Skip to content

Fuck Politeness

This is a revolution, not a public relations movement

Tag Archives: Sam de Brito

I’m feeling a little like Danny Glover in the lethal weapon series. I made the mistake of reading this Sam de Brito pearl of wisdom, and all I can really say is ‘I’m too old for this shit’.

I actually don’t want to write about the two Sams any more as they’re just so infinitely repetitive and make the same sorts of idiotic arguments over and over. So while I think acting as a guerilla style Media Watch on them is worthwhile, it also means I’m boring myself to tears in making the same sorts of counterarguments. Nevertheless, I did read it…

Read. Marvel as Sam declares all fathers feminists (NOT in my experience) by virtue of their having a daughter. Be astounded as he condemns all women as being interested in things trivial rather than the well being of their daughters.

If female opinion makers and power brokers spent a quarter of the time they devoted to worrying about which celebrity woman has had plastic surgery, to an issue like universal free day care – the groundswell of media and community pressure would be overwhelming.

If female opinion makers and power brokers did not work for male media owners and male run political parties and could talk feminism without ridicule and censure we might find them more willing to do it. But let’s not kid ourselves. When women *do* talk feminism there is no groundswell of media and community pressure, there is ridicule and condemnation peppered with a good few ‘ugly lezzo’ references.

Seriously, put free day care on the front page of every woman’s magazine for the next six months and tell me it would not be pushed to the forefront of the national consciousness and to the top of the Federal government’s agenda where it rightly should be …

Seriously, women’s magazines are businesses like any other (0ften ultimately under the control of male owned and run media congolmerates) and they rely on ADVERTISING for their profits. So you find a way for capitalism to profit from feminism and feminist issues, and then we might see support from media owners, trickling down through advertising and into women’s mags. Pull your head in you fucking goose.

And even if they were NOT businesses run for profit and so dependant on all that shit, by your logic the political agenda being controlled by what’s in the women’s mags, how to wear lurid blue, where to obtain the best labioplasty and the debates of To Have a Fringe Or Not to Have A Fringe should have decided the last election. Idiot.

As with all social upheavals, it’s not going to happen by saying ‘Excuse me, Sir’ or ‘Would you mind if we discussed this topic?’ it has to be slammed into the faces of the people who matter, and by default, the masses who need to be told what to think will stir and drag their heads out of the “what people are wearing section”.

May I just say then, as one of the women who has slammed it in *your* face before and been rubbished with extreme contempt and been censured (you withheld my comments until I complained often enough that they miraculously appeared) you might want to quit the fucking lecturing til you’ve put your money where your mouth is.

Women learn very quickly the sort of censure waiting for them if they dare to be unhappy with women’s lot in life. My own father loves to refer to ‘fucking idiot feminists’, and women are quick to learn that praise is lavished on those women who can perform femininity acceptably well while disavowing politics, feminism and anything that might ‘ruin’ them by causing unsightly frown lines. Do NOT tell me men do not participate in that socialisation.

Tell me that the editors of every woman’s magazine in this country (almost exclusively female, most of whom know each other or someone they work with) couldn’t co-ordinate a united front on this issue?

But no, let’s talk endlessly about cellulite and handbags and who Lindsay Lohan is shagging instead and pretend that’s going to re-shape the world we live in and the one our daughters and sons will inherit.

I don’t think that celebrity mags pretend they’re going to re-shape the world at all, and nor do you.

Speaking of groups of people in the same field of employ who all know one another, can the same not be said of politicians? Male opinion columnists? Men’s mag writers? Oh, I see debating which chick has the best tits and which ways you’d like to fuck them in mens mags (which frequently discuss how very revolting cellulite is and which feature ‘hot chicks’ in hot shoes) is FAR more serious sport and more likely to re-shape the world our daughters and sons will inherit for the better than shoes and cellulite.

It’s time that Australian women stop bemoaning the attitudes of Australian men and take responsibility for the views of their girlfriends, mothers and most of all their daughters.

Excuse me? Did you just tell me that by virtue of owning a similar set of genitals I should *take responsibility* for the views of my female friends and family?

Well I *do* argue with them, however where they’re vehemently anti-feminism they know what society likes and what society punishes, and what society *likes* is a nice woman, a happy woman, a compliant woman, a young and sexy woman, and if they shut their mouths and never complain along feminist lines they know that’s a wee bit safer than starting arguments they can’t win by virtue of the fact that it’s decreed that a penis trumps a vagina and therefore that the penis owner is always right.

But what are these concerned feminist fathers doing for their daughters? Are the fathers not concerned about the stats of male inflicted violence against women? If women are to take responsibility for women, then where are the men taking responsibility for men?

We now live in a country where a generation of Australian women don’t even consider themselves feminists, having rejected the term because they think they’ll be labelled a lesbian and won’t get a boyfriend if they use the word.

Yeah, those are new concerns aren’t they? Women *think* those things for very good reasons, namely that experience has taught them it is so.

And…was it not YOU who groaned ‘Please let me never sit next to you at dinner’ when I pulled you up on your problematic wankery? You who suggested (in a feminist way I’m sure) that you could never date a fat chick? Don’t fucking get up in women’s faces after that shit. If men are so much more feminists, because it’s real and sensible and important then use your fucking column to advance it and NOT by lumping the blame for it on women. YOU’RE THE ONE WHO WANTS THEM WEARING THE RIGHT SHOES AND THE RIGHT CLOTHES AND LOOKING LIKE THEY’RE STRAIGHT FROM A MENS MAG/FASHION MAG!

Fearful, insecure men and the politicised lesbian activists who hijacked the feminist movement in the 70s and 80s can take equal responsibility for this perception problem but to correct it, modern women need look no further than their own backyards.

Wait, first women are to blame for being too apolitical, too consumed by insignificant trivialities, too timid for fear of being labelled lesbians and should shout it in people’s faces, THEN they’re to blame because they were indeed lesbians, and focussed on demanding change and were too political and got in people’s faces? Well?? Which is it?

Also, what do I open my backdoor and there’s every female I know waiting for me to begin my lecture? Look in your OWN backyard knob and I’ll take care of my own.

Oh hey, I don’t have one, cos I’m a single mum and I struggle to pay the rent on a tiny shoebox apartment on a main road! Perhaps I can wander downstairs to my share-laundry and sit on the coin operated washing machine in order to preach at any passing sisters? I’m sure they’ll LOVE THAT.

I could walk into any bar, supermarket or fashion boutique in this country and I guarantee I would know more about feminist issues than 90 per cent of the women in these establishments.

Sure if you consider it acceptable feminist practise to loathe women for doing exactly what is demanded of them and refusing feminism and THEN ALSO hating them if they walk away from the very shit you called time wasting and being political feminists.

Also, if you KNOW so fucking much, like how important it is, what exactly will you say to show you’ve DONE MORE FOR IT than them?

Ask a woman under 30 to even define what feminism is and I bet you’ll get a pea soup of misconceptions about hairy armpits, man-hating and rabid activism instead of this: feminism is the belief that women should have equal political, social, sexual, intellectual and economic rights to men.

Kinda like the pea soup of your average blog post where you decide you’re Mother Fucking Theresa, Saint of the Latter Day Feminists?

Who would not want this for their daughter?

Well then, where are the fucking Father’s for Feminism activists? Where are the dads (most media owners and advertising executives would be fathers or brothers or lovers right) using their MONEY and PRIVILEDGE to address this? They have the means more than women do, so why don’t they front up? If they all want this for their daughters and their wives are simply too frivolous to take charge, well WHAT is stopping them from doing it themselves? WHY do you consider childcare a women’s issue if dad’s care so much? Access to abortion when you’ve written about how badly men get done over by women getting knocked up to them?

The fact that that there is even resistance to this simple, self-evident truth illustrates how bad feminism’s image problem is with our youth – and if you can’t sell it to young women, how the hell are you going to get men to invest?

You are a truly terrible writer, did you know that? You just swung from dads wanting it for their kids and because it’s RIGHT to image problems with youth. This AFTER bemoaning an obsession with triviality. So are we then SUPPOSED to make feminism about shoes and botox in order to sex it up and attract the youth? Or come in swinging about how crap it all is and be censured for being too political? And surely the superior men able to resist the allure of triviality could make their own decisions and get off their arses without needing to be *sold* on feminism, if as you’ve argued it makes sense and is important to all fathers of daughters…

Body image and the depiction of gender in the media are important issues but they are not the main game; building a society where women have the exact-same opportunity to further themselves educationally and financially is the battlefront, because you then produce a female population articulate and unencumbered to make changes from the top down.

Thanks for your battle tips Sargeant Major Arseface. In fact I think you will find that the depiction of gender in media – the frequent depiction of violence against women, the total absence of *unattractive* women, the depiction of women as mere plot devices, as simply HOT or NOT, as less than full humans is intimately connected with views of women as less than fully human which impact society, and the deemed *importance* of “women’s issues”.

And if indeed you CAN see the battles that are important then what the fuck are you doing about them? Until such a time as you’re lobbying for these main games then shut the fuck up with your ‘all dad’s are feminists, all women are idiots, all feminists are responsible for all women everywhere, all feminists of the seventies were lesbians and that’s obviously a bad thing for feminism, feminists ought to sell themselves along the mainstream media lines of HOT HOT HOT even though they’re damned for triviality if they do crap.

So VERY sick of it.

[Hmm…all this time I’ve wondered what ETA meant at the bottom of posts, like estimated time of arrival? That made no sense…but – ta dah – I had an epiphetree, it’s (of course) edited to add. So, ETA: BEPPIE RANTS TOO!!! Yay Beppie! Also, was kind of edited to add other stuff as I wrote the first version in fifteen minutes and came back with some ‘Oh yeah! What about…?’s]

Advertisements

Tags: , , , ,

So I won’t be posting much in the next little while. My laptop just died. Just like that! It won’t be back til around Monday I think.

Also am enjoying of the exercise and study, and hanging out with mini FP and attempting to persuade him that homework is both delicious and nutritious.

So check *THIS* out: Sam in the City dissecting the allegedly “very real”  debate of smart v sexy.

For my money, stupid is the biggest turn off so whatevs Sam and most of us have our heads around the fact that it’s entirely possible to be both smart AND sexy.

Sam uses the word lecherous in a way that brings to mind the quote from Inigo Montoya. No, not “You killed my father, prepare to die” though I’d happily swordfight with her, but rather “You keep using that word! I do not think it means what you think it means”

And then of course there is Sam-I am SO a Feminist You Whinging Humourless Feminist FatArsed Dyke-deBrito expounding on the inequality of the sexes, and how COME chicks can watch SatC and he can’t say he’d never date a fat arsed biatch??

This is a spectacular return to form for deBrito, it’s the barely concealed anger and *OMG me TOO is a victim* that make this in my mind the Nessun Dorma of whitebread shithead oped vomit.

Women, however, are ones who buy the magazines, clothes and potions that drive this ‘ideal’; men like me, who are attracted to it, are merely the by-product.

Ahhh…I see…the mags MEN buy have NO INFLUENCE. Posts like this don’t contribute to it. That women are fully REQUIRED day after day to regulate their food, their exercise, to buy lotions and potions in order NOT to attract the derogatory comments of you and your wanking mates has NOTHING to do with it. Women are the ones who set up this system and poor men would LOVE to be able to get off with our horrible womanly bodies, but they’re broken victims and they JUST CAINT!!! Ah fuck off with your idiot self.

What happened deBrito? Finally figure out that all your smoke-and-mirrors, Yes Officer, I’m a Feminist wasn’t gonna get you into Emily Maguire’s pants?

Tags: , , ,

Yep, declaring a guerilla style campaign against Sam de Brito. Who’s with me?

So I forgot I hadn’t really told this story. I was busy finishing the unpicking of his hideous warped logic from the “Man haters” post of his.

The next day appeared a SdB post entitled “The Myth of Drink Spiking” – go on, have a read, I’ll wait.

http://blogs.smh.com.au/lifestyle/allmenareliars/archives/2007/12/the_myth_of_drinking_spiking.html

(you may have to copy and paste this to your browser, it never does the thing where it turns blue for me on wordpress)

SO. First I had a go at him for attacking a reader for daring to suggest that it was dangerous to imply drink spiking is a myth. He says he didn’t say that. I point out that it is in fact the title of his blog. He attacks me, asking if English is my first language (and what if it wasn’t, does that disqualify my point?), implying I can’t read and implying that his title doesn’t imply that it *is* a myth, rather than that there are myths *about it*. Horseshit, you lazy fuckwit, if that’s what you meant you should have said “Myths about drink spiking” – regardless of the body of the text, your title still stands as implying that Drink Spiking *is* a myth.

Anyway, for once he offered some “proof” to back up his lunatic arsehole views. A report and an “expert” (a media contact for a research centre). Leaving aside the issue of whether the media contact is an expert in the field of research, or an expert in handling media (and doing an interview with dB and hoping he wouldn’t turn it into a revolting blame the victim piece suggests neither), I decided to *accept* his status as expert…and sent him an email informing him of the dB post and its tone.

 So, while waiting for the guy to contact me, I read the report, which you can read here:

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/reports/2004-11-drinkspiking/execsummary.html 

Note:

While this cannot be ruled out as a possible explanation for some reported incidents it would be dangerous to assume that this explanation applied to all or most incidents of drink spiking. Many victims who called in to the hotline stated explicitly that the effects which they had experienced were very different from the effects of voluntary alcohol consumption. In particular victims were at pains to point out that they knew the difference between the effects which they had experienced after the suspected drink spiking incident and the effects they had previously experienced as a result of voluntary excessive alcohol consumption. Given the inherent obstacles associated with verifying reported incidents of drink spiking highlighted in this report a cautious approach is recommended. In particular it is suggested that all reported incidents of drink spiking should be taken seriously in the first instance and investigated where possible rather than dismissing instances on the basis of a judgement that a person’s own consumption of alcohol or drugs was responsible for the effects.

and

It is estimated that less than 15 per cent of suspected drink spiking sexual assaults are reported to police, and between 20 and 25 per cent of suspected drink spiking non-sexual assault cases are reported to police. This means that the vast majority of suspected drink spiking incidents are not reported to police. If we are to gain a better understanding of how often drink spiking occurs and if police are to be able to identify patterns of drink spiking and develop targeted policing strategies there is clearly a need to improve the rates of reporting to police. This message could be articulated in awareness and education campaigns. Reporting rates could also be improved through a public perception that all incidents of drink spiking will be treated seriously by police regardless of knowledge of offender, memory loss and associated victimisation.

Then reread dB’s implications.

So I posted a comment with a link to the report and highlighted the fact that he’d ignored the crucial point of the report – that it is important to take every claim of drink spiking seriously. I waited…and waited…and waited. Now I’ve commented before on his blogs, and it takes, in working hours around five minutes to go up. Even my post at seven in the morning was up before I left for work. I could see comments posted later than mine being posted (given the go ahead by dB). So I sent a reminder. Nothing. Another reminder – still nothing.

 Meanwhile I contacted the expert. He confirms he did the interview against his better judgment, that he did in fact confirm some things, but not others, that he explicitly stressed to de Brito that he did not want to do the interview if it was going to be implied that drink spiking did not happen, that people could *avoid* this stuff happening, that it was about their excess consumption etc. He had been at pains to make this clear to deB.  

I again commented, telling Sam I’d contacted this guy, that his post was deceptive and unethical, and that he should post my first comment which gave people the link to the report. It was up in five minutes.

Throughout this day I’d discovered that the SMH has an email address to send complaints to about offensive comments. Gold. I sent at least half a dozen that day, including the responses by Sam where he attacked a woman for being an “egocentric sexist” for daring to suggest that he was doing the same old victim blaming crap that women always put up with, and such charming comments as “it doesn’t count as taking advantage if there’s no penetration”. I got an email from the Sydney Morning Herald saying that the comments and complaints had been brought to the attention of de Brito and his online editor.

Then I thought, fuck this, so I sent a lengthy email to the tip-offs section at Media Watch, outlining the whole day’s progress, attaching the post, the report, the information from the email exchanges and a series of comments in response.

This is where it’s at I think. I’m going to trawl the comments section of his blog every chance I get and I’m going to bombard the SMH with complaints whenever they breach the comments policy (no material which is offensive along race and gender lines etc). Every time he uses *evidence* I’m going to track it down and check it out and if there are any problems with it, I’m sending it all to Media Watch.

This shit matters. Everytime he writes this stuff he reinforces shitty attitudes towards victims, so much so that a woman commented on one of my posts that her partner works at a service centre for victims of sexual assault and that they have to tell victims *not to read Sam de Brito* as it induces so much trauma in victims. I have had enough. I’m sick of being told to not worry about it, this guy is a total hack and I think that if enough people complained about the comments with me, or sent emails to Media Watch, or pulled apart his arguments, or otherwise worked to discredit him, it might be enough to force the SMH hand in dumping him from their payroll. 

While all this was going away, my best friend was out of town and fairly uncontactable. I was feeling tired and dispirited. Now she’s back, she’s encouraged me again, she reminded me that this is a good story if nothing else, but that it is worth doing, that this sort of stuff can work, and that it’s a good thing to oppose him.

I’m really, really sick of being told to ignore him. His attitudes to women cause extreme distress to victims of violence, and they cause extreme offense to me and I’m quite sick of being gently reminded to sit down and shut the fuck up and put up with it like a good girl. This. Guy. Is. Evil. I’m gonna do everything I can to expose this guy for the hack he is.

So, if you wanna help, spend five minutes a day scanning through the comments section and reporting any vile comments to the complaints section:

Or, if you see he’s written something that’s deliberately misleading, report him to Media Watch.

Tags: , , , , ,

The following underlined section is from Sam de Britos post “Man Haters” on the Sydney Morning Herald blog “All Men Are Liars (Except Sam de Brito)” , posted Wed 5 Dec 07

http://blogs.smh.com.au/lifestyle/allmenareliars/archives/2007/12/man_haters.html

This blog has tackled the topic of misogyny many times over the last eighteen months, most notably discussing how knee-jerk, two-minute feminists consistently confuse a hatred of women (misogyny) with sexism, as well as how men need to be aware and responsible for the way they and their friends talk about the fairer sex, as well as just how common anti-female attitudes are in this country.Misogyny is an ugly word and it’s my opinion it gets thrown around far too lightly; if you criticise or mock women in any way, some second-year gender studies student will accuse you, the media, the advertising industry, big business or Canberra of misogyny. Feminist Gloria Steinem declared in 1996 that “woman hating” is the only form of prejudice still acceptable. But what of its male equivalent?

Ask ten people on the street what the opposite of misogyny is and eight will probably say “polygamy” or “trigonometry”; in fact the term for a hatred of men is “misandry” and it’s so rarely used Microsoft Word’s spell check doesn’t even recognise that combination of letters (go and try it, I’ll wait.)

The fact is, if you were to apply the same criteria to misandry that some feminists use for misogyny and its “pervasiveness” in Western culture, you couldn’t turn on your TV, open a newspaper or attend a hens night without being swamped by our “hatred for men” …

In the book Spreading Misandry writers Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young make the observation that “like misogyny, misandry can be found in almost every genre of popular culture – books, television shows, movies, greeting cards, comic strips, ads or commercials, and so on…

“The misandric artifacts and productions of popular culture promote a particular world view. It is not a complex one. On the contrary, it is very simplistic. Symbolically encoded … is what we call ‘the conspiracy theory of history’.

“One specific group of people is identified as the threatening source of all suffering and another as the promising source of all healing. There is nothing new about this theory; only the names have changed.

“At various times over the past century, nations, classes and ethnicities have replaced religions as the representatives, or incarnations of good and evil. Today that is true of the two sexes as well.”

Now that it’s politically incorrect to blame black people, the Irish or gypsies for the world’s problems, assigning fault to men has become the wallpaper of modern life, with any number of TV shows, movies, books, comedians and commentators happily pronouncing men as stupid, vile, insensitive, greedy, destructive, self-obsessed “lesser” beings compared to women.

In her article ‘The Worse Half’ published in the National Review in 2002, Charlotte Hays said “that the anti-male philosophy of radical feminism has filtered into the culture at large is incontestable; indeed, this attitude has become so pervasive that we hardly notice it any longer.”

Like all prejudices, misandry does contain a kernel of unvarnished truth, as do misogyny and racism: some men are cruel, exploitative, manipulators of women and the earth, as some women are capricious, vengeful manipulators of men and the earth and some races are more war-like, prone to alcoholism, gluttony or dressing in polyester track suits.

This kernel of truth doesn’t make misandry, misogyny or racism acceptable but it does show us where the prejudices begin and offers men the opportunity to push against the stereotypes.

Perhaps the most notorious man-hater in recent history would be Valerie Solanas who literally shot to fame when she fired three bullets at pop-artist Andy Warhol almost killing him.

Solanas, who ended life as a prostitute turning tricks in San Francisco, was the author of a hilariously deranged 1968 rant, the SCUM Manifesto, in which she advocated all like minded women “destroy the male sex.”

Solanas’ tract is largely repulsive (SCUM stands for Society for Cutting Up Men) but, as mentioned above, it does contain seeds of truth that describe large numbers of men and suggest the way many women who’ve been abused or wronged by males perceive us.

