Monday, 22 February 2010

TTB #5: "A. Guy Maligned" at What Women Never Hear

http://wwnh.wordpress.com

You blogging? If you wanna be successful, you gotta have a hook. Any lameass who wants to start a new blog but doesn't know how (loser) will type "how to blog" into Google only to find that blogs should be centered loosely around a theme. So, for example, The Sartorialist (no, don't troll that one) (well, go ahead if you must) is all about men who wear their trousers too high and women who are apparently just about to attend niche, elaborate costume parties. And this blog is about calling out utter asstusks for being utter asstusks. That sort of thing.

It turns out that another way to be successful is to write as if you're that new kind of spam that came out recently--you know, where a bunch of random sentences from various books appear at the bottom in order to fool your spam filter.

No, seriously, right. There's this old dude (silver surfers FTW though) running a blog called What Women Never Hear. It's part anti-feminist advice column, part Faulkneresque stream-of-consciousness dream sequence.

So:

♀♂ Women reject this truism for making marriage work: Before marriage he should prove himself worthy of her. That is, she makes him the seller and her the buyer. He peddles all his strengths, and she evaluates his character and likelihood of delivery on his promises. After marriage, she keeps herself worthy of him. That is, she becomes the seller and peddles rewards for his husbanding and fathering.

♀ Pregnant women duplicate men with big beer bellies. They use tight clothing and masculinize motherhood. Fashion before sexiness, attractiveness, and femininity—not what men appreciate.

♀ Thirtysomething women without kids have no outlet for their mothering instinct. So, they parent their man.

♀ Wives treat husbands much less respectfully than they treat boyfriends, lovers, and shack up partners. Two effects: Husbands dump wives more easily. Other men see what happens, avoid marriage, and go for shack up.

♀ Women condemn the male ego, as if they have none of their own. The feminist movement made the female ego explode. Activists took advantage.

♀ Men seek a woman that accepts him as he is and wants to stay. Women nevertheless think they can or should change their man.
-206. Female malpractice — Part 5


That is the whole post. And yes, I mostly get what he's saying (what's the pregnancy bit about though?). I guess I'm mainly wondering why he used those particular words in that particular order.

Anyway, yes, when you do bother to untangle his extremely strange way of writing, and when you're amused enough to read more, you sometimes find other, less opaque posts like this:

Men receive distinct sexual messages from every woman, and it starts with boob display. Women have three options. Two accept and one resists male dominance.

The first option causes women to minimize their influence over each man they encounter. Maximum cleavage or near-nipple exposure focuses men on sex instead of the female and her other qualities. Her obvious immodesty relieves and sometimes is taken as condemnation of masculine self-restraint. It signals that she welcomes masculine-style sexual freedom—whether she does or not is moot, because he perceives it—and this shifts her into a player in the man’s game and seller instead of buyer after he conquers her. This immodest option captures a man’s attention, but sex does not bond men; it leads to temporary relationships because he never focuses on her enough to make her a keeper. This option endorses the man’s game of wham, bam, thank you, mam. By displaying her endowments so immodestly, she yields relationship control to him.

The second option causes women to discourage men or ignore messages she’s trying to send. Boobs well covered and shapeless regardless of size shift manly focus to other women. Sweatshirt-covered and other bosom-shaped displays indicate age. Other women just look better. Big, shapeless, and comfortable for her won’t reduce his eagerness for conquest, but it reduces his enthusiasm for her as keeper. Wives often resort to comfort—even to sloppiness—without realizing the impact on husband. It’s not modesty, but her shapeless boobs or breasts without ‘character’ that push men toward other women, and husbands are men.

The third option empowers women to maximize their feminine impact on men, and women need to display this way for all men in order to find the right man. Very modest cover with two, albeit small, distinct boobs pointed uncomfortably high and perky forces decent men to focus on her eyes and other qualities in order to maximize his persuasiveness. She appears not only hard-to-get, but is implying ♫na, ♫na, ♫na, ♫na, ♫na, ♫na to his face—look but don’t even think about touching. Her appearance and attitude force the hunter-conqueror to plan for a long campaign. This empowers her to keep his attention focused on her and not on sex and for her to dominate their relationship before his conquest. Highly stressed modesty and two high and perky boobs blended into a non-sexual ‘in your face’ attitude can easily overpower male dominance. Men wilt under this kind of feminine determination, unless they are only after sex in the first place, which should empower her to put him back in the parade.

How women display their boobs shapes whether they handle men with female bossiness or get manhandled with masculine brusqueness. Women are in charge, as always, and her well-designed offense can beat his offense most of the time.
-12. Boob language—Part 1


But. Once grown, my boobs were never small, and if I wanted to attempt to make them uncomfortably high and perky I'd need to have a personal account manager at Rigby and Peller. What do I do, Mr. Maligned? What do I do?

Anyway, he's got a whole SERIES on "boob language," folks. A series. I don't care if he's in his 70s and things were different way back when, when breasts were first discovered. You don't get to talk about "boob language." You just don't. And do you know why you don't? You don't because it makes you an asshole.

There are lots more reasons to Troll This Blog, but the boob language thing is a good start.

Saturday, 20 February 2010

TTB #4: Laura at The "Thinking" Housewife

http://www.thinkinghousewife.com

WOMEN! I mean, LADIES! Here are some things Laura Wood, The "Thinking" Housewife, would like you to know about your relationship with the world generally:

1. Men deserve jobs before you do.
Over the last 50 years, America has witnessed the cultural ruin of its women. When women fall, an entire way of life and civilization itself are not far behind. . . . We need ultimately to reverse existing laws and practices. First and foremost, we must restore customary economic discrimination in favor of men. America’s businesses and institutions must be free once again to favor men over women in hiring. If they are not, family life will never return to a reasonable state of health; the happiness of women and children will continue to decline; and men will fail to flourish and prosper.
-Why We Must Discriminate


Don't worry, though, honeycakes. You'll still get a job if you really want one, because "Women even remain a majority in certain fields, such as education, low-level office work, psychology and nursing. These fields are suited to the interruptions of family life, to the years before marriage, and to the natural skills of women." (See also Jobs for Men First.)

2. Selfish feminist boastful conceited power-hungry WHORES who don't ever get pregnant (thereby increasing their risk for ovarian cancer) ruin perfectly nice days out for nice ladies by insisting on tying their gaudy green ribbons everywhere:

The town where I live is festooned with green ribbons. They are tied to trees in the shopping district, to streetlights, to parking meters and to signs. What does all this festivity signify? Ovarian cancer. The ribbons are part of a campaign to make us more sensitive to this terrible disease. They are the green counterpart to the familiar pink ribbons of breast cancer campaigns.

Cancer is evil. Everyone should contribute to the worthy battle against it. But, if we are going to express our concern for this grave matter with sentimental displays of ribbons, why not ribbons for all cancer? If we must select one, let it be a childhood cancer.

These ribbons depress me. They depress me not simply because cancer kills. They are a sickly-sweet reminder of the boastful conceit of women. Power makes women selfish.
-Tie A Green Ribbon


3. You cannot be a drill sergeant:

When women start barking orders at grown men, the delicate balance of power between the sexes is disturbed. Women are mothers and wives, lovers and friends to men. These roles are damaged by domineering bossiness. Male psychology is radically different from female psychology. After all, mothers are women. There is no more significant fact than that.
-A Woman Drill Sergeant


or a police chief:

A woman in command, no matter how likable or competent, is likely to disrupt that atmosphere simply because she is a woman. Even a woman’s voice is less authoritative. A police chief must react harshly to any infractions by officers. Men do not like being dressed down by a woman and no amount of wishful thinking is going to change that fact of male psychology. In general, it’s impossible for men and women to interact in a neutral way. You mentioned that you’re friend was pro-life, which brings up another issue. A pregnant police chief is an affront to decency and common sense. Personally, I hate seeing police women except those doing office work or traffic control. A society that puts women in the job of defending men has lost respect for femininity and concern for its own safety.
-Woman in Chief


or a priest:

• Women get pregnant. The idea of pregnant women leading Christian services is offensive, as the pregnant woman is already engaged in an entirely different holy office. Likewise, a woman cannot be both a mother and a priest. The two roles are mutually exclusive.

• There cannot be celibate clergy living in coed conditions. Women priests necessitate married priests, changing the foundation of the priesthood in the case of Catholicism and increasing the costs of supporting priests. Estranged, separated or divorced priests, as well as priests with very large families or who use birth control, would all present complications.

• Women are different from men. They possess a different psychology, attuned more to interpersonal relations. The priesthood demands the presence of a priest at the most intimate events in a person’s life, including sickness, death, marriage and baptism. While a man can remain detached from these emotional occurrences, a woman by her very nature cannot.

• Men are better theologians. The number of brilliant female theologians is not large enough to fill a moderately-sized powder room. Even average theologians are much more often men.

• The appearance of women on the altar is distracting because a woman’s appearance is always distracting.

• Women are likely to turn the priesthood into full-time social work, in keeping with their maternal nature.

• Women do not like being led by women. This is a widely proven fact of female psychology. Whether they recognize it or not, women do not want women priests.

• Men tend to leave any profession dominated by women. Women will dominate the priesthood once it is open to them.
-Two Fools Speak on Women and Religion


4. White is Right! Wait, I mean, if you're a feminist, you've emasculated men and thereby . . . somehow . . . caused interracial marriage?

Feminism and miscegenation are interconnected. Only a society which has emasculated men would openly condone intermarriage. Let me change that. Only a society in which white men have been emasculated would see the sort of tolerance for and celebration of intermarriage we are experiencing today.
-Mrs. Tiger


And furthermore:

M., a male reader, states that he is indifferent to the personal sufferings of the famous golfer’s wife. Her choice of a husband was a form of betrayal that angers him "on a very deep, existential level." The reader’s comment illustrates something that many white women refuse to acknowledge: Miscegenation offends white men at the core of their being.
-The Golfer’s Wife


[Please note that since I first took note of this post, she has changed "white men" to "some men." Poor old offended men, though, eh?]

5. You must NEVER attempt to use an unoccupied toilet without a chaperone:

Annie Le, the graduate student murdered at Yale last week, was alone in a basement laboratory when she was attacked. This makes no sense in today’s world, even in buildings with secure entry. Young women should not be alone in isolated corridors, offices or rest rooms. Ever.
-The Undefended Annie Le


6. You are possibly entirely incapable of behaving properly when given a little bit of freedom:

Until that day when our divorce laws are reformed, men must become wiser about how to handle the capriciousness of women. A significant minority of women are constitutionally incapable of handling the marital freedoms our society has granted them. I recommend Michelle Langley’s book The Infidelity of Women, available for download on the Internet. I don’t fully agree with Langley, but she gives some good advice for men. The problem isn’t simply infidelity, but the wandering spirit of women. Our society encourages them to indulge romantic dreams of a life beyond their first marriage.
How to Save the West


7. Last, but most importantly, sweeping is SO FRICKING AWESOME:

More importantly, sweeping is fascinating, captivating, deeply intriguing. Why try to sell it’s virtues when they so clearly speak for themselves? We are alive. As we sweep, we are alive and our minds are free.
-Should Smart Women Sweep?


Screw everything else. For that last bit of absolute nonsense, I beg, I urge, I implore you to Troll This Blog. (If you decide to, be aware that you must email her your comments. She does seem to publish the occasional dissenting view.)

--------

(Oh god, there's just so much more that I can't fit in here. If you're amused, see also:

Lesbian Nation: Will It Last?
The Overly Affectionate Mother and The Well-Dressed Socialist (aka Michelle Obama is a TERRIBLE WOMAN)
Miss, Mrs. and Mizzzz
Herstory is History ("Mary Daly wasn't particularly pretty! I would now like to celebrate her death, just like my lord and savior Jesus Christ would want me to!")

Thursday, 18 February 2010

TTB #3: Justin at The Truth Shall Set You Free

http://religionnewsblog.blogspot.com/

Hey kids! Do you like TRUTH?! How about critical thinking? If you do--and I know you do!--I've got just the blog for you!

Justin has got it all over at his blog, oh yes. He says so right there at the top, and throws in some comparative religion, contemporary culture, and history for good measure. And you can see it all in his entries, too. For example:

1. Are you at a loss for how to teach young boys about gender relationships? Justin knows what just you need:

The Little Mermaid contains everything you need to know to understand women. It is exactly the movie you would want to show your sons, and make sure they fully understand its lessons.


Why is that? Well, it seems that Ariel is "Everygirl" for various reasons, which I will come to in a moment. Let's first consider, though, what the "Everyman" concept means. He doesn't literally mean that Ariel represents every girl, no no no. Just an ordinary girl. You know, most girls. She's someone that, you know, most girls are like. Normal girls.

And what are normal girls like?

Ariel is Everygirl: flighty, dreamy, disobedient, impulsive, and shallow. On the positive side, she is innocent, idealistic, sincere, brave, fun, and charming.


Aha. Looks like Justin's got us pegged, laydeez. Yes, that's right. We are all--well, MOST of us, the NORMAL ones--Manic Pixie Dream Girls. Justin couldn't have produced a more comprehensive list of MPDG characteristics if he had been doing it on purpose

At that point I need to say that we can stop right there. We don't have to go on, because what we're learning from this particular entry is not what sort of thing people should teach their sons. What we're learning is that Justin doesn't know what actual women are actually like.

Idealizing women and/or compartmentalizing them is something a lot of conservative Christian men do, though, so I'm not particularly surprised. It's just, you know, I was looking for some critical thinking. Some truth. As I was promised.

2. If you're sick of he the old said/she said, how about some science? Justin has a lot to say about evolution, but the bit about sharks is my favorite:

Ok, so puzzle me this: how can sharks have genes for fingers and toes? Of course, there is the obvious fact that sharks don’t have fingers and toes, in fact, they don't have skeletons at all… So why would they have the genes for a specialized bone structure? Evolutionarily speaking, sharks are a primitive form of life. They evolved into their present state long before land-creatures even existed. So why would sharks have genes that are only valuable to skeletal land-creatures?

According to the theory of evolution, it is reasonable to assume that mammals have some fish genes, since fish are the ancestors of all land-creatures. However, the opposite is not the case. Fish would not have uniquely mammal genes, because previous life forms should not have genetic structures that evolved only later. They could not have received the genes through their genetic heritage, nor were they able to receive finger/toe genes through a genetic inflow from land creatures. So how did the genes get there?


Again, an inability to get cause and effect the right way around is pretty standard in the fundamentalist Christian arena, so I'm not particularly surprised. It's just, you know, I was looking for some critical thinking. Some truth. As I was promised.

3. I was going to talk about comparative religion next, looking specifically at the Islam tag, but I got knocked for six by this:

It is gratifying to see the Swiss beginning to fight for their own land. It is certainly the right of all indigenous people to resist displacement by foreigners.


Right, kids, I think it's time to talk about history (after all, it's one of Justin's interests). Given that Switzerland has been a country for nearly 100 years LESS than the USA, it's a bit rich to refer to the "Swiss" as "indigenous" people. Perhaps he means WHITE PEOPLE.

Once more, I'm not particularly surprised by Justin's casual, embedded racism, or his finding it difficult to look beyond his own nose. It's just, you know, I was looking for some critical thinking. Some truth. As I was promised.

--------

Once you've finished laughing while shaking your head in a slightly sorrowful and entirely disbelieving fashion and wiping away the tears of hilarity, you may not have the energy to type. Regardless, I urge you to Troll This Blog.

Wednesday, 17 February 2010

TTB #2: Thomas Robb, National Director of the KKK

http://tarobb.blogspot.com/

When you immerse yourself in the world of right-wing blogs like I do, it doesn't take much to scrape off the epidermis of apparent righteous God-fearing acceptability, revealing quite clearly the dermis of sexism, repression, and indeed racism. And in among all this oily sebum, we get purulent, sebaceous cysts.

One such fatty pusball (hey, I'm just following the metaphor out to its logical conclusion; don't blame me for where it went) is Thom Robb. Not just the director of a terrorist group of murderers known for their hatred of and violence toward their fellow human beings, Thom Robb is also a god-fearing man and a preacher, teaching about and following in the footsteps of Jesus the Christ who loves the little children, all the children of the world. (Don't think about it too hard; you'll just end up hurting yourself.)

Oh, but read his blog. He believes in diversity, you see, because he knows the difference between Fords and Chevy's [sic] and dogs and cats. As a commenter pointed out there, to him some people are equivalent to animals and objects. Well, that explains a lot.

Anyway, have a peek through the archives; you'll have ever so much fun. And like so many other right-wingers, he probably won't publish or respond to your comment, but that's still no reason not to Troll This Blog.

Tuesday, 16 February 2010

TTB #1: "Lady" Lydia at Home Living

We'll start with my favorite.


"Lady" Lydia at Home Living is probably the very person who started my obsession with hyperxtian blogs. When I first encountered her years ago at Ladies Against Feminism, I thought surely she was a joke. For starters, she believes all women should stay at home, never work, always wear skirts, and apparently should make very glittery (or pink) crafts out of typing paper.

Most of her posts at Home Living recently seem dedicated to doggerel and how much she enjoys cleaning, but a trip through the archives is a beautiful journey indeed. There you will learn how sinful it is for older women to cut their hair short or to wear soft-soled shoes, as well as how even women whose families desperately need a second income can live warm and beautiful lives with Mom at home, if only she'll work hard enough to make her low-earning husband's dollar stree-ee-ee-ee-tch right out.

Lydia has attracted many disdainful followers, including a blog that has been set up specifically to point out her various hypocrisies, in a kind of scary and obsessive way. I don't approve of that blog or its methods; I'd much prefer people to attempt to engage Lydia in a calm and rational way via her comments box. If you try that, though, be forewarned that she is unlikely to unscreen or reply to any comments you make. That's still no reason not to make them, so . . . Troll This Blog!

What On Earth Is This All About?

Troll This Blog is dedicated to pointing a finger at the most idiotic blogs written by hateful, ill-educated people who insist on touching the internet with their stupid dirty fingers, smearing it all up for the rest of us.

It will probably be the case that most of the people I link to will be right-wing fundamentalist Christians (especially the kind who hate poor people--you know, like Jesus did). They're my favorite. If you want to recommend other blogs, please do leave a comment.

And, in a way, I do exhort you to "troll" their blogs--by which I mean you should leave comments for them pointing out why they're wrong. Why do I use that term? Many of the people I link to see such comments as "trolling" because they're incapable of understanding that people with other viewpoints are not necessarily trolls.

Please, though, leave only well-thought out, appropriate comments using language my grandmother would approve of. (She says "shit," but that's about as far as it goes.) I do not endorse leaving abusive comments.