Tag Archives: feminism

Latest Posts


I found a particularly egregious error in the social studies textbook used in Hillsborough County’s sixth grade classes. You know how much fun I have picking on educators and their horrible textbooks, so click to share the mirth.

I found a spam email in my inbox that used Obamacare in its sales pitch.  You know how much fun I have picking on leftists and their horrible policies, so click to share the mirth.

I found a humorous phrase that feminists use to sound academic, and you know how much I enjoy offending feminists, so click here to share the fun.

I found another layer of Orwellian doublespeak that may go into usage now that the shine is wearing off the old Common Core lingo.   You know how much I enjoy picking on the academic sounding, but ridiculously empty Common Core Standards, so click here to share the joy.

Okay, I’ll see you when I see you.  Hopefully soon, I really need to post about my garden.

A brief but brilliant post at a fairly new-to-me blog . . .


There once was a Jewish girl named Pauline.  As a child, Pauline was found to have a talent for the arts, especially music; she was quite good at the piano.  And she received an excellent education.

But Pauline would not exploit or develop these gifts. She threw away all her potential; instead of pursuing higher education and a career before settling down and getting married (and thus ‘having it all’), she opted for marriage at age 18, becoming a homemaker.  Pauline was then burdened with a child at 21, and another at 23.  This forced her to follow her husband wherever his career took him, though sadly, fortune proved elusive for the family; his various early business ventures weren’t very successful, and shortly after his fortunes began to improve, he passed away from illness.

Pauline ended up having to move in with her sister and her sister’s husband…

View original post 163 more words

Offending Feminists Through Music

Participating in Stacy McCain’s fourth annual Offend A Feminist Week is both an honor and a pleasure.  I know, I know:  some folks will not find this exercise “helpful,” but let me explain why they are wrong.

Actually, let me allow Mr. McCain to explain, since he’s a man and therefore much smarter than me:

“The empowering message of feminism is that all women are victims.  Victimhood is synonymous with power. To deny women their victimhood is therefore to re-victimize and disempower them.”

Thanks so much for clearing my mind on this issue, Mr. McCain.  I was starting to wonder:  why in the world is making fun of my own gender so much fun?

It’s fun because, unlike the typical feminist of today, I’m not empowered by victimhood.  I am empowered by throwing off the shackles of political correctness.  To reject political correctness is to liberate one’s mind.  Even if it’s a feeble female mind.


I participated last year with a post still worth a click if you didn’t back then.  Dunno if I’ll be able to wax as profoundly poetic this year, what with all the homeskooling, cooking, and house cleaning I have to do.

Sometimes, it’s hard to be a woman.

Which leads me to the musical portion of my post.  There’s something here for everyone, young and old, so just scroll down ’til you find your style.


Or good old-fashioned?  How about Andy Williams, singing a Bacharach tune to warn us ladies:

“Don’t think because there’s a ring on your finger you needn’t try anymore.  For wives should always be lovers, too.  Run to his arms the moment he comes home to you, I’m warning you . . .

Day after day, there are girls at the office, and men will always be men.  Don’t send him off with your hair still in curlers.  You may not see him again . . . .”

Speaking of classic, there is always Elvis:

If 60’s were your decade, scroll no further.  Mick Jagger will offend you now:

It’s down to me
The way she talks when she’s spoken to
Down to me, the change has come,
She’s under my thumb
Ah, take it easy babe

(Ain’t the women screaming with rapture an extra kick in the feminist pants?)

And check out this more obscure 60’s song, Be A Caveman:

Were you a teen in the ’80’s, like me?  If so, you might appreciate a little B-Boys.  This one’s dedicated to MCA:

And finally, I just heard this song on the radio yesterday, and I right like it.  Language warning, however.  Apparently, it’s a bluegrass-style cover of a rap song:

Happy Offending, everyone!

P.S.  Which song was your favorite?  Do you have one that should be added?

(Hat Tip:  I found several of these songs at drownedinsound.com.)

Cross-posted at Disrupt The Narrative

Feminism and Politics

The whole “female” aspect of politics sure is running strong lately.  First, it was the Sandra Fluke thing, about which I didn’t bother to post.

Then, I got all et up with the “Top 25 Political Moms” contest, which turned into a no-holds-barred, claws-out feminist v. conservative battle-to-the-death, or something.  (Like poor old Henry Gunther, I got cut off at the very end, landing in #26.)

Next came Hilary Rosen’s new and exciting mashup of Marxist class warfare with The Mommy Wars.  Then, I get this tweet about whether the gender gap in voting might be permanent.  (I know a solution to this problem, but a lot of you won’t like it . . .)

