I knew a woman who was married to a professional man. He worked hard, long hours, was always inventive, creative. He was a dedicated father; she demanded it, for sure, but even beyond that, he was all in and was an extremely active dad. She didn’t like to cook, didn’t think it was her job, so he learned how. She didn’t like to tidy up, and he was no Mr. Clean, but he gave it a go. She wanted him to be compliant, yet resilient, and he tried to be all of the things she wanted. He even pretty well achieved it. He’d come so far that he sent us all a poem about how to appease the women in his house, who wanted him to leave the toilet seat down, he learned to pee sitting down. What a mensch! Only, in the end, she tired of his acquiescence and left him for a belligerent roofer 10 years her junior.
The New York Post took aim yesterday at a study called “Mismatches in the Marriage Market” in the Journal of Marriage and Family, that explains that women often don’t marry because there is a dearth of marriageable men. Apparently, the definition of marriageable is “makes 58% more money than any of the dudes available right now.” The “patriarchy” used to keep men and women in their places, and now that women are achieving at higher rates than men, it’s still the “patriarchy” that is keeping everyone from being happy.
In the old system, women went to college to find husbands or got jobs as receptionists at law offices to marry an esquire before quitting the job market to take on the dual roles of housewife and mother. This imbalance in earnings and status was deemed to be just no good for the female half of the species, who ended up poorly educated, often jilted in middle-age, and back in the workforce without even a pretty face to get by.
Plus, men were not great. They lacked emotion, they were too focused on careers, ambition, status, fulfilling the role of provider. The patriarchy had done these dudes a bad turn, had made them so concerned with achieving the masculine ideal that they didn’t measure up to what their women wanted or needed. And women were stuck with the status quo.
A big push was made for women to go get more from life, husbands, love, family, all that stuff paled in comparison to what was achievable if women buckled down, hit the books, and entered the capitalist machine as worker bees eager for their own honey. Great, why not? Go get it, girl.
And they did get it. Under equity feminism, more women have college degrees than ever before, more women are successful in their fields, yet more women are unable to find suitable matches because men, it turns out, just can’t measure up to women’s expectations. Again.
If you’re one of the single ladies out there, this will not be a surprise. I cannot count how many intelligent, independent, attractive, fuckable women I know who can’t find a guy they want to spend more than one night with, and even that is a stretch.
For a while, women were complaining that guys were afraid of commitment, that women couldn’t find a man who wanted a real relationship, babies, the works. But somewhere along the line, when the college degrees were awarded in greater quantity to the fairer sex, ladies began to have a different complaint. I started to hear friends carp about guys who wanted more than a hook-up, guys who wanted their time and attention when not rolling in hay as well. Why, just last night, a good friend, independent, hot, confident, all of that, told me she had to cut a guy loose because he was texting her asking how her day went instead of simply reaching out to find a suitable time for sex.
Is it any wonder that women out there who want to get hitched can’t find anyone suitable to hitch their wagon to? Guys have been overtaken by female accomplishments (kudos, ladies), and still have no idea what women want. A hookup? A commitment? A high earner? A hard worker? A partner? A housewife?
Women didn’t like how men were, so they demanded they change. Men changed, and now that they have, women don’t like what they’ve changed into. Women want soft, emotional, high achieving, career focused tough guys who don’t get angry, remember anniversaries, bring flowers, and can splurge on expensive meals and trips, without working all weekend, and still make it to little Johnny’s ballet recitals.
Contemporary woke feminism doesn’t care about equality. It demands that men strip themselves of their toxic masculinity, their desire to compete and achieve, to become more stereotypically femme, so that women don’t have to do all the emotional heavy lifting. Okay. But on the other hand, women want men to be high-achieving, breadwinning earners, who are professionally successful, and, if Tinder is any indication, taller than them as well.
The only problem is that these toxic characteristics are essential for success in the marketplace. When men let them go, all those things that these traits facilitated fall by the wayside as well. Men are emasculated for not achieving just as they are demeaned for those attributes that enable achievement. Wtf, yo?
Why not just let men be men with all of their bumbling, masculine, competitive energy? The truth is that most women want the opposite of a woke Gillette ad. They want high-achieving, strong men to be partners with. Even if they don’t know that they want that, or don’t want to admit to it, reality reveals they sure as hell do. Otherwise, no intelligent woman who got her man to do everything she claimed she wanted, including coming up with an ingenious way to make sure the toilet seat was permanently in her preferred position, would leave him for someone who promised nothing but stereotypical masculinity.
Right-wing media personalities and provocateurs Milo Yiannopolous and Gavin McInnes had water thrown at them by a feminist in Washington, D.C. Thursday.
The situation made a splash throughout Twitter due to the culprit’s brash admittance to the attack online. As Yiannopolous and McInnes ate at The Alibi restaurant in DC’s east end, one patron seated just a few tables over decided to livetweet the moment leading up to the attack.
“I am eating lunch 2 tables away from m*lo and g*vin mcg*nnis what do I do I’m not fucking kidding,” tweeted @notfromsplash, using asterisks to avoid having to type out their names.
Though @notfromsplash has since deleted the tweets and made her Twitter account private, screenshots of the posts give an accurate timeline of what unfolded.
After tweeting about how she was shaking uncontrollably in anger, Madison took it upon herself to dump two glasses of water on them.
A tweet from Ryan Katsu Rivera, the bird nest-haired sidekick of McInnes on his Freespeech.tv show Get Off My Lawn, indicated in a reply to Madison that she had been “drenched in Guinness” in retaliation to the attack.
“A grumpy feminist poured drinks on us, we managed to get her back,” said McInnes in a video posted to Twitter moments after the attack.
The attack aligns with divisive rhetoric being spouted in U.S. politics since the 2016 election. Last year, California Democrat Maxine Waters encouraged her supporters to publicly confront and harass members of the Trump administration, as well as their supporters.
“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere,” said Waters at a protest rally in Los Angeles.
#MeToo had rules. At least we thought so. Culturally, societally, politically, we all tried to learn them, to internalize them, to understand just what types of incidents could get a person ejected from their life, tossed out of their social group, ostracized from friends, unemployable, unpersoned. The rules seemed almost clear—until suddenly those who seem to be in charge of them don’t even follow their own logic anymore.
Katie Hill had an affair with a junior staffer, another woman, who feels that she was victimized. By the rules of #MeToo, that would dictate that Hill loses it all, right? Only somehow, it’s being spun the other way, by the same publications that brought us diatribes against Al Franken. Hill, it turns out, can also claim victim status at the hands of her ex, who was the one who released the information about the affair. In her resignation speech, Hill echoed Franken’s sentiments, that it seems absurd that she should be resigning when a guy like Trump is in the White House.
To recap: the wronged party is not the spouse, not the junior staffer, but the powerful person at the center of it. While it is true that Hill was the victim of revenge porn, and that is not acceptable, the same principle did not apply to Anthony Weiner or Joe Barton. It does not immunize her from her own wrongdoing.
“The squad” of freshmen congresswomen supported her during her recent tribulation. Nancy Pelosi, and other senior members of Congress, apparently wished that “Hill had been more careful in transmitting her private photos.”
Hill was given far more leeway in terms of the vocal and press lashing that other members of Congress who have found themselves exposed for sexual misconduct have faced. It turns out that she is being supported, not harassed and harangued. A staffer for Rep Sylvia Garcia (D-TX 29th), said, “A lot of the show of support was done intimately and privately with Hill, out of respect for her. … People didn’t want to be adding to the noise. We didn’t want to make press out of the pain and suffering she’s been through. She had private images published without her consent that have caused incredible pain.” Weiner did too, but no one had any sympathy for him at all.
The thing is, and yeah, we hate to be those people, but we can so easily imagine the reverse scenario. Here it is: a dashing young first-term congressman has an affair with a staffer years younger. He takes drugs, advertises his sexual availability on dating apps, and drags his wife into a threesome with the junior staffer. When the marriage breaks up—perhaps as a result of this kind of rampant infidelity, after all, they weren’t openly poly or ethically non-monogamous—the wife releases the dirt on the congressman to the world. She wants people to know just what kind of guy this is, how he is a liar and a cheater, a womanizer, and abuser, unfit to be in Congress. What then? Why she’s a hero, of course, and he’s a villainous letch.
Haven’t we heard this story before? Why is it so different now? Is Hill really a victim of her own sexual dalliances? Are we to believe that a woman who is strong enough to run and win a congressional campaign is so easy to bully? Perhaps we’re looking at it all wrong, readers, perhaps we don’t truly understand the nature of abuse or something, but what we do understand, what is perfectly clear, is that we’re supposed to believe all women, even when she is the abuser. We’re supposed to imagine that there is some substantive difference in how the rules are to be applied to men and women in the same deleterious circumstances.
Now, we’re the first to admit that the rules are stupid. That this game of pointing fingers and shaming people is nonsensical and barbaric is not something we doubt. But if there are going to be rules that we are all expected to play by, ought they not be, well, adhered to?
If #MeToo is meant to be the new standard that we all must bow down to, and it’s a given that men and women are equal, then we must apply the rules fairly, and everyone who has a complicated sexual relationship that leads to grievances must be punished. Or, maybe, just maybe, we could do away with this nonsense and start to see the human beings for what they are: flawed, complicated, and capable of cruelty and kindness.
#MeToo may have been an effective corrective in some situations, but it should never have risen to the level of an era. As it stands now, we are living through a “cultural context where common vengeance writes the law,” and the hypocrisy is destroying us. If the rules don’t apply the same way for everyone, perhaps the rules are the problem.
When a panel of women all seem to be in agreement about the necessity of killing men on prime-time TV, you start to wonder what’s happening to our culture. On November 5, Australia’s public service broadcaster ABC hosted a panel of five women, plus its female presenter, on its popular Q & A programme. The programme has hosted many international stars in the past, such as Jordan Peterson, and this time, the star of the show—if that’s the correct term—was Mona Eltahawy, an intersectional feminist who promotes violence in order to “smash the patriarchy,” and dismissed Barack Obama as “part of the system” when he called for civility among activists.
I want patriarchy to fear feminism. White women accept crumbs from patriarchy because they allow their whiteness to trump their gender. But at the end of the day, even those white women have to recognise that nothing protects them from patriarchy. Nothing! For me, as a feminist, the most important thing for me is to destroy the patriarchy. (…) How long must we wait for men and boys to stop murdering us, to stop beating us, and to stop raping us? How many rapists must we kill until men stop raping us? … I want women themselves … How many rapists must we kill until men stop raping us?
Eltahawy is an Egyptian-American feminist, whose work has helped put the oppressive, patriarchal Egyptian regime on the map. She’s bravely protested women’s rights in an Islamic country which admittedly does not offer women the same rights or opportunities as societies in the West. In her hatred for oppression, she has forgotten that it’s not “men” or the allusive “patriarchy” that is to blame for all that is bad in the world. In a society which allows an all-female panel to rant about men for half an hour straight, where everything and everyone from capitalism, colonialism, and Trump, to Australia’s prime minister Scott Morrison, received a good bashing, it rather proves the point that it’s become acceptable to be a misandrist and that women aren’t the silent victims.
She’s like a broken record who thinks there’s one, evil cause for everything, which you might expect from a teenage activist, but not from a 52-year-old woman. “I’m talking about the white supremacist, capitalist, imperialist patriarchy,” she added and referred to American feminist bell hooks (yes, it’s spelled like that, hooks didn’t agree with the colonialist, English rules of grammar) for good measure. When asked about what positive masculinity looked like, she shouted: “I have no fucking idea!”
Obama’s words may have hit a nerve, as it touched on Eltahawy’s own, simplistic message. “This idea of purity and you’re never compromised and you’re always politically woke and all that stuff, you should get over that quickly,” he said last Tuesday while speaking at the Obama Foundation Summit in Chicago. “The world is messy. There are ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws.” This nuanced worldview doesn’t suit Eltahawy and the other feminists on the panel’s narrative. Men—or patriarchy, as if that makes it sound better—are the enemy, particularly the white, cisgender, middle-aged kind. Those are of course the worst, for having dared oppress and colonize and plunder all these years, according to the intersectionalists. The fact that it’s not so easy to divide people into “good” and “bad,” as Obama points out, must be annoying for purists like Eltahawy to have to listen to. Her response was total condemnation:
I completely and utterly disagree with Barack Obama. I go online exactly to tell people to fuck off when they attack me. This idea of respectability, this idea of civility, this idea of unity, all of these words….decorum. Who invented those words? Those words were invented by white men, for the benefit of other white men, in systems of institutions that were always designed to be for white men. And they weren’t designed for women like you or me, people of colour, and gender diverse people. They never imagined us in those spaces, and we show up and we just ruin it for them. (…)Barack Obama was part of the system and remains part of the system. I also disagree with his wife when she says “when they go low, we go high.” No, I fucking don’t. If you go low I’m going to come for you. I don’t have the luxury or the privilege to sit there and be civil to people who do not acknowledge my full humanity.
It’s ironic when a feminist fails to acknowledge another woman by name, and instead refers to her as someone’s wife, but I’ll let that pass. Eltahawy again shows that her outlook is so steeped in intersectionality it’s reached levels that are on par with conspiracy theories. To attribute a concept like “civility” to skin colour is also racist and shows her knowledge of different cultures is limited, and she’s inadvertently agreeing with white supremacists who claim other cultures are savage and less developed.
Although no men were invited on the show, Eltahawy was surrounded by a somewhat diverse looking group of women: Jess Hill, author of See What You Made Me Do: Power, Control and Domestic Abuse; Nayuka Gorrie, an essayist and screenwriter who describes herself as Kurnai/Gunai, Gunditjmara, Wiradjuri and Yorta Yorta, for simplicity’s sake; Ashton Applewhite, an American anti-ageism campaigner; and Hana Assafiri, businesswoman and “Social Change Agent”; and the host, Fran Kelly. Kelly lacked the spine to question much, if any, of what was spouted.
The viewpoint diversity was utterly lacking, and naturally, Eltahawy’s glorification of violence wasn’t met with opposition. Another of the panellists justified her call to violence by using the suffragettes as an example, saying they had been “fighting for their lives” and were only stopped by the First World War. The fact that most women would never want to support mass killing of their brothers, fathers and husbands didn’t seem to cross their minds.
Some people were impressed, however. An article on SBS by Saman Shad found the programme “refreshing”: “It’s not often we get to see a prime-time offering of smart, accomplished and angry women on our screens but that’s exactly what we got” Shad said. “Women are angry because things are unfair. Maybe sometimes women have to lose our minds a little to get the message across.”
Or maybe their points are completely lost and people are turned off by swearing, shouting and showing contempt for half the population. Just as not all men are misogynistic, capitalist oppressors, not all women are raging and wallowing in victimhood. Many of us get along just fine with the opposite sex, and appreciate how society has moved towards equality without having to go on killing sprees, but rather by men and women cooperating.
Perhaps ABC finds this sort of programme, which only presents one side of the argument, totally acceptable. Perhaps it thinks that intersectional feminism is something all women subscribe to (they don’t). Perhaps it is happy to spend Australian taxpayers’ money on propaganda. But as a public service broadcaster, this programme didn’t achieve the balance that it should be aiming for in order to be taken seriously.
Toronto City Councillors voted 20-1 in support of a review of policies governing community spaces in the city, following a large protest at Toronto Public Library’s Palmerston branch over feminist Meghan Murphy’s controversial talk on “Gender Identity: What does it mean for society, the law and women?”
The review was proposed by Councilor Kristyn Wong-Tam and will involve the consultation of LGBTQ+ stakeholders, many of whom were aghast at the Toronto Public Library’s pro-free speech stance.
Councilors will now investigate whether third party use of the city’s community spaces are in line and uphold the city’s policies supporting equity, diversity, and human rights, as well as those polices against discriminatory behaviour and speech.
Only one councillor present voted against the review, Stephen Holyday, who believes in “respect[ing] the autonomy of the library board to create its own policies and doesn’t like to see the council “wading into this.”
Ostensibly, Murphy’s event garnered more outrage than support, with hundreds coming to condemn Murphy for her opinion that “men cannot be women, even if they identify as trans”. At the event, Murphy said that she was astounded that so many came out to oppose that stance, “as if a strong majority of the population doesn’t agree with it.”
“Pride Toronto strongly opposes the Toronto Public Library’s decision to host and support an event with guest speaker Meghan Murphy to take place in a publicly funded space,” an open letter from Pride Toronto reads.
“It is well known Meghan Murphy asserts publicly and repeatedly that Trans women cannot be women and will always be men. This is a denial of the lives, experiences and identities of Trans people. It is a crude, hateful and hurtful assertion…”
They go on to deny the validity of Murphy’s concerns, primarily that as Trans rights are propagated, they will begin to infringe upon the rights of biological women—such as the right to women’s only bathrooms and sports. Pride Toronto responded by saying that, looking through an intersectional lens, this is simply not the case, as if Trans women, being real women, win more rights, then so do biological women by extension.
Other notable detractors of the Library were Fay and Fluffy, two drag queen readers of “Fay and Fluffy’s Storytime”, who have chosen to terminate their relationship with the Library.
With the motion to review policies surrounding community spaces, free speech, and hate speech, it is likely that this event will be the last time that the Toronto Public Library can come out unambiguously in favour of promoting free speech.
“As a public library and public institution, we have an obligation to protect free speech. When Toronto Public Library (TPL) makes meeting rooms available to the public we serve, we need to make them available to all on an equitable basis, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use,” wrote the Toronto Public Library in a statement on October 15.
The Post Millennial interviewed Murphy last month to ask what she thought of all the controversy following her ban from Twitter and similar outrage she generated for speaking at an event in Vancouver.
In the interview, Murphy says that, in many ways, she depends on social media as a self-employed writer and speaker, and that her banning, as well as the controversy she generated, came as a total shock.
Murphy says that she didn’t realize any of her views were hateful or offensive, or even controversial, until she had been banned on Twitter. However, due to changes in Twitter’s terms of service, which were updated to include a policy on misgendering, Murphy’s trans-exclusionary feminist stance that only biological women are real women was supposedly sufficient for removing her account.
Although Lindsay Shepherd was banned for the same reason, Twitter reversed its decision in that case.