The Fishin’ Around Friday Open Thread »« The Footy Frenzy Friday Open Thread

How I learned to stop worrying and love their #ListeningToMenFace

Poehler Fey

There was a moment when I was browsing the #ListeningToMenFace tweets over the weekend when I wondered whether it might be considered genuinely harmful.

If you’re a twit-refusenik or somehow missed it, this was a hashtag under which women, mostly but not entirely from feminist corners, posted photos, animated gifs of the faces they make when men talk to them. Some were posed selfies, most were celebrity grabs.

After laughing my way through the first few dozen entries I saw, the sheer weight of numbers began to wear me down. Had it become, I asked myself, something of a misandrist parade? An opportunity for women not just to strike back against the prevailing winds of patriarchal social mores but to gratuitously elevate a one finger salute to half the population of the planet?

I scratched my chin, cocked my head in a moment’s contemplation, then came to the following conclusion: “Ally…. get a grip and stop being such a butthurt bucket of toss.”

So yes, we can add the #ListeningToMenFace to the ever lengthening list of Fucks I Could Not Give. The key flash of realisation for me was that if so many women could identify with the joke and feel motivated enough to join in, there was a real and genuine itch there which needed to be scratched. And truth be told, looking at the photos, the videos and the gifs, a pretty hefty hunk of them looked rather familiar. Not only can I conclude that a lot of different women have shown me their #ListeningToMenFace over the years, I can add that on most occasions it was probably entirely deserved.

We live in a society where relationships between men and women – whether intimate, emotional, social or economic – are governed by myriad expectations, assumptions, habituations and complex etiquette. This means that, to some degree, most of us talk slightly differently to people of a different gender. Many of us might like to to think that we are immune to such habits. Most of us would be wrong, I think, but even if it were true, we all still interpret the other person’s words and behaviour through a lens that is coloured by their gender.

If we ever build a society free of restrictive gender norms, we might find ourselves in a position where the notion of a #ListeningToMenFace or indeed a #ListeningToWomenFace has no purchase or meaning, no humorous or satirical kick. As it is, I get why #ListeningToMenFace is funny. I also get why a #ListeningToWomenFace tag can be funny too, and if anyone expects me to argue it is different when men do these things about women because power relations blah blah, then sorry – a bit of gentle, impertinent ribbing of women by men is similarly lodged in the fattening file of Fucks I Could Not Give.

And of course it didn’t take long for the first such tweets to appear. The one truly saddening and worrying thing about this minor kerfuffle is that this evening when I looked, the top image under #ListeningToMenFace was this endearing photo of Tina Fey and Amy Poehler (above), the top image under #ListeningToWomenFace was the serial killer Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs. A bit of gentle ribbing was answered by a reminder of brutal misogynistic violence. As the meme would have it, this is why we can’t have nice things.

I will not, however, allow that kind of unpleasantness to spoil anyone’s fun. As an original contribution to the #ListeningToMenFace game, I must pay tribute to my favourite fictional woman of recent years – Chloe O’Brian from 24. Without wishing to downplay her vital role in preventing umpteen biological weapons attacks and nuclear explosions, or to ignore her technical brilliance, but for all that her true genius is in pulling a #ListeningToMenFace. I mean, look.

chloe_listening

 

And it wouldn’t be right to leave you without my own #ListeningToWomenFace. I did contemplate a gif from Scanners of that dude’s head exploding, but while I have had a few days like that lately, it really wouldn’t be accurate. The truth of my #ListeningToWomenFace is probably something like this:

ghostbuster

 

 

Comments

  1. A Masked Avenger says

    I scratched my chin, cocked my head in a moment’s contemplation, then came to the following conclusion: “Ally…. get a grip and stop being such a butthurt bucket of toss.”

    This.

    A #ListeningToMenFace is the natural reaction to #Mansplaining.

  2. Jacob Schmidt says

    What is the meaning behind the your #listeningtowomenface? I don’t get it.

    While I can’t say for sure I don’t treat men and women different when talking to them, I’m pretty sure I don’t have a specific face.

  3. Archy says

    The interesting thing about mansplaining is it some women can ASSUME they know more but simply have a differing view of life. A woman who feels she’s an expert on domestic violence may feel ‘splained too by a male who may actually know more, I’ve occasionally seen some women say the “mansplain” line to men who talk about male victims of DV ffs. Sometimes the term is used correctly but sometimes it’s just a woman feeling arrogant about a topic as if she knows better, like anything to do with gender equality (including the male side) simply because she is female and feels the oppressed automatically know more about it.

    “If you’re a twit-refusenik or somehow missed it, this was a hashtag under which women, mostly but not entirely from feminist corners, posted photos, animated gifs of the faces they make when men talk to them.”

    Is it just for mansplaining, or when men talk to them fullstop about anything n everything?

  4. Sans-sanity says

    I get the feeling a lot of folk are offended by stuff that doesn’t actually offend them on the face of it, but instead are offended by the feeling that if the shoe were on the other foot there would be such an outcry… and equality damnit!

    If you pay attention you see it coming from both sides of the gender debate.

    Most of that probably belongs in a “Fucks Folder”, regardless of how irritating we may find the scenario of arch-hypocrisy we have constructed in our minds.

  5. redpesto says

    Fogg:

    So yes, we can add the #ListeningToMenFace to the ever lengthening list of Fucks I Could Not Give. The key flash of realisation for me was that if so many women could identify with the joke and feel motivated enough to join in, there was a real and genuine itch there which needed to be scratched.

    Or, if enough of the right people on Twitter tweet about something, it ‘trends’ and gets tweeted about more, rapidly followed by further media coverage based on that trend. See the past trend of #Stuff[group identity]Say’

    a bit of gentle, impertinent ribbing of women by men is similarly lodged in the fattening file of Fucks I Could Not Give.

    I take it you missed the reaction to the whole #EndFathersDay spoof? Perhaps the best reason for men not to give a fuck about the latest #feministmeme (or whatever) is because it doesn’t matter what they do, they’ll still be the ones on the wrong side of the argument, even if the meme does become ‘a misandrist parade’ (Ally, I know you’ve argued that misandry really is ‘a thing’ but there are plenty of others who scoff at the idea). They should just smile: it’ll confuse everybody.

  6. Hunt says

    One thing you can say for social media. It’s shown the world just how much time everyone wastes thinking up useless shit. No wonder we haven’t cured cancer yet.

  7. mildlymagnificent says

    Or, if enough of the right people on Twitter tweet about something, it ‘trends’ and gets tweeted about more, rapidly followed by further media coverage based on that trend.

    I know I’m a million years old and all that (birthday over the weekend), but I have real trouble coming to grips with this. What on earth is newsworthy or noteworthy when social media sites talk about what social media sites are saying about what social media sites mentioned how often and it also got mentio … ? What?

    Being a baby boomer, what was newsworthy when I was late teens to mid 20s were the Vietnam War, protests against war, protests against conscription, civil rights in the US, indigenous rights here, nuclear weapons, the space race, then the Nixon scandals in the US. I’m glad the fear of nuclear war has receded, but that’s about all that’s really different. Now we also have war and various other quite serious problems … but this trivial stuff makes it into “real” news sites.

    But as Ally doesn’t say, there is not a barrel big enough to hold the number the fucks I do not give for this stuff.

  8. Adiabat says

    I think the equivalent for #ListeningToMenFace wouldn’t be #ListeningToWomenFace, as that’s not so much a recognisable ‘thing’, but would be something like #TuningHerOut.

    Having to tune out a wife’s or mothers nagging would be sufficiently recognisable as a trope.

  9. says

    Indeed, Adiabat, men not listening to women would be the complimentary trope to this. Men don’t listen to women, and then they turn around and expect women to listen to them–not just listen, but listen with an air of being gratified and lucky to have such pearls of wisdom passed down.

  10. redpesto says

    mildlymagnificent

    What on earth is newsworthy or noteworthy when social media sites talk about what social media sites are saying about what social media sites mentioned how often and it also got mentio … ? What?

    One explanation is that’s the equivalent of ‘watercooler TV’ – the stuff that people talk about as chit-chat.

    A second is that it ‘gets the word’ out or ‘raises awareness’ (or, in this case, shows that ‘Yes! Feminists really do have a sense of humour, honest!’).

    The third is that it saves some media outlets the bother of paying reporters to do actual reporting – serious or not – compared to watching Twitter trends, animated gifs and other forms of amusing free – sorry, ‘user-generated’ – content.

    And that’s just the stuff with cats.

  11. Hunt says

    Indeed, Adiabat, men not listening to women would be the complimentary trope to this. Men don’t listen to women, and then they turn around and expect women to listen to them–not just listen, but listen with an air of being gratified and lucky to have such pearls of wisdom passed down.

    You’re mistaking a status for gender issue. High status women will dismiss lower status men as easily as the reverse. If you don’t believe it, you just haven’t been around that dynamic, for one reason or another. It couldn’t be anything but the case, since the concept of “mansplaining” is predicated on the infuriation that come with someone not properly observing status. A women thinks she should not be addressed thusly due to her status. I’d like to be able to say that consequently women are more prone to correct the same type of behavior by introspection. Unfortunately, I doubt it. Women who think their status warrants it will “womansplain” to men just as readily as a mansplainer will to women.

    Overall, are there more mansplainers than womensplainers? Probably, but this is also probably due to the fact that men still occupy more jobs that require they ‘splain things to people. So you look at, say, a plumber who briefs you confidently at the end of a job, even though you know the rudiments of plumbing. Is he mansplaining to you? Would you prefer he be diffident, meek and unsure?

  12. johngreg says

    Archy said:

    Sometimes the term is used correctly but sometimes it’s just a woman feeling arrogant about a topic as if she knows better, like anything to do with gender equality (including the male side) simply because she is female and feels the oppressed automatically know more about it.

    My sense of the use of the term “mansplaining” is that it is mostly used to stifle disagreement with a given feminist’s (male or female) rule-of-the-day, and such use usually amounts to little more than womansplaining (tongue in cheek on that last wee bit, because I think both terms are ludicrous and deeply counterproductive).

    Indeed, SallyStrange. Women don’t listen to men, and then they turn around and expect men to just shut up and listen to them — and not just listen, but listen with a grovelling air of being shamed, gratified, and lucky to have such pearls of wisdom passed down.

  13. marduk says

    @johngreg

    This comes from the discussion of being a ‘feminist ally’ I suspect.

    This is why I’m not a ‘feminist ally’ and would prefer to be free range and have my own opinions (the vast majority of which are the same as feminist platform anyway), this is exactly what is demanded of you. To be some sort of silent lapdog to teenage bloggers who insist on writing “Bell Hooks” because they haven’t yet reached the section of the curriculum where they are introduced to her. Forget it, accuse me of mansplaining if you want, I know some of the people who wrote the books you are misquoting and misunderstanding, I’m afraid your lived experience doesn’t give you superpowers.

    Indeed, the demands on an “ally” are so ridiculous that it means only people with covert and usually slimier agendas (e.g., Hugo Schwyzer) would ever go along with it, its so self defeating. We don’t need to be friends for me to agree with someone.

  14. Steersman says

    Sally Strange (#10):

    Complementary, not complimentary.

    Yes, although one might argue that it’s not very “complimentary” to be faking it – so to speak – on the part of either men or women. Apropos of which, y’all might enjoy a recent post on the topic by Maggie McNeill, The Honest Courtesan.

    However, you might want to take a page from Giliell’s playbook and learn to qualify your statements: sometimes some men and some women don’t really listen to what people of the other sex, or even the same sex, are saying. As in your response to my comment on yours about crocheting and women in mathematics … ;-)

  15. drken says

    @ 14: marduk
    You don’t always have to agree with your friends. I’m not sure when “ally” become to mean, “must agree with us on everything”. You can argue with your friends. If they challenge you on something, isn’t them withholding friendship, they’re just disagreeing. Personally, I wouldn’t call myself a feminist ally, but there are some feminists I’m allied with.

    That being said. I’m trying to think of all the times I’ve seen that face. I’m sure it’s been a few. I’ll probably be better at recognizing it now. I’m not sure it’s a good idea for women to give up their best tricks. ;)

  16. marduk says

    @drken

    I wrote another longer post and it didn’t post for some reason.
    Anyhow, just check out any of the handy “online guides” to being an ally.
    You’ll see there is nothing you are allowed to do, think or say except to mutely nod in agreement.

    Its just not worth it to join a club that doesn’t want you in the first place, so what is the point unless you want to hang out or be in an ‘in crowd’ that hates you anyway for some reason? My sense of what is right and wrong in politics and society has nothing to do with things like that and I doubt I’m different from most people.

    Apparently when John Stuart Mill wrote “The subjection of women” he was just establishing himself as the first mansplainer.

    I would contrast this with the gay rights movement or the civil rights movement which, with exceptions, were largely open to anyone who wanted to turn up and have changed the western world within living memory from a starting position of being routinely beaten, imprisoned and in some cases murdered by the authorities for even trying to organise.

