Fischer: God Will Use ISIS to Punish America for The Gay »« Craig James Isn’t Very Bright

Woman Pens Astonishingly Stupid Anti-Feminist Column

From the Department of Internalized Misogyny comes this column at BarbWire, written by someone named Brandi Kay, who describes herself as a “white, single, heterosexual, conservative, Christian woman” and an “equal opportunity offender.” It’s one of the dumbest things you’ll ever read on the subject.

Some women resented the rights and freedoms that men had in America. So, before, during, and after prohibition, it was the right to vote that women pursued aggressively. ‘Women’s Suffrage.’ Initially, women’s right to vote led to the nullification of both their vote and their husband’s vote. Politicians, seeing this trend, saw dollar signs, and women, being emotionally driven creatures, were easy to appeal to. And so the pandering to the female voter began, and continues to this day.

Oh yes, of course. The only possible reason a woman could want the right to vote is because they resent men. Not because they’re human beings capable of thinking for themselves or anything. I will agree with her only to this extent: She sure as hell shouldn’t vote, not because she’s “emotionally driven” but because she’s a moron.

After achieving the right to vote, women quietly plotted and pushed boundaries further than they ever had been before. The next major leap for women was the Women’s Liberation Movement which is ongoing, even today. Women wanted to become college educated, work outside the home, and run for political office. These goals are noble pursuits for single women and they should have equal income for equal output. But, once a woman has children, those goals are no longer noble. The woman should be the person raising her children, not a child care center, full of strangers. There have been too many cases of abuse at the hands of these strangers, and at the expense of the normal development of the children.

I’d be willing to bet that she also rails against women who don’t have children, since she rails against birth control as well, which means she’s really arguing against women getting an education or having a job at all.

Some of us, actually miss the times when men were men and that was a trait to be admired. Women in suits and loud exultations of the unfairness toward women have ruined life as we knew it. They took the feminine mystique out of the equation. Some of us liked being treated like we were something special, to be treasured by all men.

Sorry, but this man certainly isn’t going to treasure someone like you, or any man who would want someone like you.

Comments

  1. Mr Ed says

    A logical conundrum. If she is correct that women are emotionally driven creatures we should ignore her as this is just an emotional outburst. If she is wrong and women are rational beings then we should ignore her as her whole premiss is based on a debunked stereotype. I just need to know why I’m ignoring her.

  2. Chiroptera says

    Initially, women’s right to vote led to the nullification of both their vote and their husband’s vote.

    What does this even mean? Is she complaining that a woman may vote differently from her husband? That’s kind of the point; even if every man and woman were married, and if every husband and wife voted exactly the same way every time, then there would have been no need to give woman the vote; the result would have been exactly the same percentages, but with twice as many votes.

    The reason that woman need to be able to vote is because not every woman is married, and many women have different opinions than their husbands.

    Did I just misunderstand what she wrote?

  3. some bastard on the internet says

    The woman should be the person raising her children, not a child care center, full of strangers.

    This seems to assume that working moms have no investment into their children’s lives. Not only is this a myth (my own mother worked two jobs and still made time for all six of us, even during those hard times when both parents worked really late and had to get us a babysitter), why is there no such claim made about the dad (mine also worked two jobs and was still a large part of our lives)? Why is it okay for the father to be a much smaller part of the lives of their children then the mother?

    Once again, we see why we need feminism: because the status quo turns fathers into little more than vague figures who, at best, barely have a tangential relationship to their children.

    ______________________________________________________________________________________________
    Then again, I did wind up becoming a filthy-bleeding-heart-godless-feminist-liberal-scum (despite both my parents being very conservative christians), so maybe she has a point there.

  4. says

    Some of us liked being treated like we were something special, to be treasured by all men.

    You know what makes me feel special and treasured? Freedom. Reproductive freedom, economic freedom, and freedom from pompous sexist windbags– male or female– who think those things shouldn’t be as important to me because I’m a woman.

  5. says

    Gretchen “You know what makes me feel special and treasured? Freedom.”
    Well, sure, Freedom sounds nice. But once you use it it ends up all tarnished. Better to keep it in a box, with your hopes and dreams and opinions and thoughts and personality.
    Unless you’re a man. Then it’s fine to use it. Because Men and Women are different, you see. Men are better.
    But don’t get me wrong. Women serve a role. The key word being “serve”.
    [this is the point where you slap me and storm out]
    Well. What’s her problem? Perhaps I used too many big words. On the other hand, perhaps I’m simply a terrible human being. Must be that first one.

  6. John Pieret says

    women, being emotionally driven creatures, were easy to appeal to. And so the pandering to the female voter began, and continues to this day.

    And men ain’t? Put up a flag, pull out an old uniform now three sizes too small and wax poetic about duty, honor, country and watch the tears flow … and politicians know it too. It is a myth that women are more emotional than men. They are just socially conditioned to express their emotions more openly than men but any good politician can play on male emotions like Paganini played the violin.

  7. howardhershey says

    What do you want to bet that she wants single mothers to work, regardless of why they are single (divorce, like my mother, abuse, early pregnancy), especially if they have that horrible skin defect that Obama has?

  8. Reginald Selkirk says

    Some of us liked being treated like we were something special, to be treasured by all men.

    How many men does she want to be treasured by?
    It’s unusual to see a conservative come out in favour of legalized prostitution like that.

  9. DaveL says

    The woman should be the person raising her children, not a child care center, full of strangers.

    If only having there were a second parent around somewhere, then one parent could take care of the children while the other worked, and vice-versa. Never mind, that’s crazy talk.

  10. doublereed says

    Some of us, actually miss the times when men were men and that was a trait to be admired.

    YES WE KNOW

    But a lot of us DON’T miss those times. You’re perfectly free to not vote.

  11. jaybee says

    The woman should be the person raising her children, not a child care center, full of strangers. There have been too many cases of abuse at the hands of these strangers, and at the expense of the normal development of the children.

    I guess we should also prohibit parents from raising their own children, as there are far more cases of parents abusing their children than daycare centers doing it. Studies have also shown that kids that kids going to day care and/or preschool have, in general, better social skills. it isn’t all a one way street — there are good things about it and bad things about it. But it is a lot easier to think about it if one paints it in black and white.

  12. dugglebogey says

    I got a speech like this from a woman who was a friend’s mother.

    She was explaining to me how a woman can’t communicate directly to god, and that she had to go through her husband to determine god’s will.

    This was shortly before she divorced him for accepting a job she didn’t approve of.

    I guess when she was alone and husbandless (as she is to this day) she has no way to communicate with her god? Or do you think she changed her mind on the subject. (She continues to go to church twice weekly.)

  13. says

    These goals are noble pursuits for single women and they should have equal income for equal output. But, once a woman has children, those goals are no longer noble. The woman should be the person raising her children, not a child care center, full of strangers.

    Well, on the plus side, it would mean Sarah Palin would go away.

  14. dugglebogey says

    “Some of us, actually miss the times when men were men and that was a trait to be admired.”

    Don’t worry, I’m sure if you look hard enough you can find a piece of trash husband that will blacken your eye when you ‘get out of hand.’

  15. dugglebogey says

    The woman should be the person raising her children,

    Everyone knows a man raising his children is a fucking faggot….

  16. smrnda says

    No surprise that someone already beat me to pointing out that kids are more likely to be abused by parents than at child care centers. I wish I had a figure on abuse at religious settings to compare it to as well.

    I’m also surprised anyone is still pulling out the women are ‘emotional’ nonsense, it isn’t like men, full of emotions, don’t run around shooting people because their feelings are hurt.

  17. Chiroptera says

    Some of us, actually miss the times when men were men and that was a trait to be admired.

    Like that MMA guy that Ed blogged about the other day?

  18. Pierce R. Butler says

    … before, during, and after prohibition, it was the right to vote that women pursued aggressively.

    Eh what? Both the 18th (alcohol prohibition) and 19th (women’s vote) amendments took effect in 1920. The former got repealed in 1933; the latter has a good chance of lasting until 2017, or maybe even 2021 (after which certain Strident Harpies™ will start militating again, unless Pres. Carson rams through a 29th Amendment requiring them to get married and their husbands to shut them up).

  19. John Horstman says

    Does Google Translate do Conservaspeak? I can’t even follow the first quoted passage.

  20. Chiroptera says

    And so the pandering to the female voter began, and continues to this day.

    Some people would call this “listening to what your constituents want and promising to deliver that.” And it’s kind of unavoidable in a representative democracy.

  21. D. C. Sessions says

    It is a myth that women are more emotional than men. They are just socially conditioned to express their emotions more openly than men but any good politician can play on male emotions like Paganini played the violin.

    It wouldn’t shock me to find that men are more susceptible to emotional manipulation [1] than women to the extent of their belief that they aren’t emotional, and thus blind to it.

    [1] And I don’t mean just by appeal to the Executive Head.

  22. John Pieret says

    D.C. Sessions @ 23:

    men are more susceptible to emotional manipulation [1] than women to the extent of their belief that they aren’t emotional, and thus blind to it

    Yeah, something like that occurred to me too.

  23. says

    John Horstman “Does Google Translate do Conservaspeak? I can’t even follow the first quoted passage.”

    Uppity broads were jealous of men’s ManStrongness. Sneaky politicans took advantage of their LadyWeakness, leading to emotionally-bound VaginAmericans voting for manipulators (but not for mans. For ladies. ‘Ladipulators’?)…”

    Next paragraph of the story translates as:

    … leading to feminists and other sluts pushing societal boundaries (in previous ManPlaces like getting an education, getting a job, getting in to politics, and getting laid) and destroying the Natural Order and everything that America holds dear.

    Etc.

  24. Stacy says

    …before, during, and after prohibition, it was the right to vote that women pursued aggressively.

    Whu? Prohibition began in 1920, the same year women got the vote. There was no need to pursue the right to vote during prohibition–women already had it.

  25. cafeeineaddicted says

    @4
    If I recall correctly, one of the arguments put forth against giving women the right to vote was appealing to husbands by saying essentially “Now your household is represented by your vote, but if your wife votes, she might vote for the other guy, nullifying the effect of either vote”

  26. amrie says

    Chiroptera @4

    Did I just misunderstand what she wrote?

    She doesn’t understand it either. This reads like an unsuccessful attempt by a pathologically ignorant person to regurgitate stuff they’ve heard somewhere. The writing style should be familiar to anyone who has ever graded introductory course exam papers.

  27. says

    The next major leap for women was the Women’s Liberation Movement which is ongoing, even today. Women wanted to become college educated, work outside the home, and run for political office.

    Yeah, what a bunch of uppity broads, thinking they can choose the life they want to lead. The pre-women’s lib time was total bullshit: career choices for women were teacher, nurse, librarian. If a female was one of the few who participated in organised sports, you were a dyke and not dating material. “Old Maid” speaks for itself. Societally enforced gender conformity was a prison for women (and men) and was tossed into the trashbin of history for the utter garbage it was, though the fight is unfinished.

    And you, Ms. Brandi Kay, are getting a free ride to speak up with this smug, holier-than-thou bullshit from the very people you disparage for fighting for women’s freedom. So just stfu and go bake some cookies, woman.

  28. Pierce R. Butler says

    Much to the stress of my stereotypes, all the comments I saw about this piece at BarbWire were acridly negative.

    Did the Evil GayFem Conspiracy™ send the Lavender/Pink Troll Patrol over there with wire cutters?

  29. Gvlgeologist, FCD says

    Dammit, Pierce, that’s exactly what I was going to comment on. Somewhat of an improvement.

  30. says

    Women wanted to become college educated, work outside the home, and run for political office. These goals are noble pursuits…

    So right there she’s admitting that the core agenda of feminism is right.

  31. pianoman, Heathen & Torontophile says

    “The woman should be the person raising her children, not a child care center, full of strangers.”

    Brandi, I highly doubt you would be able to do a better job of it than a child care center full of strangers.

  32. says

    Some of us, actually miss the times when men were men and that was a trait to be admired.

    I usually hear this sort of thing expressed by whiny man-children who complain that they can’t get a date through coercion or trickery. They also essentially accuse men who successfully get dates through character traits like kindness and respect to be “cheating,” sacrificing their dignity to the feminist rule in exchange for snoo-snoo.

  33. says

    Bronze Dog @36:

    They also essentially accuse men who successfully get dates through character traits like kindness and respect to be “cheating,” sacrificing their dignity to the feminist rule in exchange for snoo-snoo.

    To which those men who got dates through kindness should just reply, “Hey, I got snoo-snoo didn’t I?”

  34. Kierra says

    Jaybee @13

    I guess we should also prohibit parents from raising their own children, as there are far more cases of parents abusing their children than daycare centers doing it.

    I thought the exact same thing and then I clicked on the link. She’s actually worried government mandated sex education courses that destroy children’s innocence.

  35. Yellow Thursday says

    feminine mystique

    Yes, women are so mysterious. They aren’t actually human beings at all, but strange creatures that live in the wilderness, hidden from anyone (men or other women*) who might try to learn about them.

    *I often hear women saying things to the effect that they don’t understand women, either.

  36. eric says

    Initially, women’s right to vote led to the nullification of both their vote and their husband’s vote.

    Republicans controlled Congress from 1917-1933, with the 19th amendment getting ratified in 1920. So this person has no idea what she’s talking about – suffrage didn’t really change voter patterns or representation at all. Looking at correlations, the depression seems to have had a much bigger impact on voting patterns than suffrage did.

    The woman should be the person raising her children

    As a father, I resent that quite strongly. It’s not an either-or job; everyone benefits when everyone participates.

  37. bushrat says

    Much like Brandi Kay, I too miss the time when men were men. You could walk into some other inferior guys cave, beat him down, then drag his woman back to your own cave and she was your woman now, just like God intended. Damn you Obama.

    I know after I graciously allowed my woman the vote she immediately began to quietly plot. I’m pretty sure the cat it in on the plan, but the dogs are still uncommitted. I don’t yet know what their plotting, but I’m sure it must be my DOOOOM!!! My woman and my cat are pretty evil that way.

  38. mildlymagnificent says

    Women wanted to become college educated, work outside the home, and run for political office. These goals are noble pursuits for single women and they should have equal income for equal output.

    She doesn’t mention all those pernickety details that she’d die on a hill to keep for herself despite not being a feminist like all the rest of us wicked wanton women.

    Like her own credit card and bank account, to start with. (I’m really not ready to believe that even this escapee from a clown car might think that a man’s signature should be obligatory on every financial undertaking of every woman.)

  39. says

    Recent news pretty much describes what “men were men” is all about, as Ed pointed out earlier. I will say, however, that I treasure, respect, and admire my wife of 34 years. I open doors for her, I pull out chairs for her, I do part of the housework for her. And when she said she needed to get a job and get out of the house, I helped her find one. I don’t do any of that because she can’t do it for herself, I don’t do it because she’s too emotional to be rational (quite the contrary, actually), I do it because I love her and I try to do everything I can to make her feel special — to me.

    I don’t know how “feminists” (scare quotes intentional) might feel about this, but it works for us.

  40. iknklast says

    There have been too many cases of abuse at the hands of these strangers, and at the expense of the normal development of the children.

    Because children are never abused by their parents, no never. And there are no regulations of the child care facilities to help prevent problems (not perfect, but well, who is it that wants to do away with regulations? Conservatives)

Leave a Reply