I’m sad to report that this week’s The Worst Thing I Read This Week comes from my actual facebook timeline.


I’m sort of stunned. A year ago I might have scrolled past it- not offended, just uninterested. But it’s really kind of sick, isn’t? I mean let’s analyze this from top to bottom.

“Do you look gross and ugly because it’s finals week?”

Read: Do you look like you’re tired, or stressed? Do you look more human than the enhanced appearance you normally create? Maybe you’re not wearing makeup because you wanted to squeeze in ten more minutes of review for your 8 AM final. Maybe you’re dressed more comfortably than normal because you’re stressed and it makes you a little more relaxed. Do you look gross and ugly because you chose your intelligence or your well-being over your appearance? Do you look gross and ugly because you’re not good enough the way you are?

Well guess what, if you do look gross and ugly- here’s a link that will make you good enough for everyone else. Here are things you can spend your money on instead of skydiving or taking someone you love out to a nice dinner. Buy them and you will be beautiful. Buy them and you will have value.

And is there anything worse than someone telling you that you look tired? The eight-year-old neighbor kid has cancer, your cat just died, but god forbid someone see you without preparing yourself for our sight.

Because if you do not prepare yourself for our sight, you are lazy and gross and ugly.

That’s what that image says. I know there are people out there, especially men, who think feminism is whiny and harsh and bitchy, but until you’ve lived in a world that conspires to tell you you are not good enough- you don’t get to judge women for being upset. I know there are image issues out there for men, but it is absolutely not on the scale that women endure. It simply is not comparable.

We should be appalled that stuff like this gets written- especially by women. That is terrifying! This stuff is not harmless- its exposure is constant and removing oneself from it is impossible.

Stop acting like is okay. It isn’t. And it isn’t bitchy to be mad that I can’t leave my room with the exact same amount of primping as my male neighbors without being socially and romantically written off. Be aware of what you’re looking at- just like friends who can’t accept you aren’t good friends, stuff that makes you feel unworthy is not good stuff to read. You deserve the self-respect required to know you are not disgusting and makeup doesn’t make you a valued human being.

TWTIRTW: Shut Up About Barbie Dolls

This week in The Worst Thing I Read This Week: Thought Catalog contributor Keating Thomas thinks toys don’t affect/control the beauty standards women face.

First, let me start off by saying I think men can talk about feminism all they want- I in no way subscribe to the belief that men don’t know what they’re talking about when it come to gender inequality. This man, however, really doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Let’s jump in:

Black Friday and Cyber Monday have come and gone. But for people who don’t pray to the god of Walmart (or as I call it, the Great Wal of China), you’ll be doing your Christmas shopping within the next few weeks. Or if you’re like me, on Dec. 24.

And every year, that same dumb skinny blonde is always the most-talked about thing. No, I don’t mean David Spade; I mean Barbie.

I’m all for feminism and equal rights for both genders. I’m glad women get to vote, so they can be pandered to by corporate-run politicians and have absolutely no say in how our elected officials govern as much as men are. That’s an awesome thing.

Ok we’re all good here, I’m liking what he’s saying- oh god, wait where is he going with this?! No, Keatsy, no!

But people who think the toys we play with as children actually affect our lives as adults are delusional.

The American Association of University Women, which has been deluding women since 1881, put out its second annual “Holiday Gift Guide for Girls” in early November. Sorry, did I say deluding? I meant empowering. Empowering women. Damn misogynistic autocorrect. That’s like the time I typed that Hillary Clinton was the Secretary of State, and it autocorrected it to Administrative Assistant of State.

I’m so conflicted because ^ that’s great writing and I totally agree, but…

The AAUW offers 16 toy ideas that it says are not “highly gendered” and don’t promote “stereotyped and objectified images of girls.” It should be called, the “Holiday Gift Guide for Girls Who Will Soon Hate Their Parents More Than Usual.”

The one that stuck out to me was the Computer Engineer Barbie. And they even comment on how their regular readers are probably shocked to see it on the list. All Mattel did was make a typical Barbie and then add the following accessories: a pink laptop, a pink cellphone and a Bluetooth in her in her ear (a Pinktooth would have been better). Then they just magically call her a computer engineer. The real-life accessories they forgot to include were a pink slip, because her job has been outsourced to India, and about seven house cats.

The AAUW says it’s perfect for girls ages 0-3. Yeah, because that’s when I start to play with toys that really have an effect on my future career goals. If only my parents had given me the My Buddy District Attorney, I’d have gone to law school like they wanted.

Everyone needs to stop thinking that Barbie dolls ruin girls’ lives, or matter at all. People think Barbie is responsible for promoting an unrealistic idea of body image for young women. I think that would happen with or without Barbie. That’s a larger issue that Barbie has nothing to do with. It’s absurd to think she does. Girls’ own mothers telling them to focus on losing weight so they can find a husband is worse. That’s bad parenting.

Ok, chicken or egg aside, Barbie is no doubt a contributor to this unrealistic standard and profits on women’s insecurities- I’m down with bitching about that. Whether or not Barbie is the cause, she’s certainly exacerbating the problem.

Listen, I played with toys growing up, too, but I didn’t spend the rest of my life feeling inadequate about my lack of mutant ninja skills.

Two of my favorite things as a kid were my toy gun and Big League Chew. And guess what? I didn’t grow up to be a redneck. And I’m from Arizona, so it could have happened. Toy guns were constantly my favorite thing. But as I matured, the real ones didn’t appeal to me. And real chewing tobacco doesn’t appeal to me either.

I played with G.I. Joes, and I never for a second considered joining the military.

I loved my Pound Puppy, but I don’t want to own a dog.

I mastered Legos, but it still takes me five hours to build a small nightstand from IKEA.

I was enthralled by any Magic 8 Ball, but I don’t have a desire to go to a fortune teller.

I highly enjoyed Fisher-Price Little People, but I don’t have any friends who are dwarfs.

I owned many Koosh balls, but I’m not a pothead.

