Friday, February 18, 2011

A New Low in Victim-Blaming, Part 2: In Mala Fide on Lara Logan

From In Mala Fide
The reaction of the "manosphere" to Lara Logan's reported sexual assault in Cairo has been highly revealing, to put it mildly. And what it reveals about the assorted Men's Rightsers, Men Going Their Own Way, pickup artists, and others who make up the manosphere is pretty ugly.

Take, for example, Ferdinand Bardamu's posts on the subject. On Tuesday, Bardamu, whose antifeminist blog In Mala Fide is widely linked to in the manosphere, spat forth a snide, sarcastic rant that attacked Logan for having the temerity to even set foot in Egypt. He started out dismissive:

Apparently, a CBS lady reporter got raped while covering the revolution in Egypt. For some reason, we’re expected to feel sorry for her.

Then turned up the sarcasm:

Oh, what a symbol of courage Miss Logan is! What a beacon of determination and grit and…no, seriously. I can’t go on.

Fuck Lara Logan. Fuck her and the shit-for-brains idiot who thought it was a good idea to send a WOMAN to report from a war zone. ...

Of course, Bardamu ignores the simple  fact that is is dangerous to send ANY reporter, male or female, into the midst of a revolution -- indeed, the Committee to Protect Journalists has documented more than 140 attacks on journalists in the Egyptian unrest so far; one journalist was shot and killed. Despite this fact, it is an undeniably good thing that some reporters (male and female both) are willing to risk their lives to cover wars and revolutions and other dramatic, dangerous, and important events. No one has suggested that the attacks on male journalists mean that men should not be covering these events. No one is mocking the male journalists who were attacked. (Well, almost no one. Bardamu refers in passing to CNN's Anderson Cooper, also famously attacked while covering the events of Egypt, as a "twinkle-toed pansy [who] couldn’t handle the heat on the streets of Cairo.")

For Bardamu, though, Logan's story is one of a woman foolishly trying to make her way in a man's world:

You send a chick into a situation like the one in Egypt, you might as well hang a sign around her neck that says “FREE FUCKTOY”. I don’t care how many disaster areas she’s reported from, how many awards she’s won, it was going to happen eventually. ...

Sucks that Lara got raped, but she had it coming. [Emphasis in original]

To Bardamu, this case is evidence not only that women journalists should not be sent to cover the Egyptian revolution but that they should not be allowed to leave their home country at all:

[O]f COURSE Lara shouldn’t be sent on another foreign assignment again! She, nor any other women should be allowed to be a foreign correspondent for their own safety.

And then, after arguing that Logan "had it coming,"and that any western woman who has the temerity to leave her hotel room and step out into the streets of Cairo should expect herself to get raped sooner or later, Bardamu then suggests that Logan may be making it all up:

There’s a non-zero chance that she didn’t get raped at all, and that she made the whole thing up to garner attention and sympathy from the weepy, chivalrous masses. ...

I have no evidence that she’s not telling the truth, only a tiny feeling in the pit of my stomach that’s been growing year by year, with every venal vixen who falsely accuses a man of rape because she wants fame, or she feels like a slut after sleeping with the guy, or she’s mad that he slept with her best friend the day after, or whatever else.

Naturally, in the comments, many of Bardamu's fans agreed that women women who trespass into male spaces deserve whatever happens to them. According to "John":

Women do not belong in men’s locker rooms, Mike Tysons apartment at 2:00 a.m., drunk in a bar bathroom with the Steelers quarterback, and they sure as hell don’t belong “reporting” in the middle of a revolution. Women should not go to Frat Parties dressed like sluts and get drunk with the expectation that “nothing will happen.” ...
This woman, Laura Logan, is not just an idiot – she is an adulterous whore. She shares this unfortunate circumstance with tens of millions of others of her sex, and deserves no pity whatsoever.

For some, the case was not just another excuse for "slut shaming" but evidence that the very notion of equality between the sexes is wrong. As Brett Stevens put it:

American women are rape targets worldwide. They are known to be clueless, friendly, and most of all, sexually easy. If a woman chucks her sexual favors out the door at the drop out of a hat, why not just go the extra mile and apply pressure? ... We take these girls from comfy suburbs and send them into war zones and riots and wonder why they get gang raped. Amazing cluelessness, arising from our insane idea of “equality.”

There were other comments even worse than these -- e.g., this one -- but I don't have the heart to post them here.

But Bardamu's retrograde notions were also challenged in the comments -- mostly from those who saw his noxious post linked to on feminist sites and on Twitter, but also in a few cases from actual fans of his blog.

This reaction inspired Bardamu to post a second piece on the Logan story, one even more narcissistic and self-righteous than the first. After taking on some of his critics (most notably Molly of Progressive Blogic, whom he labeled a "premenstrual whiner"), and casually referring to Logan as "an unwilling cum dumpster," Bardamu tried to pretend that it was him, and not the feminists, who had the best interests of women at heart.

Lara Logan had no business being in Cairo, or anywhere in that part of the world for that matter. All of you leftie feminist tossers screeching about “rape culture” have her blood on your hands. How many more have to suffer before your lies are discredited?

Sorry, but a guy who refers to any women, much less a woman who has been raped, as a "cum dumpster" pretty much forfeits any right to be taken seriously on the subject of what is best for women.

About a week ago, Bardamu reported that he'd taken a Psychopathy Test on OkCupid, and had scored an impressive 31 points, which put him in the ranks of the "True Psychopaths."  His posts on Logan -- full of narcissistic rage and utterly lacking in basic human empathy -- seem to bear out this diagnoses all too well.

--

If you liked this post, would you kindly* use the "Share This" or one of the other buttons below to share it on Twitter, Facebook, Reddit, or wherever else you want. I appreciate it.

83 comments:

  1. To Mr. Bardamu's (perhaps minimal) credit, at least he addressed the subject of male reporters getting assaulted or hurt in that region, which is something a lot of MRAs (I recall hearing something like this in one of the comments on your last post on the subject) have complained about.

    Then again, considering his reference to Cooper as a "twinkle-toed pansy," it's not really much of a credit to the MRAs (or "fellow travelers on the MRA road; since Ferdinand doesn't call himself an MRA, but he's close enough) that they don't seem to care much more about their fellow men than they do about women.