In the midst of all this, here I am trying to prepare for Offend A Feminist week.

This is my credulous face.

And preparation I sorely need, for although I am female and therefore qualified in at least some respect to comment on All Things Feminine, my view of “feminism” as a field of sociological thought is about the same as my view of “psychiatry” as a field of medicine, which is to say I view them dimly and from as far away as possible, wearing my credulous face all the while.

My understanding of “feminism” was no better back in the day when I fancied myself a feminist-type professional.  If the “old me” were forced to pull a definition out of her nether regions, she might have said this:  feminism is the political movement which gave women their due rights, requiring men to treat them as equals instead of as second class citizens.

Thanks to anecdotal evidence and additional experience, I am now more aware of the leftist underpinnings of the feminist movement.  Beyond that, I can’t say much more.  I’ve never taken a class, nor read a book on the topic.  Blog buds like American Housewife and Missy Sandbox clearly know more.  (Perhaps you kind ladies can gin up a “feminism for dummies” post for the likes of me.  Ha.)

As much as I might wish otherwise, the feminist movement is not relegated to the history books.  This movement is alive and well today.  So, I have made an effort to educate myself about what “feminism” means in the political landscape of 2012.  I used the “Top 25 Political Moms” contest site as a starting point.  Here’s what I found.

Over at PhD in Parenting (via Mamafesto), I learned that the Mommy Wars are not about different opinions on parenting.  Rather, the problem is we don’t have the right governmental policies in place to support mothers:

“As with real wars, these mommy wars are not truly about a clash between moms, but about a system that has let people down, poured fuel on the fire, and left each family to fend for themselves.”

If Congress would just subsidize day care, pay for all employees’ maternal and paternal leave, and fast track that universal health care (freeing folks up from those healthcare-covering jobs they hate), then maybe the Mommy Wars would just go away.  Don’t worry, the government will get the funds needed from those evil rich people, Insha’ Allah.

Over at Feminste, I learned that requiring a single mom to work in order to get federal assistance is really, really mean because:

“The crux of the issue is that Mitt Romney’s definition of ‘stay-at-home mom,’ like his definition of ‘good mom,’ is limited to women in his racial group and economic class. I would wager a lot of money that when Romney made those comments in January, he wasn’t even thinking of the term ‘stay-at-home mom’ — because a low-income mother who relies on state aid is not a stay-at-home mom. She’s a welfare cheat, or lazy, or a drain on society. She’s undignified.”

Of course, this quote is not based on Mr. Romney’s own words, but from the feminist’s interpretation of conservative fiscal policy.  Funny, how not wanting to pay an endless stream of federal tax dollars for an activity the government cannot control (motherhood) gets demonized as the act of a meanie who thinks moms are lazy, cheating, and undignified.

Over at The Radical Housewife, I learned that “FREE FEMALE LABOR PROPS UP OUR ECONOMY,” which is bad, because it helps prop up capitalism.  And capitalism is bad.  Apparently, the feminists of yore screwed up Big Time, because:

“The revolution should have demanded as many stay-at-home dads as female CEOs.  But it didn’t.  The goals of the movement became allied with making money, which is one reason why feminism gets accused of being anti-family.  Family is so precious is cannot be allied with something DIRTY like MAKING MONEY!  It’s the madonna/whore binary all over again.”

Okey-dokey, then.  Does anyone see why I try to stay clear of feminism?

Over at the Monologues of Dissent, mercifully no opinion is offered as to the wisdom or lucidity of Hilary Rosen, Sandra Fluke nor anyone else as of late (save Governor Walker).  Still, I learned that the stereotyping of girls as the ones who like to attend dances, and boys as the ones who could care less about dances, is a form of gender discrimination that should be combatted.


If we humans don’t have real problems, we’ll just make ’em up if we need ’em, right?

Finally, over at One Flew Over The Playpen, I learned how the government is the entity that will resolve our “Mommy War” differences, if only we let it:

“The real story is that it IS a major problem that every mother does not have the ability to stay home for more than a handful of weeks when her children are born.  And by stay home, I mean the very hard job of providing the constant, grueling care that goes into raising a child.  Our government simply does not truly value the importance of giving women this time with their family, no matter what their economic situation is.

Stay-at-home moms – you know this.  You know you WANT every woman to have the ability to stay at home with their kids during the day if that’s right for them . . . .  So if for even a second, you are feeling compassionate for picked-on Ann Romney, think about whether her husband as president would do anything to make raising children easier for women.  Does he support extended paid maternity leave?” /italics added/

Ah, there you go.  American moms don’t have value unless the federal government recognizes them with cash dollars.  So. . . if Romney started touting extended paid maternity leave, would he then become a darling of the feminists?

