In the latest anti-male screed to pop up on Feministing, one feminist takes an article written by a working wife and mother… and turns it into a man-bashing rant.
On my Twitter feed I came across this article, from a woman explaining why she was late for work. Turns out she is, somehow, the only person responsible for rounding up the kids in the morning:
So where the f*ck is her husband, who presumably sired the kids in question?
Women of the world: it’s time to leave those useless hunks of flesh called “husbands” and “fathers” who feed off your labour while you earn 70 per cent of their wages.
And by the way: don’t forget to leave them custody. Leave your guilt at the door. The kids will work out fine. Your husband will have to make sure of that, just like you would if you were the sucker. Don’t be.
After all, men earn more money. They can look after the kids better. Let them.
Just so you know, this was listed as one of the editor’s favorites on the site for this week. While several commenters condemned this article, there were just as many who applauded it. Apparently, calling men “useless hunks of flesh” is perfectly fine in the feminist world. Can you just imagine the outrage if some male blogger called women nothing but useless hunks of flesh?
And hey, ladies, you can feel better now. Since all men are just lazy slobs who do nothing but mooch off of you, and you’re chained to your house because of your kids, you know officially have permission to leave it all behind and devote yourself to nothing but work and time with your womyn. Responsibility? Loving your children? Who needs that?
It’s really pathetic that so many feminists keep perpetuating this hatred towards men. It’s just as sexist as the misogyny that they claim to be railing against, yet to them, it’s allowable because of the so-called “partiarchy”. Calling all men useless hunks of flesh is OK, but calling a girl a bitch is forbidden and sexist. It’s because of the imaginary male privilege that feminists just cannot stop thinking about. No matter how much progress they make, no matter how many abortions they succeed in convincing women to get, they’re never happy and their hatred towards men never diminishes. Feminists have completely forgotten about where their movement started, which simply sought equality between men and women. Now that it’s for the most part been accomplished, modern feminists still aren’t satisfied. They’re not content with equality. They want men to be forever inferior to women, because how could a man possibly be intelligent? How could he be hard-working, kind, loving, chivalrous? There are so many men in the world who work hard, love their families, and do everything they can to keep their wives and children happy, safe, and feeling loved. There are good men in the world, and there are good women. But you certainly don’t see society condemning women for the bad things they do — our culture today has a special spot reserved just for showing how stupid, lazy, violent, and worthless men are. Women, on the other hand, are usually depicted as capable, smart, and put-together. At worst, they’re portrayed as all of the above, yet maybe just too overstressed, and that covers all manner of ills.
But feminists never see that. To them, the patriarchy still reigns supreme somehow. And they still go on hating men, as if we were still in the bra-burning days of the 60s.
They look at men as useless hunks of flesh who are nothing but sperm donors for women. And yet they still can’t see that they’re the sexist ones now. They complain about the stereotype of man-hating harpies, yet they not only publish this kind of bile, they promote it as an editor’s choice. Maybe if they stopped trying so hard to act like man-hating harpies, there wouldn’t be so many people who see them as such.
It really must be exhausting after a while, spending your entire life feeling so much hatred towards half of the population.
(5 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)
Loading ...RSS feed for comments on this post.
TrackBack URI
I bow to your wisdom!
Cassy, 1st of all, Merry Christmas! I was at a company Christmas party a week or so ago. This was one week after the birth of my 3rd child. One of the wives of a sales guy I work with asked me how my boy was, when he was born, etc. It seemed sweet at the time, so I said, “He’s severly jaundiced, but his levels are holding. We had him Dec. 1st.” Using the word “we” set her off. “Don’t you mean you’re wife had the baby?” I prolly should have shut my mouth, but I despise attacks like that, and I will always defend myself. I simply said (and my wife, who works full time as a VP of a marketing company agrees with me 100%) “When my wife and I said ‘I do,’ we became one, all we have is ‘we.’” It did not go over well…with her anyway. My wife was proud of me.
Have a blessed Christmas with your family.
(chuckle)
You want to know the funniest thing about this? They had to bring a moderator in at the end because too many of the feminists over there were getting too far into the truth area that they always try to hide from men (and apparently non-feminist oppressed women, whatever the hell that means…).
I love it when some feminists go into those forums and complain that these goofy comments “are setting our movement back.” It’s not setting anything back, since any intelligent guy (and really, any woman worth her salt) thinks they’re just a bunch of nutjobs anyway. Too funny…
I despise “feminists”.
The original article should probably gotten more into the specifics of their situation, but I understand. In our house, I have always done drop-offs and my husband has always done pick-ups. In addition, since I have breakfast duty, he then gets supper started because I usually work later due to the extra running and occasional breakdown in the morning miracle.
There is no way that either one of us could do it appropriately or efficiently on our own.
As one Cass to another, I just want to point out that YOU ARE A FUCKING GOD.
Ironic and sad. Ironic because one of the successes in the early feminist movement was to help women to retain custody of their children. Later feminists helped women to get child support and other legal protections so that they could raise their children. In fact, child support issues are still a part of the (real) feminist movement; it is difficult for many women to bring their ex-husbands into court and to get a judgment, as they often lack the money for lawyers and courts lack jurisdiction over men who live in other states.
As I’ve long pointed out, modern “feminists” are entirely ignorant of the history of feminism.
The deeply sad part of this is that it views a child as a problem. It’s sad enough when pregnant women treat their children this way; applying the same morals to little kids on their way to school is beyond disgusting.
Well, not getting into the politics of which parent is responsible to deal with things, the original article certainly points to a problem of cascading poor planning. What little time is available in the morning cannot expand to meet any and every detail which was not considered the night before.
I grew up in a household of rules, and a lot of these sort of things were never a problem, and this, by design. A better time management strategy would likely make this more manageable.
It’s interesting how the tone of the original article was bent to accommodate the usual screed.
I gotta side with the feminists a little bit on this. I have morning chores very similar to this woman’s, and I handle the crises in a completely different way. You might say I’m a useless hunk of flesh and I already got these responsibilities “dumped” on me by someone who paid attention to feminist wisdom…you could say that, it isn’t true though, “KidzMom” is a fierce Republican who loathes feminists. But the fact remains it’s my job to do wake-up call, see to it breakfast is done, lunch is handled in some way, he takes a shower, he brushes his teeth, something’s done about this school assignment I’m only learning about just now…et cetera. Sure I have a girlfriend, but she doesn’t worry about any of this because why in the hell should she?
The woman in the article is an E-N-A-B-L-E-R. It’s a common trap for women, especially the type that live in this fantasy that (deep breath now) “Everyone will always be completely helpless if it isn’t for meeeeeeeeeee.” What happens in the Freeberg household if the kid sleeps in too much, is whiny, is lazy, goes into meltdown if the plastic thing snaps off his Leggo Stormtrooper…et cetera? Rent “The Great Santini” and fast forward to when Robert Duvall makes everyone wake up in the middle of the night. This is the difference between fathers and mothers. A mother’s instinct is to just get everything handled…and if everyone else involved ends up being a useless, dependent whelp, then so much the better. Fathers are more concerned about how capable everyone else is going to be, after they’re/we’re gone. We get this — that in fifty years, we’ll be dead, the conference call won’t matter to anyone, but our children will be having a real effect on things and they’ll either be intolerant incapable whiny-butts, or they’ll be effectively handling their routine challenges and encouraging others to do the same.
Feminists are right to fight the traditional female “I must be responsible for everything” instinct. They’re wrong to so quickly use their vinegar when honey would work so much better. And they’re absolutely wrong to identify the men as the enemy in this effort. If they were smart they’d seek us out as allies. When a REAL man sees 99% of the work is being done by one person, he recognizes that as some kind of red flag and sets out to try to fix it. If he’s the guy doing the 99% he kicks some ass; if he’s the guy doing 1% he learns how to do more things.
But because they hate men they just don’t see it this way. They make the mistake of leaping to the conclusion that men made things the way they are, when in reality the “dad’s” sin is likely far more passive, and he’s guilty of sitting on the sidelines watching things take the form that they have today. And this is where I come around toward your point of view, Cassy; they engage in this classic leftist hamsters-exercise-wheel of demanding a revolution, and then keeping their anger pumped up before, during and after that revolution so they can demand another one. I wish I could just put it on some magical billboard that encircles the earth so there’s no way to get away from the message, morning noon or night:
Thing I Know #52. Angry people who demand things, don’t stop being angry when their demands are met.
On second thought, scratch that. We’ve been learning this constantly through real life for 45 years or so now. Anyone who hasn’t figured this out, for whatever reason, is just never going to get it.
[...] Cassy Fiano has the latest anti-male screed from the Feministas at Feministing [...]
Roxeanne,
“The deeply sad part of this is that it views a child as a problem. It’s sad enough when pregnant women treat their children this way; applying the same morals to little kids on their way to school is beyond disgusting.”
Welcome to the modern feminist movement. It’s hardly surprising that they have this viewpoint because they hate the way biology works on humanity. In their view, everything would be just super hunky-dory awesome if it wasn’t for useless men and those pesky kids that keep getting in the way of their “progress.”
On a side note, I think that feminists don’t understand much of history, period.
