35 years, 51 million dead americans, and a very happy Herr Hitler later.......

Bush Vs Choice, a radical leftist femi-nazi website, is putting on its annual "Blog in support of death" day, wherein they use the millions of femi-nazi bloggers worldwide to chime in and sound off in support of murder in the name of "choice". You see today is the 35th anniversary of Roe Vs Wade, that celebrated court case which gave women the "right" to slaughter their unborn children at a rate that would have made Herr Hitler gasp with admiration.


And given the celebratory nature of today's anniversary, you will undoubtedly be hearing the word "choice" being shouted to the rafters in rapturous joy.

Except that the pro-abortion movement didn't always believe in choice. In fact the pro-abortion movement began as a way of ensuring "undesirables" (you know, the poor, the colored, the Jew, etc) didn't pollute the gene pool. Now if that sounds like something the Nazi's would have supported, there is a reason for that. Namely that the US abortion and eugenics movement (pretty much the exact same movement really) was in fact a major inspiration for, and antecedent to, the Nazi party and its brutal practises. In fact no less a expert on Nazi "medicine" than Joeseph Mengele stated that the Nazis practises could never had been instituted had it not been for California's experiment with forced sterilisation. An initiative which was roundly supported in the burgeoning pro-abortion/pro-eugenic movement.

In fact, from the very beginning the Abortion movement was tied into, dependent upon, and vociferously championed by, the eugenics movement as a way of ensuring the "purity" of the human race. Naturally this "purity" was expressed in racial, and economic terms. I am sure sharp minded readers will recognise the similarity of focus between the various eugenically driven "unfit to breed arguments" and the modern day "compassion driven" arguments that children who are born to poor, underage, minority, or unready, mothers would be better off dead. Its interesting that the same people abortionist's used to think needed "forced sterilisation" are the peoples who Abortionists feel should be "encouraged" to have abortions today, isn't it?


To begin with let us never forget that Planned parenthood's founder Margaret Sanger, was a lifelong eugenicist who believed the best way to "improve our race" was to, in her own words, "apply a stern and rigid policy of sterilization and segregation to that grade of population whose progeny is tainted, or whose inheritance is such that objectionable traits may be transmitted to offspring." In other words, forced sterilisation of undesirables, as well as the segregation of those undesirables into what can only be accurately described as concentration and reeducation camps. This, as those of you who paid attention in history class may remember, was a policy eventually instituted by that great progressive government and outspoken admirer of Mrs Sanger's policies, the National Socialist Party of Germany.


However, after the sheer scale of the crimes the Nazi party committed in the name of eugenics became clear, everyone associated with the eugenics movement scrambled to hide their affiliation to it. Thus in the 50's the argument changed from "protecting the human race from genetic inferiority" to "protecting a woman's reproductive freedom" and ensuring her "choice" This is the argument we have been bludgeoned with since.

What I find truly interesting though, is that for all the modern rhetoric about "protecting a woman's choices" the exact same "racial superiority" sentiments are alive and well in the Pro-abortion movement to this day. After all are we not told constantly that minorities, and the poor, need the government to fund their abortions in order to protect their "rights" And haven't the vast majority of the 51 million abortions performed in the last 35 years been performed on mothers who are either poor, minorities, or both? Strange isn't it, that although no proponent of abortion would admit to the racially biased tenets of eugenics, the result of the modern Pro-choice movement is exactly the same as what the early eugenicists claimed was necessary? Or that famed liberal economists have even come up with models which explicitly argue that we have already seen the benefits that the early eugenicists promised?

But even if we were to accept that those on the Pro-death side of things really do simply want to ensure women have the right to make a choice, a rational look at the actions of the pro-death camp would seem to suggest only one choice is valid. For example when there was a push made to require women get ultrasounds to inform them on the living nature of the "clump of cells" within them, it was "Pro-choice" people, who felt that women shouldn't be informed of what their choice entails. Likewise legislation designed to give women information on non-abortion alternatives such as adoption, have been regularly and consistently opposed by the "Pro-choice" crowd. In the same vein when the "silent no more" campaign of women who regretted their "choice" began, pro-choicer's either ignored it, or condemned it. Strange for those who claim to only want to "help women make informed choices" to do everything they can to ensure only one side of an argument is heard, is it not?

The wariness of any rational observer regarding the abortion movements commitment to "helping women retain the right to make choices" is even further degraded by the fact that the "protecting a woman's reproductive freedom" argument is invalid to begin with; not that any pro-abortion supporter will ever admit to that of course. In fact, should one even suggest such a thing, he is immediately labelled as "anti-woman". Somehow, the fact that a woman has the exact same reproductive freedom as a man does, IE the ability to choose whether or not to engage in sexual intercourse, is considered to be an "anti-woman" argument, despite the fact that every single proponent of abortion believes that the exact same argument justifies going to virtually any lengths to prosecute and "bring to justice" "deadbeat dads". Why it is OK to "force a man to be a father", yet "forcing a woman to be a mother" is not, has never yet been logically or rationally explained. Nor can it be.

But then, most, if not all, of the pro-death camp's arguments are invalid. There is the plainly counter factual argument that as its "her body" the woman should have the right to do what she wishes with it. The fact that "her body" somehow now has two separate genetic structures, two different sets of organs and systems, and two separate blood types, is ignored. In the few instances where it is even addressed, it is simply swept under the rug by the refrain that "its just a clump of cells". Which while technically correct, is also intentionally confusing as the human body itself can be accurately described as "a clump of cells" That a developing embryo becomes identifiably human to even the most cursory visual examination is either not discussed, or dismissed as "an appeal to emotion"


Because after all somehow, seeing video like this, and realising that what you are seeing isn't just a clump of cells, is an emotional response wiht no basis in logic reason, or fact.





Remember folks, although the great work of protecting America from our undesirables is never done, the pro-choice movement is doing its best to continue it; Heil Sanger!

The Awesome arrogance of the Unapologetic Feminist

Have you ever noticed that feminists try to give feminism far more credit than its due? Ever see one make completely out sized claims that basically lay credit for every good thing in the twentieth century at the doorstep of feminism?

Well if not run over here, where Emodulanda roars. Now at first blush this awesome array of aggressive arrogance may strike you as little more than another woman "defiantly" standing up strong and proud to roar her worth from the rooftops. And for the most part it is nothing more than self affirming literary masturbation masquerading as an act of assertive self identification.

But take a gander at this passage madmaniancs.

Here's why: because feminists fought to permit women to attend schools, to
get a full education, to be acknowledged as minds as well as bodies. Because
feminists worked to get women the vote, the right to stand for election, the
right to self-government that we didn't necessarily have even in a democracy.
Because feminists toppled the effects of two thousand years of misogyny in the
West in a mere two hundred.

I mean WOW.

Feminism did all that?

Well no actually it didn't.

Most of feminism's gains actually had little do with the efforts of feminists at all. Even where feminist worked tirelessly for a specific cause they did not work alone, and they stood on the "shoulders of giants" The basic arguments they used to defend their point of view, as well as the legal, social, and moral framework under which they argued, and without which they would have been spinning their wheels for another 2000 years, was created (here in the US) by the founding fathers, who even then were arguing among themselves as to the rights of woman. Those arguments were themselves the children of arguments made by men generations earlier. In point of fact much of the "women's movements" successes owe themselves to the earlier successes of completely sexless causes, such as the first legal female voter in America being given said right NOT due to feminism, but due to one of Americas founding precepts, that there shall be no taxation without representation. In point of fact New Jersey gave women the same exact right using the same exact reasoning (taxation/representation) as early as 1776. This wasn't a victory of feminism, it was a victory of property rights. Granted it wasn't universal woman's suffrage, and it was limited to property owners (as all voting rights were at the time, be they men's or women's) and it was revoked and limited to white males about 30 years later, but the point stands. The earliest arguments used for women's suffrage in the US were based in the idea that those who were taxed deserved to be represented.

Furthermore much of the social change needed for women's suffrage to gain traction were a direct result of the ongoing debate in American society that eventually lead to the civil war. In fact the women's movement, the civil rights movement, and the anti-slavery movement, all influenced each other and society to the point where its damn hard to really figure out where one ended and the others began. The same arguments only slightly modified were brought into play by all of the above and they all owed their very existence to a habit of self criticism and idealism that dated back at least as far as the enlightenment. Far from "causing" all these victories that Emodulanda tries to claim for it, when feminism is viewed in the context of the massive changes in thinking that swept Europe and The US in the late nineteenth and twentieth centuries, we see that in fact, feminists, and feminism, were birthed by, and owe their very existence to, the overwhelming wave of liberty and reason that swept the west post enlightenment and to all those men and women who argued the revolutionary and dangerous idea that all humans are created equal. Now Emodulanda may wish to go back and try to claim Frederick Douglas, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, the Quakers, and every enlightenment thinker who postulated the innate dignity of humanity, and try to claim them as Feminists; but much like Mormons converting 10 generations of your family to Mormonism retroactively ain't no one gonna buy it who ain't already drinking the Kool-aid.

America is a nation which has, since its birth, been engaged in a vigorous and brutal battle with itself over its own nature. We were founded by men who wrote language into our constitution they knew that we, as a society, would be unable to live up to for years, if not centuries. Our very creation was rooted in the wildfire of new ideas which swept the world during those years, and in so doing, managed to enact more change on a greater scale than had ever been seen before. Feminism was not a cause of this, it is merely one minor symptom of this.

I cant even comprehend the level of Arrogance it takes to look back upon the sweep of history and to ignore the innate interconnectedness of the enlightenment, the abolition movements, the emancipation and colonisation movements. I can't even begin to conceive of the sheer gall it requires to look at the wildly diverse contributions of the American Colonisation Society, the Society for the Relief of Free Negroes Unlawfully Held in Bondage, the Magna Carta, The US Constitution, The Bill Of Rights, The French Revolution, and somehow come to the conclusion that feminism was anything other than the child of the previous movements and in fact a direct descendant of the overall change in thinking over a 200 year period.

I don't want to believe its arrogance, I really don't. But the alternative is even worse. Because if its not arrogance that causes such a colossal misread of history, then it can only be ignorance. Gross ignorance at a level I dare not even consider for fear that my belief in the basic competence and intelligence of the average person will evaporate like so much morning dew. How could anyone educated in our time and our civilisation be unaware of the revolution in thought that swept the west during that short period? How could anyone be clueless as to the way the various segments of the universal rights position influenced and birthed each other? To claim Women's suffrage is the result of the actions of feminists is to ignore the precedent created by the Emancipation Proclamation, which in turn fueled the Women's Suffrage movement of the early twentieth century, which in turn allowed the civil rights movement of the 60's. From the signing of the Magna Carta to the present day there has been constant if irregular increase in the freedoms of all, and every victory for one person or group influenced and allowed the victories of all the others. Feminists didn't cause these victories my dear Emodulanda, and they aren't "responsible" for "toppling of two thousand years of misogyny". We all did it. The abolitionist, the suffragettes, the founding fathers, the enlightenment thinkers and poets, the great orators and legislators, the rabble-rousers and the trouble-makers, the Bostonian tea partiers, the french mobs, the Shakers, the Quakers, John brown, Thomas Paine, Susan B Anthony, George Washington, Johnathan Mayhew, Lydia Taft, James Otis, and everyone else who helped to create an framework that allowed the idea that ALL are created equal to be articulated, argued, expressed, and actualised. Im sorry, but to try and claim that the idea that men and women are equal was revolutionary, or had a revolutionary effect, is to completly ignore the fact that sexual equality is a subset of overall equality, and that the true movement wan't for sexual or racial, or economic, or democratic equality, but simply for equality itself. Again, I'm sorry to burst your bubble dear, but feminists, and feminism were nothing more than a tiny part of an overwhelming tide of liberty.

I will not throw my history away.

You already have darling. You've thrown your true history and true legacy away voluntarily in favor of a fiction

I will not cease to
acknowledge what was done for me by women who died long before I was born.

Yet you will cease to acknowledge all that was done for you by men who died long before you were born? You cease to acknowledge all that was done for you by blacks who died long before you were born?

I won't let the label be taken from me, as if I have no link to them at all. I am
egalitarian.I am also a feminist.All right, you say. Fine. You admire these
women, fair enough. But what's the point of being a feminist now? These are all
worthy causes, you could say, but they're also old ones. Complete. Women are
educated. Women do have the vote. You won already, Em, so what are you still
fighting for?Well, some of it is little things. There are a lot of little things

There always are. But I'm not a guy who concerns himself with the little things.



I'm trying to make a very simple point here folks. From the signing of the Magna Carta in 1215, to the 1960's civil rights movement, the west has undergone a trend which pretty consistently increased every ones rights. That trend unfortunately began to wane in the early twentieth century with the advent of new deal style liberalism (as opposed to classical liberalism). It finally crested and began to recede in the late 60's when our notion of equality was changed from " giving everyone equal right to be who they are", to "In order to improve the freedom of some it is necessary to reduce the freedom of others" We went from understanding that, as Kennedy said "a rising tide lifts all boats" , to believing equality is a zero sum game. It's not. The more free one of us is, the more free we ALL are. And the more we reduce, classify, segment, segregate, and divide our rights based on sex, color, creed, or religion, the more oppressed we all become.



America is a promise, not from the government to you; but from ourselves, to ourselves. It is a standard we are obligated to keep as a tribute to the men and women who shed the rivers of blood necessary to create the country we live in today. When we segregate laws and rights based on sex, giving some a hand up while others are held down in order to "level the playing field" we don't just betray the country, or the men and women who died to make it great, we betray ourselves as well.



Join me as an anti-feminist, anti-minoritist, anti-preferenceist, anti-racist, anti-classist. Because at the end of the day there are only three kinds of people in this world, and these are the only labels that truly separate us, or should. There are Americans, those that want to be Americans, and those who lie about wanting to be Americans.





Thus endeth the lesson.

Attraction is agression.

Kadymae pointed out this little gem, naturally she was appluading it.


But notice page 4?
Notice how the sentiment in reinforced by page 8?

Now I wont argue that the types of cat-calls she speaks of are inept to say the least. But to equate them with agression? Particualrly agression worthy of macing someone?
Finally notice the last panel, see the word unwanted? Isn't that what this is all really about? Ever notice the guys women are attracted to almost never get hit by sexual discrimination charges?
See what poor little rachel doesnt seem to understand, is that noone can "degrade" you, wihtout your permission. Someone who isn't on an estrogen laced, simply illustrated ego trip, would realise that such inept behavior reflects upon the caller, not the callee.

Becasue at the end of the day, mens abillity to speak freely, even if ineptly must be restricted so that women can feel better, and only good looking and skillful catcallers may be allowed to do so. becasue ots all about how women feel. Nothing else matters. Not even basic rights, and god forbid we epect people to be as tolerant of socially inept males as say, nazi rallies.

Quick post - Sluts vs Swordsman.

Much hay is made in feminists circles about the double standards used to judge men and women vis a vis sexual behaviors. Usually this is expressed as "its sexist that men who are promiscuous are considered "swordsmen" while women who do the same are called "sluts" and demonised" But is it really?

Is there a good rational reason why we might demonise the same behaviors dependant on whom engages in them?
Well yes. While we might think a guy who engaged in Mensur fencing was a little tweaked, but an hemophiliac who did the same would be considered nuts, because they face different levels of risk.
Now apply this same idea to the consequences of sexual activity for men and women. A man who engages in promiscuous sexual behavior with anonymous or little known partners is exposed to far less risk than a woman who does the same. In addition tot he well known fact that STD's transfer far easier from men to women than vice versa, there's the additional wrinkle of parenthood. The truth is a man who fathers children can, if he chooses to surrender his claim to the title of Man, pretty easily avoid the penalties of fatherhood. Yet a woman can not easily avoid the penalties of motherhood once impregnated. Her only options are
1) Abortion - which has a non negligible death rate for the mother, severe emotional consequences stemming from the inherent guilt such an act creates, and possible if not probable negative effects on her reproductive ability.
2) Motherhood - which includes 9 months of pregnancy followed by 18+ years of support
3) Adoption - which still entails 9 months of pregnancy.

Given the disparity of the risk profiles associated with this behavior, isn't this "sexist double standard" really just a societal recognition of the inherent bad judgement and recklessness a woman shows by engaging in such behavior as opposed to a man?

Further thoughts on the Emasculation of America.

My last post on the subject got quite a few posts, which in turn stimulated some more random thoughts, and helped me to help understand some of my own reactions. Before I get to the meat though a couple appetisers.

Jeff over at the conditional axe, made an observation that I think in many ways, underscores the damage feminist philosophy has done

I do have a hard time envisioning her in any kind of Donna Reed
role.

Now think about that. Granted Barda was a hardcore, bad ass, take no prisoners warrior. But why should that preclude her from also being a Donna reed type? If we assume that by "Donna reed type" Jeff meant a stereotypical 50's housewife who cooks, cleans, and manages to do so wearing pearls, then perhaps there is a case to be made.However she wasn't portrayed as any such thing in the comic. Rather both Scott and Barda were portrayed as two people who shared in the domestic chores, and in fact used their day job, to determine the split of said chores. So i am left to interpret Jeff's comment as meaning he can see Barda ever stepping in a kitchen at all, as it somehow contradicts with her "warriorness"?

But does it? The Israeli army was among the first to not only allow women to assume combat roles traditionally reserved for men, but to actively encourage it. Yet many full time active duty Israeli women are also mothers and wives, and many return home to cook and clean for their families. They see no contradiction between warrior credibility and domestic bliss, because there isn't one. Only when one has drunken enough feminist kool aid does one even see such a contradiction. Only when one assumes that traditional domestic roles are somehow incompatible with more "progressive and gender neutral roles" does that opinion even form.

Let me put it this way, I am a very "manly" man. I don't merely mean this in a behavioral way but also in a purely biological way. I have an extremely high sperm count, (more on that in a minute) am quite large, with a full manly beard and thick dense hair. I have very bushy eyebrows, thick bones, and a fairly well developed musculature for a guy who spends 10-12 hours a day in meetings and negotiations. Nothing about me reads as feminine, a gay friend of mine once described me as " a perfect fantasy of masculine virility" The language people usually choose to associate with me is across the board traditional male, IE "cowboy" "ballsy" etc.

However none of this precludes me form helping out around the house. Every weekend I wake up and cook my wife and I breakfast, usually consisting of fried eggs, bacon and sausage. I don't do so because she asks me to, or because I feel obligated, I do it because I enjoy it. I pend 5 days a week doing Biz-dev for my firm, talking to, and negotiating with, high level corporate execs, usually VP or higher, and every conversation is a power struggle. So on the weekends its nice to spend some time on something simple and easy that gives me instant gratification. It doesn't make me any less manly than it does a cowboy who cooks on the trail, or a firefighter who cooks at the firehouse. So why should Barda's domestic activities make her less in any way shape or form? Hell you know what? Just go read Scipio's comments, over at the absorbsacon, for all i know he/she may well be be meaning this post as sarcastic, but even if so Scipio gets it right. Just as Stephen Colbert occasionally says something in his parody of conservatives that we actually believe, even if this is sarcastic its dead on accurate.


Meanwhile Anon, A mouse, who has been consistently impressing me by the way, pointed out a very telling, and very important trend. While femi-fans manage to pull the old misogyny gun with a speed that would make Wyatt Earp and Doc Holiday do a double take, how often have you every heard them praise any issue, no matter how "womyn-positive" or "gender neutral" the portrayal is? Yeah I've never heard them do it either. Which goes back to Vince Moore's often referenced post as well. When someone only criticise's and never praises, it causes the opposite effect intended. Doesn't matter whether the subject is dogs, children, or the comic industry, if you only use the stick, you gonna get in a lot of stick fights, while a little carrot can go a long way.

Also an Honorable mention to Yonatan bryant for very succinctly pointing out that the same people who scream the shrillest when a female character is being "objectified" engage in the exact same behavior themselves.

Meanwhile a beaucoup kevin, (who I might add deleted my first comment on his blog because it was "flame worthy" despite the fact that at least 2 other posters said the exact same thing I did, and used more inflammatory language to do so) makes a joke pretty much equivalent to the "crankshaft" joke which caused so much uproar. The difference being that instead of joking that old women don't get raped, he instead furthered the stereotype than all men are rapists. Of course that wont get any attention at all.


Now in the last post of this series, Vince Moore over at the Omnium gathering, referred me to an article than has lit my random thoughts with a madman's fire. The article, which postulates a link between the increase in phthalates and the decline in male fertility and virility since the 50's. I had been aware of this trend previously, but I had always assumed it was a psychosomatic reaction to the feminising of our culture. By which I mean that I had always hypothesised that as men began acting more feminine, their bodies simply read their subconscious motivation and manifested a sympathetic physical condition. I had always half assumed the same reaction led to the (seeming) correlation between homosexual "catchers" and body sizes/styles. (by which I mean it seems to me that most of the homosexuals males who act the most feminine also seem to be smaller and more lightly built, as if their bodies were trying to make them more feminine. Although perhaps Mad Thinker Scott can shed some light on whether he has made similar observations, as he has far more experience than I)

The idea that the cause could be environmental led me to some other observations. First let me preface by saying that I have a very high sperm count. Even by 50's standards its high. From the beginning of my sexual adventures at 15 (yes I was a late bloomer) to my 28th year of life, I had never had unprotected sex. I had had quite a bit of sex, but I ALWAYS wrapped my willie. Primarily this was because of my mom. You see my mom was a dental hygienist for years, and as such, had to take yearly re-education courses on blood borne diseases. Suffice it to say, I was told horror stories of the effects of STD's regularly. Surprisingly however there was no effort made to demonise my young sexual urges. In fact on those occasions when my mom found my collection of adult reading material, she never even commented. Years later when I asked why she was so cool about it she said "you were a boy, it was natural" As a result, I never had any real hangups about sex itself, I didn't ever view it as a potential source of fear, but I knew the risks and figured that if I didn't know a woman well enough to trust her with my wallet, then trusting her with the health of my dick was probably not a good idea. As a result, the first woman I ever had unprotected sex with, was my fiancee (now wife). Within a 2 months of us beginning to have unprotected sex, my wife suffered an ectopic pregnancy, which ruptured her fallopian tube. The doctors told us afterwards that the fetus was approximately 2 months old. I later did the math and realised that she must have gotten pregnant pretty much the very first time we had unprotected sex. (which made me very thankful for my previous care in sexual encounters, had I behaved like many men my age, I would have been a father several times over by 18) This is despite the fact that she has an oddly shaped uterus which makes her only about half as fertile as the average woman, and the fact that she was on the pill at the time. I've since had my sperm count tested and was told I'm in the top 1% worldwide. Naturally I found this quite validating. (the test, not my wife's ectopic pregnancy, in point of fact her fear and my guilt led to us having a quite reduced sex life for a while) All of which is a very long winded way of saying that perhaps the reason I can see the feminising of our culture so clearly, is due to the increased sperm count? Perhaps it is this very feminsation of the male body which has blinded so many men to the process of feminising on a societal level? Could it be that rather than being psychosomatic, the physical trend is actually causing the societal trend?I don't know. What I do know, is that when we do decide to have kids, the wife and I ain't letting them drink out of plastic.

The emasculation of America.

Our society has been neutered, emasculated, castrated, and feminised. We have become a society so adverse to risk we are raising a generation of children whose first instinct upon hearing the words "safe sex" will be to picture themselves in football pads. We have become so adverse to conflict it took 3000 americans being murdered before we decided to finally participate in the war thats been waged against us for years, and even then we turned our backs on those fighting the minute we realised it wouldnt be a cake walk. We have becoem so adverse to consequences that we seek to shield ourselves form any hint of them, even when they are the direct results of our own actions. We have become so adverse to offense that we gladly censor ourselves, muddle our thinking, and accept the most ludicrous views wihtout any examination, as we are too afraid to laugh at a lunatic. We have become so afraid of not being inclusive that we regularly give the rights and privaleges of citizenship to those who arent even citizens. We muzzle our mouths, fill our heads with nonsense, willingly stop our ears and cover our eyes so that we cant see or hear the collapse of our nation and our people, and bind our own hands so that we cant do anything to stop it. Any hint of the paternal, of the masculine has ripped from our culture in the name of equality, and replaced with gender neurtral prattle. Any hint of achievement has been replaced by entitlement. The spoils no longer go to the victor, but to the loudest victim in the crowd. We have become a nation of children. Children suckling at the teat of our government, spanked when necessary by our police and courts, educated by our media, and validated by our confromity with the herd.

Men are afraid to be men, women are ashamed to be women, children are treated like adults and adults are coddled like children.


And why has this happened?
Why have we demonised, deprecated, denied an entire set of impulses, instincts, and desires? Why have we decided that a Man's desire is inherantly pernicious, a Man's pride is inherently damaging, and that "Manly" itself is a trait without meaning or value?

Becasue of feminism, in the name of sexual equality, and of social progress.

And in the process? We have educated an entire of generation of women to take pride in acting like trollops, to seek empowerment through whining, to fight for equality through discrimination, to seek justice through false accusations, to celebrate their lives through the deaths of the unborn, to hide their insecurities in hedonism, and that their most basic instincts are chains of opression.

We have done this becasue we have forgotten the core truth about the sexes, they are not in opposition, they are not opposites, and yet nor are they the same. Manly is not defined as "anything that is not feminine" any more than feminine is defined as anything that isnt masculine, but neither is feminine and manly interchangible.

Male and Female are simply two halves of the same whole, we are not adversaries, we are complimentary. We have been designed to support and give succor to each other. Where one is weak the other is strong and where both are strong they are even stronger. And yet, despie this, we are engaged in a war of the sexes.

Why must this be so? Why must there be such venom, such rage, such hate?
Becasue the dominant social theory of our time is feminism. We can see its vicious effect at work in family courts, where the core assumption is that even a bad mother is usually better than a abd dad. We see it in the domestic vioplence courts where with a single unsupported report, a woman can kick a man out of his own and file a restraining order to keep him away, even if she has no claim to his home. We see it it the criminal courts, where a crazy woman who beleives that David Letterman has been sexually harrasing her via secret messages in his broadcast is granted a restraining order against him. We saw it in the scandl surround the Duke Lacrosse team, where a legion of men and women were all to willing to string innocent young men up from the nearest tree becasue anytime a woman accuses rape it actually happened. We saw it in the aftermath as well, when even though the accuser had been shown to be lying, many still wanted to string up those boys because "besides all men are rapists anyhow"

We see when a woman graduates from the fire or police academies becasue the standards were lowered and the tests were watered down. Just as we see it when we see a qaulified man without a job, because a less qualified woman had to "have the playing field leveled" We see it when women breastfeed in public, and those who feel it's not a public activity are demonised and hounded. I saw it when a cop arrested my buddy for "domestic violence" despite his girlfriend not having a mark on her and he having 8 defensive wounds on his arms and his blood on the knife she was holding. I saw it when the courts picked up the charges after she dropped them, and when she came to testify on his behalf, where the judge and prosectuors treated her like a traitor, for daring to drop the charges.

We see it when a radio host is fired for calling a woman a "fat lesbian" despite the fact that she is both. We see it when a university president is fired for even hinting that there may be biological reasons for the sexual distibution at elite universities. We see it in sports where women are allowed in the men's locker room, yet male reporters aren't allowed in the female athletes locker rooms. We see it in education, where teaching techniques designed for girls are used on the whole class with predictible results for boys educational achievements. We see it in entertainment where the men are uniformly boorish morons, unless they are gay, and the women are godesses of competance, even if they are gay. We see it when female lab techs falsify evidence against men they know are innocent, becasue no man can really be innocent.

We see it in a society where young men feel increasingly unwanted, and thus are unengaged. We see it in the decline of boxing and other manly arts. We see it in the increasing unwillingness of society to allow men to handle their problems like men, directly. We see it whenever a teacher stops using red pens to grade assignements, becasue red is too "judgemental" We see it whenever we socially promote a kid a grade becaseu we "dont want to damage his self esteem" we see it in the very idea that confidence, self esteem or pride can be given at all. We see it every time we lower standards rather than raising people up.

Everywhere we loook we see a society that is dysfunctional and getting more so every day. The walls are falling down around us, the roof is burning, and the floodwaters are rising. Yet do we try to stop it? Do we even attempt to take back what we have sacrificed?
Of course not. Dont be an idiot. We want to go even further. We want more specialised rights based on sex and gender, we want more special regulations and considerations, we want more action more affrimitvely. We want more men raised by women who dont know what it means to be a man. We want more boys growing up cycnical, isolated, and repressed. We want more men who have never had a right of passage or trial of manhood, that way we know they will never be cured of peter pan syndrome. We want more dunken celebrities to enagage in even more bizarre behavior so that well have something to distract us form the collapse of civilisation. We want our children growing up wrapped in plastic, never knowing or learning how to deal with pain, adversity, or setbacks. We want a generation of hookers and johns, unable to think of sex as other than a commodity to be bought and sold. We want a generation of men who feel shame every time the see and attractive woman, because they are obectifying her.

And we keep on getting it, this and more.

Why do I bother?

RMM why do you spend time arguing agaisnt feminism in general and feminist comic bloggers in specific? If you're really such a manly secure man why are you so threatened by strong women? Are you some kind of pervert is that why you defend cheesecake so much? Are you just really a mysogonist asshole with a tiny dick? Dont you have a job? Dont you have a life? Dont you have anything better to do than to spend all day pounding on a keyboard insulting people?


I get these kinds of questions all the time. And to be honest, sometimes I wonder myself. I mean why bother?

Well theres a lot of reasons. Take a look at this exchange that "derek" and I had over at Big Mikes Blog

I got a Big Problem with people calling cheesecake art objectification. First of
all Witchblade aint a real woman, so she cant be objectified. Second the whole
concpet of "objectification" is rooted in a Female-positive/Male-negative world
view. If I look at a woman walking down the street and I think to myself, Damn
but shes got a great set of tits, most would consider it objectification
right?But that reaction is as natural, as instinctive, and as human as possible.
You and me, we've been programmed by millions of years of evolution to do just
that. Im not even sure men could "suffer objectification like women" as we
respond differently to a womans gaze than vice versa.

I mean really,
think about it, men regularly show more skin than women do, more comfortably.
Hell we'll pull our pants down and pee in public without even thinking of it.
Part of equality among the sexes is accepting the difference between the sexes.
One of these differences is men and womens differing approaches to sex,
sexuality, and what turns them on. If a woman meets an attractive man for the
first time and he asks if she wants to have sex, she'll be insulted, if a man
meets an attractive woman for the first time and she asks if he wants to have
sex he'll be estatic. In order for there to be any form of equality among the
sexes women and feminists will have to start learning to accept men as men, and
stop expecting them to behave like women.

Rational Mad Man:

"Theres nothing wrong with... going to the beach to
see the pretty girls in bikinis."

Uh, yes, there is. Going to the beach
to go swimming and bask in the sun is fine. Appreciating the attractiveness of
the women while you're there is fine.

Deciding to go to the beach to
leer at women trying to enjoy themselves is sleazy.

"... I got a Big
Problem with people calling cheesecake art objectiification. First of all
Witchblade aint a real woman, so she cant be objectified."

Witchblade is a visual representation of a woman. Objectify the representation, objectify the group.

"Hell we'll pull our pants down and pee in public without even
thinking of it."

No "we" don't. I sure as hell have never exposed myself or urinated in public and would be mortified if anyone I knew did. As would, I imagine, the police.

"In order for there to be any form of equality
among the sexes women and feminists will have to start learning to accept men as
men, and stop expecting them to behave like women."

Point. But the problem with that is that we can't tell which behaviors we are born with - are a product of thousands of years of evolution - and which are forced upon us by our environment.

Until we can nail that down, our only recourse is to try and treat everyone as equally as we possibly can.

And RMM, I don't want
it to seem like I'm attacking you, as the discussion thus far has been
wonderfully civilized, but I had to speak my piece.

Now derek understand I dont think you were atatcking me, and I'm not attacking you. But at the same time your comments represent a contunuing crime against manhood that I can't let stand. Lets look at your comments a bit more fully shall we?