/cue crickets/

Clever, too, is the insistence that I, as a stay-at-home mom, “know” that I want every woman to have the ability to stay at home with her kids.

I want every woman to have the ability to stay at home with her kids?  Well, sure.  That would be great, if possible.   Unfortunately, some women sabotage their own best interests, including their ability to stay at home with the kids.  Unfortunately, some men sabotage their partner’s best interests, including their partner’s ability to stay at home with the kids.

The government cannot fix these problems.

I want every woman to get exactly what they want out of life.  I want them to be smart enough to realize that libertarian and conservative policies will maximize their liberty.

I want them to have a pony, too.

The thing is, not every woman wants a pony.  Not every woman wants to marry wisely.  Not every woman wants to be a stay at home mom.

And that’s okay.  I’m totally cool with that.

I wish the left were cool with that, too.

Cross posted at Disrupt The Narrative

Love Pads The Blog

When personal events interfere with blogging about political events, I like to remember Joel Hodgson’s sage advice in his ballad “Love Pads The Film.”

Today I choose to pad my blog with linky love to King Shamus.  Since he’s down with the nasty streptococci bacteria, he could use a little blog padding himself.  Just reblog this post and feel better soon, homey.

The reason I choose his Royal Shamus is his thoughtful comment to my Offend a Feminist post.  This comment is good enough to warrant a post of its own.  Citizen Tom noticed, too.  So, without further ado, here is the King on motherhood:

“I think feminists dismiss motherhood because they honestly do not understand the power mothers have in shaping culture.

For most of the 60′s and 70′s what did feminists–most of whom were ladies of the Left–focus on? Getting women into the workforce. I think they did that because they were convinced that once women had money independent of men, the sisterhood would bring on further reforms which would conform to their basically liberal ideas.

But what if it hadn’t worked out that way? What if feminists instead attempted to change the way that women raised their kids and ran their households? If the feminists had succeeded in re-educating women about their methods of care-giving and instilling family gender roles, they might’ve made far more progress than they did by focusing on employment and education.

The reason why they might’ve been more successful if they had adopted that strategy is because the power mothers and wives have is immense. It is a diffuse power, spread over many years and across innumerable households. It isn’t nearly as high-profile as, say, the founder of a feminist magazine or the department chairpersonship of gender studies at a well-respected university.

However, the women of the house has 24/7/365 access to infants and toddlers. That means she can shape the way that children think in ways that feminists in politics, media and academia can only dream about. Spread out over a generation of children, moms have the ability to fundamentally change a society if they choose to do so.

And interesting proposition.  If all the left-minded feminists had stayed home and focused on changing the attitudes/gender roles of their own children, would they have been more successful?

What say you?

Isn’t there a saying that sums up Shamus’ view of motherhood?  Something about the hand that rocks the cradle?

Later gators.

Time To Offend A Feminist!

The things you miss when you fail to make the rounds.

Lesson learned.  At least two days are left.

This is the third annual Offend A Feminist Week, created by none other than Rule 5 creator Stacy McCain.  His inaugural post decimates decades of feminist construct in the space of six paragraphs.  My favorite bit:

Nothing so offends a feminist as the idea that somewhere there might be a woman who considers it an honor and privilege to be “Just a Mom.”

Ooh!  That somewhere is here, in my house.  I’m a stay-at-home.  Worse than that, I had a professional career and dumped it.  Best thing I ever did outside of marrying hubs.  The next best thing after that would be having the kids.  See where I’m going with this?

Time to use the quote Bob Belvedere found:

As a male stay-at-home wifey, every week is National Offend a Feminist Week for me.  I accomplish it by breathing.

This week is celebrated mostly thru Rule 5 and vintage sexist advertisements.  I don’t have to tell you gents to see Mr. Belvedere for Rule 5.

Matt’s Hideout is the place for vintage advertisements, and they are hilarious:

Here’s Your Breakfast In Bed Dear, Please Don’t Beat Me Again!

Wives Belong In The Kitchen!

If You’re Fat It’s Because You Don’t Do Enough Housecleaning, Lazy Cow!

Oh My, Naughty Wifey’s Been Buyin’ Cheap Coffee

I had no idea this kind of humor used to be acceptable.  Or is it humor at all?

I’m at a loss.  The pre-feminist world is alien to me.  Any readers old enough, do tell what it was like.  I mean what it was really like, not what feminists tell us about the horrible old patriarchal order.  During my lifetime, our culture entirely absorbed the tenets of feminism.  Even conservative women usually have feminist beliefs of varying degrees.

Okay, I’ve used this word “feminist” several times, and I know that people disagree about even its most basic definition.  I don’t want to get into that.  I just want to get straight to the offending.  So here it goes.   

There is nothing wrong with this image of a woman being a man’s servant.

There, I’ve said it.  Servant.  Servile.  Serve.  We think it’s great when applied to military service, religious pursuits, or feeding the poor.  Why does it make us wince when it’s applied to a woman’s relationship with a man?

Perhaps the implication of force (he is showing her her place) makes us uncomfortable.  Perhaps the discomfort is increased with her place being so obviously beneath him.

But what if this image does not involve any force?

Ah, how can that be?  No woman with half a brain would choose to serve a man in this servile manner!  Would she?  And anyways, if she chooses to do so, then why does he have to show her anything?

Well, why would any woman with half a brain choose to serve an unmanly, unworthy guy?  It’s actually kind of quaint, this ad.  The idea appears to be that you’ll impress your wife by sporting these ties in bed.

Is it possible that our equality-obsessed culture could rob us of a great joy?

Here’s what I’ve noticed.  We are all serving something or someone.  All the time, every second of every day.  By blogging right now I am currently serving myself.  When I’m not serving myself, I’m serving the kids, or the hubs, or a friend by babysitting or hanging out.

When you work, you are serving a variety of things and people:  yourself, your boss, wealth, customers, clients, the public, the government.  Of course, there’s also the whole “serve God in all things” thing that the Bible throws in the mix.

The world I live in tries to tell me that serving my husband is demeaning.  It is not.  Of all the myriad people and things that I have served over the years, nothing has been more gratifying.

I Want To Be A Manic Pixie Dream Girl

Mom recently reminded me of a time long past, when youthful Linda was sure she would never want children.  (It’s funny, how one gets amnesia regarding opinions long discarded.)  That same day, I read Lynn’s latest post, which happens to be about feminism.

The combination of these two things awoke the memory of what a feminist I used to be.

That got me thinking: what are the feminists up to, now that we are all equal and stuff?  (The ones that aren’t regretting their liberated past, at any rate.)  So I googled, and randomly chose among the results.

In a sea of search engine results, marketing is key.  And who can pass up a charmingly named website?

Not me.  Thus, onto Bitch Magazine I clicked to discover a video about Tropes v. Women.

Admittedly, the website and video are much less, well, bitchy than the name implies.  Still, the video is astonishingly serious about a very silly topic:  “The Manic Pixie Dream Girl.”

The what?  Apparently, this is a coined term for a common trope:  a “bubbly, shallow cinematic creature that exists solely in the fevered imaginations of sensitive writer-directors to teach broodingly soulful young men to embrace life.”

Oh, okay:  Who’s That Girl.


Well.  That is offensive. 

“Women are not here for your inspiration, celebration, or to coax you out of your troubles.  You might not know this, but we are full and complete human beings with our own troubles, interests, and creative endeavors.”

Uh, okay.  The idea that us LAY-dees have our own troubles and interests is fair enough.  Why we cannot also inspire men is beyond me, though.

“The Manic Pixie perpetuates the myth of women as caregivers at our very core:  that we can go fix these lonely sad men so that they can go fix the world.”

I dunno.  Sounds like a pretty good arrangement, if you ask me.  I devote myself to a man, and he does all the hard sh*t.  Sign me up!

Wait a minute, I already signed up.

It might not be such a myth, this notion of women as caregivers at their core.  Not that it matters.  The whole “feminism” subject is irrelevant.  These films are not targeted toward the male audience.  They are chick flicksEmotional pornFor women

The female character is shallow because the movie is aimed toward female viewers.  The “Manic Pixie” is nothing more than a bare framework that the female viewer can use to insert herself into the fantasy of Saving The Hot and Muscular Tortured Soul. 

I shouldn’t need to point out this fact:  tortured souls are awesome.  Gals love danger, but need security.  The tortured soul provides both!

So . . . it’s comical, really, to watch a feminist complain about a subset of the chick flick genre, because of its shallow portrayal of women.  The women are shallow because they aren’t the reason you’re watching, Ms. Silly.

And if you aren’t interested in watching, then welcome to my club:  Chicks Who Hate Chick Flicks.

Personally, I blame Steven Spielberg for this aversion.  When your first crush, at the tender age of ten, is a guy with a whip, how can these wimpy chick flick heroes compete?