    That said, while I won't argue in his defense, an OKcupid test is a pretty poor assessment of anybody's mental state. And I don't really see how his post is that narcissistic, either--callous, insensitive, and provocatively offensive, sure, but he doesn't seem to be going much on talking about himself or self-aggrandizement.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Lara Logan had no business being in Cairo, or anywhere in that part of the world for that matter."

    When I first saw this, I read it as "or anywhere in the world for that matter." Something tells me that's not far off from what this guy really thinks.

    ReplyDelete
  3. At least some of the posters are fighting back.

    ReplyDelete
  4. turns outshe wasnt raped after all.. of course this biased feminist blog wont speak of it though.

    ReplyDelete
  5. turns outshe wasnt raped after all

    Really? First time I've heard of that. Not saying you're wrong, but if you could link us to a recantation or something that'd be nice.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I heard she was sexually and brutally assaulted, meaning beat up with some degree of sexual interference without penetration. I never read on any mainstream press that she was raped. In fact the first time I heard that she was gang raped was on mra blogs. I ASSUMED that mra’s would not make her out to be more then a victim then she already was. I guess they did. Not sure what they gained by making those claims.

    ReplyDelete
  7. There hasn't been a recantation. We don't yet know the details of what happened. The CBS statement referred to "sexual assault," which is sometimes legally distinct from rape, but did not give details. Given that we don't know the details I referred to it as a "reported sexual assault." I don't personally doubt it happened.

    (When later in the piece I refer to Bardamu as referring to a "a woman who has been raped" it's because the specific (awful) language he was using in that context presupposed a rape.)

    ReplyDelete
  8. So let me get this straight...

    The MRAs hate Logan because she was attacked in a dangerous situation.

    They also hate women because they feel like there's a great feminist conspiracy to convince men to go to war in our place.

    MRA: Fueled by hate!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Surely the elephant in the room is that kick-ass, war-reporting female journalists wouldn't be there if it wasn't for affirmative action. The market for you-go-grrrl reporters is an artificial one propped up by government incentives and fake propoganda. By contrast, if the natural laws of supply and demand held sway in the career journalist market, Lara Logan would almost certainly never have been sexually assaulted in Cairo. She was assaulted because of affirmative action. And that's why playing the victim-card pisses a lot of people off. You want "equality"? Then accept the consequences.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The market for you-go-grrrl reporters is an artificial one propped up by government incentives and fake propoganda.

    [citation needed]

    Seriously though, a lot of men watch the news because they like seeing cute reporters. Ms. Logan was appealing to that demographic--the corporation hired her due to that fact, not because of "affirmative action," unless the pursuit of profit in a free market counts as "affirmative action."

    ReplyDelete
  11. So you are saying that if a woman wishes to be a reporter, she should just accept the consequence of sexual assault?

    After all, that is what manly men do right?

    ReplyDelete
  12. And I don't really see how his post is that narcissistic, either--callous, insensitive, and provocatively offensive, sure, but he doesn't seem to be going much on talking about himself or self-aggrandizement.

    FWIW, one of the diagnostic criteria for Narcissistic Personality Disorder, according to the DSM-IV TR, is lack of empathy or concern for others' feelings--which is pretty clearly on display in his rant. Admittedly, that's not usually the first thing a lay person thinks of when the word "narcissistic" is mentioned.

    ReplyDelete
  13. If you really look at what I'm saying, Elizabeth, is that affirmative action (legally enforced discrimination based on sex) should be dismantled, because there are longer term consequences thereof. You cannot enforce sexism in favor of women and against men, and then expect egalitarian nirvana, with everyone linked arm-in-arm around a campfire singing Kumbaya.

    ReplyDelete
  14. If you really look at what I'm saying, Elizabeth, is that affirmative action (legally enforced discrimination based on sex) should be dismantled, because there are longer term consequences thereof. You cannot enforce sexism in favor of women and against men, and then expect egalitarian nirvana, with everyone linked arm-in-arm around a campfire singing Kumbaya.

    Your argument would be a lot stronger if you provided an actual example of government-enforced affirmative action in the news media, instead of just building strawmen (or straw women). We'll wait while you get on that.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The CBS statement referred to "sexual assault," which is sometimes legally distinct from rape...

    In Canada, "sexual assault" is not distinct from rape, but encompasses rape along with other assaults of a sexual nature.

    Logan was assaulted. The assault was sexual in nature. Whether or not there was PIV penetration is a detail that is kind of creepy to debate over.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Marissa, I agree completely. I'm just keeping with the language being used in CBS's statement, because that's all we know at this point. Misogynist assholes like bar are using the vagueness of the statement as an excuse to dismiss the whole thing.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Captain Bathrobe said:
    "Your argument would be a lot stronger if you provided an actual example of government-enforced affirmative action in the news media, instead of just building strawmen (or straw women). We'll wait while you get on that."

    Wull wait wol you get on thut!
    Us librals are sooo much smorter thun conservativs and edumacated.
    Hu! Hu! Hu! Um a geniuuus cuz Uv learnt how to duvert threads by deny-in self evudent stuf.


    Are you denying affirmative action exists?
    Or just denying it exists in the news media?

    Behold a liberal who doesn't believe in affirmative action! And you call yourself a liberal! Ha! Ha! Ha!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Chuckeedee said...

    Surely the elephant in the room is that kick-ass, war-reporting female journalists wouldn't be there if it wasn't for affirmative action. The market for you-go-grrrl reporters is an artificial one propped up by government incentives and fake propoganda. By contrast, if the natural laws of supply and demand held sway in the career journalist market, Lara Logan would almost certainly never have been sexually assaulted in Cairo. She was assaulted because of affirmative action. And that's why playing the victim-card pisses a lot of people off. You want "equality"? Then accept the consequences.



    Elizabeth said...

    So you are saying that if a woman wishes to be a reporter, she should just accept the consequence of sexual assault?

    After all, that is what manly men do right?


    Funny, I don't see the MRA's also saying men that enlist in the armed forces or work dangerous jobs should take the consequences of their actions. Why save trapped miners? They chose that job so let them die in the collapsed mine, amirite? I think I have the MRA values down, don't I?

    ReplyDelete
  19. Are you denying affirmative action exists?
    Or just denying it exists in the news media?

    Behold a liberal who doesn't believe in affirmative action! And you call yourself a liberal! Ha! Ha! Ha!


