Previous post

The Top 10 Craziest Posts At Feministing

Next post

The Top 10 Craziest Posts At Feministing

Originally posted at David Horowitz’s Newsreal:

The world of leftist feminist extremists was rocked to its very core this week. Seven years after founding Feministing, Jessica Valenti (one of the most well-known femisogynists) announced that she was leaving the blog she created. Besides being busy with other projects, she’s 32 now, which is like, totally old, and Feministing is only for young femisogynists. And everyone knows that 32 is practically grandma territory. And while Valenti said she would still be involved in an advisory capacity, her departure caused much sadness and sorrow among lefty feminists in the blogosphere. Here at NewsReal, though, we thought: what better time than to honor Jessica Valenti’s femisogynist legacy at Feministing?

Like most blogs being written by femisogynists, you can find the typical subjects at Feministing. They write about the glories of abortion, bash conservative women, reinforce feminist myths, and defend sluthood culture. But this post isn’t about the typical Feministing posts. This is about the ones that went above and beyond, the ones that took ridiculousness and idiocy to a whole new level.

Runner-up: Taylor Swift is a sexist anti-feminist

Most people applaud Taylor Swift. She’s a young woman who has built a career on her talent alone as a singer and a songwriter. While she’s attractive, she hasn’t used her looks or her sexuality to advance her career. Her music isn’t filled with sexual themes, she doesn’t parade around on stage half-dressed like most other pop stars, and she doesn’t carry on in public sleeping around, getting drunk, and doing drugs. In short, Taylor Swift has proven herself to be a classy, talented woman. She sings, plays guitar, writes her own songs, and produces her own music. She’s become a self-made superstar, selling over 10 million albums. You’d think feminists would cheer her, right? Well, there are different rules when you’re talking about femisogynists. And in feminazi-land, Taylor Swift is sexist. What makes her so unfeminist? Well, she writes about love, and stuff. Heterosexual love. And duh, that’s sexist!

The song is typical Taylor: true love (heterosexual, monogamous and blonde love, I should say) is tested and ultimately prevails. Despite the hardships, Taylor and her One True Love make it work and make it last and have two adorable blonde babies because their love is, like, so strong. Some observers have noted that instead of daydreaming about a prom date, Swift is now singing about a husband and father to her children, a sign that she might be attempting to grow up in the public eye without taking the “sex it up” route that aging teen starlets are so prone to. All the same, this song doesn’t deviate from her tried, tested and very popular formula.

… It can be so difficult to switch of the voice in your head that says, “this is really sexist!” long enough to watch a so-bad-it’s-good reality TV show or grind to reggaeton. There are lots of critiques to be made of Taylor Swift’s message and branding and yeah, Beyonce really did have the best music video of all time.

If Taylor Swift was more “empowered” by her sexuality or something, a la Britney Spears perhaps, would that make her less sexist? Heaven forbid she write about the things she wants to write about — they might not be Feminist Approved! After all, doesn’t she know that all things female must be approved by the fascist feminists first? What’s worse is that other girls like Taylor Swift. Young girls might be attracted to the idea of true love, a husband, and a family. How horrible! All of this because a few so-called feminists said so. Traditional love, romance, marriage? Anti-feminist! Building your own career on your terms with music based on your own thoughts and feelings? Eh, that doesn’t matter. Femisogynists demand that women pass an ideological litmus test in order to be welcomed into the club, and Swift fails — by virtue of being too traditional. It’s not about women making their own choices anymore. Their choices must be approved first.

10. Hating photo models.

Meet Daniella Sarahyba, a Sports Illustrated swimsuit model. A few years back, she committed the unthinkable sin of partnering with Taco Bell for a promotion allowing customers to direct her in an online interactive photo shoot. Feministing was, predictably, outrageously outraged!

One of our readers sent us an email recently, rightfully confused as to why Taco Bell’s hot sauce packets are now printed with a website that leads you to perhaps the creepiest ad campaign ever. “Direct Daniella” has the user follow around a swimsuit model, taking pictures of her in a weird stalkerish webcam way.

Reader Karlen wrote, “What this has to do with lousy ‘Mexican’ fast food is beyond me.” Indeed. So I did a little digging. Turns out, Taco Bell has joined up with Sports Illustrated to promote the magazine’s swimsuit issue.

