Cognitive Dissonance

"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that I reach for my feather boa!" - Allen Ginsberg

Posts tagged gender roles

279 notes

Men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families – it’s in their DNA. But modern women won’t let them. It’s all so unfortunate – for women, not men. Feminism serves men very well: they can have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever.

It’s the women who lose. Not only are they saddled with the consequences of sex, by dismissing male nature they’re forever seeking a balanced life. The fact is, women need men’s linear career goals – they need men to pick up the slack at the office – in order to live the balanced life they seek.

So if men today are slackers, and if they’re retreating from marriage en masse, women should look in the mirror and ask themselves what role they’ve played to bring about this transformation. Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.

Suzanne Venker, writing for Fox News about how she’s super mega concerned that feminism makes men not want to get married. She’s currently promoting her book, How to Choose a Husband with statements like: “I’ve accidentally stumbled upon a subculture of men who’ve told me, in no uncertain terms, that they’re never getting married. When I ask them why, the answer is always the same. Women aren’t women anymore.” Oh, and she has a quiz to determine if you need this book. Questions include “Deep down, do you feel superior to men?” “As a general rule, do you pursue men (as opposed to letting men pursue you)?” and “Are you a product of divorce?”

A few things: This woman is Phyllis Schlafly’s niece. Schlafly rose to prominence by campaigning against the ERA and is generally a terrible person. I’ll let this 1908, 1958, 2008 exchange demonstrate this:

Could you clarify some of the statements that you made in Maine last year about martial rape?

I think that when you get married you have consented to sex. That’s what marriage is all about, I don’t know if maybe these girls missed sex ed. That doesn’t mean the husband can beat you up, we have plenty of laws against assault and battery. If there is any violence or mistreatment that can be dealt with by criminal prosecution, by divorce or in various ways. When it gets down to calling it rape though, it isn’t rape, it’s a he said-she said where it’s just too easy to lie about it.

Was the way in which your statement was portrayed correct?

Yes. Feminists, if they get tired of a husband or if they want to fight over child custody, they can make an accusation of marital rape and they want that to be there, available to them.

So you see this as more of a tool used by people to get out of marriages than as legitimate-

Yes, I certainly do.

Speaking of legitimate, Schlafly also backed Todd Akin. Venker has bought Auntie Phyllis’ bullshit hook, line, and sinker. In defense of Michele Bachmann as a modern submissive wife, she wrote, “Indeed, the opportunities women enjoy today are not the result of a bus load of feminists shouting for change. Rather, it has been a natural progression — aided in large part by men. It’s male engineering, ironically, that has freed women from their former domestic lives.”

Uh-huh.

Here’s Venker reminding us that we women must find a man to support us in this gem from 1911 2011. Because babies:

“The other, very taboo thing to say to young women is ‘you need to look for a man who can support you.’ And the reason why you want to do that is not because you’re never going to make your own money and go out into the world; it’s because you’re going to hit a point - particularly in those years when the children are not in school, the first five years - when you are not going to want to be bothered with making an income because you’re going to want to be with those babies.”

The furor over her Fox News article, quoted at the beginning of the post, forced her to issue a statement on her Facebook page. Venker wrote, “The vitriol spewed forth on the Internet is precisely the reason so many people – men, especially – keep their mouths shut when it comes to gender issues. That’s called thought control, and feminists are the ringleaders… I made a point that’s hard to hear — that women should surrender to their nature — and people chose to extrapolate all kinds of meanings from this statement.” THINK OF THE MENZ WHO CAN’T TALK ABOUT THIS YOU GUISE!

Does it really need to be said that Venker’s views leave no room for anything else other than a conceived-in-perfect marshmallow-fluff marriage between two upper class heterosexual WASPs?

But perhaps the hashtag on her Tweet promoting her article on Fox News explains it all:

Is it any wonder she’s a hero to the MRA charmers out there?