    Chuckee said that affirmative action was the proximate cause of Lara Logan being raped. I asked him to provide examples that would support his argument (i.e., women being hired and promoted in the news media due to government-mandated affirmative action). So far, he has not done so. Perhaps you can, instead?

    And, no, asserting that government-mandated affirmative action occurs elsewhere does not really count as evidence in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Also, evilwhitemale, laws that bar discrimination based on gender are not evidence of affirmative action.

    If it's so self-evident, then Google should turn up quite a few examples, yes?

    ReplyDelete
  21. "Your argument would be a lot stronger if you provided an actual example of government-enforced affirmative action in the news media"

    Fair point. We can begin by conducting some rudimentary analysis of our own. ... things like number of scholarships targeting women, and so on. Five minutes ago, my search phrase "scholarships for women in journalism" yielded 55 hits, while "scholarships for men in journalism" yields "no results found". Not a scientific study by any means. But a certain bias is evident and without surprise.

    But what is much harder to prove is systemic affirmative action. In other words, the pressure placed on employers when, confronted with hiring a man or a woman of "equal" standing, they will be obliged to choose the woman. The statutes often spell out as much should a hirer be faced with this kind of ambiguity.

    Does the number of female versus male news reporters on our televisions represent the proportions trained in journalism? Or, more specifically, does it reflect systemic biases in the workplace that are routinely encouraged in the culture of affirmative action? The gold-stars that are routinely awarded to companies for hiring women over men has become standard practice that goes unchallenged. If in doubt, choose the woman. Furthermore, the promise of a public-relations coup and the guaranteed gold stars for government-approved agencies will always eliminate the doubt, no need to fear accusations of sexism. It's a freebie for women and an incentive that is entirely without risk to the employer (questions of competence and efficiency notwithstanding).

    What was the story of Jessica Lynch if not the sort of public relations coup that most any contemporary organisation would covet (were it not to blow up in their faces with inconvenient truths)?

    It looks to me like the promising Lara Logan public relations coup blew up in their faces with a most inconvenient sexual assault upon her person. For this, they (her employer and the government) should be held to account.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Chuckee,

    I appreciate your response and will meditate on my reply, if any. For now, I'm off to bed.

    ReplyDelete
  23. chuckee. It's sad how the women in journalism that we see as anchors might not represent the most qualified. For example look at Amy Goodman on Democracy Now. How many more women are like her, but there is no place for them because news organizations want ex beauty pageant winners that could just as soon do the weather on any given day? Also when you're talking about visual representation in the media it's important to represent the population, not the imbalanced ratio of who could get a college loan and stay out of the work force (for the most part) to achieve the degree. I've heard lately anyway that there are MORE women in college than men, so maybe it is representative number wise.

    Also many scholarships are privately funded. So women's groups may sponsor them. It might be illegal at this time to target MEN for scholarships exclusively, so that might be something we change if that becomes imbalanced (or is already). We should not take the scholarships away from the women, but allow organizations to offer them to men as well.

    What I find silly is this pretending that patriarchal society did not establish these other categories of people and then oppress themin the first place. For example, being black in America is a big deal because of oppression and being otherized. Now as soon as we deal with them as a group that HAVE been otherized, then suddenly the white male calls foul. So they can only be group together for neg purposes, but never the other way around. Women have been otherized and burdened since Eden with cultural expectations that catapulted the white male forward, but now we cry foul when dealing with these patriarchy made groups as groups? Come on. I take issue with that.

    Having said that... both genders should be eligible for gender targeted scholarships, not just one. It's an easier topic than the race topic.

    ReplyDelete
  24. The necessary but absurd premise underlying chuck's argument is that woman=incompetant. If we do not assume that the hiring pool of women is less qualified and less competant than the hiring pool of men, the argument falls apart. Even if there were a systematic privileging for women in hiring (in reality, the opposite is generally the case), that would mean that the staffing would be primarily full of women who were, on average, as competant as the men, on average. But, no, chuck isn't assuming that women get hired over men, he is assuming that if women do get hired over men, then the resulting hires will be of automatically less competant people. If you assumed that women and men were equally competant, then, provided you have about equal degree earning percentages, half should be women if you hired in a gender neutral manner. Logan, in particular, is extremely qualified for her position. She has more than a decade of experience reporting in war zones. She first moved into war reporting when she managed to convince an embassy to give her an expediated visa to Afganistan immediately after 9/11, making her one of the first available to cover the events. Since then, she has won numerous awards and has reported on several high profile news programs. There is zero fucking evidence that she is anything but a highly qualified journalist at the top of her field. The notion that, if only qualified people were hired, Logan would automatically not have gotten her job is fucking absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dark Side Cat... thanks so much for your comment, really really good. I have seen that assumption in almost any kind of affirmative action discussion. Sigh.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "The necessary but absurd premise underlying chuck's argument is that woman=incompetant."

    No, the necessary but not-so-absurd premise underlying my argument is that under affirmative action, true ability/intelligence have become invisible. One can never be sure whether a woman has achieved on the basis of her own merits or simply been slotted in for the purpose of meeting quotas. And because true ability and intelligence have become invisible, we rely on other markers to promote and advance, like popularity and credentialism. Street smarts have become irrelevant. This situation represents the dumbing down of society.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I don't feel sorry for MRA's when they're ridiculed for the kind of horrifying crap many of them post.

    Given the kind of shit they're posting, they're asking for it.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Chuckeedee:

    I think you're incorrect. Your argument does not take into account the fact that women did dangerous and adventurous things before affirmative action and then reported on those things. The only thing affirmative action did, is make it easier for them to get a job doing the thing that they wanted to do anyway.

    A few of many examples:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ida_B._Wells
    http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/07/19/exclusive-diaries-of-mirror-1940-s-war-reporter-barbara-broad-115875-20654404/
    http://www.amazon.com/Married-Adventure-Martin-Johnson-Kodansha/dp/1568361289

    ReplyDelete
  29. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  30. by the way chuckeedee,
    not all feminists support affirmative action, not all women who are going to college on scholarship got their scholarship through affirmative action (for example, the scholarship which pays for the majority of my schooling is from GE who does not have to align to affirmative action, and the only thing which the panel who chose who got the scholarship saw was the actual project which we had to do in order to get the scholarship.) the rest of my funding comes from pell grant which is nongendered and the amount of money one receives is based on income, not gender. And I know that at least in biology based fields there are scholarships that are male only, and the majority of the rest and nongender based.