Morgan,
You seem to wish for a feminism to be rather than what it actually is. I think western culture is doing a pretty good job of creating a society fully dependent on government for their every need. I’m not sure if that’s exactly feminist, since if you look at history, governments the world over have always tried to control their populations in some form or another. Hell, the British Crown tried to control the colonies by doing that with all of the various “Acts,” triangle trade, etc. In short, it’s hardly a motherly concept.
Mat,
I could write paragraphs and I’ve babbled away to excess already. Suffice it to say if I look at the feminists and work really hard to see what’s good, I end up partially agreeing…I suppose the same is true of all of us, with regard to anything that suffers from a glaring internal contradiction as horribly as the feminist movement.
Their problem is their population. They represent a hodgepodge intermixed constituency that conglomerates 1) women who don’t want women to depend on men; 2) women who don’t want women to be responsible for the well-being of men; 3) just-plain-haters. Feministing’s thread here spiraled out of control so badly because #2 and #3 got their hot buttons hit. And then they started fighting until the moderator shut things down.
I suppose every revolutionary movement will have this problem. The leadership will age, and then have to be replaced. Among the candidates for replacement, the more hardcore militant one will always win. Well, after a few waves of that a rather nasty and caustic evolution will take place. In this case, four decades’ worth…at the conclusion of which, we see “liberation” really doesn’t have very much to do with the whole thing.
“A curse on all Marxists, and on those who would impose dryness and hardness on all the relations of life.”
That’s a great quote; too bad it was said by someone who later became a uber-Marxist: Leon Trotsky. But it definitely fits the man-hating feminist stereotype.
Being the only male in my “forced re-education” class in college, I was required to be the lone dissenting voice to the feminist arguments. One of the most powerful and persuasive was always ignored…the intentionally misleading “.75 cents to every dollar a man makes” argument.
Strangely enough, and I’m sure the numbers are even better now, but if you cut out the top 5% of wage earners (you know, the “rich bastards” the dems are always trying to punish) the average woman makes a dollar for every .75 cents a man makes. The reason is that, in order to survive and/or provide for their feminist others, many men will take whatever minimum wage jobs they can find while women will either refuse to work or take the higher-paying clerical/assistant positions. Cutting out the top 10% back then left women earning nearly 1.50 to every dollar a man made.
I’ve heard that the current reduction of the glass ceiling (a favored counter argument) makes these numbers even more skewed, but as a 37 year old male virgin I guess I’ll bow to the superior intellect of Rock the Vote and keep my mouth shut in the hope some hippie chick will have pity some day.
Karma says, “The bile spewing harpies of today are tomorrow’s bitter dried prunes.”
Merry Christmas to feministas, anyways!
.
I am sorry I am so late to this post.
But, I agree with the brilliance of ” And by the way: don’t forget to leave them custody. Leave your guilt at the door. The kids will work out fine. Your husband will have to make sure of that, just like you would if you were the sucker. Don’t be.
After all, men earn more money. They can look after the kids better. Let them.”
Please, please all women that feel that they need to get away from that awful ingrate they were somehow manipulated into marrying heed this brilliant tip. Let the man have custody and stop with the lies about how women are better parents because of anatomy.
[...] rape are still somehow responsible for it. And if they aren’t angry, violent oppressors, then they are useless, worthless creatures who are inferior to women. You will find some of the most awful vitriol aimed at men in the fascist [...]
I’m a single, custodial dad. I have to say it that way, because “single dad” conjures up an image of “some dude that has a kid, somewhere that he writes checks for”, rather than “someone who had to fight for custody of his children, and does it all, himself, without a handout from the state or the children’s other parent, and still works 50 hours a week.
Please, you feminists that are so burdened by that sloppy, useless meat-puppet who farts all night long: make your lives better by walking out on your ungrateful, sexist families. Go party your ass off, go clubbing 4 or more days a week, eat all the tapas you want, stay out late, sleep in, change jobs as often as you change your hair. Buy shoes in every color and style, if that’s your thing, or grow out your uni-brow and take up golf. There’s a good-ole-boy activity just begging to be ruined, i mean “enlightened” by feminism.
I double-dog dare you. You know, you can act just like those men you envy. It’s so empowering to be “just like a man”, or even just like you think every man would be if he wasn’t under some woman’s watchful, nurturing eye.
We’ll be so miserable without you, I promise! Compared to the annual 56 days or so of our children’s company that standard possession would find us worthy of, we’d be punished with nearly year round responsibility! And you know that should you change your mind, no court in the world would think of depriving you the role of mommy dearest for exactly as long as you think it suits you. In all probability, you could still collect alimony and child support! Certainly no attorney general (at least not in Texas, cough, greg abbott, cough) would dare even DREAM of actually enforcing a child support obligation. Well, unless you’re really, really skanky and gross, and already on a “most wanted” list.
And if that fails, you can always cry alot. Courts love that kind of thing.
I triple-dog-dare-you.