Unfortunately, my view on feminism has completely changed since I’ve been in your class. Our class started out lovely and now all we talk about is the hatred towards men that you, clearly not all of us, have. Please stop bashing men, we have them in our class too! God. Equal rights, I get it, but it’s supposed to be an EQUAL society—not matriarchal society either. —Feminist, Not Man Hater
This article appears in Nov 29 – Dec 5, 2012.
hear hear, it serves no purpose
hmmm ..an enlightened feminist ..
Good for you, OB.
The story of my life………… oh, and, fuck you Mcnasty!! Damn little bitch, you wrote this didn’t you?
First year MSV?
Thanks for not buying into the hate.
I hear there are good men out there.I guess I haven’t been lucky enough to meet a decent man who remembers me. 🙁 🙁
http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/youre-a-pus…
Of course, it’s Vice mag. Just trolling along…
overt man-hatred like this is usually created in the minds of women who can’t get any to love them. So instead of admitting that they are somehow evolutionary losers they spend their time policing love and sex and lust by deeming them unethical, misogynistic or abusive. Because after all, not getting lucky because no one wants you is sort of sad. Not getting lucky because you “hate men” is “revolutionary”.
The church often does this too to control breeding practices. She wants to do the same thing. So the cute girls are terrified of men and the cute men are the enemy. A future of people as unappealing as she is.
It’s kind of crazy that this is allowed to happen. Professors teaching sexism. U should get her on tape and show it to her boss, see what they say.
sometimes o.p., the underlying reason is there, people hate something or someone for a very good reason. maybe not all that visible to you or anyone else, but it’s there. and very hard to change.
IMHO, MSVU’s feminists are a bunch of fucking cock cleavers with daddy issues. It’s been like that since the ’80s.
I’ve worked in a totally male environment for most of my career and I wouldn’t trade any of those guys, even the pencil-necked boss, for an office full of man-hating Venus Fly Twats. Advice to OP – kick her in the box.
Some “professionals”,like this teacher let “power” go to their fucking heads, by taking advantage of wide eyed little girls,that are eager to learn and stuff their pretty little heads with bull shit and hatred.
You said it, Boru, what those broads have to say ain’t worth the hill of beans. Not from this old broad’s perspective.
what class is it? what subject? if it’s ‘women’s history’ there would be a lot of factual information that could be seen as bashing, just because several centuries of rape and pillage can be overwhelming crammed into an hour. kind of difficult to find anything sweet to say on that subject. how does one jolly up an item about the us cavalry using native women’s cut out vaginas as gunpowder bags.
however, if the class is accounting 101, then wth??? teacher is straying from the curriculum.
so, op, before i will jump on the big bad feminist teacher hate bandwagon, what is the class?
Men get told women are the enemy, women get told men are the enemy. God. I’m just gonna cut out my ovaries, shave my head, live on an island alone and say screw it all.
The only thing I wish is that HUMANs were respectful and treated each other with integrity. I ask for nothing else, but no, apparently that’s too much.
the answer is ……DOGS. 1 dog is worth 100 humans. 200 if they are wogdog.
it is too much to expect donk, it is. humans have an astronomical capacity for deliberate cruelty.
it’s not to say there are no good people, there are many. but as a percentage in comparison to good dogs? doesn’t even tip the scales.
pfft.
No information or context here. What is the class, what is she saying exactly? Is it factually incorrect? Or is it something OP doesn’t want to hear.
My experience has shown me that women that do not suffer fools are the same women that most people say don’t like men. I find that a tad insulting. Not saying OP is wrong but she’s not giving enough info for me to see her side of things.
Tommy, her boss would probably say “Good job” and the prof is doing great. Hell the boss probably wrote the curriculum.
“Venus Fly Twats” – Oh Dear God, I’m dyin’ here. >: )
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ZC1R_0tkPQs/S7od…
Pro-woman doesn’t have to mean anti-man. Male bashing feminists sound pathetic and are extremely annoying.
Oh, and LMAO at Ivan! Made me choke on my morning java! LOL!
My pleasure Nurse. I’ll do my “Blow Me” imitation and suggest “You might want me around to do the Heimlich maneuver next time that happens. Giggity” >; )
♥Just joshin’. SOBova is the Gulag in which my heart is incarcerated♥
Ya know what she needs??????
A nice ,big ,stiff ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,Drink.
Man Bashing? Well for the most part I agree with you OP. Except for you Blow: You’re cute. I like you. A Lot!
That’s unfortunate OP. Just continue to be the lovely feminist you want to be. I know some awesome feminists who definitely don’t man-bash. I think most love da menz who treat others well.
Blow Me and Woggie are cute….awwwww 🙂
RSVP
: Mad Dog Molly (11/29, 9:22PM)
“how does one jolly up an item about the us cavalry using native women’s (sic) cut up vaginas as gunpowder bags?”
Three points:
(1) Wasn’t the US cavalry told always to keep their powder dry?
(2) They were using cartridges and not powder-and-ball by that time.
(3) Any source for that “item,” Mad Dog?
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Aww thanks Nursie. We like each other…. awwwww. cute…. I know..
blame my memory MM… it was not to hold not gunpowder. i cannot find my copy of “against our will’ susan brownmiller to get her source for the excised vaginas, so had to dig it out (one of them) myself.
> it was the stretching out over the hats to dry them that stuck in my mind. i haven’t re-read the book since the 70’s.
as they say, war is hell.
hey! my reference did not copy over, sorry mm, will re-do.
Statements taken by Major Edward W. Wynkoop and his adjutant substantiated the later accounts of survivors. These statements were filed with his reports and can be found in the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion, copies of which were submitted as evidence in the Joint Committee of the Conduct of the War and in separate hearings conducted by the military in Denver. Lieutenant James D. Cannon describes the mutilation of human genitalia by the soldiers, “men, women, and children’s privates cut out. I heard one man say that he had cut a woman’s private parts out and had them for exhibition on a stick. I heard of one instance of a child, a few months old, being thrown into the feed-box of a wagon, and after being carried some distance, left on the ground to perish; I also heard of numerous instances in which men had cut out the private parts of females and stretched them over their saddle-bows, and some of them over their hats
Now did he hear someone say it or did this Lt actually witness it. There are reasons why courts of today will not allow (except for very very rare cases) hearsay testimony.
GDM, even by your account, it appears that the Calvary was the epitome of equal rights as, in your words , they took the privates from MEN, women, and CHILDREN. War is hell and war back then and earlier, was even more harsh than today.
Most of the descriptions of genital mutilation of natives by American soldiers stem from one particularly horrific incident, the Sand Creek massacre, carried out by Col. John Chivington and his Colorado Territory Militia. Not regular troops. The conduct of Chivington and his men was considered so abominable, even by the standards of the day, that there were numerous inquiries and plentiful testimony made by witnesses and participants.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sand_Creek_ma…
Genital mutilation , rape, and slow torture of wounded and captives was a feature of the Indian wars, by all parties. U.S. soldiers were advised to save their last round for themselves to avoid it.
Also, I’ve got to emphasize that I’m not taking sides on this one. It doesn’t matter who was in the right or wrong. Drop a team of F.B.I. B.A.U. agents back into that period and they would probably conclude that the whole continent was peopled by sexual sadists.
At least they were functional…. Bobbit just turf’d the schnitzel out a window.
Sounds like a class I’d enjoy. All evil and corruption in this world has been caused by men. If the world consisted of only women, we’d all be fat and happy.
“All evil and corruption in this world has been caused by men.”
And until they invent a dildo that can dispense welfare cheques that’s the way it’s gonna be, Shug.
“If the world consisted of only women, we’d all be fat and happy.”
Until Day 28 when there would ensue a global nuclear war followed by lots of crying and mass consumption of cheesecake. The living would truly envy the dead, and blame for not “communicating their feelings” enough
i’ve heard this one far too often “if women ran the world we would have no war” chortle
RSVP
: Mad Dog Molly (12/01, 5:32PM)
Citing Susan Brownmiller’s “Against Our Will” in support of your claim that men are sadistic brutes is like citing Joseph Goebbels in support of the claim that Jews are nasty people. Impartial sources, Mad Dog, you need impartial sources!
(9:52PM)
The fact that Major Wynkoop’s atrocities were the subject of an investigation by “The Joint Committee of the Conduct of the War” indicates that those atrocities were just that – atrocities – and in no way can be seen as evidence in support of your view that males in general are naturally barbaric. Logic, Mad Dog, logic! You cannot extrapolate to a universal from a particular instance!
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
And of course female world leaders were so peaceful. Leaders like Margaret Thatcher… oops Falklands War, Golda Meir… oops Yom Kippor War, Indira Gandhi… oops Indian/Pakistani Wars, Benazir Bhutto… oops Afghanistan and of course India. Just a few of the gentler sex leaders.
i gave birth to a boy, kinda hard to hate men. oh, and the bear, my dad and my brudder…………..