    ReplyDelete
  31. "One can never be sure whether a woman has achieved on the basis of her own merits or simply been slotted in for the purpose of meeting quotas. "

    Oh but people like you will always assume women are worse at their job. YOU are the reason affirmative action exists in the first place, buddy.

    And your hate and prejudice has no limit. If we didn't have affirmative action then you'd still think women got the job unfairly. You'd have some reason saying stuff like she's hot or she's sleeping with the boss. Then you'd cite "proof" that women shouldn't be in X-industry because, I don't know, probably some evolutionary psychology bullshit about how the female brain isn't good at math.

    Let me tell you, I work in a male-dominated industry and no one is doing me any favors. I also didn't get some special women-only scholarship in college. Especially with the job market how it is now, it's about who you know.

    You have this idea that companies are clamoring to hire women and minority groups. That's just not the truth.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Is it any surprise that so many MRAs are racist pieces of shit as well as sexist pieces of shit? They're making Egyptians out to be untamed savages, and at the same time implying that gang rapes don't happen in the US.

    This is why they keep harping on affirmative action. Whether or not they say it out loud, they clearly assume that a white male is going to be the best choice for any position. Chuck's bullshit about affirmative action obscuring true intelligence and ability is the same thing. Clearly Lara Logan's true intelligence and ability weren't obscured, because she was damn good at her job. It wasn't a coincidence that she got chosen for it.

    I mean, it's funny, but I haven't seen the rash of incompetent black and female employees that should be cropping up everywhere if affirmative action is really the kind of ability-disregarding initiative that MRAs and other racists characterize it as.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Oh the RACISM apart from anything else. No one seems to care that Arabs (and Arabic women at that) were among her rescuers.

    These guys with their talk about 'shaming', it's fucking disgusting. Become a better person. Anyone who continues to produce this poison deserves all the hate they recieve.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "American women are rape targets worldwide. They are known to be clueless, friendly, and most of all, sexually easy. If a woman chucks her sexual favors out the door at the drop out of a hat, why not just go the extra mile and apply pressure?"

    American men are mugging targets worldwide. They are known to be clueless, friendly, and most of all, financially easy. If a man chucks his financial favors out the door at the drop out of a hat, why not just go the extra mile and apply pressure?

    ReplyDelete
  35. Hey man, if you didn't want to get mugged you wouldn't have been carrying a wallet. Totally asking for it.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "The necessary but absurd premise underlying chuck's argument is that woman=incompetant."

    "No, the necessary but not-so-absurd premise underlying my argument is that under affirmative action, true ability/intelligence have become invisible."

    These two sentences are saying the same thing.

    The funny part is that Chuck thinks his sentence (the second one) is contradicting the first sentence.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Under Chuck's logic, if you go to a restaurant and have to choose one item from column A and one item from column B, you are unable to select the best from each column.

    Apparently MRAs are easily confused!

    ReplyDelete
  38. As a journalist, I've worked with really competent editors and really shitty ones. For what it's worth, the absolute worst top editors I've ever worked with were both men, who got their jobs at least in part through successfully schmoozing the (male) top brass; they were both so incompetent that I and numerous others (both male and female) were driven to quit our jobs.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Even back in the "good old days", when women very rarely, if ever, occupied "traditionally male" occupations, hiring and promoting of men in these "traditionally male" occupations wasn't based solely on meritocracy. Oftentimes nepotism was involved, or preference given to married men over single men.

    ReplyDelete
  40. "Apparently MRAs are easily confused!"

    I am not an MRA. I do not support any movement that has preferences for one sex implied in its name. Just because I reject feminism as a gender-supremacist movement does not mean that I must instinctively be driven to support any gender-supremacist movement nominated in favor of men. It would seem that liberals are easily confused, and obviously projecting their entrenched sexism.

    "they were both so incompetent that I and numerous others (both male and female) were driven to quit our jobs." AND;

    "Oftentimes nepotism was involved, or preference given to married men over single men.

    These are fair comments. They resonate with some of the reasons I had originally supported feminism. Of course I eventually came to my senses with the realization that feminism not only creates new biases and multiplies them, but also officially sanctions these biases in laws and the necessary erosion of everyone's constitutional rights. These anti-democratic laws and assaults on constitutional freedoms are unprecedented, and directly attributable to feminism.

    Apart from which, for many women, marriage is retirement, and any notion that women have been systemically oppressed by patriarchal forces arrayed against them is patently absurd. The alternative interpretation, that patriarchal forces are arrayed specifically at the behest of matriarchal bidding is every bit as credible. The implication that we should accept the former unsubstantiated rot whilst rejecting the latter insults everyone's intelligence.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Of course I eventually came to my senses with the realization that feminism not only creates new biases and multiplies them, but also officially sanctions these biases in laws and the necessary erosion of everyone's constitutional rights. These anti-democratic laws and assaults on constitutional freedoms are unprecedented, and directly attributable to feminism.

    So in other words, you're not a MRA, but you agree with their fundamental premise...

    Apart from which, for many women, marriage is retirement,

    Not for a few decades now. 47% of the US workforce is female, so women are almost as likely as men to be employed these days.

    Women weren't absent from the workforce prior to the mid-20th century because they wanted to be. It's because they were shut out from it.

    Strictly speaking, they were never absent from the workforce at all, except in white-collar positions. Women were factory workers, miners, and secretaries well before women's liberation came into town. The notion that women were all homemakers at any point in history is a result of middle- and upper-class bias. Working-class families generally needed the additional income.

    But now that jobs that are palatable to middle-class people are increasingly available to women, women are, as I said, almost as likely as men to be employed outside the home.

    and any notion that women have been systemically oppressed by patriarchal forces arrayed against them is patently absurd.

    You can say it all day long, but we have a century's worth (and more, if you go back before the first wave) of serious, very intelligent thinkers whose contributions can't be wished away by the words "patently absurd."

    The alternative interpretation, that patriarchal forces are arrayed specifically at the behest of matriarchal bidding is every bit as credible.

    Well... it's not, actually.