Exotic, huh? It’s like a big ole chalupa of sexism and grossness wrapped in some fetishization of women of color. De-licious.

Right. A supermodel willingly participating in a promotion where men get to — gasp!! — photograph her is disgusting and sexist. Of course, one could argue that the entire point of modeling is to be photographed. So what is causing the outrage here? That your average Taco Bell customer gets to be the photographer instead of a “professional”? That a woman might be seen in a skimpy outfit? That men might enjoy seeing her in said skimpy outfit?

It’s a good thing that women have been cured of all their ills. Clearly, there are no issues troubling women around the world if this is what feminists need to focus on. Oppression in the Middle East, sharia law, stonings, honor killings… nah, that stuff is no big deal. Not when you compare it to a supermodel getting photographed on a beach. Sports Illustrated, now that’s real sexism.

9. Dress codes are meant to oppress women.

In most grown-up offices, there are things called “dress codes”. For men, this usually requires dress slacks, a button-down shirt, and depending on the formality of the job, a tie and suit jacket. For women, it’s of course more complicated. Some offices, for example, want women to wear pantyhose; others don’t. For women, the rules can be much more varied — we have more fashion choices than men do, after all. Regardless of how lenient or strict the dress code is, though, the point is the same. There’s a dress code to follow, and that dictates what is and is not acceptable to wear to work.

Typically, baring cleavage in the workplace is considered a major no-no. Not in Feministing’s world, though. For them, women should be able to dress however they damn well please, dress codes be damned!

Apparently this woman’s supervisor sent this charming note because someone had been complaining (!) about her showing a bit of cleavage. According to the sender, “as I’m currently 7 months pregnant, i could be wearing a turtleneck and still be showing ‘too much’ cleavage.”


Here is the note being referenced:

So, this woman was apparently showing enough cleavage that it was being complained about. Her boss sends her a friendly e-mail asking her to please make sure to cover up more. And the mature, professional response from the women who claim to be all about equality is… no. Because office rules shouldn’t apply to women, especially pregnant women. This woman’s (male) boss clearly is sexist. And in typical femisogynist fashion, this makes the woman in question, who found it impossible to keep the girls under wraps, some kind of “victim.” Obviously, when a woman is pregnant there is not enough cloth on the planet to cover up her breasts, so clearly she’s being victimized by the patriarchy. Right?

Despite the demands for rules to not apply to them, women are supposed to be taken seriously in the workplace. Call me crazy, but it doesn’t seem possible to demand special treatment and equality at the same time — and yet somehow still expect to be treated as a professional. But then, it’s a pretty fair representation of the women at Feministing. Is it really about equality? No, not so much. What it is about is whining, keeping women as perpetual victims, and demanding special treatment.

Ah, femisogynists. Keeping women empowered by making them victims who throw hissy fits when asked to follow the same rules the rest of the world has to follow. Now there’s some real progress, right?

8. Consequences are sexist.

Last year, Rima Fakih of Michigan won the Miss USA pageant. She’s a stunningly beautiful woman, who also happens to be Muslim. This caused a small measure of controversy, but it wasn’t nearly the biggest scandal surrounding Fakih’s crowning. Shortly after winning the 2010 Miss USA title, a radio station released photos of Fakih participating in a contest… a Stripper 101 contest, that is. Some people were shocked, others shrugged their shoulders. Fakih was ultimately allowed to keep her crown and went on to compete in the Miss Universe pageant. End of story.

In Femisogynist Land, though, this was an act of terrorism — gender terrorism, to be specific.

Groggy and tired, I tossed the phone back on my nightstand and returned to my nightmare, knowing full well that unlike Ms. USA and the millions of other women in America, I get to wake up from my nightmare, whereas each day, they collectively continue to live the nightmare of not having ownership of their own bodies and sexuality, and ultimately, live in fear that at anytime, anything they do, as women, is subjected to public debate simply because their bodies are seen as public property.

Although the stories of “fallen” women – women who, society sees, acted outside of their gender roles for simply embracing their sexuality, are often treated as breaking news, they are far too common and until as Americans, we reject the notion that society is the owner of women’s bodies, more women will continue to live in fear, more young lives will be ruined, and more girls and women will be sexually assaulted and not get the justice they deserve. Until we avert our eyes from the telivision, voice our opinions and give women’s bodies back to their rightful owners, the gender terrorism that takes place through the fear thrusted upon women, will continue to take place.

