Skip to content

Fuck Politeness

This is a revolution, not a public relations movement

Tag Archives: Sydney Morning Herald

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: , , ,

Poor old Lizzy-poo is lamenting that ‘Mardi Gras has become too straight for comfort’.

Why? Because there was a discussion that Mardi Gras might consider moving to Homebush. Waving away very real discussions over classism and a consideration of the fact that many participants in Mardi Gras, and many just-as-queer-folk live west of Bankstown, Farrelly instead sees the *consideration* of such an idea as proof positive that the Flaming Queers are no longer Flaming enough for her tastes. Those boys are supposed to squeal in horror and stamp their high heeled shoes over any location not hip enough for their tastes! My STEREOTYPING demands it!!

Oh haha – GLBTQ sounds like a sandwich filling. Oh haha – Queer is vague and nebulous, a ‘catch all’  for non-straight…oh haha…why don’t you go on and ask which *bathroom* a transgendered person should use Farrelly? You’re headed in that direction with your smug condescending mocking.

Direct quote:

And the question? The question is this. What happens when being GLBTQ is no longer queer at all? What happens when gay goes straight?

Well I don’t know. Why don’t you ask that when gay and lesbian folk don’t get bashed or killed for not being straight? Why don’t you ask that again when transgendered persons don’t run such an extraordinarily high risk of being raped or killed? When jokes about ‘which bathroom’ stop sounding hilarious to heteronormative fuckwits? When Ken Starr is NOT trying to anul marriages? When being gay doesn’t make you a paedophile suspect in the eyes of many? When you can marry who you fucking well please? When a transgendered man having a baby doesn’t cause people’s HEADS to nearly EXPLODE with indignation and amazement.

There’s some random story about one guy who suggests that says that identity politics ruined his sex life (am I reading Farrelly or Sam in the City here?).

An offensive point about how straight men *used* to be titillated by the transgressions til the gays went and ruined that fun by coming out and fighting for their rights -damn them.

Farrelly ignores the fact that in the ‘good old days’ they often kicked the shit out of people later…some of those ‘enjoying’ their ‘transgressions’ were also gay-bashers. This is often STILL THE CASE. It would appear that most of the ‘lamentable gentrification’ has happened in Farrelly’s noggin. And what of the similar pattern of ‘straight guys’ being both titillated and repulsed to sex with transgendered men and women? The high levels of murders linked to sexual desire/abjection? To ‘proving’ their heterosexuality?

A couple of digs at ‘celesbianism’ (and jesus, is there anything more telling of white straight priviledge than thinking you’re witty for dropping words like that? Hi, your disrespectful arrogance is showing) and then we’re onto her *point* such as it is:

My purpose, rather, is to wonder what it might mean for Sydney, the world’s runner-up of gay meccas, when queerness is not only legal and accepted but becomes a genuine part of the norm

Well gee, Farrelly, I forgot it might be a struggle for respect, equality and rights. NO! It’s about SYDNEY’S struggle to stay hip, urbane and trendy!

It’s about lamenting that queer culture is no longer interesting when there’s not quite the risk their used to be that coming out meant you were likely to be beaten to death/raped/thrown in jail.

Farrelly is sad that she’s lost that little frisson that came with being so ‘edgy’ that she knew about/watched something that was blanketly despised and mocked in wider society. Poor Farrelly.

This paragraph is particularly bad:

Costumery is fun, and Mardi Gras is making money. But the radical chic that once fitted it to Oxford Street like a hand in, well, a glove has gone. Now both parade and precinct seem somewhat past their best, not so much down at heel as too well-heeled; middle-aged, middle-brow, middle class. And it is impossible not to feel just a little nostalgic for the days when Mardi Gras meant something.

Oh, we GET your inuendo ok?

And it’s a little funny infuriating to hear a well-heeled; middle-aged, middle-brow, middle class white woman talk down about how Mardi Gras doesn’t MEAN ANYTHING ANY MORE!

*rude fingerful of spoof*? Just stop. Every time you make a little ‘gag’ like this it shows your heteronormativity. “Spoof”  you get it??? *Glove*, geddit, geddit? HAHA – QUEER, get it?

So Farrelly is lamenting the vicarious frisson of fear/thrill she got when GLBTQ was (to her) just *poofs* and *dykes*, when Mardi Gras carried an appreciable (to the straight white arbiter) risk of violent disruption.