Loved my Etch A Sketch, but I didn’t grow up to waffle on my political beliefs.

I had slap bracelets, but I’ve never beat a significant other.

Not everyone who played with a Tickle Me Elmo grew up to be pedophiles (just, sadly, Elmo himself).

Our toys are not as powerful as we would be lead to believe by some. They’re just toys.

Now hold on there, Keatsy- here’s where I’ve got beef. No one is saying that all toys influence the futures of children. The reason Mattel put out an engineering Barbie in a misguided attempt to show girls the could go into computer engineering because GIRLS DO NOT HAVE REAL LIFE ROLE MODELS IN THAT FIELD. It didn’t affect you, Keatsy, because you have a penis and that means you can do whatever you want in life- there was never a question of whether or not you could go into computer engineering, but for women that simply isn’t true.

Every force, every image, every word aimed at girls tells them their value lies in their appearance- that they are decorative, just like Barbie. Their accomplishments are tempered in a double standard that only identifies their work as good “for a woman.” Even Barbie’s career in computer science is just a new way to accessorize.

The things that kids get from their parents that last are abuse, divorce, and, of course, insecurity.

And who the fuck even thinks Barbie is even hot? She’s ugly. I never looked at a Barbie doll and thought, “Man, I want to bang something like that.” No, she’s ghoulish. The hottest things about Barbie are her Mailbu Dreamhouse and Corvette convertible.

That’s because she’s not meant to be hot- she’s meant to be pretty. The word that every girl’s life revolves around. She can look and act pretty or ugly and those terms are defined by old fat white men- no her.

The ironic thing is that the toys girls play with as adults make me feel inadequate. I’d rather compete with a dick-less Ken doll than a 15-inch cock that never goes soft and vibrates.

Let’s stop pretending the toys children play with are so future-shaping. Let’s stop making her a scapegoat for poor parenting.

Poor parenting? Try a centuries old conspiracy to make women feel inadequate to get them to spend money on makeup and clothes. I’m not even being paranoid- the entire world conspires to make me feel imperfect and then tries to sell me the cure.

George Carlin made a good observation in 1988: “It’s a great country, but it’s a strange culture … They’re thinking about banning toy guns, and they’re gonna keep the fucking real ones”

The difference here is that Barbie is an extension of an anti-women agenda that treats women like dolls. We are to be used and discarded, clothed and primped, and pacified with material possessions. To say that Barbie has no power is to ignore the insecurity she feeds on like a size 0 succubus.

Shut Up About Barbie Dolls | Thought Catalog.

On Hanger Hall School for Girls

This is me, circa 2006. Within a few years of this photo, I had lost my mother, moved to a new city, transferred schools and gained a brother and sister. My life was absolute chaos and I, at 11, was woefully unprepared to deal with it.

In this time of flux and uncertainty, one thing remained constant- I have never in my life thought, even for a second, that Hanger Hall was the wrong place for me. There were times when I hated my classmates, my teachers, my grades, etc. But I am not sure I could have survived my early teens without Hanger Hall.

An eccentric, loving man and his band of smart, inspiring women taught me how to love myself while I was reeling from the guilt that accompanies a parent’s death. They showed me I was smart when I didn’t believe it, that I had potential and they convinced me that I could do great things in this world. My teachers and classmates pushed me to my intellectual and emotional limits only to extend the hand that kept me from falling over the edge.

I will always credit my hardest, most critical teacher for igniting the competitive (sometimes argumentative) fire inside of me that still drives me and defines me to my teachers and peers. There were days I felt this teacher hated me, and there were days I thought I hated her, but looking back I am floored by the love that was required of her in both pushing me so hard and supporting me so much.

I could go on for days about how all girls schooling, uniforms, small classes and community are all vital to education (especially for girls), but I don’t need to- because Hanger Hall exists. The vision of one man who wanted more for his daughters has become a haven for so many girls who don’t know how to express their potential.

There are no words to express my gratitude and love for Hanger Hall, all I can do is spread the word about this incredible place and hope more schools take a page from their book. Hanger Hall saved and changed my life and I was privileged to go there.

*Excuse the editing, we were in middle school after all.

What Do Dress Codes Say About Girls’ Bodies?

“You’re not going out dressed like that!”
“What mother would let her child wear such a short skirt?”
Think about it: How often do we police girls’ bodies? Recent talk of school dress codes reveals that it happens an awful lot, and for some confused reasons.
After a New Jersey middle school banned strapless dresses from a school dance, more schools have been making headlines with various clothing bans and restrictions. Some of these bans focus  on attire for dances while others target daily wear such as yoga pants and low-cut tops. All, however, focus only on girls’ clothing, and most of these restrictions are put in place to avoid “distracting” other students (i.e. the boys).
The concern for overly exposed young bodies may be well-intentioned. With society fetishizing girls at younger and younger ages, girls are instructed to self-objectify and see themselves as sexual objects, something to be looked at. A laundry list of problems can come from obsessing over one’s appearance: eating disorders, depression, low self-worth. Who wouldn’t want to spare her daughter from these struggles?
But these dress codes fall short of being legitimately helpful. What we fail to consider when enforcing restrictions on skirt-length and the tightness of pants is the girls themselves—not just their clothes, but their thoughts, emotions, budding sexuality and self-image.
Instead, these restrictions are executed with distracted boys in mind, casting girls as inherent sexual threats needing to be tamed. Dress restrictions in schools contribute to the very problem they aim to solve: the objectification of young girls. When you tell a girl what to wear (or force her to cover up with an oversized T-shirt), you control her body. When you control a girl’s body—even if it is ostensibly for her “own good”—you take away her agency. You tell her that her body is not her own.
When you deem a girl’s dress “inappropriate,” you’re also telling her, “Because your body may distract boys, your body is inappropriate. Cover it up.” You recontextualize her body; she now exists through the male gaze.
Says Soraya Chemaly in The Huffington Post,
“What is a girl supposed to think in the morning when she wakes up and tries to decide what to wear to school? They aren’t idiots. The logical conclusion of the “distracting” issue is, “Will I turn someone on if I wear this?” Now who is doing the sexualizing? My daughters would never have thought these things without the help of their school.
Suddenly, offensive hypersexuality isn’t just something a girl sees in music videos or magazines: It’s embodied in her, and her dress-coded school reminds her of that every day.”
So what about those distracted young boys? Where do they come in? By barring particular outfits from school, dress codes help boys identify and objectify “inappropriate” girls and women. Girls who violate dress codes are violating rules, and girls who violate rules are bad. Bad girls can be desirable and sexy, but they don’t necessarily deserve respect (even from other girls).
And where respect is absent, objectification is easy. In her guide to self-objectification, Caroline Heldman explains how sexually objectified women are dehumanized and viewed as “less competent and worthy of empathy by both men and women.” Those who are dehumanized may be mistreated and made to feel inadequate. And if poor self-image is linked with objectification, it isn’t hard to see that this cycle feeds itself: Those who are objectified by others are treated as less than human, and in understanding themselves as less than human may self-objectify.
Asking girls to cover up is a Band-Aid solution to far more socially ingrained problems such as general misogyny and rape culture. As long as a girl or woman is always sexualized, it won’t matter how much she covers up—she’ll still be faulted for her inappropriate behavior.
It’s unfair to expect a young girl to understand the full implications of her body—implications put in place by an all-too-often misogynistic society—and punish her for not knowing better. A girl needs empowerment, not more complications in her relationship with her body. Jada Pinkett Smith had the right idea when asked why she would “let” her daughter Willow shave her head:
This is a world where women, girls are constantly reminded that they don’t belong to themselves; that their bodies are not their own, nor their power, or self determination. I made a promise to endow my little girl with the power to always know that her body, spirit, and her mind are her domain. Willow cut her hair because her beauty, her value, her worth is not measured by the length of her hair … even little girls have the right to own themselves.

I loved having a uniform in middle school because I feel it mitigates this issue- but dealing with a strict dress code in high school there was this idea that if I showed too much leg or cleavage I would be turning someone on or distracting them. In reality, it’s not really my problem if you can’t handle yourself around my body- especially at the age that this affected me.

Dress codes are fueled by logic strikingly similar to that of victim-blaming. Maybe instead of viewing my body as the problem, someone could admit that those being distracted are only affected because they view girls as decorative, sexual objects. 

I definitely agree with sentiment behind my high school’s dress code- that every student should be prepared to dress professionally and understand what is appropriate. However, dress codes do have a disproportionate effect on girls (which my school mitigated with draconian contempt for unkempt facial hair, which made it much more fair).

I think the point is that the way we communicate the purpose behind dress codes should be geared toward empowering women (and men to some extent), rather than shaming them. This means the conversation should have nothing to do with promiscuity or distracting the opposite sex. Women do need to learn how to dress in such a way that their words and actions are more important than their appearance, but men as well need to keep their eyes above the neck and control their own urges.

Our short skirts are not an invitation, nor does they define us as people.

What Do Dress Codes Say About Girls’ Bodies?.



Men and women possess qualities that are both, masculine and feminine.
When you balance the feminine and masculine aspects within yourself, regardless if you are male or female, you get to experience your whole and complete human being that is strong, wise, loving and creative and, at the same time, nurturing and gentle.
It is our nature to embody both masculine and feminine qualities even though in our past history and culture, we have witnessed an over-emphasis on the masculine energies which have dominated and brought us off-balance.
Some believe that today we are more in need of embracing the feminine aspects within us all, such as being nurturing and receptive, which, in the past, have been perceived as weak. The masculine qualities have overtaken in our culture evidenced by our state of chronic stress.
We are in need of re-balancing as a whole, for the continued growth and existence of our population.
Let us take a closer look and notice how we may start to bring more balance to our world, one person at a time.
When we take the time to embrace the whole person that we are and balance between our feminine and masculine aspects, we each bring more balance to our collective consciousness, planet and universe.

– Rebelle Society

A Black Friday Reminder

Ladies, we’ve got 85% of the purchasing power in this country-

On a day devoted to spending our money, let’s remember that we create the world we live in with every dollar we spend.

Be conscious of who you’re voting for with your dollars and how they treat/portray you as a human being.

It’s easy to throw the blame on shadow people who control our media, but this is one way we can exercise A LOT of power.

Just something to keep in mind.

TWTIRTW: The Destruction of Family and Other “Liberating Legacies” we can Thank Feminist Social Engineering for

My oh, my. It’s that time of the week again. That time where I snuggle up with a freshly ignited bra, a nice, lukewarm glass of man tears and bitch rant comfortably from my perch atop a pile of castrated victims. Because I’m a feminist and that’s definitely how I do.

So let’s do this, IllimitableMan, who will henceforth be known as Illi. The first time I scanned this article, I thought it was a satire.

Illi believes that feminism has created all sorts of problems for people. Because if there’s one thing we know is selfish, it’s asking to be treated like an equal citizen. Selfish, selfish bitches. Just to be clear, I’m not going to try to change Illi’s mind. This is me, exercising my right of free speech, dissecting this article and proving it to be the sexist, chauvinistic garble trash that it is. I am going to enjoy it. So anyone planning to comment to tell me it’s a waste of my time is invited to not waste theirs.

Feminism has caused a rift between the sexes, between the age-old union of man and woman, the yin and yang that makes two peas in a pod, men and women have been culturally emancipated from each other in a social engineering effort for them to “not need each other” or very specifically, so that women specifically “don’t need no man!”  and can become “a strong independent woman” (read: LONELY) which certainly begs the question, how did this come to be?

How dare you, Illi? Do you not know that same-sex relationship exist or are you so bigoted that you don’t recognize their legitimacy? It’s an important distinction because if you’re just a bigot I can move on… “A strong independent woman’ (read: LONELY)” Oh dear god. You are a trip. Strong independent women have the courage to picky, to not be flattered by every advance, to not believe they are incomplete without a man. Men and women don’t need each other, they have each other… As an option. This understanding of sex and relationships is so myopic and antiquated.

This paradigm was socially engineered via the efforts of an ideology known as feminism, it was an ideology that sold women the lie that men were inherently evil beings who were oppressive in nature, and by demonizing men told women they needed to give up their femininity and take on more masculine traits in order to meet men on a level playing field under some perverse pretense of “equality.” A divide and conquer technique used to pit the genders against each other, if you will.

If that’s what you believe feminists were doing by fighting for the right to vote, you’re more ignorant than I originally thought. I agree that men shouldn’t be demonized as a feature of feminism, but guess what- denying people their right to vote, get equal pay for equal work and make decisions about their own bodies is pretty fucking evil. That may be where women are getting that idea from…

We always hear about the “positives of feminism” some real, (civil rights) some imagined (women commonly adopting boisterous and narcissistic self-entitled behaviour? not so much) of course the negatives are something the incredibly biased leftist media neglect to mention or even explore (they give you only one perspective, the so-called “strengths”, but neglect to mention its weaknesses you see), so for once, let’s look at just some of the plethora of negative elements in society which we can attribute as either directly caused by feminism, or correlated with but not caused by feminism. Oh boy, don’t we sure have a lot to talk about?!

Oh boy, indeed, Illi. Oh boy, indeed.

1. Single Parenthood.

(READ: Single parent households are almost always headed by women [1]), this is because women tend to unilaterally get custody in the majority of cases due to a biased family court system, another reason for single parenthood is because women can have babies without the consent of the “sperm donor”, eg: she lies to a man that she is on contraception when she is not, when he leaves his sperm inside her post coitus she lets it fertilise inside her and has a baby without the fathers knowledge or consent (reasoning: because she’s broody and wants a child) by the time she carries the baby to term, the man is out of the picture and is completely unaware that his genetic material has been used to create human life.

I think Illi believes this is much more of a problem then it actually is. The majority of single mothers did not become single mothers because they swore their lives to a secret society of sperm thieves. There’s no conspiracy to have your babies without your consent. Just because it happened on like one episode of Law and Order does not make it a trend.

Single parenthood is bad, one parent is not as good as two for multiple reasons: it leads to lower resource availability, there’s a lower chance of valuable skill sets being made available to the immediate family because there’s only one parent with one set of skills, rather than two parents with two sets of skills and of course then there’s the big one, the primary socialisation of a child – only one gender influence on the child’s development. Atypically in modern western society this manifests as a feminist-feminine influence with no to minimal hegemonic masculine influence on the childs developmental process whatsoever, the resulting lack of developmental diversity holds the child back and gives it a far from optimum start in life to fulfill the apex of its hypothetical potential.

Ok well, normally I try to right these articles from an authorly perspective. My anger and ridicule are almost academic in that I am speaking from a place of feminine empowerment, not necessarily as myself. But here, I gotta add a personal note.

Fuck you.

Single parenthood is bad? Really? You can blanket that statement over the entire country and it’s scientifically viable? No. How about “the way our society is structured, life is generally more difficult for children of single parent homes”? Yes, sure. But that is not the mother’s fault. The idea that a woman should have to raise a child with a man just so his “skills” and “resources” can influence the child’s life? Freaking idiotic.

On the note of a lack of resources and the welfare state reliance which encapsulates the majority of those whom can be considered single parents, children raised in single parent households are more likely to be in poverty (as there’s only one adult who can bring in money. [2]) The poverty has a knock-on effect and increases the likelihood the child will commit a crime and spend time in jail [3], it also decreases the likelihood a child will reach university level and attain a bachelor’s degree, as at the high school level it has been observed they begin to fall behind. [4]

Hmmm… Yes, we should blame this on women? What? No!?! This is a societal problem, not something you can blame on a parent for being single.

This trend is even more resounding in the case of young boys, women cannot teach boys masculinity and what it is to live in the male condition because they simply do not experience it for themselves and by the inherent nature of their own experience, have an opposing frame of reference. A woman can analyse and deduce masculinity from the outside and try to rationalise its nature based upon her observations, but this knowledge is inferior to that which comes from the condition of being male itself, from a man.

A woman cannot teach boys methodologies which men rely upon in their interactions in handling women, they cannot teach them to think like men, they are far more adverse in nature and thus have a tendency to wrap their boys up in cotton wool rather than foster his biological disposition to acquire strength via the tests and tribulations that are available to challenge and strengthen the fortitude and mettle of a young boy, this is strength an adult woman will expect him to have when he is an adult man if she is to choose him as a suitable mate and if he doesn’t “man up” and “grow some balls” his female peers will be asking when they all reach adulthood “where did all the good men go?” This but a mere manifestation of the scam which exposes the feminist idea of gender equality as a complete sham in actual practice.

The type of knowledge that boys need specifically from their fathers is that of which a man of significant value would impart onto his young son in various rites of passages such as: pep talks, trips together through hunting, sports and other male-to-male bonding experiences, experiences which fortify the bonds of father to son friendship and mentorship which young boys NEED to flourish and actualise the best versions of themselves.

Denying boys their fathers is inherently setting them up to fail with odds which do not favour them from the get go as the sheer multitude of knowledge they need to acquire which cannot be taught by their mothers must then be learnt through a psychologically painful, arduous and often humiliating process of trial and error, leaving only the toughest boys to survive and quite literally fight for their masculinity.

Do you need proof of these assertions because you’re cynical of such inherently conducive logic? Allow me to oblige: In single parent households where there is the absence of an father there is a statistically significant increase in rates of suicide, drug abuse and alcohol abuse in young men [5], single parenthood lowers the educational attainment of boys and fosters promotes higher dropout rates (girls are outperforming boys in education at all levels, but especially university level now) [6], it also increases the prevalence of behavioural disorders that can manifest in boys and increases the likelihood that the boy will commit rape. [7]

Ok, 1. Look up the word cynical. You’re not using it correctly. 2. Those statistics do not prove what you’re saying. Those statistics could be attributed to the feelings of abandonment a child feels when their father leaves, the grief from losing a father, or the angst that can grow from never knowing him. 3. Girls outperform boys because of gendered expectations in the classroom and social forces that overwhelmingly tell boys being smart isn’t cool.

2. Institutional and social sexism (men must self-censor, women need not.)

The ridicule of men is overt and widely accepted in the media, at work, on the street etc. Women are allowed to make blanket generalisations which are often offensively directed at men (usually delivered in a delightfully catty, condescending manner) and nobody bats an eyelid at this overt display of sexism. Yet you tell a 50-year-old woman she’s quite old (a fact) and you’ve caused great offense which needs social correction that usually goes by something along the lines of:  ”You never ask a lady her age!”  (so apparently the pre-requisite to receive the title of “lady” is simply to be old? anyhow, I digress) It appears that apparently women are so special that many of them can’t handle being old when they get old. Inversely a woman can say you’re a Neanderthal whose brain lives in his cock and nobody will bat an eyelid, a statement far more explicit than asking a woman her age or identifying that she is not young, behold that delectable double standard!

I agree there’s a double standard, but feminism has been all about a single standard among the sexes since before men were- like the 1920s. have you considered it’s men who create this double standard, not women? That maybe we don’t want to be the delicate flowers whose age has to be a secret because we are only valuable to society between 13-30?

3. Men are safe to criticise and challenge, women are not.

Following on from the previous point, women are not allowed to be criticised anymore as apparently we must place an incredibly high amount of priority on what one could only consider inane sensibilities which manifest from one’s personal insecurities, criticism is about feedback and improvement but women on the feminist bandwagon tend to illogically rationalise anything negative sounding as oppressive and thus shut down completely, resorting to fallacies, shaming tactics and sticking their fingers in their ears to maintain their belief system (quite reminiscent of religious extremists really, isn’t it?)

For example, most fat women cannot handle being told they’re fat, that they need to lose weight and being given advice on how to lose their weight, more than likely the woman in question will be offended you’ve acknowledged she has an unhealthy BMI and she’ll either shut down on you, or if she’s american, possibly join one of these perverse fat acceptance movements. Ugly women (not necessarily fat, just ugly) would rather be told that they’re beautiful rather than be told they’re not beautiful and being advised to work on their physicality to help it become the best of what is genetically attainable for them.

Okay it’s becoming clear that this isn’t academic and you’re actually just a jerk. As if you can define what ugly is, Illi. I have no words for this hateful, ugly garbage.

In this paradigm where the feminine whims and sensibilities dictate the confines of what essentially constitutes a gynocentric society, society (including lots of clueless men) thus begin to talk more and more bullshit to placate the fragile and delicate egos of western women, rather than be honest and help them to work on improving themselves via the distillation of some tough love also known as, truth.

Yes, women- why are you not okay with this man calling you ugly and telling you how to improve yourself?

Every time I see an ugly man I immediately give him a list of ways he can take the face god gave him and make him conform to a societally constructed definition of beauty. Every time.

Such is the way of life in places like Eastern Europe where feminism is less pronounced due to the ideology being prevented from spreading there until post-1991 (due to the Soviet Union and Iron Curtain), the ideology has only recently spread there as Eastern European states have joined the EU and opened up their borders to Western European (which are all feminist welfare states) however, I digress again.

Oh my god

4. Children from single parent households are worse behaved.

Children are no longer punished by schools or their parents, resulting in unruly behaviour and audacious little scrotes saying things like “what you gonna do then? you can’t hit me!” in a provocatively taunting manner, this factor is exacerbated by single parent households as the lack of a strong masculine presence often leads to a lack of self-discipline, substance abuse and all other kinds of shit which end up in poor behaviour [8] (referenced earlier, but fuck it, have another reference.)

Guys, Professor Illi here with breaking news: children are no longer punished. Anywhere.  Only dudes can save our children from this lack of discipline. No mention of the fact that in single parent households, TV  can become a surrogate babysitter when the parent has to work more than those in two-parent houses. No mention of the fact that most TV and media conglomerates are controlled by men.

You can similarly apply this concept to women (and I know that’s a controversial statement to make, but I don’t care.) Women test men for dominance like children test adults for dominance, if she thinks you cannot and will definitely not use your physicality as part of the contest for dominance then she will fear little from a man castrated of any iota of imposing physical dominance and use this fearlessness abusively, it’s not just about using violence, but more so the implied threat of violence, the deterrent – if you appear non-hostile as a man then to a woman, due to absence of fear, you are immediately respected less on both a superficial and psychological level. There’s a reason the high school jocks always got all the poon and respect, they were big, which subconsciously implies the ability to kick ass/protect/put her in her place when she’s being irrational and insufferable.

So Mad I Could

Listen, you misogynistic jackass, gloves are off. There is a big difference between evolutionary coding that makes protectors more attractive and being attracted to the threat of violence.

To put a more mainstream glazing on this because some of you out there with ridiculously poor logic will try to construct a strawman of me as encouraging domestic violence and thus all my reasoning null and moot, it is typical that a woman will respect a tall muscular man much more than even a muscular short man, simply because the size and the potential for that size to be used for protection/violence demands respect and it’s this implication of violence which women find inherently masculine in nature and by extension of being masculine, attractive. We can see this most profoundly in mainstream science via woman’s dating preferences, where they are mercilessly biased towards preferring and dating tall men.[9]

Pre-feminism it was socially acceptable to slap or hit a woman or child who was acting out to put them back into line, all of a sudden post-feminism this became a taboo, a most heinous crime. People don’t seem to differentiate between hitting someone because they’re unreasonable and just mindlessly trying to kill them with your bare hands. It seems in a feminist society that a smack and kicking the crap out of someone until they suffer injuries to their internal organs are synonymous acts of atrociousness, they cry “violence is bad, you shouldn’t ever use violence!” “you should never hit a woman!” “I don’t believe in hitting children!”

The reality is, not all violence is bad, it can be instrumental in reinforcing positive and constructive behaviours as long as, like anything, it is not exploited to the point of extremity or systematic abuse. Research has found that smacking small children, as long as they know you are smacking them because you care and want to correct their behaviour, does not do any harm. [10]

Nope, you are wrong. You are wrong, wrong, wrong. Negative reinforcements have proven to be ineffective in the long-term. Also if you need your girlfriend/wife/child to fear you so much that you hit them- you’re probably not worth their respect. Scratch that. You’re not.

Obviously, no such similar research has been done on the romantic relationships between men and women as even the lightest slap from (a man to a woman, but ironically, not from a woman to a man) is considered domestic abuse and thus it is deemed far too politically incorrect to study such phenomena, it would never get the funding in a modern feminist state, but I put forth and postulate that you’d find similar results in cases with male to female interactions, if you want to back it up with real-life observations try asking the baby boomers or the baby boomer parents their opinions and experiences on it (assuming the people in question are willing to discuss such things.)

Yeah, that’s because it is domestic abuse- from either gender. Male hits female, it’s wrong and illegal. Female hits male, it’s wrong and illegal. If you want to make any argument to the contrary, you don’t understand the terrible, life-destroying repercussions of domestic abuse.

5. Violence/Aggression and any such component associated with masculinity is portrayed as negative in all absolutism.

Apparently these things can never be productive, instrumental or beneficial and they’re always unintelligent, uncontrolled and unproductive. Apparently violence cannot be intelligent or purposeful. Violence can be used instrumentally to discipline people, the military use it and they produce great, self-disciplined strong characters, men. Society used to use the same kind of discipline to a lesser extent, just look at how poorly disciplined most kids are now (go outside and observe if need be) to see what an absence of violence based discipline has resulted in.


Kids aren’t more rude today than they were, it’s just different. What is mildly shocking now, may have been shocking 50 years ago, but what was mildly shocking then may not be shocking at all now! Times change. The fact that violence against other humans is wrong doesn’t.

6. Safety and comfortability are valued over liberty, risk and hard work.

This means a sizeable number of people are getting lazy and unproductive (welfare state dependency) and the authorities are able to keep tabs on an ever-increasing population size (police state – CCTV – NSA etc) This is an effective change from masculine moral values to feminine ones in terms of how state government is run. Women make up the majority of the electorate and thus have a bigger say in dictating social policy and who makes it. Feminism is not the only cause of the ever-increasing emergence of what appears to be a police state in western nations, terrorism and 9/11 have been used as scapegoats to justify such impingement on ones personal freedoms, however although not the sole reason it is safe to say that the legacy feminism has left is certainly a significant reason, if not a facilitator of today’s emerging western police states.

Is this a mother fucking joke? Did he really just say women have more electorate power than men? It’s like you’ve never been outside before… Maybe if you took a break from blaming EVERYTHING on feminists, you might understand the issues here are so much more complex than ‘blame,’ or ‘us vs. them’.

7. Wages have lowered in real terms since women entered the workforce.

I won’t say a lot here as the title speaks for itself, however look at this rather sensually telling graph compiled by research done by CNN Money:


Wage rates in America declined in real terms since 1968, not so ironically, coinciding with the eruption of the feminist movement. Where one wage used to be enough to feed an entire family, now often enough at the lower end of the socioeconomic scale two wages are needed. [11]

That has a lot more to do with inflation than feminism, but you’re looking for a scapegoat so I’ll just keep movin.

8. People are more unhappy than they used to be due to the destruction of the family unit and the loneliness it spawns.

More and more people are living alone and dying alone. There are more houses now with 1 person living in them than ever before, we’re becoming more disconnected as a society as more and more family lines cease to continue their lineage, instead falling into disarray due to the ease of divorce and an overly sexualized society which promotes promiscuity over commitment in order to sell products – it’s essentially an implosion of moralistic self-destruction which attacks societies collectives baser instincts in order to “rape them” for profit. [12]

And this is the fault of feminism…. Riiiiight…

9. The casual normalisation of “Hyper Promiscuity.”

People are casually fucking others without any real pair bonding and then opting to settle down when they’re much older out of fear of impending loneliness and forced solitude or choosing not to start a family at all. The mating culture for people of most ages is simply to use people and fuck them, forming no real pair bonds or emotional connections. Some people attempt relationships but the strength of these relationships is adversely affected by the external temptation which is hook-up culture, say when a relationship is going through a turbulent time, the opportunities offered by hook-up culture can seduce a spouse, leading to adultery, the eventual divulgence of said adultery to the other party involved and then typically an end to said relationship.

Hook-up culture is a direct consequence of the “sexual revolution” which feminism sparked, ignited and proclaims so loudly to be proud of. The notion that female promiscuity should be untamed and socially acceptable conduct, this can still be seen even today with feminisms efforts to normalise female promiscuity via campaigns such as being  ”anti-slut shaming” sure, because encouraging promiscuity is not only putting one at sexual risk via the prevalence of sexual disease, but is psychologically unappealing to a man looking to seriously build and create something with a woman for the long-term, thus damaging her own long-term chances at attaining happiness with a suitable suitor. Oh the self-inflicting irony.

Wait, so does Illi think only women are sexually promiscuous or just that only their promiscuity has consequences? I thought you didn’t like double standards, Illi!

Now it is done. I have burnt Illi’s article to the ground and salted the earth. I’m sure someone will come to his aid in the comments, but for now my bra is singeing my sweater made of welfare checks so I best be off.


The Destruction of Family and Other “Liberating Legacies” we can Thank Feminist Social Engineering for | Illimitable Men.