… It’s a familiar world – it’s a world Sarah Palin and Elana Kagan live in. It’s a world Carrie Prejean and Rema Fakih live in. It’s a world that far too many of your friends and mine, our sisters and classmates, lovers and neighbors, continue to live in – and it’s a world we each have a responsibility to change, because for too long, too many of them have been denied the rights to simply be, the rights to dress as they wish without fear, to embrace their sexuality, get justice should they be raped, and to be respected as human beings and adults, making conscious decisions about their lives.

So the new brand of gender terrorism isn’t what rational people would call it. Women being buried alive, stoned to death, killed for family honor, female genital mutilation? Nah, that’s not terrorism. Being held responsible for participating in a stripper contest? TERRORISM!

The most ridiculous part of this story, of course, is that while this was a media feeding frenzy for a while, Fakih ultimately didn’t suffer anything. She didn’t lose her Miss USA crown. She was allowed to compete in the Miss Universe pageant. Life went on as usual for her. But even if she had faced some kind of punishment for these photos, would that classify as some kind of terrorism? Um, yeah! We live in a country where women don’t have to worry about being stoned to death, or having their genitals mutilated, or honor killings. But before you go feeling all patriotic and proud, remember that women are expected to be held accountable for their actions — actions like taking place in a stripper contest — and women should have no repercussions for their actions, ever. Right?

Rima Fakih willingly participated in this radio station contest. She chose to let herself be photographed stripping, and to an extent, it came back to haunt her. For most women, this could be considered something to learn from: think before you act, especially if you plan on a career in the public eye. Participating in stripper contests where photos will be posted on the internet of you stripping is generally considered poor judgment. Women, like everyone else, need to learn that life is simply not fair, and that there are consequences to your actions. Rima Fakih got off easy. How many bosses in an office setting would fire an employee after seeing those photos on the internet? It also should be noted that in many Middle Eastern countries, Fakih would face much worse than being fired for photos like these. But again, this is America, land of gender terrorism. Islamic extremism is just a different culture, and we shouldn’t judge.

American women live in a country where there is endless opportunity. Opportunity comes with responsibility though, and having to be responsible for one’s actions is not terrorism.

7. Female soldiers’ duty is to do whatever they please.

A little over a year ago, an Army general came under fire for banning pregnancy while deployed. Feministing partnered with the ACLU to express their outrage that soldiers would actually have to be held accountable for getting pregnant while deployed.

The pregnant servicewoman is really the canary in the mine here: Inevitably her pregnancy will be revealed and she will be punished. However, the man who impregnated her will only be punished if she turns him in. Already, according to news reports, one woman who has been punished and sent home under the policy has refused to reveal who her partner was. It is reasonable to think that many more servicewomen will refuse to turn in their fellow soldiers, thereby making this an equal opportunity policy in name only.

Moreover, this policy will eviscerate existing Department of Defense policy that protects the anonymity of sexual assault victims while ensuring that they can get the services they need. Of course, Maj. Gen. Cucolo has stated he won’t punish anyone who becomes pregnant as a result of an assault, but under his policy pregnant assault victims will have to publicly come forward in order to avoid punishment.

If we really want to help servicewomen avoid unplanned pregnancies and maintain military readiness, why don’t we ensure that birth control and emergency contraception are readily available to all servicewomen, including those in Iraq and Afghanistan? Currently, Department of Defense policy does not require that emergency contraception be available (it’s optional); and a recent report by Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America suggests that, “due to space,” other common forms of birth control are not always available either.

It does a dishonor to the more than 200,000 servicewomen who serve in Iraq and Afghanistan to suggest that they do not take deployment seriously. To guarantee that they can continue to serve on par with men, Maj. Gen. Cucolo should make sure that his servicewomen can access the reproductive health care they need, including contraception and emergency contraception, rather than punishing them for getting pregnant.

The answer, as per usual with femisogynists, is more access to birth control and abortion. Because, you know, abstaining from sex and exercising some self-control is just way too much to ask of women. And there’s also that little nugget of truth that feminazis like to ignore so often: birth control is not foolproof. It’s not a magical get-out-of-pregnancy free card. Sometimes it fails. What then? There’s also the simple issue of fraternization — soldiers are not supposed to be sleeping together, and especially not when deployed, but you bet your buns that it happens, thus requiring this pregnancy ban to come into effect.