“The male is completely egocentric, trapped inside himself, incapable of empathising or identifying with others, or love, friendship, affection of tenderness. He is a completely isolated unit, incapable of rapport with anyone,” writes Solanas.

“His responses are entirely visceral, not cerebral; his intelligence is a mere tool in the services of his drives and needs; he is incapable of mental passion, mental interaction; he can’t relate to anything other than his own physical sensations.

“He is a half-dead, unresponsive lump, incapable of giving or receiving pleasure or happiness; consequently, he is at best an utter bore, an inoffensive blob, since only those capable of absorption in others can be charming,” she says.

This is a tad more eloquent expression of the old “all men are dogs, cheats, arseholes” line, which you can hear in most hair salons, nightclubs or Sex and the City episodes; however, while Solanas is instantly identifiable as a fruit bat, women who express similar views are seldom castigated for them or asked to question their assumptions.

As I’ve argued in other posts, it’s quite acceptable to act out mutilating a man’s penis in a television advertisement, when even the suggestion of doing the same to a woman’s vagina would see the spot pulled and pilloried and probably draw litigation.

So while hatred for women has an easily identifiable and much-despised name (misogyny), hatred for men (misandry) can barely be articulated but is accepted as part of life.

The nub of all this is that if we’re trying to actively combat one form of contempt, we’re almost certainly doomed to failure if we don’t address the other.

Problem 1/ your most notable “tackling” of the topic of misogyny has been to discuss the problem of knee-jerk, two-minute feminists being confused between misogyny and sexism. Rather than “tackle” misogyny, you opt for the misogynistic manouevre of casting women who disagree as reactionaries, as knee-jerk, two-minute feminists with no grasp on the meanings of words.   

Problem 2/ You falsely limit and confuse the terms of the debate when you provide your own deliberately narrow definition of the terms misogyny and sexism, in order to assert, ipso facto, that they are utterly different and separate and you are guilty of sexism but not of misogyny.

Problem 3/ The resultant implication that sexism is not a problem, is in fact a problem.

Problem 4/ While you stopped the conversation with your friend who was being disrespectful and offensive by saying “Did you fuck that slut up the arse?”, you regularly write, and condone in the comments sections, many things about women that are equally, if not more offensive than this. ** (Examples at bottom of page) I would also like to ask where this friend got the information that you had or were going to, without you providing it, but that is a side issue.

Problem 5/ You assert that misogyny is an ugly word which gets thrown around far too lightly, instead excusing your writing of, and media portrayals of women, as one dimensional, purely for sex, gold diggers, vindictive etc, along with institutionalised discrimination against women as *sexism* but not misogyny. It is in fact the major crux of the first half of your argument, you evidently find it such a significant distinction to make, based even as it is on your false limiting of the terms to emphasise the difference between misogyny and sexism.

Then, in an amazing display of attempting to have your cake and eat it too, you paint the *equivalent* discriminations when directed against the character of men, as misandry and not sexism.

Problem 6/  Your double standards.

One minute you want to proclaim yourself champion of women’s rights, the most pressing problem facing the world today – your words, 5 June 2007.Y

Then you continue writing in ways which demean and belittle women and justify that as *sexism* not misogyny, but simultaneously label any and all mockery of men as the far more serious misandry rather than sexism.

Not only do you refuse to engage with the differences in the outcomes, gravity and implications of discrimination against women and men, not only do you seek to portray discrimination against men as more pervasive in culture and media than that against women, something I defy you to back up statistically, but you also seek first to efface the difference in impact and significance, reducing both forms of discrimination to the same thing, then you afford discrimination against men the gravity of it being misandry –  a hatred against men – a gravity you deny applies to discrimination against women, instead labelling it sexism, which you define as simply acknowledging difference and nothing worse.

Before you launch yourself at my throat the way you do at every reader who dares to criticise you let me pre-empt you most likely manoeuvre:

Sam: Women *always* play the victim. But men outnumber women in physical violence and murder statistics.

Me: Women get raped by men, men they know and trust more often than strangers at a rate equal to rapes of men in prison. Women in Australia get beaten by their partner at a rate of one in four. Women in Australia are most likely to be murdered by their partners, particularly when trying to leave.

Men get beaten up *by men*, men get killed, statistically most frequently *by men*.

Does this mean men are *bad* and women are *good*?

No. It means masculinity has a lot to answer for, and men suffer because of it too. However, women are punished in particular, fear inducing ways. If you do not like the stats about male on male violence, join with feminists in deconstructing masculinity rather than on the one hand posting about stomping on each other’s head and biting off fingers as acceptable responses to mild irritations by other men doing such terrible things as cutting in front of you in the bar queue.

Problem 7 The authors you go on to cite. They do not (at least in the excerpts you provide) prove the prevalence of misandry, they assume it to be proven, and go on to theorize about it. They in fact are guilty again of the straw person argument, setting feminists up as saying men are the root of all evil and suffering and women are the source of all healing. Feminists say *no.such.thing*. Read some (and you might want to try a nifty little trick of reading a breadth of recent feminist thinking from a variety of sources. It is not ok to say to use a soundbite from say Andrea Dworkin and then deduce from this that this one line therefore sums up the entirety of world views of millions of feminists across history).