Beastie Boys & GoldieBlox Go To Battle Over “Girls”

Last week, we showed you this new advertisement from the girls toy company GoldieBlox, spoofing the Beastie Boys’ song “Girls.” Well, the company’s use of the song has sparked a legal battle over copyright infringement — but before you assume that it’s the Beastie Boys suing GoldieBlox, think again. According to The Hollywood Reporter, while the band claims that the inclusion of “Girls” in the video doesn’t fall under fair use and is a “big problem” that has a “very significant impact,” it’s GoldieBlox that’s preemptively suing the Beastie Boys, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief to “vindicate the rights” of the toy company. Their argument is that the lyrics to “Girls” are sexist and therefore their use of that song in an ad related to little girls’ empowerment qualifies as “parody.”

The Beastie Boys themselves have long ago apologized for and distanced themselves from “Girls.” They included an apology for the lyrics in the liner notes of their Best Of album, refuse to play the song live, and won’t allow it to be included in any greatest hits albums or compilations. So yes, GoldieBlox certainly has the Beastie Boys own public remarks on “Girls” to support their argument that the song is sexist and poking fun at it in their ad would qualify as parody. GoldieBlox says its objective was to “make fun of the Beastie Boys song, and to further the company’s goal to break down gender stereotypes and to encourage young girls to engage in activities that challenge their intellect, particularly in the fields of science, technology, engineering and math.”

However, when Beastie Boy Adam “MCA” Yauch died last year from cancer, he made it explicitly clear in his will that he did not want the Beastie Boys music to be used in advertisements. All that being said, the Beastie Boys never expressed an intent to sue GoldieBlox, so GoldieBlox’s preemptive lawsuit is offensive rather than defensive and pretty shady if you ask me. A representative for the Beastie Boys explained: “There was no complaint filed, no demand letter (no demand, for that matter) when [GoldieBlox] sued Beastie Boys.”

GoldieBlox seems like they’re doing cool stuff, but at the end of the day, they’re still a company tryin’ to make some coin. While I certainly see how their use of “Girls” would qualify as parody, “parody” is NOT a good enough reason to rip off an artist’s work in order to sell products, even if it comes with some girls’ empowerment on the side. [Huffington Post]

Guys, this is a big fucking deal. BFD, as I like to say. I agree that credit should be given where credit is due, but what this Frisky author fails to realize is how critical the right to parody is. It may seem like a way for companies to rip off artists, but 1. The Beastie Boys made money off of a sexist, albeit pretty ok, song- now they’re not making money off of a commercial that changes the song’s message to something empowering and awesome. I’m certainly not losing any sleep. 2. Imagine the world without parody protection- sure, it’s a fine line, but it’s a line that protects dissenters and voices of reason. SNL, Jimmy Fallon etc. would have no material! The point of parody protection is to allow those without the ability to buy rights, or an ideological reason not to, to express themselves. This isn’t stealing, it’s a statement. If you take away the right to parody, you take away the accountability everyone should have if they produce something.

This case will be far more important than people think. This case will set a precedent for whether or not gender equality is considered enough of an “issue” to be protected. If the Beastie Boys win, it will send the message that parody and dissent are ok so long as they don’t question the gender hierarchy. It will send the message that to be racially oppressed, socio-economically oppressed, etc.- those are “real” issues. It will resign feminism to realm of  hobbies- something for rich white ladies like Sheryl Sandberg and Betty Freidan to muse about in their free time.

If parody does not extend to making fun of the ridiculous gender essentialism that passes for normal these days, feminism will be trivialized for the billionth time, in the billionth trial, in the billionth battle for a voice that is taken seriously. If you think GoldieBlox is just trying to “make some coin” you don’t know nearly enough about them. Gendered schooling and toys are the first exposure to essentialism kids get. A world where girls believe they can be engineers, astronauts and doctors is a world with more female engineers, astronauts and doctors. 

BFD, guys, BFD.

Beastie Boys & GoldieBlox Go To Battle Over “Girls”.

TWTIRTW: To The Women Of The World. . . .

New installment of The Worst Thing I Read This Week

I guess I need to clarify why…

The truth is, I don’t care about your feelings. I don’t care how your day went, I don’t care about your friends, your relationship, or your complaints about gender issues. Also, I am not the least bit attracted to you. How could I be?

Ok this is apathy, not equality. My brother cares about how my day went because he’s a good brother and he loves me… If that’s not the way you and sisters’ relationship works- ok, but it’s not because your family is gender-neutral.

That would be gross, after all, you ARE my sister.

I don’t always treat you with sensitivity, in fact sometimes I can be a lout. That’s what brothers do, they prepare you for a life time of dealing with men. Imagine how crazy it would be surrounded by men who are only interested in you sexually or romantically?? Those guys will say anything, DO anything to get you to pay attention to them, to get you to sleep with them, so how much can you really trust what they say or do for you? I mean I’d love it if you met a really cool guy who made you happy, but I know what men are like and I don’t think that’s going to happen any time soon. You can dream though, that’s cool with me. Just don’t be mad when I snicker.

As a woman who used to work at a bar, a lot of my day is and was spent rolling my eyes at catcallers and unsolicited suitors, so I don’t have to imagine what that’s like.

I know sometimes I say mean things, I think some of your interests, especially this new found feminism, is kind of silly. Just as I am sure that you think some of my “guy” stuff is pretty lame. That’s cool, we can agree to disagree. Just don’t expect me to join your club; if I did, it would only be to meet other girls who aren’t my sisters. Which is not the kind of guy I am.

I’m sorry, what? You think feminism is silly and you want to defend yourself in the comments section? No dice.

I’m your big brother. That may seem belittling, misogynist and patriarchal, but hey, I didn’t start this family, I’m just in it with you. We can’t be equal, I don’t want to be equal with you. You’re smart and compassionate and caring, you are naive and daring and adventurous and shy. You are all kinds of things I am not, how can I equal that? We’re just different, we share the same parents but we’ve got different skills and interests. That’s just the way it is. In some things, you are far superior to me. In other things, not so much. It’s not our place to judge which things are more valued and any society that doesn’t appreciate the gifts of all people, no matter how diverse and different they may be, is not a society that should ever allow anyone to be judged. Judging others is so 20th century.

Girls have to be a certain way and boys have to be a certain way. Riiiiight, and you’re not sexist.

I know sometimes you hate me. I embarrass you when you are with your boyfriend and I remind you that I told you he was a loser after he dumps you at the worst possible moment. I won’t fight Mom and Dad to get you equal time with the car because that just means less time for me. I don’t ever want to see you post those kinds of pictures on Facebook again. That’s fair, I know I deserve it sometimes, but guess what?

I never hate you. Never. I may hate the choices you make, the clothes you wear, the men you date, the music you like, the movies you watch, the new haircut, your monthly mood swings, your interests, your career and all of your friends. But I could never hate my sisters.

Ok this seems to super specific to your actual sisters… But the title says “to the women of the world”… Who aren’t all your sisters… So you’re not attracted to the women of the world, nor do you care about their feelings or how their days went. I’m getting confused.

It might sound strange to hear this, because all you hear all day is nice things from guys who want to get you naked. They agree with everything you say, they fake interest in all your causes, only to mock them behind your back with the guys. There is no such thing as male feminists, there is only big brothers and guys who want to sleep with you. I know some big brothers are nicer than I am, but this is who I am. I can try to be nicer, but I can’t act like those guys who want to sleep with you. I already said it twice, that is just gross.

This. Is. Not. True. What about fathers, uncles, grandfathers and all the other men in this world who would beg to differ because they believe in the equality of women. You. Are. Wrong.

I’m willing to defend you, stick up for you, give my life to save yours if needed. That’s easy, you are my family and it is the right thing to do. I cannot, however, always be nice.

I do not need your saving and I promise I am far less nice than you.

I’m Big Brother. You are all my sisters. Even though we may never get along and will disagree on everything, I still kicked the guy’s ass who grabbed yours in the elevator. I don’t need your permission, that is just what big brother’s do. . . .

You don’t need my permission to fight my battles for me? This is chauvinistic horseshit. I’m getting angrier by the character.

Let it be known, menfolk, I- and many other women- can fight my own battles and could kick your ass if you got me mad enough.

Which, incidentally, you have.

To The Women Of The World. . . . | Richard Evans – Writer of Oddities.

TWTIRTW: A Biological Standpoint For Objectifying Women

An article written by someone who does not understand that to ‘obectify’ or to view as an object is the opposite of understanding they are a human being.

It is not my wish to invoke response or anger from any sides but rather my humble opinion from my own views and experience, so please bear with me. A term that has emerged regularly in the new millennium is “objectification”, used often in the phrase “objectifying women”. As we become more advance in terms of technology and more civilized, it is only appropriate that we level out the playing fields. We strive to advocate for an even and equal political, economic, and social rights for all race, creed and gender.

Let me start off with the statement that I do align with most concepts that feminist advocates. I understand that our sexual counterpart is just as equal to males in many aspects. I understand that sexual violence, harassment, assault is a serious issue that needs to be dealt with and anyone who partakes in it will be condemned by me. But I draw the line when someone tells me to “stop objectifying women”. I view these people as prude and rather oblivious of the real issue. I will try to build my case from the ground up.

Do you breathe? Do you eat? Do you sleep? It seems silly to ask these questions, as they are the very core of living. And so it is important that we reproduce, have sexual intercourse, and even masturbate if we were to apply the same logic. But as we become more civilized as human being, we adapt. No longer do we have to fight for food nor do we have to eat with our hands. We develop the concept of self hygiene and grooming. We dress in our best attire, we go to work, we come home, we watch tv. But our biological needs are always there, as it has been ingrained into our core from our ancestors, and will never change. We still need to eat, sleep, and have sexual intercourse.

I will not pretend to be well perceived ofFreudianismnor did I major in anthropology/ social science/ history. I majored only in biology. But this has taught me to be impartial of the evidence and data. And this is nothing but what I have discern from my life experience and the people around me.

When I partake in masturbation/ sexual activity, I will always try to have “dominance” over my sexual counterpart. This may or may not translate into real” dominance” or perceived “dominance”. But dominance is the key word here. I intend to dominate over my sexual counterpart in many ways, most of the time by being in control. And to do this, I will perceive them as a “piece of meat” as you would call it, an object to be molded in my hand for my sexual desire. And this perception would continue throughout the day; in the shower, as I walk across the street. I am fully aware my female counterpart is a human being too, full with emotions and desires, but my sexual hunger remains the same. Though I am uncomfortable with this phrase, the underlying feeling remains and there is nothing I can do to change it.

And this is the problem. I may hide behind a façade of altruism, respecting women left and right, but my inner and deepest desire will be to “ravage” them. I lust to assert dominance, and have “my way” with them. Ask any men, and if they say otherwise, they are lying (in my opinion). We may forgo our pleasure during intercourse to please the opposite sex sexually, but we desire to remain in control. True, they are outliers, and there are men who wish to be dominated, but I will not try to argue semantics. Other species too have shown examples of female dominating the males. But with human species, the male will statistically always dominate the female sexually.

Blame porn, the media, or our culture, but this has gone on for centuries, even millenniums. “Sexual objectification” is not going to change, as it is ingrain into us like biological ticking clocks. I understand that the concept is flawed, and objectifying women leads to many adverse effects such as violence and depression. But to tackle the issue by not objectifying women is inefficient and pointless. It is as similar as asking a person politely to not breathe nor eat. I admit I don’t have the best solution to this problem, but understanding the problem firsthand is better than ignoring it.

So I plead my case that men continue to “objectify” women, as this is how our sexual lust for our opposite sex functions by. My support will go for women to “objectify” men as well, as it is biologically natural to do so and fighting against it is a prudish attempt. I believe being able to distinguish and differentiate between a healthy dose of “objectification of women” and unhealthy “sexual violence” is a better way to approach the matter and negate violence against women.

A Biological Standpoint For Objectifying Women | Thought Catalog.