Oh, and one more thing – Marxism actually means something as an idea. Throwing it around as a catch-all insult for stuff you dislike just make you look like even more of an idiot.
Posts Tagged ‘feminism’
Posted by That Other Mike on 06/06/2012
Posted by That Other Mike on 14/05/2012
In the spirit of Poe’s Law, Mike’s Law of Internet Radfems:
Without an obvious smiley or graphic, it is impossible to determine whether an expressed opinion, article or comment by a radical feminist should be taken as a serious statement of her views.
Or to give you the shorter:
With radfems, never sure if trolling or just expression of views
Exhibit A, Julie Bindel:
That’s right, Julie, because a) all men hate all women, and b) no men are feminists, and c) you decide what constitutes “real” feminism.
ETA: Shorter Cathy Brennan, proving the law to be true:
Look, ma! I’m funny because I’m a disgusting bigot!
But seriously, not only is she running a hate site, she is also proving the point that radfems of her stripe are indistinguishable from parody; I don’t think I could come up with a more unpleasant caricature of her political position than she already has. And the most ironic point is not that she thinks her leaden misunderstandings of memes are funny, but that she thinks she’s actually somehow defending and supporting her position.
Posted by That Other Mike on 16/12/2011
The stupidity of wingnuts never ceases to amaze me — for a group of people who seem so ready to castigate centrists and leftists as emotionally-led, over-empathetic, bleeding hearts, they do love to push some idiotic and lookatthefoetushowcute laws when it comes to abortion, not a single one of which has any foundation but emotion, whether it’s misplaced paternalism or jesus-pleasin’.
It just so profoundly illustrates something I’ve mentioned before — the American Right has elevated idiocy to an art form and an article of veneration. Even worse, though, is that they have also somehow managed to convince themselves that their particular brand of stupid is actually wise and clever; remember how the Palinistas tried to market her as some kind of canny operator, full of homespun wisdom? Yeah, exactly, and just like with Palin, they will fail every time.
Posted by That Other Mike on 21/11/2008
I was browsing around WordPress in the tag listings when I came across this post, and felt I had to add my own commentary. Mainly because I’m a smartarse, and because I like to show up people who are wrong. It’s called Schadenfreude, and I love it.
There’s a certain amount of political interest there, too, mind. I just am a smartarse first and foremost.
The thing is, while the ERA is probably a great thing to support in principle (although more on that later), the last incarnation of it is dead in the water, being gnawed upon by hungry Constitutional sharks. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by That Other Mike on 03/11/2008
I was feeling fairly well-disposed towards the world lately, but I’ve recently seem some things which have made me rather angry generally.
Specifically, PUMAs. Not the big cats, although I have my own beef with enormous felines (to whit: they want to eat me alive), but the disgruntled supporters of Hillary Clinton; the acronym is variously said to stand for People United Means Action or Party Unity My Ass.
Their initial claim was that because of the various electoral shenanigans and irregularities taking place in the Florida and Michigan primaries, HC had been done out of what was rightfully hers, and that she was unfairly robbed of the nomination. Robbed, I tells ya!
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Odds and Sods, Politics | Tagged: 2008, clinton, darragh murphy, democratic party, dnc, economics, election, feminism, florida, john mccain, michigan, misogyny, november, obama, policy, Politics, primaries, puma, puma pac, racism, republican party, sarah palin, sexism, sexual politics | 6 Comments »
Posted by That Other Mike on 06/10/2008
A Muslim cleric in Saudi Arabia has called on women to wear a full veil, or niqab, that reveals only one eye.
Sheikh Muhammad al-Habadan said showing both eyes encouraged women to use eye make-up to look seductive.
The question of how much of her face a woman should cover is a controversial topic in many Muslim societies.
The niqab is more common in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf, but women in much of the Muslim Middle East wear a headscarf which covers only their hair.
Sheikh Habadan, an ultra-conservative cleric who is said to have wide influence among religious Saudis, was answering questions on the Muslim satellite channel al-Majd.
Just… what? For fuck’s sake! So much for religious morality.
I can’t wait for the Christian Right to jump all over this. You know, the same people who say that a woman’s place is in the home, that only men should be in charge. All that good stuff.
When will things turn around in Saudi Arabia and indeed the whole religious world?
Women are not wicked temptresses who are out to destroy the righteousness of innocent and virtuous men. They’re not the source of original sin or lust or whatever. They’re people.
I’m not usually one to advocate invading countries left, right and centre, but this pushes me towards it. And yet, we see no action by any Western governments in this regard.
And you know why? It’s black, stinky and powers cars.
Posted by That Other Mike on 10/08/2008
There are some topics on the internet which arouse a lot of ferocious argument. They tend to be pretty obvious – people’s hot buttons are pretty consistent in most cases, whether on the net or off.
The subject of politics figures pretty highly, of course, as does religion, in all its aspects. As an example, the consistently-busiest tag categories on WordPress seem to be on politics, religion, atheism and similar.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted by That Other Mike on 14/07/2008
You people ought to be ashamed of yourselves. Lottie made a post about the way that your routinely erase and negate the experiences and agency of domestic violence survivors by refusing to hear the whole story because it doesn’t fit your agenda.
Marcella Chester then replied to the post on her blog and at Feministe. Lottie replied in comments at both places, and we both noted that the passive-aggressive behaviour started with playing with her name.
And then comments along the lines of “Why are you blaming DV victims?” started. The 4th comment in the thread, in fact. Given that the first 3 were by Lottie and Marcella, it might as well be said to be the first.
Lottie’s response was to post about her own decades of suffering from DV, which was promptly ignored by everyone else involved in the thread, who were too intent on saying “Don’t blame the victim!” to notice an actual victim.
The worst thing about your behaviour today, though, is something else entirely
On the Shameless Self-Promotion Sunday thread. Lottie linked to three posts there: the domestic violence post, one about a boycott of McDonald’s and one about Internet trolling. She had made a post earlier about feminist language, but didn’t link to it in that thread.
It has received three times as many hits so far as the domestic violence post. It is not the top post on her blog and it was not linked to on Feministe.
Do you know what you’ve shown us today, Feministe readers? You’ve shown us that the issue of whether feminists use language to suppress dissent is more important to you than the story of a survivor of thirty years of domestic violence.
Way to show where your priorities are; way to show seriously you take your “advocacy” for DV victims, and yes, I did choose that word because Kyle Payne used it, and yes, I do hope it stings.
You should be ashamed of yourselves.