Uh, yes, there is. Going to the beach to go swimming and bask in the sun is fine. Appreciating the attractiveness of the women while you're there is fine.

Deciding to go to the beach to leer at women trying to enjoy themselves
is sleazy.

First of all, notice the language. "leer" is defined by the dictionary as;

To look with a sidelong glance, indicative especially of sexual desire or sly
and malicious intent.

A desirous, sly, or knowing look

Notice how the word itself is defined, and that written into the defintion is the idea that sexual desre and malicious intent are related. Then of course the sentiment is finished up with the use of "sleazy".

SO here we have a 23 year old guy, (at least according to his profile) a guy who should by all rights be enjoying his life to the fullest, and celebrating his sexuality and sexual adventures, who has soemhow been brainwashed into beliveing that appreciating the female form is sleazy, and pernicious.
He has in fact, been brainwashed into beleiving that his own desire is harmful. That even appreciating a woman as a sexual being, even in the privacy of his own head, is sleazy. SO twisted and subverted is his natural sexuality that this poor bastard actually beleives that going somewhere for the purpose of appreciating female beauty is wrong.


Yet if his friends invited him bird watching, or whale watching would he consider that leering? Would that too be sleazy? Of course not.

Now you may be thinking, "well generally whale watchers dont want to have sex with the whales" and although I have never gone whale watching, I sincerely hope your right. But in order to ask that question, to even concieve of it, you have to come from a perspective that sexual interest itself is inherantly bad. In other words you have to believe that watching something for the simple sake of appreciating its beauty is somehow different and somehow more noble than watching something to appreciate its beauty while at the same time experiencing feelings of arousal.

But it gets worse, it gets much worse.

Witchblade is a visual representation of a woman. Objectify the representation, objectify the group.

Think about that statement. Really.
Did you ever have a poster of a hot chick above your bed? Was the point of the picture that she was hot and nothing else? You have objectified all women. Not some, all.
You ever read playboy for something other than the articles? You have objectfied all women.
Ever fantasize about having sex with a movie star, because she was hot and for no other reason? You have objectified all women.

SO here we have this kid, born and raised in America, the land of freedom and opportunity, and he has been indoctinated itno beleiving he has no fundamental right to his own fantasies. That he, becasue of his sex, can never explore those fantasies, that he can never appreciate a womans body, unless he first receives permission. That somehow his own inherant sexuality can not be expressed without casuing harm. Even if all he does is jack off in the bathroom to a picture of a woman he, by allowing himself to indulge in his own private fantasy, he is hurting all women, everywhere.


Does that sound healthy to you? Does that sound like sexual equality? Does that sound like the thinking of a free man? Yeah, me neither.



So how does a man get fooled into thinking his sex's every desire is pernicious and damaging, how does he get conviced of an ideology which makes him choose between feeling like a mental rapist or of supressing his every sexual desire? How does such a repressive and sexist philosophy get sold to those it harms?
In the name of equality of course.

Point. But the problem with that is that we can't tell which behaviors we are born with - are a product of thousands of years of evolution - and which are forced upon us by our environment.

First, he has been trained to accept that we can't tell what the differences are between men and women.His basic premise seems to be that all so called sex differences are really social contructs, and that as such we have to get rid of them all, in order to understand what the differences between men and women are. This idea is the basis for so much of whats wrong with feminism. You hear this idea espused in one form or another by virtually every feminist alive. sometimes its stated as
1) there are no differences between men and woman other than social expectations
or
2) there are differences obviously, but these are purely physcial, minor, and have no effect on abillity, interest, etc.
3) there may be fundemental differences between men and women but since we dont know what they are or which seeming differences are actually societal in anture we should act as if there werent any.

Now when you point out all the major, mental, physical, psychological, sexual, hormonal differences, or differences in body mass, or bone and muscle density or differing rates of mental devlopment or anything else then they gotta start pulling out the rhetoric.

"Well I know it looks like men are bigger and stronger, and at the outliers that is true but theres a larger overlap between the sexes than there are differences between them. "
OK so in other words, they have different medians, different, ranges, different maximum and differnt minimums for each variable, and yet becasue theres a lot of overlap in the middle, there aren't actually any differences? Well of course theres a lot of overlap, we are both humans afterall, what would be neccesary for feminists to understand that sexual differtiation is exactly that? That it seves a purpose, that if the two sexes weren't in fact different, there wouldn't BE two sexes?

Think about it this way, theres a whole lot of overlap between wolves and dogs as well, and we know they are two completly different species, so how far can we really expect men and women to deviate from each other?

By the same token we see in every animal species across the board that has sexual diferntiation, those two sexes take on different roles in order to cooperate most effectively. Now those roles are not the same for all species, nor am I suggesting that humans should conform to any specific sexual role. My point is that in all of those species, there are differences between the sexes which exist in order to help them fulfill that role.



More to the point, even assuming everything derek has said was true, even if we couldnt tell what the differences between men and women are; we're not talking about social behaviors such as assertiveness, or asking for directions, we are talking about his right to fantasy. His right to choose what he wants to see and what he wants to feel. I dont have to decode sexual-political messages to know whether or not I think a woman is hot, I jsut have to be honest with myself, and give myself permission to feel whatever I do.

Until we can nail that down, our only recourse is to try and treat everyone as
equally as we possibly can.

But of course, when we're discussing sex that isnt possible is it? I mean no
matter how comitted I am to equality, I can no more force myself to view a man
with lust than Mad Thinker Scott can force himself to look on a woman with lust.
So right or wrong, whenever I look at jill, the redhead down the hall, at least
a part of me is going to be saying, "damn Id love to see her naked"
It doesn't matter if shes my boss, or my secretary, or my wife. It doesnt matter if I think shes a bimbo, and idiot, a savant, a genius or anything in between. It doesnt matter if I like her as a person or hate her guts, Im still gonna look at her and think "Id love to get between those legs"

I mean I love my wife, I respect her, and I know damn well shes smarter than I am. Even so, when shes wears certain outifts, and I look at her, I dont think, "wow what an amazing and intlligent woman who is every bit my equal" I'm thinking "god her ass looks good in that"

Is that objectification? Afterall Im not thinking of her in terms of my wife, or life partner, I'm not considering her intelligence or her wit, Im just looking at her ass and getting aroused.
And yet, I know I do in fact respect her, do in fact love her, and do in fact value her as a person. Just not at that moment, at that moment, I aint really thinking. Now a feminist would probably read the preceding paragraph and say "yes you were objectifying her" me, I just say I'm being a man and reacting exactly the way nature designed me too.

And theres nothing at all wrong with that, in fact its because of this, among other reasons, that our relationship is healthy.

Now my point is, if a reasonably intelligent young man can be so twisted by feminist ideology, that he doesnt even realise he is willingly abdicating his right to fantasy and to be comfortable with his own desires, without even realising it, it says a lot about what has happened to our
society.

I have a lot to say about the overall demasculating and neutering of America, but I just got an Alfredo Chicken pizza delivered, and Im gonna go over to my wifes office and objectify her while I eat.

I'll leave y'all with this last bit of wisdom by one of this countries greatest observers.

Well that's great! That sets a legal precedent. Does that mean I can sue Dan
Folgerburg for making me into a pussy in the mid-70's. Is that possible, huh?
Huh?! "Your honor, between him and James Taylor, I didn't get a blow job 'till I
was 27 years old. I was in Colorado wearing hiking boots eating granola. I want
some fucking money right now!

I'm back in the saddle girl, so go get your feet in those stirrups!

Hello to all the lucid, lithuim loving lunatics who rightfully revere the Rational MadMan. I know its a been a while and y'all probably though big daddy had run off and left you and momma in the lurch while I frittered away my ducets on cheap women and easy booze. Well shame on you, you should know I aint no deadbeat dad by now, Ive been doing some traveling and just got back a few days ago. When poppas a rolling stone you gotta be prepared to get your wisdom on the run y'know?

Anyhow in my absence theres been some new voices ringing in on the ongoing war between the forces of light and the vaginal hive mind/eunuch underground coalition, some minor battles have been fought, and some all-new, all-different feminist lunacy has reared its illogical little misandrist mug.

