Wednesday, August 15

:: Led Astray

See the new feature in the right-hand column of the Canary, called "Feminews"? Its a news feed from Google that one can customize to search for articles that include specific terms; its a new thingy added to their template. Kind of cool, right?

Well today, it led me astray.

Today I followed a link to a story on a website called Mens News Daily, which sort of reminds me of Womens Wear Daily, except its different. Mens News Daily is a temple of paranoid gynephobia (not gynecologistphobia, a different issue altogether). I mean, seriously. You have to see it to believe it. These people are ccccrazzzy. Its actually not bad for a laugh, although it is kind of creepy to realize that a lot of the commenters who rage about rape charges being 80% false are probably rapists themselves.

But this I have to share - an opinion column by one of their regular contributors titled "Hillary Cannot Be President." Its really a hoot. This is just a tiny highlight....

Hillary Clinton isn’t qualified to become our next president. Why? Because she exclusively represents a gender that doesn’t want or believe in equality. She promotes herself as a champion for women, and, therefore, doesn’t represent men. This biased leader of the “unfairer” sex -- a gender always in search of special rights and privileges -- doesn’t have what it takes to lead our nation….

Women enjoy double standards and aren’t satisfied having the upper hand in the laws governing reproduction, safe haven, abortion, maternity fraud, paternity fraud, divorce, custody, alimony, child support, assault, battery, restraining orders, domestic violence, rape, and presumption of innocence. They want more, and they get more. Gains in rights for women mean losses in rights for men. It’s a zero-sum game. Equality be damned. The Constitution be damned….

Name one presidential candidate who’s promised to prosecute the next woman who falsely accuses a man of rape… Which presidential candidate promised to prosecute women like Kim Basinger who alienate children from their fathers?…

Not one presidential candidate gives a damn about or represents men. America is a gynocracy.
Now, this sounds like something somebody like me would make up as a joke, to make a point the long way around. Why? Because the author eventually says something worthwhile when he derides the sexist pop-culture messages that come out of what he delightfully calls “The Princess Academy” – to wit:
In July, NBC teamed up with Money magazine to teach women how to land billionaires. And, within the past week or so, MSN Money offered a female-taught tutorial to men on how to get a second date by paying for the first one.
Nearly lost in all the mouth-foam, he makes a good statement:
If women are fragile, dainty, delicate, entitled princesses, they’re unfit to be president. … Until women act equal, they aren’t equal, and we cannot elect them to the top job of our country. How will we know when women are equal? When ladies’ night is outlawed in every state and no woman complains. When women stop demanding and expecting to be wined & dined on dates. When articles about how to marry billionaires cease to exist…
Why the ellipses? Because this guy is a total raving lunatic who drowns his only sensible statement in a wash of crazy juice (okay, here’s part of what I deleted - “When unwed mothers are no longer entitled to child support. When women who falsely accuse men of rape are imprisoned for 25 years”). He is so addled he can't even tell that Maureen Dowd isn't a feminist, and that NOW isn't a big supporter of the whole Ladies Night thing.

Nevertheless, that undercooked brain of his sussed out a good example of what political psychologists call "system justification" behavior. System justification theory seeks to explain why people who are exploited by a system will nevertheless avidly contribute to its longevity (i.e. poor people who vote for Republican, soldiers who vote Republican, women who vote Republican... actually, I kid, system justification is just one factor in voting behavior, but you get the picture). What you see are people who are indeed exploited but still get a certain benefit from the exploitative system, a benefit they fear they would lose if the system is changed.

An example: the woman who encourages her husband to join her in a fundamentalist religion, hoping the church will give her leverage to get him to stop drinking / cheating / gambling. Undermine the church, and you take away some of her power to keep him on the straight and narrow. Next thing you know, along comes Ms. Feminist to explain to Mrs. Fundamentalist how she is being oppressed by her religion and kapow!, before you can say "hold the ala mode, Hilda" somebody gets an apple pie right in the kisser.

Women who promote the Princess Academy like Maureen Dowd, or Carmen Electra and those wretched Pussycat Dolls, peddle sexism because they benefit from it. I can only assume that if men started taking offense at the presumption that their ideal mate is a living blow-up doll, and the bitchy-fox routine stopped being cute, the Pussycat Dolls and Dowd would all be a bit lost. These women want the benefits of equality - a nationally syndicated political column, the ability to mold one's own career - without sacrificing the perks that come from bending stereotypes to their own advantage. The "shop till you drop" types, the Bridezillas, those cows who wrote "The Rules," Kathie Lee Gifford... they're all in on it. Okay, I'll stop now.

We’ve all wondered what a real men’s rights movement would look like – one that really pushed for a man’s ability to live free of gender discrimination and stereotypes (as opposed to living like a hate-filled, brain-damaged monkey on speed, which is what Mens News Daily seems to advocate).

Unfortunately, we may never get to find out.

No comments: