to thank a recent commenter, unsurprisingly choosing to post anonymously, for taking the time to thoroughly prove one of my points concerning feminism. Anonymous posted several comments, most rife with sarcasm, personal attacks and insults. One of Anon's comments was in response to my 'Men Are Great' post, and it is this post that I refer to.

Now, for those of you who haven't read it or who need a quick refresher, here is my 'Men Are Great' post in it's entirety.

Now I realize a lot of you are probably confused by that title. Chances are you're waiting for the punch line of some anti-male joke (Men are great AT...insert derogatory male stereotype here). Nope, that's it. There isn't any more to it. I figured with the enormous amount of time and energy devoted to pointing out all the flaws of man, it would be nice to devote a bit of time appreciating them...even if it is only a couple of paragraphs in my blog. There are certain pictures that make me cry every time I see them. I'm referring to pictures of men, great men, doing what great men have done since the beginning of time...sacrificing all for the greater good. I'm talking about pictures of soldiers, giving their lives to protect us, pictures of firefighters on 9-11, pushing their way UP into the towers, going to their doom in order to save lives. How many times have men faced death in protection of their countries, their homes, their families? How many men have worked at thankless jobs, never complaining, never questioning, in order to provide for their families? Now, I'm not implying that this is what men should be doing...sacrificing themselves. I'm saying that, right, wrong or otherwise, this is what men always have done and continue to do, and the very least we should do is recognize and show appreciation for that fact.

To put it simply, I love men, and not in a 'I like to sleep around and men are great in that capacity' way, either. I love and celebrate all the wonderfully unique traits and characteristics that are distinctly male. Now, I could expand upon all the contributions men have made to the world, but I won't, I don't have enough room on my blog, or enough time. Suffice it to say that due to the minds and accomplishments of men, the world has benefitted more than can be conveyed. What I will take time to do is acknowledge some of the little things, the things that tend to be taken for granted and go unnoticed. I know for a fact that if anything gross, disgusting or dirty has to be done, my husband, no questions asked, is going to do it. There's never an argument over who's going to go outside and shovel the driveway or who's going to change the oil, or the tire. I can guarantee if anybody ever needed to kill anything or venture into a potentially spider infested crawl space, it wouldn't be me. Not because I'd refuse....I'd never have to. If there's anything repugnant to be done, my husband does it. I have at times volunteered, because I know he'd never ask me to, but he says no. Not because he want to do it, but because he takes care of and protects his wife and children, self-sacrificing in the way that man have done for ages. So I say "thank you" to all the men who quietly go about their lives, unappreciatedly sacrificing for those around them. Thank you for all that you are and all that you do. I want you to know that although your are grossly underappreciated, you're not completely unappreciated

I realize that many of my posts could be considered controversial. They definitely buck the norm along with what is popular and generally accepted. This post, however, I fail to see where anyone could find fault with it....unless you were virulently anti-male and against men recieving any form of respect, recognition or praise. The post is very simple, it is nothing more and nothing less than a show of appreciation for men in general and, more specifically, for my husband.

This is Anon's comment to my post,

Dear Kim,

I'm sorry there are things your husband won't let you do. Know in your heart that your capable of anything!

In case you're scratching your head in confusion wondering what one thing possibly has to do with the other, allow me to translate. Anon has taken something wonderful, the way my husband loves and cares for me and his family and twisted it into something ugly. My husband (or any husband) shoveling the driveway, killing the spiders, changing the oil.....gets perverted from what it really is, kindness and caring, into oppression and control.

I have often contended that this is what feminism has done to men; taking every act of caring, kindness, selflessness and love and twisting it into control, dominance and oppression, so, once again, I say, 'thank you, anon', for demonstrating my point far more succinctly than I could.

As for my husband, he has never not "let" me do anything. We don't have that kind of relationship. He respects and loves me as I do him. If I felt strongly enough about doing something, he'd support me in it. If he felt stronly enough about me not doing something, I respect him enough to care about his concerns. The things he does, he does out of selflessness and love. I find it rather sad that you are unable to comprehend that.

Mary Winkler Gets Custody

Thanks to Billy and Kelly Mac on antimisandry.com for the heads up on this.

I'm sure we're all familiar with the disgusting details of the Mary Winkler case. I'm sure you all remember the woman who shot her unarmed husband in the back with a shotgun while he slept. The woman who watched her injured husband roll of the bed, ask, "Why?", unplugged the phone so he couldn't call for help then left him alone to slowly die. The same woman who spent a mere 12 days in jail and 2 months in a mental health facility after which she walked away a free woman.

Oh sure, she accused her husband of abuse. Apparently he was a little annoyed that she'd been caught up in a money swindle known as the "Nigerian Scam" which had caused them financial harship and actually had the audacity to berate her for it. He was also causing her great emotional and mental trauma by wanting her to wear high heels for sex. Surely she was justified in killing him for burdening her with such things. [/sarcasm]

So poor, abused, traumatized Mary Winkler who doesn't even remember pulling the trigger (of course her confusion didn't prevent her from taking the time to destroy her husband's one hope of survival by unplugging the telephone before she left) has been fighting to regain custody of her daughters who have been in the care of their grandparents. She's finally won that fight and, despite having murdered their father, her three girls will be returned to her.

According to her lawyer, "It should be seen as a sign that the family is healing....It's a good thing for everyone." Ms. Winkler herself has stated the need for her and her daughters to heal. Apparently, we should not only feel sympathy for her three fatherless girls, but for Ms. Winkler as well.

Honestly, this whole case just makes me so sick, I have a hard time reading or writing about it. I feel like I'm fighting down bile with every word I type. Who cares if a man, a good man, a husband and father lies rotting in the grave? What's important now is that poor Mary Winkler can move on with her life and heal.....because, afterall, isn't she the real victim? Of course she is....she's a woman. Mary Winkler is a victim while her murdered husband, the REAL victim, gets to be remembered as some monster who abused his wife.

http://news.aol.com/article/slain-ministers-wife-gets-custody-of/116933?icid=100214839x1207071406x1200352715

A Glass Ceiling in the Blogosphere

Apparently, women have been confronted with yet another glass ceiling, folks. This one is not professional or political. It's a glass ceiling within the blogosphere.

According to Kara Jesella in her article "Blogging's Glass Ceiling" women are unable to achieve the same success at blogging as their male counterparts.

Some of the reasons inlude,

"(T)hey are not taken as seriously as their male counterparts "

"(T)heir male colleagues and major media groups tended to ignore them, and to link to them less often"

“Women get dismissed in ways that men don’t”

"Women are taught not to be aggressive and analytical in the way that the political blogosphere demands, and are more likely to receive blog comments on how they look, rather than what they say."

Come on now, ladies, it's time to stop playing the victim card. I just assume that if people aren't reading my blog it's either because A) I haven't done enough to promote it and make it more visible or B) people just don't like it or aren't interested in what I have to say. If people come to my blog, read it and then choose not to return or not to link to it, I just accept that they didn't like it or didn't agree with it (presumably due to poor taste and judgement on their part ;-) ).

Where are women taught to not be aggressive or analytical? In schools? If so then boys must be being taught the same thing as we sit in the same classes and recieve the same education. By society? I see women being praised for being analytical and I've yet to see much judgement in our "you go girl" society for showing a little aggression.

Now bear in mind that, according to Ms. Jesseller's article, "36 million women participate in the blogosphere each week, and 15 million of them have their own blogs". Yet, despite this apparent abundance of women on the internet, female bloggers account for a very small portion of blogs that would be considered successful.

Let's consider for a moment that the reason behind this has nothing to do with glass ceilings, oppression, or some form of devious plan by the patriarchy to keep women down. Let's consider the remote possibility that, just maybe, the reason women aren't as successful at blogging has absolutely nothing to do with gender discrimination and everything to do with their blogs and the time and effort expended in getting them out there.

Of course, if we were to do that, we might have to also consider the same being true of other previously mentioned, more well-known glass ceilings. We might have to consider the possibility that women not succeeding at the same level as men professionally and politically has much more to do with the effort and commitment extended and much less to do with oppression and victimization in a "male dominated society", and of course....THAT would be nigh on heresy.

It's much easier to fabricate imaginary barriers and turn to the usual scapegoat (men) then to have to accept that the responsibility for our own success, or lack thereof, lies mainly with us.

You can read Ms. Jesella's New York Times article in it's entirety here,

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/27/fashion/27blogher.html?ex=1374811200&en=ab80e6a56e05a151&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink