Being lazy isn’t sexism

Who_Stole_Feminism_(first_edition)I just read something today that made my head hurt. A reviewer I follow for Black Static Magazine recently posted the following:

Listed below are the books received for review since the last update, which was back on 10 March 2016.

There are twenty one new titles and five of them have been written or edited by women, taking our totals for the year so far to forty six books received, twelve and a half of them with a female by-line (27%).

Taking into account #52, the corresponding figures for the magazine are thirty four titles reviewed so far this year, of which nine have been written or edited by women (26%)

Considering I’m one of the 27% he received a book from since his last update, do you know what this tells me? It tells me that these are the people who took the time to send him review copies of their books, and only a quarter of that population were female. It has nothing to do with the lack of female creators out there, it has everything to do with the lack of female creators who will get off their asses and promote themselves rather than whine that they “aren’t getting enough attention”.

Wake the fuck up ladies. The Mary Sue had an article entitled “ Women Genre Authors Much Less Likely To Get Reviewed“. Well of course they’re much less likely to get reviewed, you can only get reviewed if you send your books in. DUH. If only 25% of the people who send their books in are women, then of course only 25% of books reviewed are going to be by women. It’s not “the patriarchy”. It’s math.

Solution: Stop crying sexism. Get yourself an envelope and a stamp and start sending your books to reviewers. Nobody else is going to do it for you. And if you have an agent or a publisher who is supposed to be doing it for you, scream at them for not representing you as a creator properly. Don’t scream at the media because they don’t know you exist.

Singing Dogs and Gender Equality

Odd-Banner-CPromoting that your book (or movie or album or whatever) is created by a woman is like promoting you have a singing dog. The attraction is not that the dog sings well, but that it sings at all. Attaching the gender of the creator to the reasons why your audience should care about your creation is putting your work in the category of a sideshow freak. It’s something people gawk at, take pitty on, and applaud but never take seriously because it couldn’t stand on it’s own.

The gender of the creator does not tell the audience that the creation is good. Being male or female or whatever does not convey talent. People don’t buy Harry Potter because it’s written by a woman. People buy Harry Potter because it’s a good story.

In 2016 the only reason to put a gender to your book is because it wouldn’t sell in the fair and open market without it. You are appealing to your audience’s need to seem “open minded”. Most of these people aren’t going to actually read your book. They are buying it so they can feel better about themselves, give it a place of honor on their bookshelf and show off to other people how “progressive” they are. They are giving the singing dog it’s nickle for performing.

If women really and truly want to be seen as equals in the writing (or any) profession they need to drop the gender shtick and not be afraid to let their work stand on it’s own merit. To be judged just like everybody else. To stop hiding behind the shield of sexism and risk learning that they just aren’t good enough yet so they can strive to improve themselves and their work in the future. Without this risk they are just singing dogs. Nobody expects the singing dog to sing well. They just applaud that it exists and then forget about it when the next novelty comes along.

Rich women rub foreskins on their faces to stay young thanks to Operah.

Do you like to mutilate babes while making gobs of money? Sure, we all do! So why not jump in on this exciting new avenue of cosmetics made especially for the super rich. Human Forskin! You heard me right. Women in the top 1% of the economic food chain have now found a way to show off their misanthropy and continue to pretend they are still in their 40’s. It’s a beauty product made out of the mutilated genitals of human baby boys.

Now you’re probably thinking that this product comes from those fashion boutiques in France. But the best part is, this company is based out of Carlsbad California and one of the owners is OPRAH! Yes, our very own Oprah delights in smearing baby dicks on her face to keep that youthful appearance.

But don’t take my word for it. See this video with Michelle Park as she demonstrates how wonderful ground up baby dicks makes your face and hands and ups your self esteem by feeding into that sick psyche that some women have where they delight in the disfigurement of the opposite sex.

REPOST: An Open Letter to Emma Watson by “Eldritch Edain”

READ: An Open Letter to Emma Watson. by “Eldritch Edain”

A wonderfully written rebuttal to Ms. Watson’s speech. One thing the feminists and liberals don’t seem to understand is that people don’t have a problem with the concept of equality between the sexes. We have a problem with how unequally men have been treated by the law and society, and how the definition of “feminism” is being used whenever the SJWs are called out for not treating either gender equally.

Men are not being treated as equals. Men are not given the same opportunities in jobs, healthcare, social services, or legal due process and justice that women are. Women rape, women abuse children, women commit and instigate domestic violence yet it is always men who are punished the more severely and often the woman get’s away with no punishment.