    The implication that we should accept the former unsubstantiated rot whilst rejecting the latter insults everyone's intelligence.

    See above.

    ReplyDelete
  42. "Not for a few decades now. 47% of the US workforce is female, so women are almost as likely as men to be employed these days.

    You really need to reference sources when you throw figures like this around. Without going into details, consider how the 70 cents-in-the- dollar wage-gap fiasco was conveniently interpreted by ignoring crucial factors like part-time versus fulltime, etc, etc, etc. And no, I do not accept David's interpretation that he's already provided on this site.

    I merely suggest that the gender-supremacists have failed to prove their thesis. My perspective is the status quo (in the sense of likely, judging by observations of how all ecosystems function - the "if it looks like a duck" argument). It is much more likely that provided-for wives are not, in fact, victims of wholesale systematic abuse... that being "provided for" is exactly what it seems - being provided for is a privilege and not abuse. The feminist interpretation, that women are victims of systematic abuse, is the one that is less likely, and thus challenges the imminently logical status quo that we see in nature all around us. It is for this reason that it needs to be proven instead of simply asserted. Logic 101. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, well, maybe it is a duck. Maybe being provided for is in fact everything that it seems - a privilege and not abuse. It's a variation of Occam's razor - the simplest answer is probably the more correct one. You will know abuse when you see it. If it doesn't look like abuse, then tell me why it should be so interpreted, and then prove it. The onus is on the one trying to prove the absurd, the divergence from the status quo. If they can prove it, I will listen. But feminists have failed to prove this crucial point.

    If this point escapes you, then let me clarify on what I mean by "patriachal forces arrayed specifically at the behest of matriarchal bidding". Wars involve women's choices and priorities as much as men's. Destruction of the environment is as much attributable to women driving cars and their shopping habits as it is to men's career priorities. Everything that happens in a society is as much the responsibility of women as it is of men. If you cannot accept this, then you are doing your bit protraying women as invisible, ineffectual imbeciles who are inferior to men. I take offense at this sexist interpretation. Women are not that stupid.

    Your declaring "Well... it's not, actually" is empty. You don't even bother to substantiate your assertion.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Without going into details, consider how the 70 cents-in-the- dollar wage-gap fiasco was conveniently interpreted by ignoring crucial factors like part-time versus fulltime, etc, etc, etc.

    You ask for a citation (about the percentage of the workforce that is female), then make an unproven assertion? If you're going to raise this issue, let's see a citation from you.

    As for the % of the workforce that is female, it's close to half. Women almost became a majority in the workforce (US) in 2009, and the percentage has dropped somewhat since then.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/2011/0211/Women-s-share-of-jobs-slipping

    ReplyDelete
  44. "If you're going to raise this issue, let's see a citation from you."

    Here are a couple of the references that I've drawn on in the past that are often brought up in the wage gap debate, but you've already dismissed them, so what's the point? You've made up your mind, and I've made up my mind. It's clear that neither of us is going to change our respective povs:

    1. Warren Farrell, "why men earn more";

    2. Furchtgott-Roth, Diana and Stolba, Christine (1999) – Women’s Figures: An Illustrated Guide to the Economic Progress of Women in America, American Enterprise Institute

    3. Allen, Charlotte (2003, 3 May) – Independent Women’s Forum – http://www.iwf.org/articles/article_detail.asp?ArticleID=226

    Is there really any point in laboring the tired old wage gap chestnut? I've proven my assertion on the wage gap long ago, to my satisfaction. If we don't get it by now, we never will.

    That's why I'm skeptical of yet another tired reference that purports to prove the you-go-grrrl public relations hype. "47% of the US workforce is female" my arse. I just don't buy it, not in the sense that women are equal contributors to the economy. But if someone goes to the bother of substantiating it with solid references, I'm open to revisting it.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Uh, I just gave you a reference to the % of women in the workforce.

    You want more?

    Here:

    http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Are+women+now+half+the+labor+force%3F+The+truth+about+women+and+equal...-a0227196953

    As for the wage gap issue, I asked for specific evidence of "how the 70 cents-in-the- dollar wage-gap fiasco was conveniently interpreted by ignoring crucial factors like part-time versus fulltime, etc, etc, etc."

    Citing entire books is not particularly helpful.

    ReplyDelete
  46. The topic hereunder is not about the wage gap. Why are we discussing it here?

    Skimming quickly through the article, I notice that it makes reference to women in the legal profession. It is well established that the legal profession does not provide real economic value. It's parasitic on the societal host. Sure we need it, but it's not directly contributing to the economy.

    Women are half the workforce... so? Let's take what I am getting at to the hypothetical extreme. Let's say that in a far-off planet in another part of the universe, there's a society where all the men are employed as miners and all the women are employed as tea-ladies. Exactly half the employed are women, and the other half men. But what does that prove with regards to contributing to the economy and economic growth? Saying that women are exactly half the workforce is meaningless without providing an analysis of their activities, whether it's part time or fulltime, how it relates to their career aspirations, and so on. It's the wage gap fiasco all over again.

    ReplyDelete
  47. I was discussing the wage gap because YOU BROUGHT IT UP.

    The rest of your comment is so goofy I'm not going to bother to continue this discussion with you.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "The rest of your comment is so goofy I'm not going to bother to continue this discussion with you."

    You're the one whose making it goofy. When I have to resort to putting the argument in such basic, simplistic terms, it's pretty obvious what I'm getting at, isn't it? No wonder you want to stop playing.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Chuckeedee said...It is much more likely that provided-for wives are not, in fact, victims of wholesale systematic abuse... that being "provided for" is exactly what it seems - being provided for is a privilege and not abuse.



    Being provided for also means another has total control of your means of survival if you have no resources of your own. That means if you are abused it is harder to leave. It's not the providing that is abuse. Unless you want to say then that because children are provided for means they never get abused.

    Abuse is abuse. You are creating a argument that I have never heard said by feminists. Also the words,"wholesale systematic abuse" troubles me. Does there have to be "wholesale systematic abuse" to do something about abuse that exists? Does that have to be the case to advocate for those that are abused to get assistance? WOW.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Chuckadee: "Apart from which, for many women, marriage is retirement, and any notion that women have been systemically oppressed by patriarchal forces arrayed against them is patently absurd."

    Most American women work.

    About half the American workforce is made up of women.

    What I'm really curious about, however, is this assertion that because some women are lawyers, and some lawyers are women, and because "It is well established that the legal profession does not provide real economic value. It's parasitic on the societal host," women don't contribute to the economy. I can think of about a hundred ways that lawyers contribute to the economy. True, they don't make widgets, but neither do most Americans these days.

    I don't want to take this conversation too off-track, but I'm curious: What is it about bringing claims to punish and discourage an employer's unsafe practices, or get adequate money for medical bills from an insurer who won't pay, or bringing a claim to enforce a contract or protect an artist's or inventor's intellectual property--what about any of those situations says that the legal profession adds nothing to the economy?

    And that's not even getting to the logic fail of the rest of what you said.

    ReplyDelete
  51. It is well established that the legal profession does not provide real economic value. It's parasitic on the societal host. Sure we need it, but it's not directly contributing to the economy.

    This is nonsense. Every employed person contributes to the economy simply by having a job, because a) their income is taxed, and b) they take their income and spend it, thus providing money to retailers and service providers, which contributes to the economy.

    Everything that happens in a society is as much the responsibility of women as it is of men. If you cannot accept this, then you are doing your bit protraying women as invisible, ineffectual imbeciles who are inferior to men. I take offense at this sexist interpretation. Women are not that stupid.

    And later:

    I just don't buy it, not in the sense that women are equal contributors to the economy.

    I smell a contradiction somewhere...

    ReplyDelete
  52. Being provided for also means another has total control of your means of survival if you have no resources of your own.

    Also, I consider it incredibly goofy that MRAs want to portray women as the benefactors of male largesse for most of history, when in fact for most of history, the women who have been entirely provided for by their husbands did so because society forced them to. A gilded cage is still a cage, as the saying goes.

    ReplyDelete
  53. David, you must be familiar with the sheer bullshit that Chuck is promoting by citing Warren Farrell and Charlotte Allen, right?

    ReplyDelete
  54. ginmar, I think that's actually the least of the problems with his "argument."

    ReplyDelete
  55. Bee, you are correct in not wanting to take this conversation too far off track. Bringing it back to:

    1. Most American women work.
    2. About half the American workforce is made up of women.

    The following excerpt from my last post on the "Neither saints nor whores, just women" thread is relevant:

    "... the proportions of women and men in the workforce are subject to variables that are not explained by citing how many women are employed in one profession and another. There's affirmative action favouring women, there are air-conditioned office jobs favored by women over dusty, dangerous mines favored by men, and so on, on and on. Wage gap stuff all over again.

    Do we get it? Telling me that there are as many women as men who are "employed" (whatever that means, whether it includes part-time or full-time, or casual, or 1 year over a 10 year period, on and on and on) does not tell me anything. It tells me nothing about the social forces at work, and it tells me nothing about Lara Logan."

    ReplyDelete
  56. There's affirmative action favouring women

    Actually employers' ingrained biases in favor of men are far more powerful as an influence than the rather loose and nebulous series of policies referred to as affirmative action.

    I remember how shortly before Obama nominated Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, she and the other two frontrunners for his nomination were all women. Naturally conservative pundits, including Limbaugh, jumped all over this and claimed that the nominees were picked because of "affirmative action." In reality, of course, they were picked because they were qualified (Sotomayor has a longer list of qualifications than I'll likely have in my life for anything). And we're talking about three people here. If you pick three random people out of a crowd, there's a 1 in 8 chance that they'll all be women. Not a huge chance, but not really a tiny one either. I'm not saying the selection process was random. But let's be honest - if it had been three men up for nomination, would those pundits have made a peep about gender bias? Of course not.

    there are air-conditioned office jobs favored by women over dusty, dangerous mines favored by men, and so on, on and on. Wage gap stuff all over again.

    More nonsense. Everybody favors air-conditioned office jobs. Well, every group. There are plenty of people (of both genders) who prefer the outdoors, although not a lot of people, I'd wager, who would prefer coal mining over less dangerous options. I mean, what image is in your mind when you say this? Did you grow up in a John Wayne movie where all the men were busy being manly men doing manly men things just for the hell of it? Men like air conditioning too.

    Women did work in mines a great deal before it was made illegal in many countries, including the US and England, in the 19th century. It wasn't until equal employment opportunity laws were enforced of mining companies that women came back into the mining workforce. And again, employers hiring for coal mines are going to be pretty heavily biased against women.

    But, y'know, go on pretending that the choices society forces on women are actually choices made happily by women because they're weak and lazy.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Oh Chucky. Even assuming arguendo that any of the points you've raised are true (about offices vs. mines, e.g.), how on earth does that support your argument that "for many women, marriage is retirement, and any notion that women have been systemically oppressed by patriarchal forces arrayed against them is patently absurd." Working in an office instead of a mine is patently not retirement. Period. Part-time work is not retirement either.

    Besides, I really am curious about your well-considered ideas concerning lawyering. Please enlighten us. If it really is that "well established that the legal profession does not provide any real economic value," it should be fairly easy for you to prove. Here, I'll make a statement about that, and you rebut it. Nothing in business or government gets done without the assistance and advice of lawyers. At all.

    Your turn.

    ReplyDelete
  58. @bee "Part-time work is not retirement either." True, especially when women with young children work part time far more often than their childless counterparts. Then again, the notion that women not in wage labour might be doing valuable work, like being the primary caretakers of children, is not even on the MRAs radar.

    ReplyDelete
  59. gee I guess I get to post it again since people are too stupid to read.
    http://pubdb3.census.gov/macro/032006/perinc/new03_001.htm
    if you would like to read about how they got these figures wikipedia (for once) actually has a cited article about it. You can follow the links and read them if you like.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male%E2%80%93female_income_disparity_in_the_United_States
    furthermore, I would like to point out the study that calculates what it would cost you if you had to pay your stay at home wife for all the work she does
    http://events.salary.com/easyir/customrel.do?easyirid=C62ED049D69BA1E0&version=live&prid=615803&releasejsp=custom_117

    ReplyDelete
  60. What part of "for many women, marriage is retirement" (as I originally phrased it), don't people understand? Just as many men go on to become imoral layabouts and criminals, so too, women are nothing like the pristine idealizations portrayed in feminist propaganda. Some women are gold-diggers, some women are lazy, some women are slobs, some women are child abusers, and so on. Newsflash... women are imperfect, just as men are.