MM, ashamed of you, yes and sorely disappointed. how did you extrapolate, from my comment, that i view men as barbaric? my comment was specifically directed to the class in question, and that IF it is a class in women’s history, that there could be many examples (examples, not universal condemnation) like the one i gave and that could be viewed as ‘men bashing’ when crammed into an hour long lecture.
and why would you claim that i hold the view of ‘men are barbaric’ and conveniently ignore the many comments i have made over the past months that do specifically state my view of men, to whit, how many kind, caring, humane, intelligent and wonderful men i have known and do know?
also, you err in your statement that i was citing brownmiller’s book, i was using the same source as she (and others) . as you know,mm, that is completely different. your statement was in error, your assertion was in error and the conclusion you drew was, not suprisingly, wrong.
re ivan and the 28 days later, you forgot the chocolate faction (for those of us who don’t like cheesecake) in my opinion, ‘normal’ women are more bloody minded and vicious than men could ever be. as ttfn mentioned re work place. i have worked with both and the behaviour of the females at work makes me shudder. i think it has something to do with establishing breeding rights and the survival of their young. you don’t want to get in the way of that. it may be residual instinct but one can see it in play in any environment where there is a possible alpha male to fight over.
women seem to behave badly as individuals or small cliques. men behave badly in groups. in general. sociopaths aside.
I’d bet none of you heard about this. More to the positive side (if you can call it that). Follow the link to the documentary; it’s very interesting how close we came.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10…
It was written about in 2003.
http://www.amazon.com/October-Fury-Peter-H…
Sorry for showing off. It is a good book and an interesting story.
Very interesting Daniel, I really had no idea how close things came. My parents tried to tap dance around the issue of the Cuban Missile Crisis and the questions from a 5 year old (myself) as to what was going on. My older brothers told me it would like the sun exploding and everything would die. Even then, I wondered why. Why have anything with that power of destruction?
Too young to grasp the idea of a nuclear stalemate to avoid a global conflict or anything about the cold war we were locked in. I knew nothing of Hiroshima or Nagasaki at that point, so the whole Cuban standoff came out of left field. Hell I didn’t even know where Cuba was. Although I thought it was funny to have a country named after a six-sided figure.
Mount grad here – class of ’95. There was quite a bit of man-hating going on, but if memory serves there was a bit of it going on _everywhere_. There were stories coming out of NSCAD about women turning on men holding doors open for them. Mount broads like me wouldn’t have stood for that – courtesy’s courtesy, and all that.
The Third Wave of feminism was a massive shift: it introduced far more perspectives than those of middle-class white North American society, began becoming more sex-positive than some Second-Wavers had been, and introduced LGBT issues into the mix as well. It began to bring forth ideas from the feminine mindset that did not require or accept negotiations from the “masculine” mindset of the public sphere. A Women’s History class is not necessarily going to focus on where we are now, but how we got here. A man-hating woman in that class is to be expected, but their perspective need not dictate yours.
Yup my dad was on the Bonnie at the time. Two of our neighbours from different ships were up and gone very fast and had no idea where they were going or when they would be back. 22 RCN ships were involved with a multitude of RCAF aircraft both ship borne and land borne. When they got home, they (including my dad) wouldn’t discuss it.
There are two different schools of feminism that have come about, the distinction of which is very important in understanding why I’m writing this in the first place.
Equality feminism:equal rights with both sexes.
and
Difference feminism:men have and are destroying the world and must acknowledge this and let women completely take over.
So why the fuck do girls reward men with wealth, gargantuan houses and an asshole attitude?
Oh! that’s also the fault of men. Never mind that women like hoarding asshole fucks in every culture; male society made them like that. They aren’t born with at least part of it…..
I’m an equality feminist. Difference feminists are a danger to the world because they can’t see past what has “happened” to them. They aren’t doing the best thing for the situation and aren’t even trying. Their hate… that’s what they have. Nothing else.
LEGITIMATE & ILLEGITIMATE EXTRAPOLATIONS
” Mad Dog Molly (12/02, 4:45PM)
“… how did you extrapolate from my comment, that i view men as barbaric?”
Good morning Mad Dog. I think, interestingly, the question has risen from matters of fact such as Wynkoop’s atrocity and the teaching of Women’s Studies classes to matters of their interpretation in respect to the legitimacy of extrapolations from those facts.
I claimed that, within the context of such classes and their portrayal of men which you – and Susan Brownmiller – appeared to endorse, amounted to an illegitimate example of “man bashing.” The reason for this was that, unlike the solitary example of Wynkoop, Women’s Studies classes constitute a continuing educational phenomenon permeated by the thematic subtext of androphobia (or misandry if you prefer), the proximate reason for such “man bashing.”
As a matter of fact I have been a soldier in the gender wars myself. In my “Is There a Feminist Pedagogy?” (McGill Journal of Education, Vol. 2, No. 3, Fall, 1994) I argued that there was no such thing. My reasoning was based on my claim that, where a pedagogy necessarily rests on an epistemology – the theory of the nature of knowledge and criteria of truth – that there exists no such distinctive feminist epistemology and hence no such thing as a feminist pedagogy. I originally gave the paper at the 27th. annual conference of the Philosophy of Education Conference of Great Britain held at New College, Oxford University, April, 1993. If you like I can post an abstract and we can engage the issue from there.
The question as to whether you yourself are androphobic is a separate issue. You claim that your comments over the past months have shown otherwise and this, no doubt, is true. But my comments were made purely on the basis of your Wyncoop post and bracketed out the rest which, given that context, renders your posts from past months irrelevant.
Finally, I find your claim that you were not using Brownmiller’s book as a source but only using the same source as she did tendentious. I saw no critique of either in your comment and so assumed that while you may not have actually used Brownmiller you were down with her on the substance of her charges.
In any case Mad Dog, I know that we’re still friends.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
i shall make an attempt to treat you more kindly, no idea you were so aged. and speaking of aged bones, you will pull something by contorting yourself so.
‘down with her’ ? good heavens. you are venturing into incoherence.
worship at my altar, boy.
Holy suffering fuck, GDM. You could bore even the most strident of lesbian feminists. Feminist wars are fought from the homes of rich housewives, ripe with disdain for their mundane existances.
daniel, at first i was flummoxed by your statement that women reward men by giving them huge houses and wealth, then realized your intent was the reverse.
if you look at some nasty old man who has a gorgeous 20 something on his arm, he will not be a poor man. the market has buyers and sellers and a woman’s youth and beauty are her marketable features, because that is what the ‘buyer’ wants and can demand. he will not give the time of day to a plain, but kind, woman. in that kind of market daniel, would you really want a relationship with one of the female parties?
a good looking young man of no means cannot compete with an old, foul man of wealth. not for ‘that’ kind of trophy female. at best he could hope to become a pool boy on the side, once she is safely married to the old nasty, and play the eagles lyin’ eyes at night, alone in his bed.
sorry mm, i forgot to reply to your ‘good morning’. since it is now afternoon, i shall respond with ‘good afternoon’. i don’t want to have to use the ‘churlish’ word on myself.
RSVP
: Mad Dog Molly (12/03, 1:24PM)
Good afternoon, Mad Dog.
Sadly, one had hoped for a theoretical – possibly a philosophical – discussion about the criteria legitimating extrapolations from empirical facts, your initial reference to the singular Wyncoop atrocity on the one hand and your subsequent reference to the continuing androphobically-inspired “Women’s Studies” on the other. It was not to be.
Failing that, one had hoped that you might have engaged my critique of “feminist pedagogy,” the main characteristics of which I had been at pains to adumbrate for your enlightenment. Sadly, one’s hopes were dashed again. It was not to be.
Instead – can you believe it? – I get a snide reference to my “aged bones.” I think, Mad Dog, it would be both more accurate and appropriate if you referred to my “maturity,” both physical and intellectual. Further, my reference “to get down with” was not incoherent as you suggest but rather a common and. I must say, rather hip expression meaning to agree with, as in “Mad Dog Molly is down with Susan Brownmiller”.
Worship at your altar, Mad Dog? You must be joking. Any more talk like that and I’ll have to pull your panties down and give you a good spanking.
(1:24PM)
Good afternoon, Mad Dog.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
my darling aged hipster, surely you must know by now, in your heart of hearts, that i will never grant your unspeakable desire for intellectual intercourse with me.
instead i will skitter tantalizingly just out of reach, en pointe in my size 10’s and fluttering my work worn fingers at your eager parentheses.
boy’s camp in white’s lake? i can see it from my window.
The appropriate cool new term would be that GDM ‘fucks’ with Susan Brownmiller.
“Yeah, I fuck with Susan Brownmiller. Against our will is my shit.”
INTELLECTUAL INTERCOURSE
: Mad Dog Molly (12/03, 3:45PM)
“… i will never grant your unspeakable desire for intellectual intercourse with me.”
Good morning Mad Dog. I trust you slept well.
I found your assertion somewhat puzzling. Was it my “desire” for intellectual intercourse with you which was “unspeakable” or, rather, the “activity” of intellectual intercourse itself? Clearly, the two are not the same. I will attempt a philosophical clarification.
One wonders, in the case of the my desire for intellectual intercourse with you, just how the “desire” can be said to be “unspeakable” where, by unspeakable is to be understood as being in some sense abhorrent, not to be countenanced. But how can a desire, “simpliciter” (as they say in Latin) be said to be abhorrent, not to be countenanced? Ontologically speaking, desires are not the sort of things to which descriptors such as abhorrent may be coherently applied. It is the act based on that desire, not the desire itself. So the desire itself is off the table. What, then, about the “activity” of intellectual intercourse?
The first step involves getting clearer about what, exactly, is involved in the activity of intellectual intercourse. Like its sexual counterpart, intellectual intercourse involves penetrating and being penetrated but, unlike its sexual counterpart, intellectual intercourse involves mutual penetration, the give-and-take of concepts and their critiques. So intellectual intercourse is “intercourse” only in a metaphorical or extended sense.
The next step is determining why Mad Dog finds the activity of intellectual intercourse “unspeakable.” Why can this be? It is, after all, the normal meat and drink of doing philosophy. That is what one does when one does philosophy and – it must be obvious – that is what I am doing now when I engage Mad Dog’s contention that the activity of intellectual intercourse is unspeakable. So why, then, does Mad Dog find the activity unspeakable? While there is no answer that can satisfy the criteria of apodictic certainty, I think I can hypothesize in respect to an answer.
Mad Dog is fearful of engaging Montrealman in intellectual intercourse because
she recognizes, concedes and demurs to his superiority in this respect, that being the activity of philosophizing with an interlocutor to which she has given the appellation “intellectual intercourse.” Montrealman, in his turn, recognizes Mad Dog’s act of intellectual abasement. He will permit her to worship at his altar.
Size 10’s? I’ll have to re-think pulling down your panties and giving you a good spanking.
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
i do concede to your extraordinary persistence. i do not submit to it, but i will concede it’s existence. (you should be able to work that into a paragraph or two)
here is a very old joke…
what did the masochist beg of the sadist?
‘beat me! beat me!’
what did the sadist reply?
‘no’.
which of us owns a pair of size 10 metal spiked stiletto heels, hmmmm?
INTELLECTUAL INTERCOURSE (II)
: Mad Dog Molly (12/04, 9:37AM)
” i do concede to your extraordinary persistence. i do not submit to it, but i will concede its existence.”
Good afternoon Mad Dog. I trust your lunch was satisfactory.
In one respect the issue in relation to your two sentences is clearly one of redundancy. The first asserts that you concede the existence of my extraordinary persistence. That is duly noted but the second sentence adds nothing to the substance of the first, being simply a repetition of the fact that you concede the existence of my extraordinary persistence. The philosophical point here is that redundancy does not establish the truth of the assertion, i.e. that my persistence was “extraordinary.” Do you have a calculus measuring degrees of persistence? If not, how did you know it was extraordinary?
But of course, the crucial issue relates to the reason as to just why you did not submit to my extraordinary persistence. Was it simply being stubborn or were there rational reasons you could bring forward in support of your position? It seems to me that the recognition of my superior mind as I indicated in my previous post, the one demanding your submission to its superiority, still has efficacy which, in effect, brings us back to square one. However, I get the sense that you do not want to pursue this.
In any case Mad Dog, I did enjoy our act intellectual intercourse and I hope you did as well. It felt gooood. I do admit that you have me on the metal spiked stiletto heels. Mine are only size 9. I did enjoy your joke but the question is open as to who of us is the masochist and who is the sadist, neither of which is a particularly attractive option. However, on reflection, anyone who engages Montrealman in intellectual intercourse must know that they will suffer. On that basis, it looks like you’re the masochist and no, I won’t stop beating you. (Just kidding, dear, and I’m sure you know that.)
A pleasure as always.
Cheerio!
Good dog Molly.
If one young guy is poor and another YOUNG guy is rich and selfish the young guy with the fat wallet and selfish attitude will get the girl most of the time, even if she’s nice. You’re dancing around what I’m talking about.
morning daniel, no i was trying to agree with you, and i guess doing a poor job of it.
i used the example of an old, foul man vs a young man, to illustrate the buying power of wealth in the young flesh market. that it even trumps a young healthy man.
so if you have a young wealthy man, then he has even more with which to pay for a mate.
i believe it’s biological urges, or whatever term fits…men are drawn to young and whatever body form/face is most prized for their times, and women are drawn to ‘providers’. i think these things still affect attraction even though there should be no need for those anymore, modern women can certainly provide for themselves, and modern day man can think past a young face (ability to breed and produce healthy children) what happens though, if we have the collapse of civilization? like a nice, zombie apocalypse? the stuff that pulls our strings beneath our civilized veneer comes out. walking dead is doing it beautifully.
Good dog
I know you were agreeing with me. I was hinting at how what I’m talking about goes much further than many, and at that time possibly you even realize.