    Do you think MLK would have started a “Listeningtowhitepeopleface” hashtag and would it have helped if he had? Do you think Nelson Mandela gave Albie Sachs several sheets of paper telling him what he was and was not allowed to say or think? Of course not.

  17. 123454321 says

    “This means that, to some degree, most of us talk slightly differently to people of a different gender.”

    Has anyone ever walked into a lift just to overhear a short, pointless conversation between, say, two or three females (usually in their teens or twenties) talking about make-up, perfume, clothes, handbags etc. with a guy tagging along who, despite sometimes appearing fairly rugged, appears entirely overcome with acting out his feminine-like behaviours inc. purposefully over-feminised expressions coupled with feminised articulated expressives which are elequently delivered in a way that makes him sound soooo feminine and so totally interested in what they are saying? Yet you can tell that, underneath, he really doesn’t give a shit! Then you see the same guy talking with a bunch of males and his whole persona dramatically reverts to ooze masculinity. Then you see him with a mixed group and he doesn’t know what the fuck to do. So funny.

    Same goes for women but it’s not so obvious and not so funny, for some reason.

  18. johngreg says

    Well, I tend to treat men and women, and listen to them, and make listening to them faces, much the same. So, as you can imagine, I tend to spend a lot of time on my own.

    Which is fine by me.

    I hate, really hate, social/gender games.

    Hate ‘em.

    Will not, do not, play ‘em

  19. Hunt says

    I think the inception of ‘mansplaining’ as a valid concept or as “important concept that should be taken seriously” is an illusion created by social media phenomenon. As pretty much reflected by the actual history of the word: a woman write an article describing how men explain things to her. In a normal audience she would get a few ‘hits’ on the idea as it resonates with those listening to her. But this is the internet, where N isn’t just ten or a hundred. It’s a thousand or ten thousand. Many other people, men and women chime in that, yes, they too have experienced the phenomenon. The hits are in the hundreds, but since we’re not thinking in internet numbers, we mistakenly conclude that ‘mansplaining’ is a “thing” that should be taken seriously. The meme is born. Now out of an audience of ten million, ten thousand people (0.1%) are convinced that mainsplaining is a serious concept, discuss it, write blog posts about it, write articles about it. It becomes established in feminist doctrine. This is how social media is making us stupid.

  20. avern says

    Not buying it. Blogging or commenting about “not giving a fuck” is a paradox since the effort proves that you indeed give a fuck on some level.

    I think you just want to show what a cool dude you are by not complaining about a bunch of feminists acting like sexist pieces of shit.

  21. daveallen says

    Not buying it. Blogging or commenting about “not giving a fuck” is a paradox since the effort proves that you indeed give a fuck on some level.

    Unless you find your own journey from caring to not being bothered interesting in and of itself.

  22. Carnation says

    I have to say, possibly to the surprise of some, that the concept of “mansplaining” irritates me. Talking at length in a patronising manner is something not specific to males, nor is moaning about mild bouts of illness.

    Of course, these are fairly benign stereotypical tropes to be filed alongside “hapless father”, but they are irritating nonetheless.

    Back to the OP, the age and sex of a person (and maybe even their accent/clothing/bearing) has an immediate effect on how one interacts with a person. For example, if a man my own age or younger started off on a racist diatrabe (this has happened), I would challenge him on it. If a man in his 70s did, I’d be more tolerant. Why? Good question – benign ageism? Likewise, if an old person started talking to me on a bus, I’d be more inclined to listen than with a young person. Why? Benign ageism, I suppose.

    If a young woman asked me directions, I would most likely engage far more enthusiastically than if it was a young man. Why? Because, depending on a few variables, it’s reasonably likely that I’d suggest meeting her again at some point. If a man did, I’d be helpful but no more. Why? Opportunistic sexism?

    If I’m walking through the centre of town and see a group of young, drunk men, I feel a bit nervous. More than once, this particular scenario hasn’t ended well for me. This happened just last week – then I read European accents and realised they were tourists. I felt relief. Why? Benign, self-hating, racism, perhaps?

  23. lelapaletute says

    This twitstorm passed me by, but I just wanted to come on here and say THANK YOU for your article in the Graun blowing the gold-digger myth out of the water (my Graun account has been blocked for some reason – I never dun nuffin’!). The “all women trade sex for money” canard is one of my greatest bugbears, and such BOLLOCKS, especially when the evolutionary psychology comes out. Thumbs up for the rebuttal!

  24. marduk says

    Ally deals with the gold-digger but not, as promised, the “trophy wife”.

    The trophy wife is also a myth though, the the divorce stats demonstrate there is no foundation for the view that men ditch their wives for a younger model. Given women initiate nearly all divorces it is actually found women are less likely to get divorced the older they are, not more likely. From the position of demographic statistics, it is virtually unknown, its probably only thought to be common because it is something that Hollywood stars do.

  25. redpesto says

    Carnation:

    If a young woman asked me directions, I would most likely engage far more enthusiastically than if it was a young man. Why? Because, depending on a few variables, it’s reasonably likely that I’d suggest meeting her again at some point.

    Congratulations! You’ve now become a datapoint on EveyrdaySexism: ‘Why do men think it’s okay to hit on women who just want to ask for directions?’

    The other explanation as to why you’d only be helpful to a man might be because you’re straight or he’s not registering on your gaydar.

  26. Adiabat says

    Hmm, I’ve just read it and Ally doesn’t really ‘deal’ with either. The study he cites doesn’t really show anything relevant to the discussion, he has a paragraph stating that markers of wealth makes men more attractive to women but posits this as supporting his argument for some reason. He states that ‘studies show’ that women are ‘marrying down’ (in terms of education) but then admits that the opposite is true for wealth and income (which is the very thing under discussion – education isn’t considered a factor in the “gold digger” claim). And in the comments his argument is “well, you don’t see many couples with a younger woman and rich older man” which, well, isn’t a strong argument. Yes, a tiny number of women marry rich older men, but rich older men are in short supply. If Donald Trump didn’t meet his current wife then it’s possible that he would instead be married to one of the women who ended up with a non-rich man her own age (and his current wife would be married to a non-rich man her own age). It doesn’t prove anything (either way) about women’s willingness to marry rich older men relative to poor older men.

    If his point is that “gold-digging” (hate that term) isn’t a universal trait for women, then I agree (my guess is that it’s a subset of women who have this trait). But he’s far from ‘dealt’ with the claims that women are more attracted to men who are wealthy.

  27. Adiabat says

    (my guess is that it’s a subset of women who have this trait).

    I should add that a subset of men are probably also willing to relent on the ‘attractiveness’ condition for a partner in place of wealth, but likely have less opportunities to do so. I suppose we’ll only be able to call it a ‘gendered trait’ after research looking into the proportions of people with this trait for each gender, which would be hard to capture.

  28. Carnation says

    @ Redpesto (current favourite: organic basil, yours is the poor cousin pesto)

    “Congratulations! You’ve now become a datapoint on EveyrdaySexism: ‘Why do men think it’s okay to hit on women who just want to ask for directions?’”

    Nope, see “depending on a few variables” – such as “is she in a hurry” – “did she seem interested” – “is she a tourist” – “is she roughly my age” – “am I attracted to her” – “does she seem attracted to me” etc etc

    What isn’t there is “am I drunk enough to pluck up the courage to ask her out, oblivious to her actual thoughts” – “will I get emo if she says no” – “will I gift upon her hypergamous evil intent” – “am I a fool unable to understand basic social ques”

    Also, of course, “hit on women” has a bit of an aggressive, “creepy” feel to it, no? I said that I’d suggest meeting her again. I was thinking very specifically of tourists, or when I’m a tourist.

    @ Adiabat

    “I suppose we’ll only be able to call it a ‘gendered trait’ after research looking into the proportions of people with this trait for each gender, which would be hard to capture.”

    Hmm, this from the character who maintains steadfastly that men are discriminated against because they are men in family courts, without the type of gender comparative study that you cite here.

    You aren’t convincing.

  29. redpesto says

    Carnation

    @ Redpesto (current favourite: organic basil, yours is the poor cousin pesto)

    We could trade barbs based on usernames, on the basis that yours is the poor person’s double cream, but I’ve got my ‘listening to other bloggers face’ on right now. That said, one of the variables you overlook is that she doesn’t get round to asking you for anything other than directions to somewhere else, which makes it a bit of an odd opening ‘line’.

    Also, of course, “hit on women” has a bit of an aggressive, “creepy” feel to it, no? I said that I’d suggest meeting her again.

    You might suggest that; my pastiche headline might be a result from the woman’s perspective. I can’t comment on your ability to read social queues, unless asking you for directions to a really cool website ends up with you asking to meet on elsewhere in cyberspace ;-)

  30. Adiabat says

    Carnation (31): Lol, after all the discussions we’ve had on this blog you still can’t grasp my actual position on the nature of the discrimination in family courts can you? You’ve always been a third-rate thinker.

    Going by the principle that the best way to learn something is by figuring it out yourself I’m not going to tell you my position right now. Though to help you get there here are a couple of posts:

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013/07/27/the-hetpat-first-directive/#comment-7650

    http://freethoughtblogs.com/hetpat/2013/07/05/fathers-4-justicesolutions-lies-in-our-families-not-our-family-courts/#comment-5348

    Also consider this: Even if the trait isn’t specifically gendered, the negative consequences of that trait may affect one gender more than the other. If the “gold-digging” trait is present equally in men and women, given the current setup of society and interaction between the sexes, which sex do you think be most affected by stigma against “gold-digging”?

    Understanding that, along with those posts above, would help you understand where you have gone wrong.

    P.S I’m still waiting for a response from you to that first link.

  31. SteveF says

    Hmm, this from the character who maintains steadfastly that men are discriminated against because they are men in family courts, without the type of gender comparative study that you cite here.

    You aren’t convincing.

    Is it not convincing because the point being made is incorrect or because you feel the person giving the argument is a hypocrite? If the former, could you perhaps expand on that?

  32. Sigil says

    Quote pussy footing around.

    There is widespread hatred of men and its normal, this is because of a certain hate movement populated by people so entitled that they roll their their eyes with no comprehension or appreciation for the fact that everything they touch and use to make their lives easy and comfortable 24/7 has been out there by the same people they are attacking.

  33. Pete says

    I don’t have a listening to women face as far as I’m aware, but I certainly have a reading Guardian feminist face, although that was very nearly broken with the recent article accusing the World Cup of being sexist, ageist and disablist. It also appears to be anti cannibal which is clearly discriminatory.

  34. richenry says

    I have my own #RollingMyEyesWhenWomenActInsipidlyGirlyBecauseTheyWantSomethingFace, but I doubt that hashtag will catch on twitter.

  35. richenry says

    Ooh, an accusation of misogyny, do explain. I’ll try not to make the #Don’tGiveAFuckFace

  36. Holms says

    Quote pussy footing around.

    There is widespread hatred of men and its normal…

    I bet you see the ListeningToMenFace often.

  37. pikeamus says

    I bet you see the ListeningToMenFace often.

    I suspect not. He probably doesn’t spend that much time talking to women.

  38. B-Lar says

    All you have to do to be a misogynist is patronisingly dismiss the (depressingly widespread) experiences of women, by making it all about your own petty annoyances.

    You don’t have to hate a subset of people in order to make their lives more unpleasant. You just have to fail to treat them like people.

    Have you got your “#DontGiveAFuckFace” on yet? Why not tell the world how many fucks you don’t give? Maybe other people who don’t give a fuck will show some solidarity, and you can all give no fucks together! That’ll show those #UppityBitchez! #TakingBackMisogyny #TakeTheRedPill #HergleBlergleDerp

  39. johngreg says

    B-Lar said:

    All you have to do to be a misogynist is patronisingly dismiss the (depressingly widespread) experiences of women, by making it all about your own petty annoyances.

    Nah. All you have to do these days to be a misogynist is disagree, however mildly, and on whatever topic, with almost any contemporary feminist, male or female — or anythingotherkininbetween — especially the types of so-called feminists that populate places like much of FTB, Skepchick.org, and similarly slightly radfemmy locales.

  40. johngreg says

    Great Googley Moogley, Holms! Surely you are not denying my lived victim experience? Are you?

    Egads, I say, egads.

  41. Jrod says

    So I’m not supposed to take Sigil’s contention that women universally have easy lives, and that these lives of ease are solely the result of the efforts of men, as misogyny? He’s all but saying that women are worthless and men heroes. That’s not “disagreement,” that’s blatantly slurring women.

    Yes, if you state that women have accomplished nothing and do no work, that is blatantly misogynist, not to mention a big fat lie.

  42. Frank Gabardino says

    So brave and empowering.

    When women mock men it evokes memories of the Great Female Slave Liberation of 1978.

    Sisters, your Oppressors will fall like wheat to a scythe the more you Speak Truth to Power.

    Onwards and Upwards!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>