    So it logically follows that among this sea of imperfect humanity, some women will regard marriage as retirement, an option that men do not have. And just like retired people do, they sometimes work part-time, or they work for part of a year, whatever their fancy takes them, while neglecting and abusing their children (refer Child Maltreatment 2002), and so on. Retirement.

    I overheard a conversation between two women at work recently:
    "I am so relieved to be leaving work for good."
    "Yeah, I wish I could go. But John doesn't earn enough, so I have no choice but to stick around."
    "It'll be fun raising the kids, and to not have to take part in all this workplace bullshit again. Imagine not having to have to wake up to prepare for work, ever again. [sigh of relief]"

    It's not an uncommon exchange between women expressing relief at the thought of never having to work again. Even my sister (a staunch feminist in a previous life) was elated to be able to pull out of all the workplace politics in favor of homecarer responsibilities as a devoted, responsible mother (for her, as for most women, marriage is definitely NOT retirement). But to be relieved of this workplace bullshit, to be able to pull up and never have to set foot in it again is a form of relief. It provides many women with an escape-hatch. And for a minority of women, it's one of the perks of marriage, an opportunity for retirement. An opportunity for part-time work, an opportunity for a bit this and a bit of that, whatever takes your fancy.

    Are you people trying to tell us that such women don't exist? What sort of cuckoo land are you living in?

    ReplyDelete
  61. Chucky:

    Many =/= a minority

    If your point now is that one or more such women exist in this world, sure. But even if we're only talking about the (small) universe of women who are able and want to quit their jobs to take care of their husbands, homes, or children, most of these women are still working (quite hard) in one way or another.

    ReplyDelete
  62. chuckeedee, you clearly have not spent any time at a university lately. Many, many young men are opting to find woman to marry and be a stay at home parent. It is just as much an option for men in 2011 as it is for women.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Fascinating how personally some of us are taking this "retirement" interpretation. Why are we so defensive? It's only one interpretation among many.

    One of the dangers with taking things personally and dwelling on it is that you project something about that's bugging you. What you might in effect be telling us, perhaps, is that a part of you is feeling guilty that women do in fact have this retirement option, and that some women do in fact exercise this privilege in the very spirit that I describe it.

    Be careful of projecting. Every word you utter says as much about you as it does about whatever it is that you are trying to defend.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Chuck-it was a stupid characterization that treats housework and raising children as not as important as working.

    It is work and hard work.

    ReplyDelete
  65. What's bugging me, Chuck, is your straw(wo)man arguments (the idea that feminists portray women as "pristine idealizations" is the tritest of bullshit) and your moving of goalposts.

    Look, it's obvious why you said that "for many women, marriage is retirement." Your unthinking compliance with antihuman capitalistic dogma, wherein the value of work is measured in how much money it generates, led you to imply that housebound women don't actually work. When the severe error of this was pointed out to you, you pretended that that's not what you actually said.

    ReplyDelete
  66. @Elizabeth

    "It is work and hard work."

    When done properly, of course it is. But no matter how well it is done, housework and child-rearing are exempt of the following:

    1) The stress of having to confront where your next paycheck is coming from. In times aplenty, for most people, this is not an issue. But as we enter into more uncertain times, it matters, and it matters a lot;
    2) The stress of having to negotiate on a daily basis with people that you can't stand. And as times become more uncertain, the people that you can't stand become even more unbearable;
    3) The stress of having to take responsibility for all the things that can go wrong, both at work (injury, loss of career) and at home (finances, maintenance).

    Do we get the drift? Housework has its challenges, like the responsibilities that come with raising children, what school they go to, and the heartache when things go wrong. But no matter what, it is all related to the comfort of familiarity, and not the angst of the unknown. Ultimately, it's about security versus risk. I appreciate that what I am getting at might seem obscure to some of us, but these are ultimately existential questions, and should not glossed over lightly.

    @Triplanetary

    "unthinking compliance with antihuman capitalistic dogma"

    Hardly. I am addressing questions related to obligation and morality. The shallowness of contemporary humanity extends to both men and women, and the simple truth is that some women are self-undulgent and bone-lazy, just like some men are. Why do we seem to have a problem with this?

    ReplyDelete
  67. Shorter Chucky: Remember that stupid thing I said, that you all keep poking holes in? Can't we make like that didn't happen? Hey! What's that over there? *hides*

    ReplyDelete
  68. I appreciate that what I am getting at might seem obscure to some of us, but these are ultimately existential questions

    Oh ho, we have a Junior Philosopher in the house. Did your Philosophy 101 course just go over Nietzsche's notion of the unheimlich?

    ReplyDelete
  69. deny, deny, deny. Projection, projection everywhere and nary a spot to think.

    ReplyDelete
  70. @triplanetary, my BA is actually in philsophy and I fucking hate exitentialism with a passion. Their arguments are simply terrible (even just structually). Existentialism boils down the this discussion:

    Existentialist: "Why X?"

    Physicalist: "Detailed causal explanation leading to X."

    Existentialist: "I am not satified with even a complete causal answer. I want there to be a purpose or intention."

    Physicalist: "Other than the ones that people insert into the causal chain, there is no overarching purpose or intention in events, period. Get over it. Reality and truth is not determined by how warm and fuzzy the answer makes you feel."

    Dualist (interjecting): "God did it."

    Existentialist: "I will ignore all of your criticisms and just go into detached rambling metaphor and pretend to be 'deep'."

    ReplyDelete
  71. Oh yeah, no, I have nothing against philosophers. My best friend is about to get his PhD in philosophy. I just kind of laughed out loud a little when Chuckee said, "I appreciate that what I am getting at might seem obscure to some of us". Apparently he thought he was getting into some Deep Shit.

    ReplyDelete
  72. @DarkSideCat, Triplanetary

    Just because you hated existentialism and didn't understand it does not invalidate it. Indeed, it instead proves that you are not in a position to pass judgement about it.