(via cognitivedissonance)

Update: She issued a new explanation to The Daily Beast's David Freedlander today:

"All I can say in my defense is that it can be so hard when you write as much as I’ve written—three books, articles, blogs—you think you have said something but you haven’t. It’s like I am thinking something and I am so clear about it and I think what I have said is that. I don’t know. I don’t know. I didn’t think that much about it…

I am not advocating a strict division of gender roles. I am not suggesting that women can’t compete with men in the workforce or that men can’t handle strong women. People are extrapolating these things because the article is, I admit, rather open-ended.

[Rather], women, once they have children would prefer to work part-time or not at all when their children are young. Their career trajectory will be different than that of men. Feminists don’t like that. They want everybody to want the same thing, career trajectories to be the same. Women may say I really want to exercise or hang out with my friends and have coffee or go shopping and have a cushier life, and your guy will be happy to do that, and go to the office all year long for 40 years to allow you to do that. Men don’t have that option. And there is nothing wrong with having different road maps.”

Ahem. May I give you some practical PR advice? 

Just. Stop. Talking.

Stop. Like now.

Or alternately, keep going. Please. Make sure that no one takes you seriously ever again.

(via cognitivedissonance)

Filed under Suzanne Venker Phyllis Schlafly feminism politics gender gender roles women men men's rights But who will think about the menz? feminine femininity I can't Conservative MRA Republican

279 notes

Men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families – it’s in their DNA. But modern women won’t let them. It’s all so unfortunate – for women, not men. Feminism serves men very well: they can have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever.

It’s the women who lose. Not only are they saddled with the consequences of sex, by dismissing male nature they’re forever seeking a balanced life. The fact is, women need men’s linear career goals – they need men to pick up the slack at the office – in order to live the balanced life they seek.

So if men today are slackers, and if they’re retreating from marriage en masse, women should look in the mirror and ask themselves what role they’ve played to bring about this transformation. Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.

Suzanne Venker, writing for Fox News about how she’s super mega concerned that feminism makes men not want to get married. She’s currently promoting her book, How to Choose a Husband with statements like: “I’ve accidentally stumbled upon a subculture of men who’ve told me, in no uncertain terms, that they’re never getting married. When I ask them why, the answer is always the same. Women aren’t women anymore.” Oh, and she has a quiz to determine if you need this book. Questions include "Deep down, do you feel superior to men?" "As a general rule, do you pursue men (as opposed to letting men pursue you)?" and "Are you a product of divorce?"

A few things: This woman is Phyllis Schlafly's niece. Schlafly rose to prominence by campaigning against the ERA and is generally a terrible person. I'll let this 1908, 1958, 2008 exchange demonstrate this:

Could you clarify some of the statements that you made in Maine last year about martial rape?

I think that when you get married you have consented to sex. That’s what marriage is all about, I don’t know if maybe these girls missed sex ed. That doesn’t mean the husband can beat you up, we have plenty of laws against assault and battery. If there is any violence or mistreatment that can be dealt with by criminal prosecution, by divorce or in various ways. When it gets down to calling it rape though, it isn’t rape, it’s a he said-she said where it’s just too easy to lie about it.

Was the way in which your statement was portrayed correct?

Yes. Feminists, if they get tired of a husband or if they want to fight over child custody, they can make an accusation of marital rape and they want that to be there, available to them.

So you see this as more of a tool used by people to get out of marriages than as legitimate-

Yes, I certainly do.

Speaking of legitimate, Schlafly also backed Todd Akin. Venker has bought Auntie Phyllis’ bullshit hook, line, and sinker. In defense of Michele Bachmann as a modern submissive wife, she wrote, “Indeed, the opportunities women enjoy today are not the result of a bus load of feminists shouting for change. Rather, it has been a natural progression — aided in large part by men. It’s male engineering, ironically, that has freed women from their former domestic lives.”

Uh-huh.

Here’s Venker reminding us that we women must find a man to support us in this gem from 1911 2011. Because babies:

"The other, very taboo thing to say to young women is ‘you need to look for a man who can support you.’ And the reason why you want to do that is not because you’re never going to make your own money and go out into the world; it’s because you’re going to hit a point - particularly in those years when the children are not in school, the first five years - when you are not going to want to be bothered with making an income because you’re going to want to be with those babies."

The furor over her Fox News article, quoted at the beginning of the post, forced her to issue a statement on her Facebook page. Venker wrote, “The vitriol spewed forth on the Internet is precisely the reason so many people – men, especially – keep their mouths shut when it comes to gender issues. That’s called thought control, and feminists are the ringleaders… I made a point that’s hard to hear — that women should surrender to their nature — and people chose to extrapolate all kinds of meanings from this statement.” THINK OF THE MENZ WHO CAN’T TALK ABOUT THIS YOU GUISE!

Does it really need to be said that Venker’s views leave no room for anything else other than a conceived-in-perfect marshmallow-fluff marriage between two upper class heterosexual WASPs?

But perhaps the hashtag on her Tweet promoting her article on Fox News explains it all:

Is it any wonder she’s a hero to the MRA charmers out there?

Filed under Suzanne Venker Phyllis Schlafly feminism politics gender gender roles women men men's rights But who will think about the menz? feminine femininity I can't Conservative MRA Republican

126 notes

What it Says About Us When a 17-Month-Old Boy Is Beaten to Death for "Acting Like a Girl"

As a society, we equate masculinity with force, with violence, with aggression, with being “tough” and invulnerable. We celebrate it those things as virtues. To a widely-varying degree, we look with disdain, or pity, or condescension, or amusement at too much deviation from the prescribed norm. And we occasionally exact a terrible penalty for stepping outside those rigid parameters.

The beating death of 17-month-old Roy Jones was no less a hate crime because the victim was a baby. Whether would have grown up to be gay, or transgender, or just a gentle, sweet-natured straight boy, was still many years away. More, it was irrelevant.

The attack, and the apparent impulse behind it - that a violent man was made uncomfortable by a even a perceived variation on gender-normative behavior - is exactly what makes transgender and gender-variant Americans among the most vulnerable segment of the population, and children who even appear gender-variant are the most vulnerable of all.

…With few exceptions, monsters are made, not born. They are still monsters, but they are carved with the hurtful blows of many sharp chisels, over many years. At the very least, his own violent psychopathology notwithstanding, someone, somewhere, taught Pedro Jones that the worst thing a little boy can do is act like a girl. In the end, it matters precious little when or where he learned it, because a 17-month-old toddler ultimately paid a terrible price for that lesson.

Utterly and completely horrifying. The article raises a troubling issue: Who protects children who may not even be transgendered, gender-variant, GLBTQ, etc…? How can this happen in this century?

Filed under violence hatred Roy Jones religion transgender rights transgender child abuse GLBTQ gender Gender Roles horrifying

1 note

Science Cheerleaders

cerus:

Recently, the science blogs have been highlighting the Science Cheerleaders.

Some bloggers, such as Scicurious have expressed their reservations in a manner that is straightforward and which I find myself agreeing with.

So. Science rock stars? Or science cheerleaders? I’m not sure that either is really doing any good. And it’s not because they don’t love science, they DO. Rather, it’s because, to make science cool, you can’t just associate scientists with cool or popular things, like cheerleaders or rock stars. You have to make it cool to DO SCIENCE. That means more than having rock stars be rock stars next to scientists, or cheerleaders cheering at scientific meetings. That means, maybe, having the rock stars try science. Having these cheerleaders, who can sure has heck DO science, doing their work. People may say that “that’s not something Sheryl Crow would do”. Well, maybe if she’s into science and into making science look cool, IT IS.

While I don’t think that either the rock stars of science or the science cheerleaders themselves are all bad, I think we can do better. But I think that doing better may have to involve something more than pom poms and guitars. It may have to involve…some science.

While others, while if you actually were presented a cogent statement and not just screaming and yelling would make many valid points,  have been much, much more vitriolic:

Here’s my top of the lungs scream in SUPPORT of Science Cheerleaders:

All girls love cheerleaders, unless they are (a) ugly hairy legged feminazis who can’t get laid, (b) ugly hairy legged feminazi lesbian bulldyke ballcrushers, or (c) ugly sad pathetic uncoordinated wannabes who didn’t make cheerleader in high school. It’s a fact. Groups (a), (b), and (c) are at high risk of becoming scientists. This is unattractive and unappealing for dudes in science.

Yeah. Totally not attaching any gender normative stereotypes to anyone there…

Science Cheerleaders is, at the very best, an outreach program for already-privileged girls who are already interested in science/engineering but who are afraid it will make them look like fat lesbians.

The problem with that style of response is that it does nothing for the dialogue, just whole handedly smears large groups of society, be it by their looks, their activities, their position in life, their sexuality, all while claiming to be in the name of feminism.

Abbie Smith and Jen McCreight have both said what I was thinking, when I read the above screed. Read both if you have the chance.

From Abbie:

Mixing their brains and their cool— exactly what I think is a practical approach to coolness, if you really want to go there.


These women are great— They were college athletes, in the sciences. Its hard enough missing classes for travel, but missing science classes and labs, and still keeping your grades up? Awesome. Wide variety of ethnic backgrounds. Wide variety of specialties, from NASA engineers to ER nurses. And what I think is most amazing— these women have professional careers on top of their professional careers. They were professional cheerleaders and professional scientists/clinicians. No effin way I would even think about being a professional fighter on top of being a professional scientist. But these women have done it, and they are using their experiences to encourage young ones to go into science. YAY!

From Jen (emphasis hers):

It’s funny how feminists can’t comprehend the concept of letting women do what they want. Actually, no, it’s not funny anymore - it’s fucking aggravating. This is why people think all feminists are humorless, sexless man-haters - not because of your personal choices, but because you try to police others. Don’t try to pin the cause of feminist stereotypes on “sexy feminists” when you’re the ones perpetuating the stereotypes.

I think this is important because it is a battle that has been going on for some time and it does merit discussion. From a sociological viewpoint they’re both working from the culture they find themselves in. To be a cheerleader and a successful scientist is not an easy task and when you bash it, you take away their accomplishment just as much as much as any offense from the patriarchy. On the other side, a counter culture must anchor itself upon the culture it is in to define what the opposite is. So yes, it’s good to point these things out, but don’t mandate who is right. You’re probably being as much of a jerk.

As a commenter on Jen’s post put it:

Let’s try this again and hopefully this time it’ll stick:

Say it with me, ladies! Acting or dressing a certain way in defiance of gender roles is just as much conforming to them as exemplifying them. Both involve you building your personal identity around a stereotype. So how’s about you just do what the fuck you wanna do and let everyone else do the same, kay?

I’m just going to leave all of this here. I can’t do any better. 

(via ravenscurse-deactivated20121030)

Filed under science gender Gender Roles norms normative behavior women feminism cheerleaders science science IS cool

59 notes

transpride:

This is a new McDonalds ad, and it’s really sexist..

Fuck this shit, the whole check something on the car? Guess what? I can change a tire, check my oil, and jump my car. I can fix shit. The jar? My fiancé only gets it open after I loosen it for him, yeah!

Seriously though, this implies that you aren’t a real man unless you eat crappy burgers and you must be stereotypically manly or be derided. Plus, women are weak and delicate little creatures and cannot function without said manly man who eats crappy burgers which are not suited for female consumption. 

(Source: transpride, via mustudios)

Filed under FAIL Feminism Gender roles Men Seriously? food gender McDonald's McDonald's is evil