And here’s where I got so very very bored I could die. Is SO much more fun to mock and poke fun, or at least to engage with what I find more troubling than the fact he is a piss poor writer and pathetic at making an argument which would stand up to a stiff breeze, which is the fact that the man just does NOT seem to care about ethics at all. He cares about sensationalism and a quick buck, the hero worship of the blokes at the pub and occasionally doing a number on “I’m such a nice guy I could cry with self pride”, painting himself a champion of women’s rights (June 5 2007 etc) then writing on The Myth of Drink Spiking today.

Other problems in his article? This claim: Like all prejudices, misandry does contain a kernel of unvarnished truth…oh Christ…I mean really, who has the time, to pull apart the warped fabric that makes up the argument of a de Brito post and show how each and every fibre is built on offensive, unquantified bullshit as well as the problem with the bizarre way they’re woven together??

 Sometimes I wanna take this guy out (in terms of disgracing him publicly about his writing and logic, not with a bullet, cos tempting, but you know, I have this pesky no killing thing) if it takes every waking second of my life – other times I wonder WTF I’m doing and why? He puts it out there so quickly, how could I possibly keep up even if I quit my job and gave up things like eating and showering?

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

So Sam in the City fashions herself after Carrie Bradshaw, despite lacking any of the wit and charm of that character, and despite being a truly awful writer. However, she holds herself out as something of an ‘expert’ (ahem) on the ‘issues’ of the modern [read hetero, ‘post-feminist’ – ie anti-feminist] women, dating and sex. This usually manifests itself as such cliched crap as when it’s “okay” to kiss or have sex on a first date, irritating in itself as even this less “serious” topic is laden with gender expectations, implications about your moral character and the future of any relationship should you kiss or (god forbid) fuck on your first date.  

The thing (correction, one of the things) that shits me about her posts are that she frequently bites off more than she can chew – in fact, more than she ever fucking INTENDED to chew. So, what she’ll do is crap on for a few sentences, throw out an age old gender cliche, ask two or three fuckwits she knows what they think, make a couple of shithouse assertions,then opens it up to let the masses. She also frequently seems to be the apologist for women’s existence, taking up the “men’s position”, or rather, the fuckwitted males position before they need to do it for themselves. As in her conclusion that women are attracted to power, men to looks, her hints to men on how to ‘reel a woman in’ by manipulation of emotions etc.

So today?? “Do ex-wives (or husbands) deserve 50 per cent?” – as in payouts upon splitting. Well, you would think that for a topic this serious and sensitive that Sam would hit the books, right? NAW man, why do that? She’s a “sexpert”, therefore, she can crap on about a subject which causes hurt feelings, anger and bitterness to come out of the woodwork.

First she mentions Paul McCartney and Heather Mills, talking about the “whopping” 50 mill Mills stands to gain in the settlement (not, in fact 50% of Paul McCartney’s fortune, though I understand the confusion given the use of the number 50). So “poor” Paul is feeling sad at the media coverage…so I hear is his ex who is being called a whore and a gold-digger, who has had a visit from the Bobbies to inform her she’s had some serious death threats. Anyway, this is not about Paul and Heather right? I mean WTF do celebrity marriages have to do with the rest of us and the issue Sam claims to address?

So she craps on about various celebrities, contradicting earlier ‘points’ and just generally being both a knob and a shithouse writer, then…then we get to the argument surely?

Well she raises the abolition of no fault divorce, which she attributes to ‘individuals’ being manipulative and contriving fake scenarios in which they could show the ‘fault’ of their partner, with absolutely NOTHING to back up this claim. I would suggest that a massive change in family law had something more at its basis than a concern that some individuals were rorting the system in order to wrangle out of their marriages. Of course, she manages to make the point that it’s easy for many to walk away, leaving their ‘innocent’ spouse behind and make a packet. She’ll claim it was gender neutral, but it’s not…not when the media diatribe, the men’s rights clamouring, and the word-in-the-pub bitterness is all about the women making money out of men, not when she’s already written on women partnering up for money and power. Step one in opening the floodgates to the hard done by misogynist pricks to come forth with their tales of woe from which to generalise. 

Then she asserts (again with nothing to back it up) that the divorce rate is 400 percent (or four times, though admittedly that does sound slightly less apocalyptic) than forty years ago…you know, back in the days when Australia didn’t ever really say ‘no’ to violence against women, not even in tokenistic ads, back when you ‘just didn’t’ leave. The only thing she offers in this post in any way resembling a “conclusion” is that it might be easier to strengthen relationships and marriages rather than fighting them out in courts.

 Mmm…thanks for such a simplistic solution with absolutely no suggestions about what form such an effort to do so would take. Absolutely inspired. No WONDER you are a relationships expert!!  

She raises “domestic relationship agreements” – a non-marriage type of prenup. Surprise, surprise, she raises it in the context of a man “protecting” himself from a woman. This is entirely consistent with the rest of her implications about the motivations of women and the dangers for men that women present. Now I’m a big advocate of the independantly legally advised prenuptials, I am a massive advocate of independant finances. However, I know from working for a law firm that all of this is contingent upon sufficient education, pragmatism, and the sense of self preservation. I also understand that women are at a disadvantage again. When we have lower income capacity, we will not have the same negotiating clout. Factors that complicate any attempt at a simplistic and generalised stance on issues of marriage, divorce and prenuptials include gender, race, class, religious beliefs, education, world view. None of these were taken into account in Sams “assessment” of the issue.

So, in failing to engage with any such issues, in doing her usual trick, ask a psuedo question, give a psuedo answer, she opened up the comments section with:

 Do you think ex-wives or husbands deserve 50 per cent? Do you think domestic relationship agreements for domestic couples are necessary?

I have included some fragments from the charming comments section below. I truly believe her comments section reflects her target audience, the mentality, ethos and world view of her audience and her writing. Here goes:

As for DRAs [domestic relationship agreements] I don’t see the point – ever met a woman that was capable of sticking to her word???

Not frikkin likely so why bother paying for a DRA

***********************************************

great topic sam!! It’s such an interesting one, considering I have just been through a messy divorce and had to give up about 40 per cent of everything which I definitely do NOT think she deserved.

I do not know what the law should be, but all i know is that the court definitely favours the women, especially when there’s kids involved, and there are no winners, sadly.

*********************************************************

The divorce laws are from an ancient time of housewives and low divorce rates, these days it should be every man or woman for themselves.

*******************************************************

Am I bitter, sure.

Do I resent the legal system? YOU BET!

Moral is guys, if it looks like getting bad, hit first. Hit hard and make it a complete knock-out. Don’t bother trying to be nice of decent. There’s no upside to it for anyone but lawyers.

**********************************************************

Most women in this country still have the gold-diggery mentality when it suits them

**********************************************************

Mmm…Thanks Sam, thanks SO very much…with women like you writing, the Men’s Right’s Activists and their hateful misogynistic vitriol are hardly necessary. While you pass yourself of as a harmless sexpert, you play right into the hands of misogynistic arguments, while holding yourself up as a women’s writer. If you’re gonna tote yourself as a tee-hee, harmless blonde woman who likes to talk about dating, then stick to topics in which you don’t induce so much hatred. It is possible to write about dating and sex without being such a fuckwit, without continuing to beat women over the heads with the rules they have to obey, with the labels they need to fear, with the stereotypes that they are greedy gold-diggers. It isn’t like the SMH needs you to be such an anti woman writer – they already have Sam de Brito for that.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

I hate, loathe, despise the blogs of Sam in the City and Sam de Brito of the Sydney Morning Herald. They both shit me to tears, to varying degrees, and for some of the same and some differing reasons. However I noticed that Sam de Brito’s has won, and Sam in the City’s has been nominated for a Weblog Award.

So, they are great at appealling to the lowest common denominator. Good for them! Just wondering if I can glean any lessons from them as to how to improve my chances of mass appeal.

Step 1/ It would seem that (and this appears to be a crucial step) I should take down the political message on my header and replace it with a personal picture of myself exuding a highly gendered sense of a stereotypically “hetero” “sex appeal” far greater than that which I actually possess. As a man, clearly this would come from being MA-CHO, as a woman, looking as non threatening, but simultaneously like the tired traditional version of “men’s ideal” as possible. Perhaps I could get one of those cheesy Westfield store ‘makeovers’ in which I come out looking like an oil painting of a porn star?

Step 2/ Change the title. Clearly, being a female I need to strip away all pretence of political engagement (and DEFINATELY that totally unladylike bad language) and instead go for some ride-on-the-coattails, done to death imitation of a succesful women’s novel, movie or tv show….Sex in the Suburbs? Desperate OfficeWorkers? The Bitch Wears Prada [actually, I kinda like that one].

I could (as done so many times, so very cringingly) try to write in the style of Bridget Jones without acknowledging my blatant theft of ideas and style…

Day One. Gosh! Got harrassed on train again. Whoopsy daisy! Meant to stop. Must try a little harder to avoid the unavoidable. Make sure I don’t raise it in polite conversation or bring politics into it. Must blame self. Dieting will help.

Day Two. Three fights over gender, two bottles of gin and a tragic singalong. Feeling FAT!

3/ The type of blog. Now whether a male or female writer, one simply must make all sorts of gender generalisations, mostly about de wimenz. If I was a male I might make them provocatively offensive, jutting my jaw in the air while I say things like rape is worse for a man than a woman (and decry any political agenda or misogyny the whole time), or bang ON and ON about how women are all the same and need to be lied to, need to be more polite in bars, don’t care about the emotions of men (HELLO???You ever READ a women’s mag de Brito? They do nothing else OTHER than try to decode and manage men’s emotions).

BUT…given I am in fact a WO-MAN, I must take a different approach to my gender stereotypes. Gigglingly, shyly, flipping my newly blond hair extensions with my hands given a makeover by horridly chunky gel nails, I must raise a couple of semi-questions “tee hee hee, are women, do you think into power instead of looks?”, ask two random passers by and draw my conclusion from their answers “golly gee, YES, women are ALL the SAME!!! They are into POWER, not sex! They will shag men to get along cos they HATES to have the sex! [Intriguingly the same load of CRAP de Brito writes about, though he charmingly concludes that women in dating are all prostituting themselves for the flowers, drinks and meals he seems to think we all want/demand/get/refuse to date/put out if we don’t get…but I degress]

“Women like MANLY men, not “Metros” [they CERTAINLY don’t like WOMEN…and UGH feminists? How UGLY and last season and totally irrelevant, cos you know, like despite rape and domestic violence stats and a general lack of bodily autonomy etc, we’re like EQUAL now!??] But you know, I asked two people, how could my generalisation be wrong? Tee hee”.