We will never have real equality until all gender biased laws and practices are stricken and erased and everybody is treated exactly the same. This includes divorce, rape charges, child abuse charges, child support, child custody, domestic violence, wages vs. time spent on the job, healthcare, etc.

An Amazing Article from the Boston Globe on Feminism

Probably one of the BEST articles I have read so far on this subject.


 

From the Boston Globe

Women Against Feminism: Some women want equality without anger

By Cathy Young | SEPTEMBER 02, 2014

DO AMERICAN women still need feminism? A controversial social media movement called Women Against Feminism features women explaining — mostly in “selfies” with handwritten signs — why they do not. Feminist responses have ranged from bafflement to vitriol or mockery to arguments that these women don’t know what feminism is. But while this new movement has its silly aspects, it raises some much-needed questions about feminism’s present and future state — and, in the weeks since it first attracted notice, many prominent feminists have helped validate some of the criticisms.

One might assume that Women Against Feminism is a traditionalist backlash against gender equality. Yet many of the women say they reject feminism precisely because they are pro-equality. A blogger who goes by AstrokidNJ has analyzed a week’s worth of posts on Women Against Feminism and found that 46 percent were egalitarian, 19 percent endorsed men’s issues, and 12 percent criticized feminist intolerance toward dissent. Only 23 percent reflected traditionalist views such as support for distinct sex roles, chivalry, or full-time motherhood.
Some commentators suggest that pro-equality women who reject feminism are misguided. After all, the dictionary defines feminism as belief in the social, economic, and political equality of the sexes. But these women usually know that (and often sarcastically stress that they do). They simply think that real-life feminism has come to mean something else: vilification of men, support for female privilege, and a demeaning view of women as victims rather than free agents.

Are they wrong? Well, one of Women Against Feminism’s harshest critics, leading feminist pundit Jessica Valenti, makes it clear that being a feminist means believing that women in America and other modern liberal democracies are “a victimized class.” They are “systematically discriminated against in school, work, and politics,” “objectified,” and “harassed, attacked, and sexually assaulted.” This, Valenti asserts, is “not a matter of politics, but of truth.”

But contributors to Women Against Feminism disagree. They note that many studies show the pay gap to be largely due to women’s choices of more family-friendly — and life-friendly — jobs. (As for school, American women have long outpaced men in educational attainment, currently earning about 60 percent of college degrees.) They take issue with rape statistics that lump alcohol-fueled, judgment-impaired sex with sexual assault. They argue that men face their own negative stereotypes. They point out that men are at higher risk than women for most violent crimes — and may be far more likely than previously thought to experience domestic violence and sexual coercion. They say that in many areas, from divorce to mental health to workplace safety, it’s men who have it worse.

These arguments need to be engaged, not dismissed and ridiculed. Yet many feminists have responded with nastiness that would normally be called misogynist: In the New York Observer, Nina Burleigh focused on a few photos showing too much skin or black-polished fingernails to sneer that the women were “dressed and posed like ads for DIY escort services.”

Meanwhile, even as feminists deplore accusations of male-bashing, many are embracing “ironic misandry” (hatred of men). Valenti recently tweeted a picture of herself in a t-shirt declaring “I bathe in male tears.” Other examples include the mottoes “Ban Men” and “Kill All Men” and Internet jokes that turn book titles into castration one-liners. Feminist commentators such as Slate.com’s Amanda Hess defend this practice as a cool in-joke that annoys sexists and mocks the idea that feminists are anti-male.

But aside from the fact that cliquish in-jokes are off-putting and “ironic” hate can still sound pretty hateful, the “misandry” joke falls flat because there are too many real-life examples of feminist anti-male bias. The National Organization for Women has fought against more rights for divorced fathers, often suggesting that men who advocate for such rights are abusers. Feminist groups urging stronger enforcement of domestic violence laws have cried foul when such tough policies have led to more arrests of women. Anti-rape activists have championed campus rules that brand the man an attacker and the woman a victim if they have sex while equally intoxicated.

Women Against Feminism is largely a reaction against this mindset. The anti-feminist egalitarians believe that, whatever feminism’s positive past gains, its dominant modern version is hostile to men and demeaning to women. They are right.

I don’t like the “anti-feminism” label because of its common meaning of “anti-woman” or “anti-equality.” But, call it reformed feminism or egalitarianism, we need a movement for true equality — against both old-fashioned sexism and new gender polarization.

Cathy Young is a columnist at Newsday and RealClearPolitics.com. Follow her on Twitter @CathyYoung63.

Honey Badger Radio: Zoe Quinn and Feminist Mean Girls

This week the Honey Badgers discuss bullying, depression, sexual bribery, bukaki, the war on anti-feminists, and vaginal slime. Enjoy.