At the time of Feministing’s original posting on the issue, there were seven soldiers punished for pregnancy while deployed. Three were men. The one facing the harshest punishment? Male, because he was married and outranked the soldier he got pregnant. With the exception of that one soldier, the soldiers were charged with fraternization and given a letter of reprimand.

Not exactly the career-ending, anti-woman crisis they were making it out to be, huh? (But we can’t let facts get in the way of an agenda.)

This whole issue boils down to responsibility, again. Even women have to be held responsible for their actions. Considering pregnancy is not a freak accident that strikes down women at random, this would be filed under “think before you act” and “accept the consequences of your actions”.

But we already determined that responsibility is just, like, so sexist and all. Why empower women when you can keep them as perpetual victims who demand special treatment?

6. Rapists are victims of the patriarchy. Just like women.

You might wonder what kind of person would think that we’re too tough on rapists. Most people see the act of rape as an act of supreme evil — and this is one of the rare things that femisogynists and normal people can agree on. But not so fast! Rape is horrible, but at Feministing, they also have a rather… unusual… point of view: we’re just too hard on rapists these days.

I think a big part of that problem is that we demonize rapists too much.

Everyone pictures rapists as psychopaths, hiding in the bushes with knives. As feminists we’ve worked really hard to dispel that myth, explaining over and over that most rapists assault someone they know – friends, acquaintances, dates, and partners.

A big part of the reason that people aren’t catching on to what that really means is that they are still picturing men who commit sexual assault as evil or morally corrupt. If their friend isn’t evil or morally corrupt, he couldn’t possibly commit sexual assault.

Some rapists are just master manipulators, and hide the fact that they are vicious predators, as evil as any real human could be. I don’t really believe in evil, and I’ve known men personally who were certainly not anywhere near it, yet still committed the horrible crime of rape. A lot of guys who commit sexual assault actually do have a conscience, and actually don’t want to be sexually assaulting women.

We need to become more effective at separating the act from a good vs. evil judgment of a person. We can’t be naive and think that having a polite chat with a rapist will necessarily stop him, but we have to acknowledge the complexities of individuals. There are a lot of men who need a lot of education, but we need to find a way to talk about rape that places the responsibility for rape squarely on the perpetrator’s shoulders without *necessarily* condemning him forever.

We need to show people that they can reconcile their belief that their friend has a good heart with the reality that he has committed rape. Rape is a terrible crime with terrible consequences, I know this personally. But when so many men think that the whole sexual assault discussion doesn’t apply to them or their friends because they aren’t knowingly, intentionally, maliciously committing sex crimes, we’re losing an audience that might actually want to change.

Just as we need a performance model of sex (as articulated brilliantly by Thomas Macaulay Millar in Yes Means Yes), we need a performance model of sexual assault. The crime is about the actions of an individual, not the goodness or evil in his or her heart.

Awwww. Rapists have hearts! AND, sometimes they don’t want to assault anyone. They just, um, do it anyways. Because they can’t help themselves. We should go easy on these poor little guys!

Of course, out here in the real world, it’s understood that someone who is willing to force a woman to have sex with him against her will is not someone with a good heart, that he actually is morally corrupt and evil. Rape is indeed an evil act. Moral relativism is at play here, and it is despicable.

You cannot separate someone from their actions. Is every rapist pure evil? No, but once you commit the act of rape, you have forever lost your ability to call yourself a good person. A good person does not commit evil acts, and rape is indeed an evil act. That someone who claims to be working on behalf of women could ever, for any reason, make excuses for rapists is disturbing indeed.

5. A feminazi-mom is a bit too interested in her daughter’s sex life.

When is a mother-daughter relationship too close? At what point are boundaries crossed?

Most people can probably come up with examples of times that their mother embarrassed them. This post from Feministing puts them all to shame. (Warning: major ickiness alert ahead.)

Darling Daughter,

You have ripened before my eyes, and I marvel at the incandescent changes. Your hormones are in overdrive, and I swear that I can hear them humming as they reshape your body and wreck havoc with your moods.

