Ammo For Sale

« « Argue with Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and she’ll have your house raided | Home | Alright, McCain, Listen Up » »

Fun with feminism

Not sure why but I was exposed to all this feminism at once. So, you get to suffer for it.

First up, KAG on Why We Still Need Feminism:

Democratic candidate for Property Assessor Andrew Graybeal referred to me as “darlin’” in discussing his planned appearance with me.

Yes, he called me “darlin’”

OMG! Darlin! When will the oppressive patriarchy end! Actually, I think this shows why most view feminism as a joke.

Speaking of feminism as a joke (via AC):

Just like every year except 1984, the list of serious contenders for the Democratic VP spot appears to be another boring list of people with penises.

Yes, the most important aspect of the selection of a Veep is their genitalia. Which is why Obama would be better off picking Paris Hilton over a statesman like, say, Russ Feingold. I bet Egalia would just be absolutely giddy if McCain picked Condi Rice, right?

And lastly, a decision to take responsibility for your own safety is a decision to leave the feminist sisterhood (via SM). Now, listen up, sweetie. I understand. I mean, guns are tools for self-defense. And, well, women aren’t so good with tools. No, kidding aside, seems those who want to empower women are OK up until the point you actually want to, you know, empower women.

15 Responses to “Fun with feminism”

  1. Robb Allen Says:

    Interestingly enough, this dovetails into my most recent post on racism.

    If you judge someone based on their trouser sausage or lack thereof, you are a sexist regardless of the outcome of your decision.

    Granted, I’m openly sexist when I choose partners for the horizontal mambo. No offense, and all, but I don’t dig anyone’s Pole of Passion ‘cept my own.

  2. Bitter Says:

    The darlin thing, I can semi-understand. That’s one of those things you really have to hear for yourself. It was in a professional capacity, so it wasn’t exactly appropriate to the situation. The other big factor is tone. I won’t say she’s got her panties in a twist over nothing because a big part of whether women take that as an insult is presentation.

  3. Robb Allen Says:

    Then I am severely f*cked. Bitter, I’m sure I called you sweetie once or twice at the NRA convention (I know for a fact I called Uncle that a few times).

    Or honey. I call everyone honey.

    Now, what about “Dude” or “Man”. If someone says “Hey, man, blah blah blah” is that sexist?

    The problem is intent. My intent is what is important, not how you interpret it. If I say someone is being niggardly, even if I’m in a room full of blacks, you have two choices of how to interpret it.

    You can accept that I meant “stingy” or you claim that I intended to use a word that sounds close to the ‘N’ word to be insulting. What you cannot do (with any degree of logical consistency) is say you know that I meant stingy but that the word is offensive and shouldn’t be used. By attaching your own signifier to my words, you prevent me from being able to speak without fear of someone getting insulted.

    Basically, if the guy said darling like I call people honey, which is to say as innocuous as ‘dude’ or ‘man’, then there’s nothing to get anyone’s panties in a wad about. If he said it to be condescending, then his intent is where the ire should like, not in what words he chose.

    You’ll have to pardon me, but intentionalism is a major sticking point for me. I use it in my viewing of the Constitution and in my battle against political correctness.

    Now, sweetcheeks, I’m off to do manly things like scratch myself in public and belch…

  4. Bitter Says:

    But see, tone typically conveys those details. It’s one reason arguing on the internet is so tough. If you did call me any of those things, I honestly didn’t notice. More importantly, your tone and presentation didn’t convey any disrespect. It’s definitely not a perfect science, but they say upwards of 90% of communication is actually non-verbal in “real life” interaction.

  5. Oldsmoblogger Says:

    You put Feingold and statesman in the same sentence. Have someone take your temperature. 😉

  6. Mikee Says:

    The inherent, inalienable, individual right to self defense is a prima facie human right. I presume feminists support their own right to individual self defense? If not, ignore the rest of this comment.

    Guns are tools, and can be a means for self defense, and are one of the most effective means of immediate self defense for an individual under threat of attack. Guns allow both the threat of force (with no injury to the attacker should the attack stop) and the ability to project force upon others if they continue an attack, both before the attack reaches the potential victim and while an attack is ongoing.

    Because guns project a possibly lethal level of force, they are an effective deterrent against attack in many cases, with potential and actual attacks often stopped upon the presentation of a gun in the hands of a potential victim. They also make the threat projected by the potential victim match or exceed that projected by the attacker, which can enable a potential victim to protect against an attacker.

    Note that in the above paragraphs describing guns and self defense I have not used a single gender specific noun or pronoun. I propose that guns and their use in self defense are inherently non-sexist issues, equally applicable to all individuals, and that if feminists believe in the human right of individual self defense and the equality of all sexes they should support the use of guns as effective tools for self defense.

    If not, can some feminist explain their supposed logic behind not supporting the human right to individual self defense, and having the means to effectively achieve it?

  7. emdfl Says:

    That sort of thing is typically a hang-over from old Southern manners; similar to “Hon”, or sweetheart. Usually had zero intent as a derogatory term, but of course, that sort of speech pattern – along with many other polite gestures are now pc.

    Me, I’m too old to stop holding doors for or referring to women whose names I don’t know(or more likely don’t remember) as darlin’.

  8. DirtCrashr Says:

    So, what is the Feministic of “Dude” -? I can already imagine that the gender-opposite of dickhead, even if put endearingly as my buddies do, would be un appreciated even if the proper tone of delivery was used.

  9. Mike Gallo Says:

    That *$&#er Feingold is one of my pathetic Senators, so as much as I’d like to see him out of this state and not causing problems here anymore, I really do think Paris Hilton would be a better VP pick. She’s a “jetsetter,” right? I think she’s got the whole “international travel for parties” thing down better than Russ.

  10. LissaKay Says:

    You know, when I first saw that post at KAGs, I got that darn David Allen Coe tune stuck in my head and there it stayed all day long. Well, that was after I composed a few snarky comments in my head, and left them there, unpublished. But anyway, my mental jukebox was stuck all to hell … “You don’t have to call me darlin’ (stomp stomp) Darlin'” Ugh … but it finally went away overnight. Until you just HAD to go and post this …

    I figure it’s only fair to share the mental jukebox selection …

    http://tinyurl.com/5pdgfe

  11. UNHchabo Says:

    Basically, if the guy said darling like I call people honey, which is to say as innocuous as ‘dude’ or ‘man’, then there’s nothing to get anyone’s panties in a wad about. If he said it to be condescending, then his intent is where the ire should like, not in what words he chose.

    Yeah, well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.

  12. straightarrow Says:

    I don’t have time or respect to waste on people who actively look for excuses to be insulted. They invariably are playing a “win by bestowing guilt” strategy.

    My answer to crap like that usualy goes something like this “Fuck you, sweetheart.”

    Really shortens the time I have to deal with them,and has the added benefit of not wasting any respect.

  13. autoegocrat Says:

    If someone gets all butthurt because you called them “honey,” call them “vinegar” instead.

  14. ben Says:

    Now where’s Aunt B. and her cohorts to make you wish you were dead?

  15. Lyle Says:

    If they can’t handle being called “darlin'” wouldn’t that make them the weak, emotionally-driven creatures they insist they’re not?

    If you can’t handle being called “Darlin'” how are you going to handle the responsibilities of high office?

    “So, what is the Feministic of “Dude” -?”

    Back in the late ’60s and early ’70s, here in the North West, all cool people, i.e. hippies, or any and all aspiring hippies, bikers, or drug dealers, referred to men as “dudes” (or “Old Man” for one’s boyfriend) and women as “chicks” (or “Old Lady” for one’s girlfriend). Both chicks and dudes used those terms to refer to themselves and their peers. It was all quite hip, or even far out, Man. Yeah– you had to use the term “Man” at the end of most sentences, Man, whether you were speaking to a dude of a chick. Like, can you dig it, Man? Are you hip? (or as a variation, “Are you hep?). To be really hip, you also had to have angst– to be a tortured soul (a victim) and the perpetrator was of course, The System.

    It was only slightly confusing, in that “Old Man” or “Old Lady” might also be use to refer to one’s parents, depending on the company.

    Interestingly, post modern feminism (at least the loud, bra-burning variety) seemed to take hold most easily within this same counter culture– a culture that treated women as much like objects (possessions) as any primitive culture that ever existed. In that case, they would have been responding in protest against a world of their own creation while blaming the outsiders for the very things they were practicing (projection).