Why do feminists hate the concept of a “normal” relationship, or what Feministing blogger Samhita dubs “heteronormative” dating?

I dunno, because they hate men?

1. You are expected to dress nice and act a certain way “waiting” to get asked out.

2. You have to play by the rules which generally give men most of the power. (wait till he calls you, don’t be too forward, be mysterious-you don’t want to scare him off, etc)

3. If you show emotion too early on or too much of it, you are needy.

4. If you don’t show enough emotion, you are making the other party insecure forcing them to wield social privilege to silence your daring attempt at independence from self obliteration via coupling.

5. It fetishizes unequal power relations between women. He’ll get the tab, he’ll get the door as long as he gets the vagina, and that is considered “romance.”

6. It makes same sex couples feel “less than.”

7. It dictates your interaction in most social settings and social circles, whether you are single or coupled. It is either/or, there is no 3rd identity or in-between.

8. If you have sex too early you ruined it.

9. If you don’t have sex early on you are a prude.

10. It is expected to lead to marriage (and if you don’t have a ring on your finger you are “on the market.”)

So while some of this is tongue and cheek and most of it is obvious, I do think this is feminism’s dark corner. There is no guide to dating outside of patriarchy, there is no narrative for if you want to do it on your own or if you don’t want to get married, but you don’t want to be single either. Many women are caught in the middle, trapped between the discourse of what is expected and what they want.

What are these complaints?? Oh my God, men and women have to actually exert effort when it comes to their appearance on a date! The horror! Men pay! You have to keep yourself somewhat unavailable! Same-sex couples get their wittle feewings huwt! GASP!!

Of course, this all goes back to the oh-so-common feminist theme of patriarchy and men wielding power so that they can get sex and blah blah blah. What Samhita is complaining about does nothing except show how woefully poor her understanding of men is. Samhita, dear, by making yourself somewhat unavailable and forcing him to chase you, you are making yourself the person who holds the power in the relationship. Is it really that hard to understand? If you’re always there, ready to go, whenever he calls, then he’s the one with all the power. BUT, if you don’t always answer his phone calls, if you don’t always say yes to his dates, the woman holds the power. Manipulative, perhaps, but it’s certainly effective. And men typically don’t want an easy woman (and I’m not talking about sex). Men love the thrill of the chase. They want to work for it. So make them work for it! How does making yourself overly available strip the male of his “power”? It doesn’t. If you’re constantly there waiting and ready for him, you’re giving him all the power.

And, oh dear, the unequal power relations! Go ahead, call me old-fashioned, but I damn well expect a man to pay if he takes me on a date. It has nothing whatsoever to do with my ability to pay. If a man asks me on a date, then he pays. Period. It doesn’t have to be an expensive date… we can drink beer and go bowling and spend less than $20 for all I care. But in the beginning phase of a relationship where a man is attempting to woo and win a woman, it is my firm belief that it is his responsibility to pay. And no, it is not then her responsibility to have sex with him. I don’t see that as fetishizing “unequal power relations” in any manner. And once we’re in a committed relationship, that changes. I’ll pay sometimes, he’ll pay sometimes. Whatever. But if you are a male trying to pursue a female, I strongly believe the male should be doing just that — pursuing her, wooing her, impressing her. He pays for the dates, he brings her flowers, etc. How else do you do that?? If he can’t even fork out $40 for dinner and a movie on a first date, how much can the guy really dig you?

And of course, there’s the prerequisite complaining about sex. I know, I know, feminists are of the mind that truly enlightened women are “sexually free”. That’s the way we’re supposed to put it, right? It’s also a total load of crap. Look, I don’t begrudge anyone having premarital sex. I think waiting is the better course, and I don’t necessarily mean until marriage. Putting out on the first date generally gets you nowhere, though. I know there are circumstances where you have sex on the first date and it works out fine and all, but I’d usually caution against it. It’s not something you just do for shits and giggles. When you’re having sex with someone, it’s a lot more than just a fun physical act. It’s extremely emotional and intimate, not to mention potentially dangerous if you aren’t protected. So even if you don’t believe in waiting for moral or religious reasons, it’s probably a good idea to hold off until you know the guy pretty well just out of self-preservation. I know feminists are all about having as much sex as you want to, whenever you want to, with whoever you want to, but exercizing a little willpower is not a bad thing. Doing “whatever makes you feel good” usually does not make you feel good in the long run. And who cares if you get labeled a prude for waiting too long or a slut for having it too early? Last I checked, my sex life is between myself and my boyfriend, and no one else needs to know about it. Why is sex anyone else’s business?

And yes, there is the dreaded “M” word: marriage. That horrible partiarchal institution that’s merely a form of legal prostitution. Am I right, feminists?

Nevermind that most women want to get married. What women want doesn’t really matter to feminists nowadays, because feminists know better.

I just don’t understand what the big problem is with traditional dating. Here’s a great comment from one of the commenters at Feministing that sums up the attitude. When asked what the commenters hated about traditional dating, this was one of the responses:

Boyfriends that give me flowers or other pointless gifts, knowing full well I don’t need or want it, but choosing instead to believe Hallmark knows what women truly want.

So your boyfriend makes a nice gesture. He spends money on you and gives you a “pointless gift”, all to show his feelings for you and to try and make you happy. Yet this pisses a feminist off. Why?? There’s constant talk in the comments of how outraged they are over these “rules”, yet still follow some of them. Because of the feminist dogma, women need to “break free” of what we think we want, even if it makes us happy. Boyfriend sends you flowers, and you feel good about it, but dammit, it’s a bad thing!! BAD BAD BOYFRIEND! (SSHH… must not tell anyone I really love the flowers.)

It is not “patriarchal” for a man to take a woman on a date, or for him to pay. It is not “patriarchal” for him to send her flowers or buy her gifts. It is not “patriarchal” for a woman to play hard-to-get or for her to maybe make him wait until they’ve been dating a little while to sleep with him rather than doing it right away. It is not “patriarchal” that same-sex couples apparently are over-sensitive about traditional dating. Honestly, what is the point of all this complaining here? Doesn’t it all boil down to the same old thing all over again? I mean, jeez. They write things like this and then they wonder why most men and a lot of women don’t identify at all with modern feminism. What does complaining about traditional dating have to do with achieving gender equality? Nothing whatsoever, except modern feminism is not about gender equality.

What you have here is a group of angry, bitter women who are out to destroy the traditions that most Americans hold dear, because they personally don’t like them. They aren’t speaking or working for the good of women, and they certainly don’t have any respect for men either.

Hey, you! Yeah, you reading this, that owns your own business. Did you know that you aren’t allowed to run your business the way you see fit? That’s right — you must adhere to the standards set by specific people, regardless of how you may feel about it. To what am I referring, do you ask? Well, here’s a little video example. Caution for profanity.

In case you didn’t know, that is Feministing’s own Jessica Valenti (she loved my comments about her soon-to-be published book), talking about Pharmacists For Life International.

Let’s just pretend that everything Jessica said in her video was 100% accurate and truthful. OK, so there are a whopping seven pharmacies certified by PFLI. It means the pharmacy won’t dispense the morning-after pill, and in some cases, any contraception at all. This is apparently very, very anti-woman… because, you know, all women care about is accessibility to the morning-after pill and easy contraception! Not only does this make these pharmacists anti-woman, but it makes them “extremist liars”… all for following their own principles and values in the workplace. I know, I’m thinking the same thing… HOW DARE THEY?! Don’t they know they are violating feminist dogma?! Jeez!!

Now, here’s where we get into the fun part. What Jessica, that little sweetykins, is basically saying is that pharmacists should not be allowed to run their pharmacies how they choose, all because she has a disagreement about what medicines they should and should not be dispensing. I’m sure she’ll backtrack and whine, “But I never actually said they shouldn’t be allowed to!”. But it’s a reasonable inference that Jessica wants to force all pharmacists to carry contraceptives whether they morally agree or not, is it not?

Here’s the thing about America: we have a capitalist, free market economic system. Pharmacists can stock, or not stock, whatever they want. So can any other business. I always thought the owner of the business got the choose what merchandise they made available, but apparently not in the Fun World of Feminism! The beauty of this free market system is that you, the consumer, are not required to go to any specific business. If you feel that the morning-after pill should be readily available, you are free to take your business elsewhere. If Americans are so concerned about the accessibility of contraceptives and the morning-after pill, the pharmacies that refuse to carry them will go out of business. The key factor here is choice, something feminists like to say a lot but never actually offer. They just say, if you don’t like dispensing birth control, find a new job. Period, end of story. It’s their way or the highway. Choice? What’s that??

So what’s next for feminists like Jessica? Wanting to shut down convenience stores for refusing to stock condoms? It’s funny, because feminists like Jessica claim they aren’t fighting for the right to slut around, but a lot of their arguments seem to eerily revolve around birth control and abortion and… well… things that have to do with sex. Oppose any of those things and you’re anti-woman. Be pro-life and oppose something like FGM or Sharia law, and you aren’t a real feminist.

In any case, it’s little episodes like this that make me smile. Do they not realize they’re giving themselves away with things like this? Modern day feminism does not stand for choice. Modern day feminism is all about making everyone conform to what they want, whether you like it or not. This is just one more example. It doesn’t matter that no woman is required to patronize any specific pharmacy to them… if there’s any pharmacy, anywhere, who doesn’t offer the exact contraceptives Jessica Valenti and her feminist pals want them to offer, why, it makes them lying, extremist, woman-haters. Choice be damned.

Hey ladies! Did you know that you and your hard work accomplished absolutely NOTHING? Everything you have today, you can thank second wave feminism for. Had that never happened, I know I wouldn’t have accomplished any of the things I’m doing today. Thank God for second wave feminism, because surely I’m not capable of building my own future.

Apparently, this is how women are required to think. Just ask Katie “Boys are stupid and violent” Granju. The real reason women “hate” Sarah Palin? Because she thinks she’s the one who accomplished everything in her life, and doesn’t worship at the altar of feminism! DUH!

For the millions of American women in their 50s, 60s and beyond who remember workplaces before second wave feminism, Palin’s attitude toward women’s issues is just plain offensive. These women toiled in work environments where bringing a child to work would have been unthinkable. In fact, they were generally fired as soon as they became pregnant. They remember the days before the law protected female workers against sexual harassment and blatant discrimination. They know that it’s only in the last generation or so that more fathers have, like Todd Palin, begun taking an equal role in childcare and household management so their wives can go out into the world as professionals. These are women who had mothers and grandmothers who told them what it was like to live in a country where women had no political voice, or even the right to vote.

Sarah Palin is undoubtedly accomplished and charismatic all on her own. However, for her to smugly act as if she doesn’t owe a debt of gratitude to the generations of American women before her who marched and organized and protested and brought lawsuits and ran for office themselves so that she could stand on a national stage in 2008 - while at the same time successfully mothering five children - is just plain rude. And it irritates a lot of us who share her gender.

I am younger than Sarah Palin, but I am also a working mother with four children, ranging in age from 14 months to 17 years. However unlike Sarah Palin, I am well aware every time I am able to take a break at work to pump milk for my baby that other women before me who spoke up and changed workplace policy deserve the credit for the more mother-friendly working environment I enjoy today. I am grateful. …

Feminism isn’t about “whining.” It’s about courageously raising issues and breaking barriers so that our daughters will have more opportunities and credibility than we have today, just as we have more than our mothers had 25 years ago. And smart women, gracious women, know when to give credit where credit is due. Sarah Palin does not.

And that is the real reason why a lot of women can’t stand Sarah Palin.

God, the horrors. You mean, Sarah Palin doesn’t kiss her framed photo of Betty Friedan? That’s just so insulting, for her to think that she’s the only manufacturer of her own life!

OK. Now, in all seriousness, of course I am grateful to feminists whose work obviously paved the way for much of what women are able to do today. But do I sit here and constantly thank them for being able to work in sports or politics? No!

Look, regardless of your age, race, or gender, there are people whose sacrifices and hard work helped to pave the way for the doors that have been opened to you. But what Ms. Granju cannot seem to understand is that it does not define who you are or what you do. I give Sarah Palin big kudos for being the master of her own life and not constantly looking over her shoulder making sure she’s giving the appropriate props to the “right” people. You can be grateful for the sacrifices of those who came before you without showing it outwardly, too. What is Palin supposed to do, open every speech with a “Truth to Power” speech saluting Second Wave Feminists? The whole concept is ridiculous.

And of course, Ms. Granju has to throw in the “we have a long way to go” schtick. You know… “we have a long way to go before ALL Americans can afford healthcare”. Dude. Seriously. HEALTHCARE. IS. NOT. A. RIGHT. No one has a right to healthcare, or even good health for that matter. No one has a “right” to be making a lot of money. No one has a “right” to their employer giving them flexible hours. Sure, it would be nice if everyone had these things, but its not a “right”. And what’s insulting is deriding Sarah Palin for having these things (uh, “wealth” envy much?!), or saying that she owes everything she’s accomplished to feminism. It’s ridiculous. And it’s condescending.

So, at the risk of being subjected to the ire of grumpy feminists who think I should be bowing down to them, I’m just going to say this. I don’t think I owe anything to any feminist. What I’ve accomplished in my life so far has been accomplished because of me: not because of Susan B. Anthony, not because of Betty Friedan, and certainly not because of Gloria Steinem. I’m very grateful that feminists fought for equal rights, but I’m also thankful to a lot of other people. I’m thankful to our military, those serving now and those who served in previous generations. I’m thankful to those who fought in the Civil Rights movement. I’m thankful to conservatives who are fighting today. But none of those people who fought in the past and in the present define me. I don’t owe them anything, and I’m certainly not going to be worshipping at their altars as if my life would be nothing without them. I am the master of my own destiny, and it only makes me love Sarah Palin that much more to know that she feels the same.

Seriously, feminists: GROW UP.

Hat Tip: Instapundit

Today, John Hawkins put up a post at Right Wing News about Feministing Executive Editor Jessica Valenti’s new book, The Purity Myth.

Last night on instant messenger, a female friend of mine sent me a link to a new book that Jessica Valenti over at Feministing is coming out with. Yes, believe it or not, this apparently isn’t some sort of off-the-wall parody — it’s a real book[.]

After sending me the link, my friend’s comment was, “What is it with feminists and wanting to turn America’s teenagers into raging whores?”

Good question.

Yeah, that would be me. Here’s what the book cover looks like:

Sigh. Where to even begin.

For what its worth, Jessica seems to have an obsession with sluttiness. She has some kind of particular aversion to girls practicing abstinence, or at the very least, not wallowing in the hook-up culture that dominates high schools and colleges today. According to Jessica, shirts that say things like “Future Wife” and “Virgins are Hot” are SEXIST!! (how shocking). She also hates purity balls. She hated this article from Time Magazine. Here’s an excerpt Jessica featured and called “creepy”:

Kylie Miraldi has come from California to celebrate her 18th birthday tonight. She’ll be going to San Jose State on a volleyball scholarship next year. Her father, who looks a little like Superman, is on the dance floor with one of her sisters; he turns out to be Dean Miraldi, a former offensive lineman with the Philadelphia Eagles. When Kylie was 13, her parents took her on a hike in Lake Tahoe, Calif. “We discussed what it means to be a teenager in today’s world,” she says. They gave her a charm for her bracelet–a lock in the shape of a heart. Her father has the key. “On my wedding day, he’ll give it to my husband,” she explains. “It’s a symbol of my father giving up the covering of my heart, protecting me, since it means my husband is now the protector. He becomes like the shield to my heart, to love me as I’m supposed to be loved.”

Creepy? I thought it was sweet. Jessica’s response?

Are families who don’t expect their daughters to promise their virginity to their dads promoting sex for 12 year-olds? Can’t dads be engaged in the lives of their daughters without worrying about the state of their hymen? And is telling women that their moral compass lays in between their legs really setting the bar high?

She didn’t mind an article from Salon.com bragging about how awesome casual hook-ups are. The writer gleefully recounts the many one-night stands “several night stands” she’s had as if it’s a positive thing:

I’m a 24-year-old member of the hookup generation — I’ve had roughly three times as many hookups as relationships — and, like innumerable 20-somethings before me, I’ve found that casual sex can be healthy and normal and lead to better adult relationships. I don’t exactly advocate picking up guys at frat parties and screwing atop the keg as the path to marital bliss. It’s just that hookup culture is not the radical extreme it is so frequently mischaracterized as in the media. There is sloppy stranger sex among people my age, sure, but sometimes hooking up is regular sex with a casual acquaintance; sometimes it’s innocent making out or casually dating or cuddling, and, oftentimes, it involves just one person at a time. In a sense it’s all very old-fashioned — there’s just a lot more unattached sex involved.

That, my friends, is Jessica Valenti’s example of “healthy” sexuality, remarking:

Some of you may already know that I’m working on a book about this culture of purity and chastity, and how it’s America’s obsession with virginity, not Girls Gone Wild and hooking up, that’s fucking young women up.

So, I’ll say it again.

Why is it so many feminists are so obsessed with turning teenage girls into raging whores? How is that something you tell girls they should aspire to? Sleeping around is not a good thing. Even if you take the emotional aspect out, it’s not physically healthy. There’s a reason that 1 in 4 teenage girls has an STD. I guess that doesn’t matter to Jessica, because hey, obviously as long as you practice “safe sex” you’ll NEVER get an STD! Condoms are absolutely foolproof, so hey, screw whoever you want. There won’t be any consequences. Right?

Oh, wait, apparently that’s not working out too good for teenage girls.

You would think, if for no other reason, you’d want to tell girls to rein it in if for no other reason than to safeguard their health. But hey, telling girls to be pure is really the problem. Girls Gone Wild culture is healthy, telling girls to keep their legs together is not.

Yeah, that’s the advice of a sane, rational person with girls’ well-being at heart.

See, for feminists like Jessica it’s not good enough to say it’s your choice when it comes to sex. Modern feminism isn’t about choice though, is it? No, Jessica and her ilk have to make everyone else act the exact same way they do. Is it to validate their own choices? I’d wager a bet on that, although if that is the truth, it would be the strongest argument against the point that Jessica is making.

Look, I’m not about to say that anyone who has premarital sex is a slut, or that if you have had a lot of sex it means you’re a terrible person. I am saying that spreading your shit like you’re Samantha on Sex and the City is not healthy and it’s not something you should be telling teenage girls they should be emulating.

And yes, fathers should be talking to their daughters about sex. While Jessica seems to think that the implication is that talking to their daughters about sex is the only way fathers can be involved in their daughters’ lives, that’s not the point at all. Fathers — and mothers — are supposed to be helping their children to grow, to learn, prepare them to make good choices. That includes sex. And telling your twelve-year-old, “You know what? You’re a smart kid. Do whatever is right for YOU!” is ludicrous. A girl that young simply does not have the maturity to make that kind of decision on her own! Her parents are supposed to guide her, and I personally find purity balls great ways to do that. To me, a purity ball is not teaching a girl that sex is something dirty or cheap (although telling her that she should hook up with whoever she wants certainly does). It tells her that sex is something sacred and special, and that it’s not something that she should give away to just anyone. Even if she has sex before she gets married, it’s a lesson she’ll likely carry on throughout her life. And how can you possibly argue that a girl who has limited partners is worse off than a girl who screws any guy who’ll buy her a few at a bar or flirt with her in class at college? And if respect and empowerment for herself is not a good enough reason to teach a girl to abstain, then the willpower required should be. Doing whatever you feel like whenever you feel like it makes for a very weak person, indeed. It doesn’t take strength or character to just do “whatever makes you feel good”.

I honestly think that what most of this is about when it comes to feminists like Jessica is self-loathing… you know, misery loves company and all. I can’t help but see someone extremely misguided, bitter, and angry in Jessica and the feminists like her. What’s truly pathetic is that they aren’t content with screwing up their own lives. No… they’ve got to ruin the lives of American teenage girls as well.

Maybe I should just write a book called “The Feminism Myth: How Feminists’ Obsession with Slutting Around is Hurting Young Women”. See, feminism did not come around as a vehicle for women to be able to have on-demand birth control and abortions, or sleep around like horndog men. And to have the values that the mothers of feminism stood for perverted by women who claim to be fighting for women’s rights is a myth, indeed.

Not surprising.

First of all, this is not the first Sarah Haskins video I’ve seen, and you know what? Some of them are actually hilarious. I laughed my ass off at the ones about wedding shows and birth control:

However, this cleaning one is a little ridiculous. Well, a lot ridiculous. Yes, most cleaning products commercials are ridiculous. But I always thought they made men look bad, not women. In these commercials, it’s always the men who do idiotic things. They spill, the break stuff, or they just snooze on the couch like the lazy bums all men are. Right? And the smart, witty, sexy mom comes along to save his stupid butt, because a man could clearly never figure out how to use a paper towel, or put a lid on a blender. At the same time, the point is not necessarily to make men look stupid or like slobs. These commercials are overexaggerated to make the cleaning product look that much more powerful. If it one Quilted Northern paper towel can clean up an entire vat of spaghetti sauce all over the kitchen, then surely it will work great for me!

No one disagrees about the stupidity of cleaning product commercials. They’re stupid. There, I said it. But it isn’t sexist. Whether feminists like it or not, women do most of the household chores. More importantly, they buy most of the products used for the household chores. But in 99% of women’s households, the men and kids do not sit around like lazy slobs. I know that in my house, the entire family was put to work every Saturday. But by and large, it’s women who make themselves responsible for cleaning and for buying household cleaning products. This is not because of a concentrated effort by men everywhere to keep women barefoot and in the kitchen. In fact, I don’t think most men even have to say anything about it to their wives or girlfriends. Women just do it. Why? Because it needs to be done. Because women are usually better at it than men.

Also interesting is the mocking of the outfits worn by the women in the cleaning commercials. Do most women dress like that while they clean? No, most women wear sweatpants and the dingiest shirt they can find in their wardrobe. Should they dress more like the women in the commercials? Yes! One of the biggest complaints men usually have about their wives or girlfriends is that they slump around the house in baggy, dingy, ugly sweatpants and make no effort to look good for him. Does that mean that women should wear pearls while they’re scrubbing the shower stall? Of course not, but would it kill women to make an effort to look even a little bit put-together while they’re at home? Too many women seem to think that they only need to look good if they’re going out somewhere. They don’t realize that their man probably would love to see them actually look nice even if they’re staying at home, because they’re looking nice for him. I know that making yourself look nice for a man goes against every rule of modern feminism, but it’s worth it. Am I right, guys?

And then of course there’s the insinuation that cleaning is some kind of substitute for a “healthy sexual relationship”. Because, you know, a woman who cleans will never get laid. Ever. And you know, I guess we could just dispense with the anti-bacterial cleaners and let our homes be crawling with God-knows-what. I mean, who cares if you just sliced up some raw chicken on your kitchen counter? If you think you need an anti-bacterial cleaning product to clean that up, then you’re just paranoid.

Of course, reading the comments at Feministing shows you that yes, Virginia, feminists do have nothing better to do with their time than bitch about cleaning their houses. They say that women who these ads cater to should probably see a therapist, that the video helps one feminist procrastinate more, because her husband made their house a “hell-hole”. Here’s the best one:

I hate it. This is disgusting how Women are programmed to do these tough jobs. This is patriarchy. We should end patriarchy!!!

On the other hand most commercials of Marines, construction workers, auto mechanics are Men - http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7766890229153939703

This is making Men join Army and die. Around 95% deaths in the army and at work place are Men. Patriarchy is making Men to become construction workers and toil in the hot sun, become car mechanics and make their hands dirty all the time.

I would like to see 50% of the Army and work related deaths to be Women, 50% of the people whose clothes are dirty with mud and paint to be Women, 50% of the people who fall down from cleaning 20th or 40th floor glasses to be Women. Make it 54% since there are more Women than Men. This is making Men struggle outside when Women are safe in their houses (usually with AC & heater).

This is Patriarchy. We should end Patriarchy!!! I hate Patriarchy!!!

Of course. Women cleaning up after their families is patriarchy. I keep forgetting. Women are supposed to be in manly professions, sleeping around like men do, having abortions if their birth control doesn’t work, and never ever do anything nice for a man like cooking or cleaning. Men also are supposed to exist as nothing more but accessories for women, to be there whenever we need them but likewise to disappear whenever we’re sick of them. Because really, all men are either evil oppressors or stupid slobs.

Look, I know cleaning isn’t fun. (Some people may not think is cooking is fun, either, but I do.) And no matter how much feminists bitch and complain, the cleaning still needs to get done. I really have to wonder if feminists really think that all of this is truly SEXIST!! or if they’re just lazy and are feigning outrage to get out of having to do chores. “Sorry, honey, I just can’t vacuum. It goes against my principles.” How convenient. It’s not equality they’re looking to find.

Morgan says it best:

To hear them tell it, when feminists live with men they bring their bitching and pissing and moaning to an abrupt halt once they have achieved “equality” as far as “help with the household chores.” But that would imply, would it not, that the feminist of the household is mopping the floor and scrubbing the toilets fifty percent of the time. It’s been over twenty years since my last romantic relationship with a real die-hard post-modern feminist now…I’m not even sure the phrase “post-modern” can apply to days so far gone.

But the image of a self-professed feminist grabbing those Windex wipes and happily scrubbing toothpaste droplets off the bathroom mirror, cheerfully whistling to herself because she’s only doing this half the time — it’s a bit much for me to envision. The message that’s been ground into my cranium, forcefully, for decades now, is that housework and feminine things do not go together. Not even for a moment.

Theory A is that they’re sincere, and they just want a more equitable divide in the household labor.

Theory B is the bitches are just lazy.

I’m going with Theory B.

I’m starting to feel like a one-woman anti-feminist crusader. It’s getting kind of tiring. Thankfully, being an anti-feminist doesn’t require too much time and effort, especially seeing as how I can skip out on the strain of being constantly outraged over trivial, stupid things.

The latest thing to drive them over the edge? A McDonald’s ad. Check it out:

This is apparently incontrovertible evidence that sexism is alive and well in the United States, because clearly the point McDonald’s was making was that all women are just stupid little sex objects. At least, according to Feministing:

Pretending to be smart and serious is hard stuff. All of that faking knowledge takes a toll on our tiny lady brains. But don’t worry, McDonald’s is here to let you know that you don’t have to wear flats and read books anymore!

I feel vomity.

And Jezebel:

There’s a new McDonald’s commercial (which comes to our attention via a reader tip) called “Intellectuals.” It begins with two women “reading” newspapers in an upscale, Starbucksian-establishment. The first woman says, “You know, I heard McDonald’s is making lattes now.” The other woman says: “McDonald’s? Well that’s just…it’s fantastic!” Woman 1 replies: “Now we don’t have to listen to jazz all day long!” Woman 2 concurs: “I can start wearing heels again!” Eventually, one woman admits, “I don’t know where Paraguay is!” Get it? They’re sick of pretending to be classy, café-loving intellectual ladies. They want to be “regular” American women! In other words, they want to be idiots.

The spot was discussed on Marketplace last week. AdWeek’s Barbara Lippert says: “It really seems to be in the Sarah Palin moment. Because all that is about anti-intellectualism and shootin’ and huntin’… And this is, you know, ‘Oh, we really always hated Starbucks, and thank God for McDonald’s and a real American option.’” And trend-watcher Faith Popcorn agrees, claiming: “It’s adapting kinda the campaign approach.” In fact, the commercial seems offensive on many levels.

So see, not only is the ad SEXIST!!, but it’s also (surprise!) Sarah Palin’s fault! She’s just such a gosh-darn anti-intellectual.

I really wonder about feminists. Isn’t it tiring, having to constantly summon up this kind of mock outrage over idiotic things, day in and day out? I mean, seriously. It’s not like there aren’t more important things for feminists to be worried about… like female genital mutilation, Sharia law in the Middle East (and now… Britain!), women getting killed in honour killings… but I guess I’m glad that feminists are concentrating on what really matters: McDonald’s commercials.

And I think they kind of missed the point on this one anyway. I didn’t see anything sexist in the ad. What I did see was a HUGE bitchslap to expensive, snooty coffee chains like Starbucks. Starbucks, and the entire atmosphere in there, is so annoying. Of course, liberal elites looove Starbucks. Maybe that’s what really bothers them, that McDonald’s insulted one of their sacred cows. But walking into Starbucks is always a little odd. You’ve got the “baristas”, who I think are required upon their hire to dye their hair some weird shade not found in nature, and have at least three facial piercings (it’s a plus to have an extra-long goatee if you’re a guy) — not to mention the prerequisite surly face and unfriendly demeanor. As for the customers, everyone in Starbucks is typically completely silent, everyone completely focused on their laptops, or their New Yorker magazine, or whatever the trendy pastime du jour is. No one interacts. No one talks. Everyone sits there, basking in their intellectual superiority. And then on top of that, you’ve got the crazy drinks and the even crazier prices. I mean, jeez — you get these outlandish orders like, I don’t know, decaf caramel nutmeg latte with skim milk and hazelnut topping and extra foam that cost some ridiculous amount like $12.95 — for a cup of freaking coffee!

The entire Starbucks atmosphere is what McDonald’s was ridiculing. Sure, there are people who are into that — usually college kids who are going through their bratty “I’m so hip and cool” phase — but most people have better things to do with their time and money than sit around for hours in a coffeeshop pretending to read trendy magazines and spend copious amounts of money on overpriced coffee. And most people will watch that McDonald’s commercial and laugh, because they understand what McDonald’s is saying right away. Hey, come to our place and get a cheap coffee, served by friendly cashiers (NOT baristas), be in and out in a second, and hey, you don’t have to worry about pretending to be trendy while you’re at it!

But, as usual, the feminists miss the boat. Because women are featured in this ad instead of men, it is clearly SEEEEEXIIIIST!!!

Well, I guess when I think about it, isn’t this a much better use of their time anyway? Much better to shriek about McDonald’s ads, abortion on demand, and the horrors of abstinence pledges than the true oppression women face in the world. Let the grown-ups handle the big girl stuff, and the tweeners can pout about the pretend stuff.

When it comes to feminism, you’re never quite sure when you’re going to be accused of sexism. Open the door for a woman? SEXIST! Think it might be better for your kids if your wife is a stay-at-home mom? SEXIST! Think abortion is morally wrong? SEEEEXIIIIST!!!!!!!!

Apparently, Bryan Adams’ hit song, Everything I Do (I Do It For You) is sexist. Early nineties sexism, specifically. Sounds like a class they might teach at Wellesly. Here’s the offensive video:

Yes, yes, I can see the sexism. There are clips from — gasp! — Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (I am much more of a Robin Hood: Men In Tights girl)! Robin and Marian flirt, and kiss in the video. He even lowers her down from a tree fort on a rope! Truly, truly offensive. God, such horrible instances of not just sexism, but nineties edition sexism.

Who finds this offensive? Why, Feministing, of course! And what brough this on? An ad from the 1970s, something truly to be disturbed about in 2008. Here’s the sexist ad:

Here’s the text from the ad:

Sure. You live with him and take care of him and hang up his clothes. But just because you do the things a wife’s supposed to do, don’t forget you’re still a woman.

One of the nicest things you can do for a man is take care of your skin. That means Sardo. No other bath oil or bead has Sardo’s unique dry skin formula. It’s pure bath oil. The richest. The best. 3 out of 4 women saw and felt and loved the difference after just one Sardo bath.

How about you? Why don’t you do something soft and young and special for him. Feel wonderful all over with Sardo.

How horrible! A wife taking care of her husband?! Doing his laundry?! How dare she! And then on top of that, this ad is trying to suggest that a woman make herself look nice for a man? Do they not realize what this ad is?!

SEXIST!!!!

For the record, I love taking care of my man. I love cooking for him. I don’t love doing laundry or cleaning, but I do it because it’s nice. Not because he expects me to, but because it’s a nice thing to do. Just like he doesn’t have to pay for a trip to Disney World in a few months, but he is. And whether feminists like it or not, a lot of women want to look good for their men. A shocking concept, I know.

What’s hilarious is how offensive the feminists say this ad is, but the commenters have zero problem whatsoever insulting and deriding the man for the hair on his arms. So it’s OK to criticize men for their looks but not women? What if a bunch of men were making fun of a woman because of something beyond her control, like her arms being hairier than normal? These same women would be shrieking with outrage.

It’s stories like these that make modern feminism so out-of-touch with reality and the average woman. When you’re worried about trivial bullshit like an ad from thirty years ago, or a Bryan Adams video that’s over fifteen years old, and make abortion the holy cow of your entire movement, and then call it fighting for women’s rights, it makes people not really take you very seriously. The thing is, there is real sexism in the world, and real women who are fighting real oppression. Most of this takes place in the Middle East, but modern American feminism finds things like thirty-year-old bath oil ads and abortion more important than, oh, say three girls being buried alive for the “crime” of choosing their own husbands.

Where was the outrage on Feministing over that?? Oh wait, there wasn’t any. But hey, any time a bath oil product wants to tell women it’s a good thing to look good for her husband, then they’ll be ready to take them on.

Feminists: fighting for the real oppression in the world!

Go ahead and be prepared to be very offended when you read this.

The audacity of whiteness never ceases to amaze me. Some make the most obvious racial statements and then say, gee I’m sorry is my privilege showing. Well duh, of course it is and you damn well know it. If it were not so tragic I could be amused by the constant apologizing for racial commentary, when the clear intent was to be racial in the first place. Do yourself a favour and stop with the false apologies it only compounds upon the issue.

As a child most people are taught to think before they speak, but somehow, for some reason, when it comes to discussing bodies of colour, white people regularly experience temporary amnesia. Of course it is assumed that POC will magnanimously turn the other cheek eagerly awaiting the next slap. Why else do we exist but to take the sharp barbs and daily humiliations.

If you can’t get a job some Latino immigrant stole it from you. If you cannot get into the college you want, some African American stole your spot due to affirmative action; or some “super smart” Asian who has no life but to study unfairly outworked you. Are you falsely reporting a crime? Of course blame the black man, everyone knows they’re all criminals anyway. Want some land to pollute, find the nearest Native American, break yet another treaty and wrap it in small pox blankets smothered in their blood. Despite all of the privileges that white bodies are able to marshal if the slightest problem occurs it is always the fault of the body of colour. We’re all equal until a white person feels disenfranchised. I know the drill all to well.

Are you as pissed off reading that as I am? Horrible grammar aside (good Lord, did the writer pass the sixth grade? Sheesh!), that article just floored me.

I am SO. TIRED. of white people being blamed for every social ill in the world. I am fed up with people who live in perpetual victimhood constantly looking for some kind of slight or offense to use so that they can reinforce their own ridiculous stereotypes.

We have come so far in this country when it comes to social boundaries. By and large, women and minorities can accomplish anything they want. Nothing is holding you back, if you’re only willing to work hard enough. Sure, you’ll come upon some assholes here and there, but that doesn’t mean that everyone of that particular race or gender is an asshole, too.

Let me use myself as an example. I started my career in journalism as a sports reporter. I was often one of the only females. I then started working for a minor league hockey team, where I was the only female in the office. Aside from working in politics now, my “real” job is working in an auto repair shop. What do you know, another male-dominated job! Occasionally, there is a guy here and there who will be disrespectful, who think I can’t do my job. But that does not mean all men are sexist pricks who think women should stick to girly jobs. 97% of the men I’ve dealt with as a female in male-dominated fields have treated me with nothing but respect and professionalism.

Similarly, I truly believe that most white people are not racist. Yeah, yeah, I’m white, so I can’t possibly know. Whatever. Are there racists out there? Of course, and they come in other races besides just Caucasian, too. There are racists of every color. However, they are in the minority. I do not know a single person who is racist. I can say that with pride. And just because this bitter woman came across a few people who are racist idiots, it doesn’t mean that all white people are. And the claims this lady’s making are ridiculous. When is the last time a white person hunted down some poor, defenseless Native American tribe and infected them with smallpox? 150 years ago? Yet she’s got no problems using it as an example to prove that all white people, in this day and age, are racist.

There’s so much hate and bitterness in that post that it makes me wonder how much racism is really being thrown her way, and how much of it is in her head. People who see nothing but hate and bitterness in the world often are projecting. And I suspect that’s what is going on here. After all, she gives us no specifics, no examples, no polls, no studies, nothing to back up her egregious claim that all white people are racist and prejudiced. She just says that this is the way it is, because she says so. Apparently, the very fact that someone is white — something they have zero control over — is audacious to her. Yet it’s white people who are the racist ones. Um… OK. That makes sense… sorta… not really…

The whole “I am a victim” schtick is so old and tired. There are plenty of people — black, white, male, female, Hispanic, Asian, gay, straight — who love to do nothing more than wallow in their victimhood. And it is so pathetic. You will never get anywhere if all you do is think about how hard you have it and how disenfranchised you are. Part of succeeding is working hard and being willing to overcome the obstacles that will inevitably come your way — not sitting around whining about how mean the world is and how rough you have it.

But of course, if you stopped doing that, you’d have to actually work hard. Take responsibility for yourself. Admit that the world is not a bad place and that people are inherently good. And some people are so much more comfortable in their so-called suffering. This woman, I gather, is probably one of them.

I never can quite grasp what exactly it is feminists seem to have against women being attractive. I don’t get why they get so angry if a man thinks a woman is hot. I just don’t get it. I know I’m just a tool of the male patriarchy and all, but personally I’m not the least bit offended if a man thinks I’m sexy. It’s a compliment!! And it doesn’t bother me any to hear people talk about how hot Sarah Palin is, either. You know why? Because she is hot. But for whatever reason, feminists decry this as sexism. They’re so, so against women being seen as attractive. And one of the things they’ve slammed Sarah Palin for over and over again is her attractiveness. She wears skirts! But… but… but… Hillary wore pantsuits! The horror! And not to mention she likes her husband… she didn’t abort her disabled baby… she even (gasp!!) supports her teenage daughter’s pregnancy!! And, worst of all, women like her.

The feminists’ collective heads are spinning.

At Salon.com, we’ve got a couple of examples of feminists getting their panties in a wad over Sarah Palin’s sexiness. Hey, don’t be hatin’!

First, we have Cintra Wilson, with a really good one.

McCain’s running mate is a Christian Stepford wife in a sexy librarian costume. Women, it’s time to get furious.

Sarah Palin may be a lady, but she ain’t no woman.

I confess, it was pretty riveting when John McCain trotted out Sarah Palin for the first time. Like many people, I thought, “Damn, a hyperconservative, fuckable, Type A, antiabortion, Christian Stepford wife in a ’sexy librarian’ costume — as a vice president? That’s a brilliant stroke of horrifyingly cynical pandering to the Christian right. Karl Rove must be behind it.”

Palin may have been a boost of political Viagra for the limp, bloodless GOP (and according to an ABC/Washington Post poll she has created a boost in McCain’s standing among white women to a 53 over Obama’s 41). But ideologically, she is their hardcore pornographic centerfold spread, revealing the ugliest underside of Republican ambitions — their insanely zealous and cynical drive to win power by any means necessary, even at the cost of actual leadership.

…

Sarah Palin, in this light, makes so little sense that she makes perfect sense. She speciously represents a new power paradigm of the Nice Mommy: the opposite of Hillary (the Mean Mommy), the opposite of Oprah (black, and therefore foreign), the opposite of Martha Stewart (another Mean Mommy). In her support for women on women’s issues, she has done everything but volunteer for her own circumcision. She tacitly promises a roll backward into old-fashioned sexual roles — like Old Testament-style old. Her morality is fixed, predictable and inflexible. There are those who will find comfort in the fact that they will know exactly what can be expected from Palin: Free will subordinated to obedience of an airtight, evangelical interpretation of the demands of God, country and Republican men.

…

It is a kind of eerie coincidence that Sarah Palin is being sprung on the public at the same time as the bimbo/frat-boy titty comedy “House Bunny,” which features a poster of a beautiful young lady with Playmate-style bunny ears, big, stupid eyes and her mouth hanging open like someone just punched her.

Sarah Palin is the White House bunny — the most nauseating novelty confection of the evangelical mind-set since Southern “chastity balls,” wherein teen girls pledge abstinence from premarital sex by ceremonially faux-marrying their own fathers.

You see? This brilliant woman figured it all out. The insipid movie The House Bunny was really Karl Rove pulling the strings behind the curtain. It was a subliminal message. And sure enough, right after it came out, BAM! Sarah Palin. Mmm-hmm. That’s right.

Next up, we have Rebecca Traister.

Palin’s femininity is one that is recognizable to most women: She’s the kind of broad who speaks on behalf of other broads but appears not to like them very much. The kind of woman who, as Jessica Grose at Jezebel has eloquently noted, achieves her power by doing everything modern women believed they did not have to do: presenting herself as maternal and sexual, sucking up to men, evincing an absolute lack of native ambition, instead emphasizing her luck as the recipient of strong male support and approval. It works because these stances do not upset antiquated gender norms. So when the moment comes, when tolerance for and interest in female power have been forcibly expanded by Clinton, a woman more willing to throw elbows and defy gender expectations but who falls short of the goal, Palin is there, tapped as a supposedly perfect substitute by powerful men who appreciate her charms.

But while the Republicans would have us believe that Palin can simply stand in for Hillary Clinton, there is nothing interchangeable about these politicians. We began this history-making election with one kind of woman and have ended up being asked to accept her polar opposite. Clinton’s brand of femininity is the kind that remains slightly unpalatable in America. It is based on competence, political confidence and an assumption of authority that upends comfortable roles for men and women. It’s a kind of power that has nothing to do with the flirtatious or the girly, nothing to do with the traditionally feminine. It is authority that is threatening because it so closely and calmly resembles the kind of power that the rest of the guys on a presidential stage never question their right to wield.

The pro-woman rhetoric surrounding Sarah Palin’s nomination is a grotesque bastardization of everything feminism has stood for, and in my mind, more than any of the intergenerational pro- or anti-Hillary crap that people wrung their hands over during the primaries, Palin’s candidacy and the faux-feminism in which it has been wrapped are the first development that I fear will actually imperil feminism. Because if adopted as a narrative by this nation and its women, it could not only subvert but erase the meaning of what real progress for women means, what real gender bias consists of, what real discrimination looks like.

Sigh.

I love how feminists automatically assume that, if a woman is not 100% in line with their sacred beliefs, it must be that she’s a whore for the patriarchy, a tool for men to use and play with. Diverse thinking for me, not for thee. They know all. The rest of us women need to just shut up and get with the program.

Right?

Also interesting is how quickly they over-sexualize Sarah Palin. There’s a big — huge — leap from, “Wow, that Palin chick is hot!” to “fuckable, Type A, Christian Stepford wife in a ’sexy librarian’ costume”. Everything Sarah Palin does is on behalf of men, and really, she’s not even the one doing anything, according to these women. She’s just the face of the movement, there to smile and look pretty for the drooling Republican men (and women — even I drool over Sarah Palin). She couldn’t possibly come up with any of this on her own merit, could she? She couldn’t possibly have been chosen because she is a smart, successful, gutsy woman. Nope… she’s just a pretty face who’s memorized GOP talking points.