Lets get cracking witht he attacking shall we?

First of all Im sure we've all heard about the whole New Avengers # 35 hoo-haa. And if you haven't then how the hell did you manage to navigate the comicnets with a blindfold on?

To recap in the latest issue of New Avenger The Hood gave a vicious and brutal beatdown to Tigra. Brian Micheal Bendis then went on Newsaram and talked about how no-one had complained. So everyone started complaining.

All the usual suspects showed up, Willow got sick and wished both marvel and DC happy assplay, as Heidi MacDonald got a little snarky, while Fortress keeper decided bendis and NA 35 is OK But Matt Brady is a Kiss ass , and Kbox proclaims overwhelming victory for the vaginal hive-mind in their battle with the forces of NewsaBendis, during Kali921's invective castigating Bendis and calling anyone who enjoys his work a moron who hates women.

Surprisingly however there was one woman who got it, and I want to extend some richly deserved applause to Cheryl Lynn for being the only cell in the vaginal hive-mind with a thought of her own.

Suffice it to say I disagree witht the vaginal hive-mind ( what a surprise eh) in point of fact I figure if the vagi-hive had any actual mind to it, they'd all be jsut as pleased as punch by NA #35. Yes Tigra got beat down, owned, punked, straigth jacked, fubar'd or knocked the fuck out depending on your particular cultural lexicon. But she got jacked like a man. There was no sexual componant, no hint of rape, no use of sex specific insults, and the artwork was even fairly unsexualised for a comic. It was really nothing more than a standard "villain gets revenge on hero while showing his badassitude" plot and the fact that the usually present sexual component was missing shows that Tigra was being treated just likea male character. People try to make something out of her not fighting back and her clothes being ripped off during the beat down, but lets face it, one sided beat downs that end with the hero in a torn and tattered costume are pretty common aint they?

What isn't so common is for a female hero to recieve a beat down without it being sexual. That honor is usually reserved for the guys. But as usual rather than recognising a feminst victory, the vagi-hive is determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of triumph, and to piss off any rational human beings while they're at it.

Tell you what, you take a look at the pages and tell me what you think.

Now, Was shes beat down like a man or like a chick?

At about the same time as Marvel got on the feminazi shitlist DC managed to piss off a whole herd of Gyinoceroi, with JLA #14.

Now of course the meme is "the only reason to have WW, BC, and Vixen featured so promonantly in the shot is cause "DC are teh mysogonist sexist haterz!!!!"

Naturally the thought that Superman and Black Lighting would be more worried by the implications of what the guys are doing to the Mamary trio never entered their little estrogen poisoned minds. The fact is, Men are pretty much programmed to respond a certain way to a women in peril, and Luthor knows this. He admitted he wanted Superman mad. Now ask yourself this, what'll make superman madder than kidnapping his friends, putting WW, BC and Vxen on display like pieces of meat, and laughing about it. I mean it just seems to me that Luthor has Supermans psychology pretty well tagged. Thats what I call writing a complex and beleivable character. And consideing luthor is the same guy who always has a strong woman in a servile position (can you say mercy?) its also perfectly in character. One distinction most gynoceroi can't make is between a sexist story and a sexist character. Of course many seem to think that its OK for a villain to be a thief, murderer, psycho, baby killer, or genocidal maniac, but portraying a villain as a sexist? Oh no, thats crossing the line.

Sigh...... It doesnt make anysense to me either. But then what do I know? I don't worship at the alter of Ms. Andry.

And then Of course DC went and did it again, enraging the gynoceroi even further with "Death of the New Gods #1"

Ragnell the large was so incensed she needed not one, but two posts to contain all the bile it brought up, and SallyP over at green lanterns butt forever chimes in with the exact same points, while Filby Staples vented his spleen in true eunuch underground fashion, once again referencing the exact same points. What offense could be so great that every cell in the vagi-hive would instantly respond in one single unified voice?

Big Barda's death, and the manner of her death, (she died off panel, in the kitchen, without a fight.)

Of course it doesn't matter that all of the New Gods who have died in this stroyline died off-panel, without a fight. Lightray, Grayven, Sleez, etc. Even though the male New Gods got killed the EXACT SAME WAY its still proof of mysogony and sexism. In fact the death of the other New Gods is just a red herring. It was all actually a calculated effort by Jim Starlin to piss of the femmes, I mean come on she dies in the KITCHEN! KITCHEN you get it? You know, near the refrigerator? As in WOMEN IN REFRIGERATORS!

Naturally the fact that Clark and Lois were coming over to dinner, that it was made clear that both Scott and Barda were preparing the food, and that she died in the exact same manner as every single other New God so far, means nothing. Actually thats all just evidence of how sneaky DC really is. You know this whole "Death of the New Gods storyline? Its really just an excuse to kill Big Barda. But dont tell anyone I told ya or they'll revoke my "evil masters of the mysogonistic comics book conspriacy cabal" membership card.

And in the continuing saga of the "Good Feminists" VS the "Bad Feminists" the war continues. You may remember I reported on and added a volley to the Opening Shots being fired by Vince Moore in in this post, and since then new voices have joined up and chosen sides. Big Mike not only fired a few shots of his, he even adapted one of my trademarked phrases to do it, While Boztopia commented in a similar vein, Lisa Fortuner, seemed to think that Comic Journalists should join into the star chamber mentality and go after "mysogonist creators" like they were Mike Nifong running for reelection. Lurker Without on the other hand weighed in by giving us a perfect example of what the whole war is about.

In other news, the rantist formally known as angryrantgirl decided to womyn about thirty year old comics, thus proving once again than when the vaginal hive-mind has nothing to womyn about, they can still find something, while the green lantern objectifying sallyP decided to simply moan all of the afore mentioned issues at once. Say what you will but you gotta respect and effecient use of bile eh? The kamisama on the other hand pointed out soemthing anyone with even a 1/5 of a brain woulda considered self evident, yet somehow sliped by the vagi-hive, along with the treatment of every other dead New Gods character judging fromt he comments on his blog. TheComicaztec pointed out soemthing everybody but minoritists see, and as usual their silence was deafening.

All in All its been a pretty eventful few weeks, with a lot of shrieking, and lot of shrill rhetoric. The estrogen floodwaters rose several feet, and Ms. Andry ran wild over the nets. But never fear, I have come to throw a lifeline of reason seasoned with testosterone to save you from drowning in the lake of the castratti. I will hand you ear plugs of ballsyness to protect you from the feminists siren's song of man hating rage, and a use a chocolate bar to distract Ms. Andry while we make our way into the high happy grunting ground where beautiful young maidens who've never been exposed to feminist fodder serve us ice cold beers carried in shapely arms which frame naked busoms. Follow the sound of my voice back to land of sanity, and all will be well, and all will be well, and all manner of things will be well.

Now I wanna make one last point before I put this post to bed. Theres a huge trend of misandry and a giganormous number of misconceptions in feminism and feminist thought in regards to the male libido. Talk to a few feminists and you'll find they think men should be ashamed of the way we look at women, of the way we think of women, and the way we talk about women. If we look at a woman and all we wanna do is have sex, then we're objectifying her. If an advertiser uses images of beautiful women to sell a product not only is that objectification, its also an attempt to control women by creating unreachable standards of beauty, therby reducing their self confidence. We're told that its Men's fault Women spend billion per year on cosmetics, pushup bras's, shoes, clothes and accessories and assorted other items. We're told that in effect, our libido, our sexuality, our desires are inherantly bad and must be suppresed in order to allow women to be equal. We're told that strip clubs, for example, objectify and use women. We're told that we should be ashamed for watching porn because it contributes to the image of women as sex objects. We're told we should be ashamed of "cheesecake" in comics, images we find attractitive and sexy are somehow incompatible and unecessary in an adventure story. We're told that if we really respect women we wont look at them as potential sexual partners, that we wont comment on their looks, or discuss those looks with other male friends, that we wont fantasize about them and that doing any of the things I've just mentioned is somehow mutually exclusive with respecting a woman as an individual.

The problem is, men dont work that way. Neither does equality. Like it or not, millions of years of evolution have programmed Men with one indisputible, undeniable, biological imperative. Its a simple voice, repeating the same simple message endlessly.

"BOY GO GET YOUR DICK WET!!!!!!!"

I dont care if your a liberal or a conservative, a fagela or a straight up manly man, you could be an east coast intellectual or a southern holy roller, you might be a president and you might be a pauper, but if you got a dick then that message is running through your head every single moment of every single day. Any woman, feminst or toherwise who doesn't understand this is starting out behind the 8-ball. Any theory of sexual interaction that deosn't take this into account is based on a false premise.

Women need to accept this. They need to acept that men and women have different ways of showing interest, lust, respect, admiration etc.

Mad Thinker Scott recently wrote about a study done which managed to piss off both Women and Men, for different reasons, because of the different way Men and Women interpet things. The problem with feminist theory is that, as the name suggests, it looks at everything from the Female, and only from the Female perspective. To a woman, who doesn't think of or interpert things the way a Man does; a guy whose only interest in her is sex is insulting her, because he's "not interested in her as a person". Since most women dont understand the appeal of sex with an anonymous partner, or why it appeals to men, she assumes his interest is disrespectful. Now the truth is, from the male perspective its not, its not meant to be, and if the exact same offer were made by her to him, hed see it as a validation of his manhood.

The problem is feminists want women to be free to "be who they are" but dont want men to be just as free. Feminists used to claim that "if you judge a woman on her abillity to act like a man dont be surprised when she comes out second" but they have now turned that standard on its head. Now unless a man acts like a woman, hes a mysogonist.

Try this experiment. Which of these two women, Laura, or Kara, is being treated as an equal by the men in the following scene's.

Jack, Dave, and Todd, are standign by the water cooler at work talking.

Jack- You fatboy, big T, you looking like the goodyear tire man, need to get your fat ass on the track.

Todd - Tell you what Jack-off, I get my aerobics in every night when your wife comes over for a taste of real manhood.

Jack - Please, doughboy, you wouldn't know real manhood if is shoved it up your ass.

Dave - did you just say you wanted to shove your "manhood" up todd's ass?

Laura walks up tot he cooler and gets some water

Laura - hello

Dave Hi laura, how are you today?

Laura - Im good thanks.

Jack - working hard?

Laura - not if I can help it?

Laura - Bye guys

As laura leaves Kara walks up to get a drink

Todd - hey hey sex queen, stop invading my dreams

Kara - todd, if I didnt youd still be a virgin and your wrists would the size of poeye's

Jack - ouch looks like the cats got her claws out today, I betetr run before she uses me as a scratchin post

Kara - You wish.

David, - he kara howd your date go last night you get laid?

Kara - nahh he was a nice guy but he just didnt do it for me

Todd - Ill do anything you want done sexy

Kara - Honey you aint got the stmina to get it started much less done.

Kara - well boys I gotta get back to work, afterall soomeone in this office has to work like a man.

So after reading those two encounters who did you think was being treated respectfully as an equal?

If you said Kara, congratulations, you have working brain cells.

I'm sure a lot of women, and a whole lot of feminists are thinking "this guys nuts", and you're right. I am nuts. I'm also making a point. The fact is the second conversation is representative of how men talk when we're alone. We insult each others masculinity, success in life, weight, looks, prowess with women, etc. Why? Who the hell knows? Its just the most common way most men bond that doesn't involve either alcohol or violence. And when we treat a woman the same way, it means we are treating her as an equal. No matter how "respectful" the conversation with laura may have seemed at first glance, what the men were really saying is "you're not one of us, you're not like us, and we dont respect you enough to talk to you like your a man" "whereas kara was told " your one of us, you fuck!"

Likewise if you have male friends, and they are "checking out" or "ranking" women, and they don't stop when you come over, thats a good sign. It means they respect you enough to behave honestly. You see most of us men spend the bulk of our lives hiding exactly what we think and feel from women, becasue we've learned that most simply aren't willing to accept what we really think. We know they will judge us. Unlike women, men understand that we are different, and we are willing to put up with all the weird shit women seem to think and feel, no matter how nuts they may be. We just know the feeling is not mutual.

The point is, if you really want true equality between the sexes; then you have to be willing to allow men to be men, and I doubt you feminists can handle that.

Female Leads (Follow Up)

The Robinov "conroversy" continues
And with it continues the assumptions, half assed reasoning, and inappropiate analogies.
Over at Stars and garters "Not in the face" assumes this "decision" was prompted by Catwoman, despite the fact that that movie bombed several years back and this "decision" seems to have been made as a result of the poor box office performance of "The Brave one" and "the Invasion" Not in the face then goes on to claim that the reason Catwoman failed was because "it didnt stick to the comics"
Over at In One Ear Thom Wade makes the claim that Die hard would have done just as well with Jane Mclain as it did with John. Over at Little dark voice's blog she first "questions the logic thast female leads dont sell" then goes on to bitch at a network whose audience are uniformly oversexed adolescents for puting creating and oversexed and adolescent series. At pretty fizzy paradise "Kalinara" cant even seem to get her movies staight, while at written word "Ragnell the foul" (as usual) got all pissy and decided to start a letter writing capaign.

Bottom line is its exactly what Ive been expecting, irrationality, piss poor attempts at logic, assumption of motives and reasoning which are either based on little or no information or flatly contradicts what information is known, and very bad analogies.

SO lets get started witht he reality check shall we?

On the Idea this "policy" is due to Catwoman - Give me a fucking break. Robinov is just now responding to a bomb from several years ago? Sure Bob.

On the idea that Catwoman failed becsasue it didnt stick to the comics - Yeah we wish. Truth is if WB (or anyone else) made a comic book movie and not one comic book reader went to see, they wouldnt even notice. We are simply too small of a demographic to have any meaningful effect on box office reciepts. The best selling comic in recent years didnt even reach a half a million sold. The average "flagship" title is lucky to sell 100,000. Meanwhile the average movie draws in Millions of viewers.

On the idea that Die Hard would have been just as good featuring Jane Mclain - Bullshit. Yes one of the things that made Die hard Great was that John Mclain was a Man, (not a boy, Thom Wade, theres a difference though I doubt you know what it is) The fact is for a huge number of people Die hard would have required too much "suspension of disbelief" if the lead had been a girl. Sorry to burst your vaginal hive-bubble, but for the most part female action heroines really dont sell, especially not in movies where they are required to go around fighting a bunch of guys.

Why not? Because we all know its bullshit. There's a reason Laila Ali isn't fighting Oleg Maskaev, or even Juan Manuel Marquez, despite the fact that she is a very talented Boxer. Yes with enough training, the right tactics, and a lot of luck, a woman can hold her own against a man, and possibly even beat him, but she has to be far more skilled than he, because on a purely physical level women just can't compete. Female Powerlifters dont lift nearly as much as men do, and Chyna for all her unusual size and strength, was nowhere near as powerful as the men in the WWE who weighed the same as she did.

Furthermore the biggest audience for action flicks by far is men, and like it or not we prefer to see men kicking ass. Why? Cause any 12 year old boy (even one stuck in a 35 year old body) can pretend to be john Mclain. Jane? Not so much. Feminsits like to call it a sterotye, but the fact is most women dont really like Action Flicks, yes there are exceptions, jsut as there are some men (loosley applied) who love romantic comedies. But you'll notice few if any romantic comedies are marketed torwards men.

And as always if you audience mostly shares a single trait, your lead is gonna have to too. Can you imagine how many Blacks in the 70's would have gone to see Shaft if they had cast Stacy Keach in the title role? Not too many.

Finally even if you can find a script that guys will buy, the problem is finding an actress who can actually play a "tough chick" Ever seen the "quick and the dead"? Sharon Stones attempts at being "tough" were embarrasing, Same with Jennifer Lopez in "enough". Hell even Jodie Foster couldnt pull off tough girl act in Silence of the lambs, and if you've ever seen "Miss Congenialty 2" you know how badly Sandra Bullock tried and failed.

My point is, like it or not, Action Flicks are a male driven genre. We're the ones watching them and by and large, we dont buy female action heroes in the same way we buy male ones.