    Still, let's run with your implied charge of obscurantism. Putting it simply, no fluff. Security is the finished product - a safe home, kids, etc. Security is the mother's priority, and for simplification, let's assume that it is also the father's. In the traditional (pre-feminist) model, the father does not have the luxury of enjoying this security at face value, unlike the mother. The father needs to "earn" it, and he does this through supporting his family, through his involvement in the outside sphere, namely, employment. The mother also needs to earn her security, and in the traditional model, she does this through housework. There is nothing to be compensated for, because security and happy, healthy kids are the prize. If she does not accept her responsibilities with respect to housework, then she is, for all intents and purposes, a retiree. If a mother does not regard security and healthy, happy kids as her priority, then she does not know what love is, and we should not want society to raise her delinquents, taking up valuable jail space. A mother that expects "compensation" for loving her children is by definition incapable of love and should never be a mother.

    Sure, many women seek opportunities beyond security. But the laws of supply and demand put a price on external opportunities that have resulted in the pre-feminist traditional roles always being more attractive for women. Not because of patriarchal oppression but because security places fewer demands, and because only women were permitted to be stay-at-homes. Only women had this escape-hatch. Men never enjoyed the permission to be stay-at-homes. Men never had an escape-hatch.

    The only reason that anyone works is because entities outside of the family are prepared to pay for services rendered outside of the family. No-one is going to pay anyone for raising their own children in the family's own interests, and nor should they, no matter how difficult that might be for some of us to accept.

    Defining "purpose" is an existential question (no tp, I'm not trying to be "Deep"). If you think that your purpose is defined by how you are compensated financially, then you do indeed fail to understand what "purpose" is all about, and it is no surprise that you hated existentialism.

    Or is all this still too obscure for you? Perhaps you should have taken your classes in existentialism a little more seriously.

    lol

    ReplyDelete
  73. Only women had this escape-hatch. Men never enjoyed the permission to be stay-at-homes. Men never had an escape-hatch.

    And now they do, thanks to ... feminism.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Man this is rich. Let me see if I can put this in a way that won't go completely over your head, Chuckee: I was not accusing you of being obscure. You were the one claiming you were calling on some obscure ideas. I was mocking you because you didn't say anything that's beyond the average high schooler. Existentialism is every wannabe-philosopher's favorite philosophy. You're seriously overreaching yourself here.

    The rest of your pseudointellectual bullshit can be dismissed without being so wordy, since it's all the same trite historical revisionism (not to mention middle/upper-class tunnel vision) that MRAs regularly engage in, just dressed up (very shabbily) in teleological language and the word "existentialist" thrown in every couple of paragraphs in an attempt to make you sound like you know what the fuck you're talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Chucky, dude, sorry but nothing you said was deep. The weird thing about this entire line of conversation is that it has such a limited relationship to any aspect of life as I know it. At last count, I know one stay at home mom (who lost her full time job last month and is currently looking for another) and two stay at home dads, who've been unemployed (on and off) for the past decade while their MIT educated wives work in the tech industry. As for "deep"--I dunno. You mean that you suspect the idea that different people have different needs and priorities is gonna BLOW OUR MINDS?

    I don't really even know what to say to that, really. It's sad.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Bee and triplanetary, you are projecting your anti-intellectualism (apologies for the big words, I haven't time to explain). Either you know what you are talking about and can debate with me on theoretical terms, or you cannot. I can respect it if you don't wish to go down that route. But given that you dismiss this manner of discussion as "pseudointellectual bullshit", it is clear that you haven't a clue what you are talking about. It is a given that anti-intellectual phillistines will be fundamentally incapable of debating on terms more sophisticated than grunting out unsubstantiated opinions. Ipso facto, you will be doing yourselves a favor to stick within the confines of the thread in the terms that you do purport to understand. It doesn't pay you to diss well-established theory that universities regard important enough to include in their curricula. And it will still be easy to make mince-meet of you, but at least you won't look so ridiculous. I promise I won't use big words any more, just to make it a bit easier for you.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Somewhere there's a barroom full of people who are sick of listening to this asshole.

    I would like to see how someone who can't even spell "mincemeat" is planning to trump us intellectually, but whatevs.

    ReplyDelete
  78. And the comedy ratchets up another notch! Incidentally, I'm not arguing that universities shouldn't teach existentialism. No era of philosophical history should be ignored, because they all contribute to the overall conversation. Plato, for example, was wrong about very nearly everything he said, but he had an enormous impact of Western civilization that it would be silly not to teach his philosophy. Existentialism is also historically influential. I never said it shouldn't be taught. In fact, I never said I had anything against it. All I said was that citing it doesn't make you look as smart as you think it does.

    But I'll make you a deal. If you use any "big words" that I don't understand, I'll let you know instead of just furtively looking it up. It hasn't happened yet, but if it does I'll be sure to inform you.

    ReplyDelete
  79. hahaha!

    kan't taike mee on on mi arguments, so rezorting too attakcing me on on a typping erorr... now how lame iz that?

    And I don't care a flying toss how smart anyone thinks I look. You are projecting yet again. Just because you angst about how you look to others does not mean that everyone else does. If you spent more time thinking about the task at hand and not how you looked to others, you might progress further in constructing your arguments.

    ReplyDelete
  80. This is seriously fucking amazing. SERIOUSLY. It's a classic textbook case of projection, of all things.

    Chucky, having entered into an argument he fears he will lose, attempts to distract his opponents by (1) telling them that they are "projecting" (having just learned that word from his therapist, I assume) and (2) telling them that he's very smart, and what he's talking about is too deep for their comprehension. When that backfires, he tells his opponents to stop derailing the actual conversation, that he doesn't care what they think of his intellectual capacity, and (again) that they are projecting. I call BS. You're too perfectly imitating the hilarity of shallow depth for any of this to be real. A-plus, my good sir. You are awesome.

    For what it's worth, I never (or, almost never) resort to making fun of typos when I want to tear someone apart in an internet debate. In most cases, it's pointless and amateurish. But in your case--where the mistake clearly wasn't a typo and where the entire intent of the post was for the poster to prove how damn smart he is and how stupid he thinks everyone else is--I thought it was appropriate. Come on; you only added the dash after typing in "mincemeet" and seeing the red line underneath.

    ReplyDelete
  81. What does it take for dumb meat to know when it's been minced well and truly? :-)

    ReplyDelete
  82. "What does it take for dumb meat to know when it's been minced well and truly? :-) "

    You need to ask *yourself* that question.

    ReplyDelete
  83. All I can say is: Wow. To this thread's comments, too.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Sociable

ShareThis