It just floors me how quickly feminists dumb down any women who disagree with them… and then just as quickly turn around and claim they’re fighting for women. So women only count if they agree with radical feminists 100% of the time? Jeez. No wonder so many women eschew modern feminism.

Melissa Clouthier has a great take on hyper-offended feminists:

Sarah Palin represents a “real” woman. She clearly likes men and fraternizes regularly with one hot one, her husband. She embraces the life-growing ability of her uterus and has used it for its intended purpose often in her twenty years of marriage. Far from being a freak of nature, she’s pretty normal for us fly-over folks. Sex, kids, men–conservative women tend to like these things. A lot. Two neighbors within yards of my house have five kids each. Don’t mess with these women. They are tough. And sexy. And smart (college educated). And, yes, Christian.

…

Newsflash feminists: You do realize that this plays to a serious stereotype about women, right? Far from the sisterhood, feminists like to talk about, women are known for eating their own (pardon the pun). Territorial and catty, petty and jealous, heaven help the woman who is more beautiful, younger, smarter and gets the hot guy. And what have the feminists done? Displayed venom about their infringed territory, taken to disparaging Palins form and style, and generally degraded her. They sound jealous and threatened. And all women are diminished by their shameful behavior. Camille Paglia has been a notable exception.

And Maxed Out Mama is just hilarious. And also right on the money. How very, very right she is.

They are, believe me, they are. When we flyover women dress you, you like to be dressed, if you know what I mean. Wink, wink. Believe me, hon, most American men remain slaves to their pocket rockets right through life. It is our job to make sure that they enjoy their time in service and to lengthen their service life. Pun intended.

So this is our platform, if it must be about sex:
Join us in the great sexual debauchery of Flyoverland. We, the women of flyover country, ask NYC and Boston and DC and even perhaps SF to send us your hordes of tired, huddled, feminist-taunted and feminist-daunted men. Because we like men, and we like sex, and that, my little puzzled denizens of Metrosexualdom, is and always has been a winning cultural and political platform.

Let’s not kid ourselves - the only people who won’t vote for lots of enjoyable sex are proctologists, due to the impaired profits.

Feminists are just such walking contradictions these days. They get so offended if a woman is sexualized… yet if it’s a female who has different ideals than they do, they automatically sexualize her and demean her. They decry abstinence and love the idea of constant guilt-free sex with whoever a woman wants to have sex with (if it feels good, do it!). Yet a woman who really truly does love sex, with the same man, over and over again, resulting in a new life, is a hideous notion to them. They say women are the intellectual equals of men, yet women aren’t allowed to have diverse opinions on hot-button topics like abortion.

I think it all comes down to serious insecurity and self-loathing. Living with such misery every day can be draining. And when a woman comes along who is attractive, who loves her husband and is devoted to him, who is not afraid to reproduce, who is pro-life, who has principles and sticks to them, who is opposite of everything they believe in… well, it’s like holding up a giant mirror. All of their shortcomings are reflected in Sarah Palin. And so they attack her.

And notice they don’t attack her policies. It’s all vitriol and hyperbole.

Cintra Wilson doesn’t understand why women aren’t furious about Sarah Palin. It’s because the average American woman has very, very little in common with feminism anymore. Most feminists don’t speak for the American woman. They speak for themselves and never entertain the notion that there are other points of view which have just as much merit as their own do. Sarah Palin resonates with so many women because they see themselves in her. Sarah Palin is an everywoman. And she speaks to them. Yet feminists can do nothing but shriek in outrage because Sarah Palin is — gasp!! — attractive and pro-life.

I just can’t help pitying these women. It must be so exhausting and sad to live your life with such a narrow, negative view of the world. And I know I say it all the time, but I’ll say it again.

Men are not the enemy.

Just because Sarah Palin does not toe the feminist line, it doesn’t mean that women don’t have anything in common with her, and feminists need to learn that lesson, and quick. They’re losing relevance faster and faster. Women in flyover country, the bulk of the United States, have a lot in common with Sarah Palin. Belittling and insulting anyone who doesn’t agree with your point of view, all with a gigantic dollop of condescension piled on top, will not endear anyone to your side.

But, what does it matter? These types of attacks will only make Sarah Palin more attractive to the American woman. Feminists don’t seem to get it. Every attack they make on Sarah Palin is an attack on every day women and the values they hold. It might not hurt feminists to open their eyes a little and realize that their viewpoint is not infallible.

I almost sprayed Diet Coke all over my keyboard when I read this:

This small act of generosity and support for the group’s message — come on, if you invite CODEPINK somewhere they will eventually be escorted out — has inserted some sanity into the discussion of the McCain Palin ticket.

Code Pink and sanity in the same sentence? Seriously, I laughed out loud.

The message, of course, was obvious. “Palin is not a woman’s choice” was printed on the t-shirts, and the Code Pinkos yelled stuff like, “Women say no to war!”

Well, I support the Iraq war. Does that mean I’m not a woman?

Here we see again the blithering condescension by feminists. How do they figure that all women are “against” war? Here’s how I see it. No one likes war. No one likes seeing the best and brightest among us die. I personally hate it. I cried watching the Michael Monsoor video, and I cry every time I visit the Duval County Veteran’s Memorial Wall downtown. It breaks my heart. But unlike liberals, feminists, and leftists, I believe that there are some things worth fighting for. Some things are worth going to war over. Freedom is worth it. America is worth it. I’m not in the military, but I proudly support our troops here on the homefront and will do so for as long as it takes. We aren’t all soldiers, but we should all be supporting our military and their mission.

But, again, since “women say no to war”, I guess this makes me a guy now. Or brainwashed. Or a whore for the right-wing patriarchy. Or some other memorized liberal-feminist talking point.

And as for the whining about being kicked out of the convention center? Well, perhaps rushing the stage towards Sarah Palin yelling and stripping off your clothes would not be the most sane thing to do. If Medea Benjamin (a picture of “sanity” if I ever saw one) and Jodie Evans hadn’t done that, they wouldn’t have been kicked out. It’s not as if security went around checking every person in attendance to make sure they weren’t members of Code Pink. Liberals don’t seem to understand that actions have consequences. Rushing the stage towards a vice presidential candidate will get the attention of the Secret Service, and they likely won’t appreciate it, and will kick you out. Period and end of story.

Yet somehow, the actions of the Code Pinkos were the picture of sanity.

Thinking about that makes me start snickering again.