But ever since this comment was publicised, Femifans bloggers have been racking thier pea sized brains trying to think of action movies that did well with female leads. Kalinara Points out "alien" forgetting that in fact the first "alien" wasn't an action, but a sci-fi horror and That weaver wasn't the lead in that movie, becasue it was an esemble cast. "Aliens" could be honestly described as a Action flick and yes she was the lead, but given that it was a sequel to a highly popular horror Movie the rules are different. More to the Point, the single most successful movie in the series (even if we adjust the gross for inflation) was Aliens Vs Predator, which everyone went to see for the aliens.

She then goes on torefernces "The 5th element" somehow forgetting that Bruce Willis was the lead in that movie, and had far more screen time than Mila Jolovitch.

All in all the response was exactly as soft headed as I expected, primarily consisting of vented spleens channelled through dysfunctional brains.

On a final word WB has oficially denied that this statement was ever made, which is just a pussy ass move if you ask me. Yeah it has created a little bad press, but theres nothign inherantly wrong with WB decided to focus ther efforts on a single demographic. It might cause them to lose money, or it might not. But unless it does cost WB money, theres nothing worng with it at all.

Stereotypes, Caricatures, and Reality.

Mad Thinker Scott has a great post reacting to an article by Perry Moore over at his Blog in which he argues that a gay character shouldn't be considered "offensive" merely because the portrayal of said character conforms to some stereotypes of gay behavior. Essentially his argument boils down to the fact that many of the gay stereotypes are based on the behavior of actual people, and as such finding a character who exhibits said traits offensive is tantamount to finding those people offensive. In doing so he makes a point I wish more people understood.

In many ways a stereotype is nothing more than a caricature, that is to say a magnification of the pre-existing traits which help us identify people or things. If your ears are slightly bigger than the norm a caricature would enbiggen them to dumbotastic proportions but if your ears were not any bigger than most peoples a caricaturist would choose a different trait to magnify. For example a caricature of Barack Obama which didn't have big ears or a caricature of Jay Leno which didn't have a big chin probably wouldn't be recognizable as such. Its the observation inherent in the caricature which makes it effective.

The only major difference between the two is that a caricature magnifies the traits of a person while a stereotype magnifies the most often seen traits of given group. In both cases however, the traits being magnified must actually exist and be recognizable. The reason we have the stereotype of Gays as flamboyantly dressed, effeminate men for example is not because all gays are like that, or because no straight men are, but because enough openly gay men exhibit these traits that we recognise what is being caricatured immediately. If every gay man dressed in jeans and work shirts, was an ultimate fighting enthusiast, and had a goatee, our stereotype of gays would be very different than it is.

The point I'm making is that all stereotypes, like all myths, have at least a grain of truth at their core. This should be a self evident fact, but for many people its not, or at the very least they're not willing to admit that it is if the stereotype is negative. On the other hand if the stereotype is positive then most have little difficulty accepting that it is based on observable traits. As an example very few people would feel comfortable saying that the stereotype of Blacks as violent criminals exists because Blacks commit a disproportionately high number of violent crimes, yet few would show the same reticence in stating that the stereotype that Asians are good at math is based on the fact that the Asians are disproportionately represented in math heavy disciplines. In other words most people simply don't like expressing ideas that make them look like a istist asshole.

In and of itself this is not a problem. The problem arises when activists attempt to either deny the connection between observation and stereotype completely, or attempt to penalise those who portray a member of a given group in a way that "reinforces" said stereotype. It becomes a problem because any attempt to portray a member of a given group accurately will almost inevitably involve some stereotypes. And predictably, when those stereotypes are shown, those who consider themselves to be activists for that group will call it offensive. The writer is then left with the choice of either altering his portrayal of the character in question so as to reject the stereotype or accepting that people will consider him a bigot. Most writers chose the former, and the cumulative effect can lead to concepts which are irrational being accepted as rational.

As an example take the character Lady Shiva. A perfect embodiment of the idea that a woman can be just as good of a fighter as a man, current DC cannon lists her as the DCU's greatest martial artist. While there's no reason a woman can't become a highly skilled martial artist or become even more skilled than her male counterparts, skill can only do so much. As every man instinctively knows, Size Matters.

Now think about this in the context of Batman Vs Lady Shiva. A ridiculously skilled Martial Artist himself, he is usually considered to be the second or third most skilled Martial Artist in the DCU. In other words the differences in skill between Batman and Lady Shiva are negligible. However, in the issues where Batman and lady Shiva fight; she is shown as being able to not only hold her own, but in some cases to actually defeat him easily. The problem is Batman still outweighs her by at least 50-100lbs of muscle, and has a sizable reach advantage. Now if Batman's martial skills were substantially less than her own (as in the case of say Black Canary Vs Green Arrow) these advantages wouldn't be worth much, but since their skill levels are comparable they should be damn near insurmountable. To paraphrase Anita Blake "A good big guy beats a good little guy" Or to put it another way Cynthia Rothrock is a great martial artist who could probably beat the living hell out of James Gandolfini but if she fought Chuck Norris she would get her ass kicked.

Now this should not be an offensive nor a controversial concept, yet somehow it is. Since the writers know if they portray this accurately they would be accused of being sexist, they intentionally go in the opposite direction. As a result, instead of Shiva being overpowered by Batman or fighting him differently than she would fight Black Canary, we are shown a Lady Shiva who fights batman by attacking his strengths, rather than his weaknesses. More to the point, since the writers have been doing this for years if not decades in an attempt not to be sexist, its become SOP for female martial artists in the DCU to fight in such a manner.

Why is this a problem you ask? After all Superhero Comics are inherently unrealistic and if I can accept that in comics men can fly, shoot lasers from their eyes, or juggle planets, why should it matter that female martial artists are shown winning fights in a manner that would quickly get them killed in real life? The reason is that in doing so, the writers are reinforcing the idea that the only way for a woman to be shown as being as dangerous as a man is for her to be unnaturally strong. Which implies that a woman who isn't can't be dangerous. Just as Perry Moore's article implies people who are stereotypically gay can't really be heroes and thus essentially marginalises those who are, requiring Lady Shiva to be as strong as a man physically essentially marginalises every female martial artist who isn't.

Now feminists like to talk about how fictional portrayals can cause a problem by creating unrealistic expectations. I don't personally buy that theory, but for the sake of argument lets assume its true; In what way is sending a message that in order to compete women must be something their not and for most, will never be, in any way positive? Doesn't making wonder woman 6'2" and giving all Amazons super strength imply that real woman aren't good enough to live up to amazonian standards? And given that Amazons are supposed to be representative of the feminine ideal in the DCU what does that say?

Whats even more interesting is that the same writers and artists who portray size as irrelevant when women are fighting men don't hesitate to show size as a major factor in fights between two men. Robin for example never went toe to toe with Twoface, or The Joker, instead he was portrayed as using leverage, speed, agility, and skill to overcome the size deficit. The reason of course is that when two men are fighting, there's no concern that an accurate portrayal will be considered offensive.

I guess the point I'm trying to make here, is that by creating a climate in which the writers fear sending the wrong message and then tieing the definition of a wrong message to whether or not the characters portrayal is consistent with a stereotype, we end up with characters whose existence tells those same people we are trying to respect, that they aren't worthy of respect, because of who they are. If a writer attempts to make sure he didn't engage in the stereotype that Blacks like fried chicken, by specifically writing all his black characters as hating fried chicken, then wouldn't that actually send the message than any Black who does like fried chicken either isn't "really" black or can't be a hero? Likewise if he specifically makes all his homosexual characters dress like Mad Thinker Scott, isn't he implying that any who dress like Harry Hay aren't good enough to be heroes? And if so, is that what we as comic fans want?

Now me, Id rather see a DCU where Micheal Holt is allowed to like chicken, where the Pied Piper is allowed to be flamboyant and effete, and Lady Shiva is allowed to be less physically strong yet still just as dangerous as Batman. That doesn't mean that every character should follow stereotypes, I don't think I would find that very interesting. It just means that writers shouldn't be made afraid of giving a character a trait that could be considered stereotypical, and fans shouldn't be so damn quick to blast them if they do. Especially when that stereotype is heavily rooted in reality, and makes sense for the character being written.