As your mother, I want your journey into womanhood to be only filed with rich discoveries and free of fear; as a woman, I know that is asking the impossible. But here is what I can offer: some advice and a very practical gift.

Sex with the right partner will be tender and fun, fast and furious, dizzying and daring. But this doesn’t happen overnight. The very important first step is self-knowledge, and that’s why this note comes attached to a vibrator. Women’s bodies are mysterious and mercurial and require unhurried exploration. I want you to fully explore your own body before you share it with someone else. Why? Because I want you to discover the wonderful point of orgasm when your mind ceases to function and the growing ripples rise and erupt into shudders that will transport you. Encode that in your memory, and take notice of how your body and thoughts gradually establish their fragile equilibrium.

Please, sweetheart, don’t settle for anything less.

When you find yourself at the mercy of inexpert fumbling (and you will), I want you to have intimate knowledge of exactly what you like and want. This will be your power. Use it gently.

I’m also giving you this gift because you are kindling, and every touch, every kiss is an incendiary spark. You will not be capable of extinguishing the desire, but a vibrator gives you a highly effective option to quench your sexual thirst. Before you engage in sex, ask yourself two questions. Do I trust this person? Does s/he make me feel good about myself?

Years ago, I was in the throes of an obsessive affair, and a very wise friend sat me down and asked me. “Would you give this man the keys and the Title to your car?” It seemed a ludicrous query. Of course I wouldn’t. I barely knew him. “And yet,” she continued, “you are willing to give him your body and your heart. Aren’t they more precious than a car?”

I have ruminated over this question many times, with many men. If I can’t exclaim “YES!” definitely and unequivocally, I slow things down. I hope you will do the same.

Too many of your friends will take huge emotional and physical risks to explore intense sexual sensations. A vibrator offers you the chance to celebrate your passion, to inject yourself with a boost of adrenaline, and build the scaffolding of your sexuality without risk or fear. Experience your own impulses and appetites first; you will have years to communicate and honor these self-truths with another.

I love you.


Talking to your kids about sex? Good. Giving them vibrators and gushing about how wonderful you visualize their orgasms will be? Um, gross.

Re-read the letter above, and ask yourself: does this sound like a letter from a mother to her daughter? There’s something disturbing and almost incestuous-sounding about it. This is a woman who is a little too excited about, to use her language, the “ripening” of her daughter and the orgasms she will soon experience.

The other thing I have to wonder about is if this woman ever stopped and actually thought about her daughter. How many teenage girls would read that without feeling disturbed and humiliated? How many teenage girls would be enthusiastic about using a vibrator given to them by their mother? I doubt this ever crossed her mind as the mom lovingly crafted her erotic letter of joy over the ripening of her teenage daughter.

She got two thumbs up from everyone at Feministing, though, so who cares? She can pat herself on the back for being such a good progressive little feminist, and that’s all that matters.

4. Idolizing an an extremist who dreams of gendercide.

Valerie Solanas is a feminist extremist and an attempted murderer. She was an advocate for gendercide and wanted to create an all-female society. At Feministing, this makes her a hero.

I have been a huge fan of Valerie Solarna’s for a few years now, she is as instrumental to my radical feminism and queer theory as Beauvoir or Lorde. I am curious, for most of the people on this website tend to be more of the liberal feminist types, what do you all make of this manifesto? You don’t have to read “the whole thing”, but it’s not very long so I hope I persuade you to do so by simply saying it is WORTH reading. I’d love to hear your thoughts of shock, disgust, dismay, love, laughter, joy, and how this manifesto compares to our awful contemporary postion, as womyn…in this world.

Love, Emma Goldman

Commenters for the most part were right on board with Solanas. Some dismissed the SCUM manifesto as satire; others said it was appropriate and needed to offset “the patriarchy”. But what exactly is the SCUM manifesto? (You can read it here.) Well, SCUM stands for “Society for Cutting Up Men”. She blames all men for war, “niceness, politeness, and ‘dignity’”, and “money, marriage and prostitution, work and prevention of an automated society”, fatherhood and mental illness, prejudice, religion, prevention of conversation and friendship, ugliness, disease and much more. She says that we need to eliminate men from the planet and create an all-female society. She shot Andy Warhol, and all of this earned her the respect and admiration of notable feminist extremists like Ti-Grace Atkinson, Robin Morgan, and Florynce Kennedy.

Over forty years later, she’s still being held up as someone to be admired and looked up to in feminazi land. But somehow, it’s men who are the violent misogynists destroying our society.

3. Men are slightly less valuable than dogs.

What would the femisogynist response be if men said that all wives and mothers were useless hunks of flesh? It’s quite common to see man-bashing on the feminist left, although we’re somehow to believe that they’re after equality and that they don’t actually hate men. That’s hard to believe when you read actual femisogynist blogs, though. Take this entry, where husbands are derided as useless hunks of flesh and women are encouraged to leave not only their husbands, but their children, too.

On my Twitter feed I came across this article, from a woman explaining why she was late for work. Turns out she is, somehow, the only person responsible for rounding up the kids in the morning:

So where the f*ck is her husband, who presumably sired the kids in question?

Women of the world: it’s time to leave those useless hunks of flesh called “husbands” and “fathers” who feed off your labour while you earn 70 per cent of their wages.

And by the way: don’t forget to leave them custody. Leave your guilt at the door. The kids will work out fine. Your husband will have to make sure of that, just like you would if you were the sucker. Don’t be.

After all, men earn more money. They can look after the kids better. Let them.

This post was a Feministing editor’s favorite the week that it was published, by the way. Calling all men useless hunks of flesh is not only A-OK, but in feminazi land, it’s laudable. They shout about the patriarchy and complain about misogyny, yet they have no problem whatsoever with hateful, violent rhetoric against men. It’s just as sexist, if not more so, than the patriarchy they pretend to be fighting.

Today’s feminist extremists aren’t content with equality, they want superiority. They can’t see that they’re the sexist ones now.

2. All men are monsters.

In case you men out there didn’t already know it, you all hate women. Deep down inside, you all dream about beating up and raping women. You may think you’re not a sexist product of the patriarchy, but you really are. In case you aren’t convinced, it’s all spelled out for you at Feministing.

I also know that when I affirmed for myself that I wanted to partner with women, I was taking a risk and AGAIN living in opposition to the patriarchy. How dare I not be sexually available to men! How dare I not become a man’s wife!

I am also fat, and fat-loving. This, again, is not something a man wants me to be. I take up space. I don’t apologize for my size. The diet and fashion industries, largely run by men, want women to disappear (size double zero???). I refuse. I actively resist the push for me to get smaller and be quieter.

I am also masculine, and a woman. I am not transgendered, I use female pronouns and I use my girly first name. This, I think, is the biggest of the unspoken affront to the patriarchy. This is, also, the only aspect of my identity that regularly makes me afraid. I am afraid to use public restrooms-which I have to confront as my daughter is potty-learning right now. I am not afraid to be there, I am afraid of what might happen to me when someone realizes what I am. Just this week, I followed two women into the “ladies” room, and one of them did a double take at me, then went and looked outside at the pictogram on the door. As she did that, I said, “I am a woman and I am in the right bathroom.” She of course got all kinds of embarrassed and apologetic, from which I turned away. I try to tell myself her embarrassment is not my responsibility, but my fear is about what she does with her feelings. Does she go tell her male partner about me and he takes it upon himself to correct what is wrong with me? Sometimes, I think I am being paranoid. But then another transperson is killed, and I get reminded that maybe I am not paranoid. Like I said, I am not transgendered, but my gender is certainly transgressive. And rigid gender ideas are the props of the patriarchy. If we start to push the boundaries of gender, we push at the foundation of patriarchal power. I do that, everyday, with my man panties and my men’s deodorant (as if deodorant or underwear have a gender).

But ultimately, what I do that is in opposition to the patriarchy is live, and breathe and be. Men don’t like women (there I go with that reductionist shit again). In fact, men beat, rape and control women. In some places, women’s presence outside of the home is considered obscene. In other places, the qualities that women are encouraged to have (empathy, for example) are looked at with disdain and even contempt (Michael Steele, I am looking at you!).

I know that my very existence, even if I worked at the zoo, is in opposition to the patriarchy. I might not have to defend using gendered language, but I would still be afraid of what might happen when I use the bathroom. I would still not be a man’s servicer. I’d still get pegged as a humorless, strident man-hater. I’d still get called a bitch, a dyke, a whore and a cunt. I would still fear for my sexual safety. And even so, I would still get up every day, put on my man panties and go out into the world. That audacity is how I live my life in opposition to the patriarchy, just like every woman does.

Right. Every woman has to live in fear because men are EVIL. Men beat and rape and abuse women. Not some men, not a few men. Nope, all men. Men either beat and rape women, or they wish they could.

Now, let’s just imagine that some male blog ran a feature saying something similar about women. Femisogynists would be up in arms — but spouting this kind of hateful rhetoric against men is not only allowed among feminist gender bigots, it’s commonplace. These aren’t a few fringe postings that pop up every now and then. The feminist movement once fought for equality, but thanks to sites like Feministing, it’s filled with nothing more than hypocrisy and hatred nowadays.

1. Even men who treat women well are evil.

Hatred of men is never-ending for feminazis. No matter what you do, you’ll never be good enough. Men will always be rapists and batterers — women never do anything wrong, don’t you know? — and it doesn’t matter if you think that you’re a good man or not. Everything you do is sexist, whether you know it or not.

Am I saying that all men are terrible rapists and batterers? No. Really, I am not. But just like I benefit from my white skin without knowingly doing anything actively racist, men benefit from the rape and battery of women whether they are actually rapists or batterers.

… But, if we look at misogyny as a continuum, where the far end is the extremes of rape and battery, I bet we would be hard pressed to find a man who hadn’t participated at some point on that continuum of the hatred of women. No, he didn’t rape anybody, but he likes to look at “barely legal” porn. No, he hasn’t beaten his girlfriend, but he doesn’t speak up when his buddies tell blond jokes. No, he doesn’t force anyone to watch him masturbate, but he can’t look at a woman’s face when he talks to her. No, he doesn’t demand to be served by his wife, he is even a volunteer at a rape crisis center-where he dominates every conversation and talks more than he listens.

So blond jokes equal assault, pornography equals rape, not looking a woman in the face equals forcing her to watch him masturbate, and talking too much cancels out volunteering at a rape crisis center.

It doesn’t matter if you treat women with respect, if you never rape, beat, or abuse anyone, if you volunteer to help women in crisis. You’re a violent, sexist, cruel man no matter what you do.

These posts, by the way, were not dismissed on Feministing. They were cheered and applauded. Sexist, hateful rhetoric against men is not condemned or dismissed. It’s described as beautiful, courageous, honest, and deep. It’s not only accepted, but it’s honored — because it’s fighting the patriarchy, of course.

Just for argument’s sake, let’s say that there is all of this hateful, violent, anti-woman rhetoric swirling around. The answer to this, for man-hating feminists, is to sink down to that level. Rather than being the better person, women are told to lower their standards and to be just as violent and sexist towards men. The phrase “two wrongs don’t make a right” is apparently not applicable in the battle against the imaginary patriarchy. They are just as sexist, if not more so, than the patriarchy they claim to be fighting, but they’ll never see that. They live in an echo chamber, where the same violent, hateful, anti-male thoughts are just bounced around over and over and over again.

Feministing proves that today’s femisogynists are not feminists at all, but angry, bitter, immature women who wouldn’t know equality if it bit them in the face. They demand special treatment, demonize men, and make women into perpetual victims. Yet they somehow can’t understand why, outside of their own little echo chamber of the femisogynist blogosphere, they have no relevance in the real world whatsoever.

This is Jessica Valenti’s legacy after seven years of Feministing. She created a community where angry, bitter women can indulge themselves in whiny overreactions, violent rhetoric against men, sexism, and constant victimhood. Tell me, how exactly does any of this help women achieve equality?

Written by

  • Wonderful wrap-up, Cassy!

    A few thoughts:
    *A lot (many? some?) women who get pregnant while in the military want to be pregnant; it’s a quick way of getting out of a tour of duty.
    *That a woman in the military does not choose, or have the backbone to out, the baby’s father isn’t misogyny; it’s her choice.
    *I’m the first to say that we can’t portray rapists as knuckle-draggers, but that’s because women ought to be aware of the myriad of ways in which evil can be done to them. They should know that it’s not always in an obvious package, complete with scary music and a dark alleyway, but that doesn’t make the rapist less evil. *The husband thing is so hypocritical. These women say that husbands and marriage are not integral to raising babies, but seem to forget that women suffer the most (emotionally, financially, and psychologically) when they bear children out of wedlock. If you want to know “where the f*** is the husband,” then maybe, MAYBE dear femisogynist, you should ask that question about 40% of babies who are born today.


  • Jasmine says:

    Gee how classy. You neglect to mention that a major part of her reason for leaving is the situation with her daughter who was born at 29 weeks after serious pregnancy complications and couldn’t bring her home for 2 months. She wrote a beautiful blog post on her website about her experience, but I’m sure you’d find something to complain about there also

  • Geebus cripes. I admire your strong stomach in going there to read the mindless dreck that passes for “thought” at that website — can I borrow your hip-waders next time?

    I must admit that the very title “feministing” made me wonder whether I’d be entering some disgusting site dedicated to the word “fist” as a verb…

  • ricky says:

    Jessica Valenti seemed to be a career feminist, she is married and has a kid, I mean how “anti-feminist” is that lol

  • Jasmine: my sister was born at the same gestational age as Jessica’s baby, and my mum went back to her role as a VP at a multi-national bank after her birth. Saying that Jessica can’t write a few blog posts a week because her (now very healthy) baby is home is foolish.

    Furthermore, Jessica Valenti held vigils for George Tiller when he was shot. She thinks that partial-birth abortion is a constitutional and human right, and that anyone who thinks that states can ban the procedure are “anti-choice extremists”. That her baby was born early was a wake-up call, showing her that unborn babies are infinitely precious, not goods to be disposed of like nylons with a run in them. I’m not sure how any human could cradle her 2-pound baby in her arms, see her perfectly formed eyes, ears, fingers and toes, and then NOT be anti-late-term abortion, but Jessica has managed that. So the “Jessica’s baby was born early so you can never, ever criticise her for anything!!!11” guilt-trip doesn’t work.

  • Jim Fister says:

    I’d comment on this post, but I’m a know-nothing monster who’s less valuable than my dog. I’m not worthy.

  • Anna says:

    I’m a feminist. Not extreme, but I’m very concerned about women’s rights. However, I do not hate men. I actually much prefer their company to women’s. Why? Because most women I know are like you: anti-feminists who think that having boobs and an uterus is what solely define them. I find your claim that all feminists hate men utterly silly. I mean, I’m a lesbian feminist, and I love men, just not in a sexual way!

  • Luna says:

    Look, I’m a lesbian feminist. A rather devoted one, actually. However, I don’t hate men. Actually, I prefer their company to women’s. Why? Because most(not all!) women I know are either anti-feminists like you or rabid man-haters. I think that the genders are equal, and men are definitely just as valuable as women. Also, I don’t understand all the hate Taylor Swift gets from feminists. For God’s sake, leave the poor girl alone – she’s just a teenager writing silly love ballads, it’s not like she puts anti-feminist or homophobic messages in her songs. But good heaven, Cassy Fiano, not all feminists are man-haters.

  • judy says:

    Feminists do not hate men. The believe in equality between men and women.

  • Justin says:

    “Feminists do not hate men. The believe in equality between men and women.”

    It depends on the feminist. Those fringe lunatics over at Feministing? Yeah, I think the posts Cassie has highlighted are ample evidence as to their feelings on men.

  • Uli says:

    I agree that the stuff usually posted at Feministing is moronic at best. I think many of the posters there are very young and will probably change their mind about many issues when they have lived more. But I don’t understand your obsession with Jessica Valenti. The moment I read on Feministing that she was leaving the website, I knew that there would be a blog entry here about her.

  • MDL says:

    You have really cherry picked posts from Feministing. If you go right now and look at the last 10 posts [as of 4PM eastern] you will find posts that are nowhere near at outlandish as you make the site out to be. Most are fairly common sense postings about progress for women as well as government funding being cut, which sets some women back. The site has a lot to offer women. They also don’t hate men. They just call men out when they say and do misogynist things. I think that is fair.

    > Roxeanne de Luca
    Read the reason Jessica is leaving. It is linked in the above post. She is not playing victim. Instead she said she will be focusing on other projects including write a book. She has new plans. That’s all.

Leave a Reply

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

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner