Christian talk radio is a real swamp of idiocy. Here are a couple of hosts babbling about feminists.
They did surprise me, though. They started talking about the two kinds of feminists, and oh no, I thought, here comes that boring anti-feminist crap peddled by Christina Hoff Sommers and happily swallowed by every MRA on the planet, that there are gender feminists and equity feminists. But no! I guess there is a lower level you can reach.
Their distinction was between cute feminists and ugly feminists.
I’d like to say we were done there, but they also go on to blame gays and feminists for the decline of western civilization. They’d get along just fine with a few atheists I know.
(via The Raw Story.)
“a cotton-picking husband”?
also, they think Sara Palin is a feminist. O.o
Sarah Palin style feminist? What?
Sarah Palin is a feminist?
OK, fine.
We are a hivemind.
I can’t quite wrap my head around the “reasoning” that says that a woman will become the head of the EPA as a consolation price for not finding a husband. Because ass-backwards (though, I wouldn’t accept a husband as a consolation prize if I wanted to be the head of the EPA and didn’t get the job), and because, if they’re talking about Jackson, completely missing the part that she’s both married AND got to be the head of the EPA.
I’m among the uglies I would guess. (No, I don’t want to listen to the clip, I’m already feeling ill, thankyouverymuch.)
When we first came to this country we moved to to Texas.
It was quite a culture shock because we knew nothing about the Christian right wing before. We tried to explain. Many things. It didn’t work. Many people came to hate us because we are not only foreigners but also two of those left-wing professors who derail their kids.
Many years later we are still in the south. Still teaching. And I still like listening to AFR in the car. I consider it freak show but if you pay attention to the shows and commercials you understand how well organized those freaks are.
Sarah Palin is from this planet?
“They decided to become selfish, narcissistic family destroying force”
AHAHA! Awesome, just awesome. It’s totally not selfish or narcissistic to believe that you’ve been granted the right to dominate others by a mystical, invisible being. There is no projection going on here at all.
Well, she’s female and apparently believes she has the right to exist as something other than a personal servant for a man and the children that man “gave” her. This might be acceptable if she was still working effectively as a tool for a bunch of other men, but she’s not really anymore so it’s about time to withdraw her Official Seal of Approval™ and label her as “the enemy”. Can’t let any of those women get away with thinking that they’ll be accepted as equals on a permanent basis, y’know.
Such tones of bile and contempt in their voices.
@sparks
Well, she did defeat the moon nazis in Iron Sky.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1034314
People like that are allowed to own guns AND ammunition? I’m surprised they haven’t shot more than their mouths off.
I also think it’s pretty telling that they start the conversation talking about feminists, and by the end of the clip they’ve merged seamlessly into talking about women in general. It’s clear that they don’t see any difference between “feminist” and “woman doing something without my explicit approval”. I’m going to venture a guess that “male feminist” is a contradiction in terms in their minds.
Wow, almost word for word what Emmett Tyrell was saying back in the 80s ( no not 1880’s).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3fB3xPyHV8
Clip from a Firing Line interview with Christopher Hitchens and Tyrrell.
“They’d get along just fine with a few atheists I know.”
Well, of course they would. Since when is believing or not believing in god a basis for common decency? As noted before, that’s about the lowest bar possible. Not sure what could be lower. In fact, the deplorable comments about feminism are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to shared values between atheists and believers. There’s a complete laundry list of shit opinions both groups have, as evidenced on this blog.
The decline of Western Civilization. I finally get the connection. Feminists upset ass-hole MRA’s who complain on AM Radio. Right wingnuts listen to AM Radio. They oppress women. This creates feminists. This upsets ass-hole MRA’s … Thus Western Civilization is destroyed by AM Radio division of the Conservative Entertainment Industry.
Brett and Chigau: “Sarah Palin…feminist?”
Well she did appropriate Mama Grizzlies for herself and like-minded women. Grizzlies and polar bears have remained strangely silent on the topic.
Whenever you think you’ve found the stupidest, most misogynistic statement, someone will, without fail, say something stupider and more misogynistic.
Pee Zed, you perfidious, concupiscent, carnally importuning, uh, guy, don’t you understand that women are only valuable for their sensual appeal to men? That’s why it makes sense to categorize them all into “ugly” and “cute.” It’s the natural extension of Biotruths! PS all individuality must be crushed under the hegemony of the heterosexual WASP nuclear family unit, argle bargle bargle, amen.
Yours in Christ,
Jean La Mamelle
Damn you for posting this PZ. Presenting a painful level of stupid like this should require a permit or license or something, less the unsuspecting get hurt.
Hey, Everybody!
Did you know that Harvard grants MBA?
If these guys are married, I pity their wives.
These are like Xian morning-zoo shock-jocks, right? Saying all kinds of intentionally provocative and offensive stuff all the time? On purpose?
No?
But actually it strikes ne that the guy’s concept of cute and ugly feminists–as explained, not as labeled (by the other guy)–is not that diffeent from Hoff’s dichotomy of equity and gender feminists.
Sommers.
Hoff Sommers.
whichever.
Pity not. Their wives most likely agree with them.
“The goal is lots and lots and lots of fornication.”
Not sure about your police work there, boys.
Christian talk radio says this stuff all day long. Its usually said more politely, but the sentiments are largely the same.
Wow, that is just plain stupid. They are right about one thing, I am a feminist and I don’t want to submit to a husband. Duh, why would I? But I don’t give a shit if they think I am a cute feminist or an ugly one. I’m only bitter about the sexism that has tried to hold me back all my life.
I only see two stooges, where is the third one?
Honestly why any person would want to submit to sub-garden slugs? Unless there is some fetish I’m not familiar with.
@ChasCPeterson
Not at all different.
“There are a lot of homely women in women’s studies preaching these anti-male, anti-sex sermons is a way for them to compensate for various heartaches — they’re just mad at the beautiful girls.” – Christina Hoff Sommers
It’s called ‘financial repression’ and it entails existing in a society where your ability to eat is bound by various laws and regulations to your ability to find a husband with a job. It was quite popular in the 40s and 50s, I believe.
And by “popular”, I of course mean “mandatory”.
I am confused as to why exactly a waxwork Stephen Hawking and a bearded owl in a grey pullover are on the radio saying terrible things about people.
That they can actually say that Sarah Palin is a feminist with straight faces tells you all you need to know about how little they understand feminism.
As for all the rest – it is your standard rightwing shock-jocking. They are riling up their base against the supposed evils of ‘feminazis’ as a substitute for, you know, actually having any arguments that make sense.
They are sadly inadequate people who rage against a world that they and their toxic ilk are becoming ever more irrelevant to. They are on their way out, that much seems clear – the question now is how much damage their nasty little religious delusion will cause, and how many more lives it will ruin, before it finally stops twitching.
I made it about two minutes in. Then my head asploded.
Someone owes me a new keyboard. This one has bits of skull and brains and stuff all over it. Ewww.
Ah well, at least nobody would be listening to the program. Americans are far too intelligent to fall for that sort of nonsense.
A very young Christopher Hitchens, it seems. It’s very sad that the arguments haven’t changed since then, and can be traced back to at least as early as the women’s suffrage movement, as Christopher mentions in the video. The arguments never change, only the target changes to the latest change in society that feminists support.
There was no way I was going to go and watch the two above give there poor “rant” but I did try to watch the firing line clip but could only watch about 5 min. I had forgotten what it was about that program that I found so hard to take when it was on. Christopher Hitchens was good even Buckley was sometimes listenable but his conservative guests were on the whole pompous jerks who were in some kind if competition to sound ever so f’n smug and superior.
I had to turn away.
uncle frogy
So you’re saying the Thunderfoot / slympit ilk bear a heavy resemblance to right wing radio nuts? That must burn…
And we can even hope the RWRNs will be just as insulted by the comparison.
I honestly never knew the whole “male oppression” “male rights activism” thing existed until reading this blog. They don’t even try to ascribe it to ancient biblical gender laws like a good Sultan of Arabia should. (almost an impressive, entertaining caliber of nonsense though; credit where due). Pretty sure feminism is based on a level of oppression that actually occurs in reality. Perhaps to quote the random ominous character who relentlessly follows hundreds of us to our home/work/school entrance every day, making highly detailed requests the entire time, we should tell these men to “quit being so paranoid” and “get over yourself, lady”. Quid pro quo.
Whoops I’m half asleep; mistake mentally edited out. But the nonsense point stands.
The guy on the right is downright ugly. Who wants to bet that the guy on the left isn’t gay?
Dickheads!
Er, no. Please refer to the community standards and practices of this blog.
““The other ones are those who we should say are, um, attractive-deficient. … These are the kinds that will look for careers mostly likely in academia. … They can get jobs in the government bureaucracy, they can work as an FDA administrator, or you can actually run the EPA if you want, or academia. Academia’s actually the best place because you can be angry, ugly and you can also get tenure. It’s great, it’s the big trifecta.”–Taken from the article.
My knowledge of women’s issues, and feminism, is somewhat lacking. I am doing by best to learn but I still make mistakes in my thinking. Everyone does this, from time to time. Part of the problem is that some of these issues we can be blind to are rooted deep in our culture. It is easy for both men and women to miss some of this deep rooted sexism. And why it can be easy for some to have a knee-jerk reaction when it is brought to light. There are some talks at that tough to have, but worthwhile.
And then we have this. I read the article, but didn’t watch the video. I know I’m still learning about what feminism means, and seeing the culture in which I grew up in a slightly different light. But even before this, even before I peeled back the layers of my own blindness to it, statements like this would have driven me up the wall. The most troubling thing of all, to me, is that people are listening to this crap, and agreeing.
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
That movie sounds like “so bad it’s good”!
+ 1
+ 2
:-) In France maybe!
“They’d get along just fine with a few atheists I know.”
Well isn’t that a cute little barb…. Gee wiz kids don’t ever have a thought that differs ever the slightest from the demi-god PZ…. He might say mean things about you on his “freeFROMthoughtblog”. You don’t get to say them, only he and his ilk…. Free speech for some not all huh.
….
……
….
You don’t get to say them, only he and his ilk…. Free speech for some not all huh.
You get to say whatever you like on your own dime. Nobody else who happens to operate a platform/megaphone is obliged to let you use it.
Bother. Borked the blockquote. The first sentence is quoting Caveman 73 at #47.
No, tigtog, you cannot infringe on his rights to freeze peach. Telling him that he cannot say whatever he likes on someone else’s podium is exactly the same as shipping dissenters off to be executed.
Emrysmyrddin @ 44
“Er, no. Please refer to the community standards and practices of this blog.”
Err, sorry – not with you.
WHY, PZ?! Why? Why did I listen to all of that? It burns! Ohhhh, it burns! *sobs*
@Caveman 73
“Well isn’t that a cute little barb…. Gee wiz kids don’t ever have a thought that differs ever the slightest from the appropriately-named “Caveman”…. He might say mean things about you on someone else’s blog and then strangely expect everyone else to listen carefully to his meaningless ramblings. You don’t get to say them, only he and his ilk…. Free speech for some not all huh.”
FTFY. Works both ways, you douche.
@gardengnome
From the commenting rules, as linked to in the sidebar:
In other words: Calling someone a dick (or any variant of that word) is not kosher around here.