Funnily enough the conclusions of the two blogs, while claiming to have different aims, while getting there differently, whilst couching it in different language, propogate the same gender myths. THEREFORE, if I want to succeed in a mainstream newspaper blog, if I wish for my genius to be rewarded, I must (male or female) expound on the topic of WOMEN, what they *are*, *how* they feel, *who* they wanna boink, and most importantly I must not forget that they are ALL the SAME!!! Yes! It is true, I asked two people passing my office and they said, like, TOTALLY all women are the same!

4/ I must seek out a target audience who have insulting opinions on gender issues, and I must pander to them. I must put out a provocative sentiment, couching it carefully, then sit back and wait for the controversy and hate to ROLL in. In this way I avoid the work of having to say anything of intelligence or significance, avoid the responsibility for the vile and disgusting sentiments raised (see dredgirls earlier comment on this blog quoting a guy regarding punching his “Mrs”, see almost any days comments section on their blogs) and can rely on the joyful celebration of generalisations and misogyny to ensure that the numbers come rolling in.

 Ah, fuck it, I can’t be arsed with this bullshit anymore. I feel ill.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Well fuck me rigid masculinity pisses me off sometimes!!!

I’ve been in a bit of a grump about the state of the world all week, so it’s a kind of cumulative rage that possesses me today. But I do get very sick of living in a world that gets defined by men, for men. This morning I woke up, and for some self punishing reason, decided to see what Arsehole de Brito had to say about the world. WHY oh WHY do I do it to myself? Worse still I clicked on the comments section! MMMMMMfuckityfuckityfuckinfuckincunts!

Seriously, it’s such a self serving community of bigoted women-haters…they’d argue with that and say they *love* women. I’d counter that they love access to pussy on the condition it’s not too old, is perfectly groomed and comes attached to a conventionally gorgeous and compliant but perky young woman. Also, said pussy has to be available on demand, but not have too many demands of its own, else it gets labelled a “slut”. And in all of this, who makes the calls on defining women? Men. Men just stating ‘facts’, just ‘observing’ truths.

 What was the article about? About a bitch of an old woman having a go at her husband on the beach (oh if ONLY my job was to take one little glimpsed interaction and to spin it out into a full length sound off with no rules about how my article should actually be thoughtful/insightful/a genuine attempt to engage with the issues). The article then touched on male rape in prisons (oh so delightfully referred to as ‘man love’ – love/rape…one of these things is not like the other, right?), concluding that there was none of this happening in the particular prison setting as the guys are 18-21. Clearly then rape would never be an issue.

It was a bit of a diatribe on men needing to grow balls in the face of nagging, gnashing, petty high-strung women. NOW – let me go on the record to say I cannot stand watching two people nag/shout at each other or treat each other poorly in any way. Not defending this behaviour. But an isolated incident turned into a diatribe on Sam’s favourite topic – how men need to grow bigger kahunas in setting boundaries on their women, or their women will run all over them. It’s a bit of a theme for him. Women it appears are quite like children (which is possibly true of the women Sam likes to shag) – if you don’t show them where the limits are they will run riot on a grown up version of the sugar high, and before you know it, your life will be reduced to ruins by a full-scale, adult sized Veruca Salt. Put your foot down Sam, show em whose da boss.

 Anyway, whatever right? Just another fuckwit with a keyboard. But what happens every freaking time is that it becomes a hate fest over women and their maniacal, hysterical ways, the fact they’ll screw you within an inch of your lives if you let em, they’re shrews, harridans, they wanna trap you into marriage and babies, take your money and make you miserable. Poor, poor men. Generalisations are flying around so thick and fast that if you aren’t careful you’ll lose an eye. Now. I do not have a problem with someone observing the behaviour of people in public and then examining it. But in order to examine it, you would need to put some genuine thought into what’s going on. These articles are never truly about resolving these issues and making peoples lives happier, they are about tapping into deep seated bitterness and anger towards women, about reinforcing stereotypes in ways that make people feel good for “knowing” stuff about life. So when it results, every freaking time into a disgusting display of bigotry – then I have a problem with it.

 I’m so sick of being told not to worry about this – I mean I get it. On the one hand, blah blah, be the bigger person, he’s an idiot, not to worry…but, he has access to publication in a mainstream newspaper’s website, he preaches to the masses and the ‘masses’ lap it up. Bigotry towards women is everywhere in society, in its extreme forms, and in ‘jokes’ and song lyrics and leers and generalisations. Why is it that I should just say “water off a duck’s back”? I’m no duck, I’m a woman, and I live in a world where there is appalling levels of violence and hate directed at women, and I’m supposed to put up and shut up?

Well, no. I mean, yeah, I have my own blog. Big deal though, what twenty ppl read me a day? It’s hardly turning the tables on the Sam de Brito’s of the world. To say ‘ignore it’, to say ‘start your own blog’ is all well and good, except it ignores the fact of the institutionalised nature of discrimination against women. It’s gonna take way more than a blog to redress that. But apparently it ain’t cool for me to say I’m a feminist, to be angry. I’m supposed to say I live in a “post-feminist” world. All cos of Ally McFuckinBeal. I’ll tell you what? You men who say I’ve got ‘no sense of humour’, I’m ‘too angry’, etc…go out and do something yourselves to ensure that women can walk the streets safely, that they will no longer be beaten, that they can choose if and how and when they would like to procreate, that they can make choices about how to support and care for their families, that they can define their desires and sexuality for themselves, that they can access equal incomes and high positions in the workplace. I’ll sit back and observe, and then I will happily talk about our post-feminist world and laugh at every shitty joke you tell me.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,