Now she’d like to *send it West* for that same risk of offence/violence. (Oh she doesn’t SAY she wants the violence, but that’s the upshot of people being ‘offended’ by sexualities and bodies that disturb their world view and their sense of heterosexual superiority.

But k.d lang isn’t the only GLBTQ to have slipped of late from rock ‘n’ raunchy into a schmaltz more comfortable.

No indeed, Elizabeth, it seems you are keeping her company.

Tags: , ,

So Sam in the City asked the question “Is it worth dating a divorced woman (or man)?”.

It’s probably unnecessary to tell you she doesn’t answer what is a ludicrous question to begin with.

As far as Sam goes, it’s – well it’s almost a radical feminist moment by her standards. She actually engages with the fact that the myth is that through divorce women get it all and live a life of luxury, that less than a third [this is apparently in the U.K] get any maintenance, and over a quarter end up living in poverty. Now I’m never that sure of Sam’s studies and stats, but fuck me, she’s dug up and published one that doesn’t trash the women as greedy, ballbreaking shrew bitches!

Really, as a divorcee myself, I’d suggest you don’t follow either suggestions of Sam here:

Either avoid the topic altogether and pray to the relationship gods that your date never checks your personal records. Or, get it out in the open within the first few sips of your vino so ensure oh-so-coquettishly that there are no secrets between you too.

Ok, stop. First of all checks your personal records??? I reckon any argument starting with ‘I went through your documents/I hired a detective/I looked you up through Births, Deaths and Marriages and you were MARRIED??’, ends with ‘You’re fucking insane and a stalker and you’re upset about the marriage?’. You win any argument that starts that way. SHIT!

Second…I don’t think that the other option to keeping it a deep dark secret is to blurt it out on a first date. What the fuck? A/ on a first date how is it their mother-fucking BIZNEZ? B/ Just…don’t for fuck’s sake. A first date generally speaking is about banter and flirting with maybe a hint of anxiety-induced nausea. I’m prepared to accept there’s all kinds of first dates, all kinds of topics that might feel natural and acceptable, but I don’t think that screaming “BEFORE THE SHRIMP COMES OUT YOU SHOULD KNOW I’M DIVORCED” is really the conversation starter you’re looking for here.

Then there’s some generic boring crap filler (no, really!) then THIS:

I reckon the most important tip for divorcees, and anyone looking for a new relationship really, comes from US matchmaker Patti Stanger (of the hit reality television show Millionaire Matchmaker) who says that there is to be absolutely no sex until you’re in a “committed monogamous relationship”.

So first she just obliterates any consideration of the specific pressures on divorcees (or whether they’re worth dating) to dole out her inane uber-prude advice.

Second. WHAT? God DAMN this woman is a prude.

Third…you want people to commit to monogamy and a serious relationship BEFORE they have sex? How exactly are you supposed to discover you like someone enough to get serious, to commit to them in any way if you aren’t sleeping together? I would imagine it ends up being advice to dangle the possibility of sex in front of someone in order to lock them down and extract promises, which – YUCK!

Where are the spaces for different kinds of relationships, different times and spaces? Different ways of dating? Shit. Perhaps if your sole goal was getting re-hitched you’d listen to her…but even then…it feels like headfucking and manipulation to me.

So here’s my sex advice: if you like someone, if you’re having fun, if it feels right to you, feel free to have sex. Regardless of whether you’ve been married before or not. And if you have some ‘secret’ like ‘Once I was married by I didn’t like it so much’ or ‘I have a secret stash of James Blunt cds’ , well for fuck’s sake!! You don’t need to blurt out your secrets on a first date.

IF you get to know one another well enough that you think it’s any business of the other person’s, then tell them, but IN YOUR OWN TIME! If you feel a need to ‘confess’ then I’d suggest not putting it off for so long that it feels like you’re about to confess to killing their pets, making their pelts into vests and hiding the bodies down the back of the lounge, but god! If some person you’re just getting to know gets angry and all up in your face that you didn’t lay out your Virgin Credentials or lack thereof prior to sharing your first meal? I reckon I’d be thanking them for a nice time and getting the hell out of there.You don’t need other peoples absolution for previous relationships. Shit.

And finally, what a shit stupid question to begin with.

You like the person or you don’t.

Tags: , , , ,

Sylvio Berlusconi is in the media again for yet another idiot comment dripping with sexism, misogyny, arrogance and well, fucking idiocy. This is, you may recall the man who referred to Margaret Thatcher as a good piece of pussy. Perhaps it ought to make the news when Berlusconi manages to discuss women/women’s issues/politics involving women/anything having anything to do with/resemblance to/any contact with women and actually manages to REFRAIN from making a total fucking arse of himself.

You should really read the Sydney Morning Herald article though, as it’s like an all out competition for who can be the biggest clueless fuckwit. In the running we have Berlusconi himself, both for the original comment in suggesting that rapes would not stop until there:

“are as many soldiers on the streets as there are pretty girls”

and for his glibly arrogant defence of the comment:

“I believe that on every occasion it is always useful to use a light approach and a sense of humour,”

Hmm…well perhaps there are things outside the ambit of your experience which require you to get your head out of your arse, stop crapping on about your immutable theories on how things are best discussed in ‘polite society’, and you know, realise that rape is not, generally speaking something which anyone not a total fucking arsehole has a sense of humour about.

Second contender is Luca Volonte, head of the Christian Democrats who had this to say:

A soldier for every beautiful woman? Maybe Berlusconi thinks that all Italian men are irresponsible and unable to contain themselves – or maybe it is an admission of his incapacity to govern and guarantee public security.

Like me, most Italians are able to brake their bestial urges … he should avoid such comments and confront real problems of resources for police and public order.

Oh dear, so many problems. See it doesn’t really matter if ALL Italian men don’t rape, the fact that SOME do is a problem, and really, I WOULD in fact suggest it’s a REAL PROBLEM, wouldn’t you???

Granddaughter of THE Mussolini, Alessandra Mussolini shows a congenital lack of an ability to grasp with any clarity what is REALLY the ethical wrong in any given situation by retorting:

The fact is we need so many soldiers because there are so many ugly men

Ok, so it’s a bad thing for Berlusconi to suggest that rape happens because beautiful women are rape-magnets, and ’cause’ it by their beauty – it’s no better to suggest that it happens because ugly men can’t get laid, and *have to resort to rape*.

Do people HONESTLY not get that rape [of women, the only kind recognised in Berlusconi’s comments] happens regardless of what the woman looks like/is wearing/is doing/where she is/how much she fights/how prepared she is?? That it’s got NOTHING TO DO with the woman, or with lack of sexual opportunity for men? That rape of women is about systemic lack of respect for women, often about direct punishment of women FOR BEING WOMEN, and that many individuals in such a system rape not because they are ugly and therefore lonely or misunderstood or the women is pretty and therefore tempting, but in order to rape? In order to degrade, humiliate, brutalize and overpower. And…it’s NOT FUCKING FUNNY. So Berlusconi, perhaps there are SOME SITUATIONS in which your desire to be lighthearted and funny are not appropriate?

And lastly we have whichever editor at the Sydney Morning Herald decided to go with the headline that Berlusconi ‘upset women’.

Yes, yes he did. I imagine his comments have caused considerable outrage amongst thousands of people, men and women. Let’s suggest some more suitable headlines:

Berlusconi proves again he’s a total arse with a piss-poor atttitude to women

Berlusconi comments provoke outrage (rape is not a ‘women’s issue’)

All agree that Berlusconi should shut his pie-hole

Rape not funny say all decent people

Any further suggestions?

Tags: , , , ,

OMG SHOES! Miranda Devine is beside herself, wailing and weeping and gnashing her teeth over the daming and far reaching effects of the intellectual monoculture. No, it’s not about an increased risk of glandular fever amongst uni students, it’s one of her pet soapbox issues: THE LEFTIES ARE BRAINWASHING OUR CHILDREN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The lefties are apparently totally in control of the content of Australia’s education system, even though the Howard government was in power for the last eleven years and set in place measures to force their own special brand of nationalism and ideology down the necks of schools and universities across the country.

Not content with exerting undue influence over schools the Howard government’s culture wars extended to the sacking of Dawn Casey from her curatorship at the National Museum for telling a version of Australian history factually true, but considered unseemly and unpalateable.The Howard government, far from allowing the diversity of views it purported to allow hunted down dissident voices, new approaches to history in line with museumology and, well, fucking exterminating them. Not before decrying them as traitorous, treachorous and unpatriotic though.

Think it stopped there? What of the closure of the peace institute? The absorption of the Office for the Status of Women into the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs? The ‘special dispensation’ granted to the Catholic church to appeal the rights of single women to access IVF. The government funded “think tanks” that spouted their politically situated, ideologically driven crap presented as neutral ? Yeah, you fucking forgot to mention that shit Miranda, that and the fact that you and your right wing, neo conservative, bigotry apologist twerps have laid claim to NEUTRALITY with all the power that holds.

Political correctness gone mad? Um, excuse me??? Firstly, what exactly does she mean by political correctness? I’m guessing she’s referring to the pesky notion that we should treat women, ‘coloured folk’ and ‘the gays’ with respect? Yeah, that shit’s taken off hasn’t it? We’re all tyrannised, ruled by the Mighty Iron Fist of The All Powerful P.C! That’s why Frank Sartor was able to tell Mick Mundine to get off his arse and get his black arse down to his office? Why the SMH published Rolf Harris’s fucking self indulgent racist vitriol? That’s why the SMH published this cartoon in response to bush rats being released in Mosman to rid the area of the common problem of black rats:

470bushrat0

That’s why Zoo thinks it’s A-O-fucking-K to run wanktastic spreads on Getcha Hawt Murdered Babes Free Here, that’s why commenter APublicBlogging pointed out that really, the nine year old kid who wrote his article on how to score chicks has more discursive power than online feminist bloggers combined, that’s why every mother-fucking day everywhere I go I hear the jokes about women, that’s why the White Ribbon Organisation’s Report on gendered violence gets slammed, ridiculed and reviled as worthless, pointless propaganda.

In schools, Australia day is celebrated uncritically, no one gives any thought to the fact that a gazillion kids come from sole parent families when they have their father’s day barbeques and their mother’s day stalls, single mothers still get letters to Mrs So and So despite repeated corrections, kids who don’t ‘do’ the religion class get lumped with more classwork, that’s why The Day for the Elimination of Racial Discimination got rebranded and repackaged as Harmony Day.

Andrew Fraser got to defend his racism (sorry, growing tired and short of patience hunting this crap down) by recourse to academic freedom, and the Macquarie University Law Society IMMEDIATELY jumped to his defence with some of the lamest analogies in history (sorry, I’ll dig out the pics of the idiot posters in defence as soon as possible). Fuck this shit, I’m tired. Part two to come soon.

With thanks to Dredgirl from Fuckthepostpolitical for ranting with me and sharing her thoughts with me over this.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

This article is headlining the SMH website right now. It’s about the sex trade in Thailand.

Author manages to keep a foot in both camps without writing much of any substance and certainly bugger all in the way of originality. Orientalism/fetishism goes utterly unchallenged and unquestioned – he discusses “the way” *Asian women* perform in the bedroom/act in relationships (essentialising and homogenising in ways that reduce The Asian Woman to subservient sex-robot doesn’t appear to bother him at all, apparently he’s never bothered to read Said or later critical/cultural theorists discussing the impact of Western attitudes to *Asian women*) as *the* reason so many Western men travel to Thailand for sex.

I would hazard that this is certainly part of it, and a fucked up part – but linked and intermingled is the knowledge that here, away from home they can buy whatever degradation/power trip they want, because the poverty is so bad that sex slavery is rampant and unimaginably poor women are easy to exploit. Oh yeah, and it’s a way to fuck kids. But let’s not discuss this *ugly* reality, let’s make it sound more palatable than that.

Yeah, he does start to discuss the poverty, sex slavery etc, and the issue of most girls being between 12 and 16, the average age being 14; in a fairly cursory way (one para in two pages). But you know, I wanted to read this in a charitable way – I had been hoping that finally here was a Dude prepared to tell the other Dudes that they aren’t just entitled to the shit they put girls/women through. But in the end, after discussing the extreme poverty that ends up with so many girls sold into sex slavery (establishing that the average age is fourteen) he starts to feel angry at his friend…and then decides to buy his mate a beer instead of challenging his attitude towards women, prostitutes and the sex trade in Asia. Cos you know…it’s a systemic exploitation of at risk and poor girls who are below the age of consent by Australia’s standards, an exploitation that leads to violence, illness, rape, disease and murder, but fuck! He’s a mate! Let’s have a beer and a smile and shut the fuck up. Cos he’s not the first…so clearly me challenging him would be poor form.

Choke. On. Your. Beers.

And before we all congratulate ourselves on not fucking desperately poor 14 year old sex slaves, let’s have a look at the fetishisation of Asian women that underlies it. This shit is all through culture, and people think it’s perfectly acceptable.

I’m too fucked off and I have essays to write.

I just found a blog called Angry Asian Girl Against “Orientalism”: this post seems a good place to start for any fucker who can’t see what the issue is.

Tags: , , , , ,

Sam, Sam, she’s at it again.

I am loathe to make a judgment call against another person that they are deeply and profoundly stupid – but sometimes the alternative is that they’re hiding behind a dimwitted persona in order to push an ugly agenda…stupid or woman-hating that is the question, at least as it relates to Sam in the City.

Are Women Naturally Monogamous is her second latest gift to the world. It opens with the line:

It is a universally acknowledged truth (and discussed many times over in this column) that for biological reasons, men are unable to be monogamous.

Ok. I mean I fundamentally disagree with an assertion that men are ‘unable’ to be monogamous, that they are ‘unable’ to control their sexual desire, that they are ‘unable’ to choose some self restraint, that they are ‘unable’ to keep The Mighty Penis under any sort of control. Both because I respect them as fully functional human beings with a capacity to make deliberate decisions about all areas of their lives, and because it’s ludicrous and dangerous to suggest that the influence of the Mighty Penis goes even further – that men’s genes exercise such all consuming control over their every thought and choice that they are puppets to the DNA. If men are *biologically*, *genetically* UNABLE to control their cocks – well then…I mean, you can’t REALLY hold them responsible when their genes go haywire and they rape. It’s not them, it’s not their choices, it’s not even their penises anymore. It’s genetics, it’s science, it’s the vibe, it’s Mabo.

So…moving on to the rest of the article (since is supposed to be about teh wimmenz) Sam informs us that ‘traditional theory’ says:

that men evolved to make love, women to demur.

Ok, so Sam wants to get to something else here: she wants to get to women aren’t angels, they fantasize, they cheat, they perpetrate paternity fraud. There’s a long way to travel from ‘men are biologically unable to keep it in their pants, and therefore we can never REALLY hold them accountable for any of their actions, and we’ve only got ourselves to blame cos we all know what they’re like, and women’s job is to say ‘Sex? WHAT? GOD no!’  (DUH! Universally acknowledged TRUTH!)*

So…first she mentions this article by Sarah Hrdy; Professor of Anthropology Emeritus at the University of California. I read the link (and to the dude who spanked me last week for following up on links and experts it’s called ‘research’) and it’s actually quite the interesting article. But of course it’s about unpacking the myths we build up and ground in science by misinterpreting or misunderstanding animal sexual behaviour. It appears to me to say that Darwin et al read into animal behaviour a monogamy that wasn’t there – because they were looking at things through the lense of the sexual ethics of society at that time.

It reminded me quite strongly of a trip to the zoo where the announcer was discussing the  heterosexual monogamous faithfulness of giraffes – and yet there is much evidence that giraffes ‘feel’ less constricted by heteronormativity than we like to assume. [It also reminds me of a story I heard whereby Fred Nile had been urging us to embrace and protect monogamy and the family from the insidious influence of homosexuality, particularly the idea that gay or lesbian couples could raise children. Anyway, apparently he directed his listeners to look to nature – particularly the black swan. Unfortunately for Fred and his agenda, male black swans quite frequently form male pairs who steal babies from the nest, or temporarily hook up with female swans, then abscond to raise the babies. So far swan society seems to be surviving]  (Shit I love that story!)

So it’s an interesting read, and with some thought could open up fascinating discussions about our assumptions about sexuality and ‘nature’, but she does a little *tee hee, I’m blonde* hair-flick and says she didn’t really understand that article (well, I’d like to suggest she doesn’t use articles she doesn’t understand in the future to lend scientific credence to her scatty articles which almost always appear to be about the moral turpitude of women but that’s another story) and sails right on by to another theory.

This theory comes to us from Michelle Langley…who is qualified to write about What Women Do  because she’s…a professional public speaker…who at 27 began to feel bored and unhappy…tried to figure out why and, well the rest is history. The bullet points on the homepage for her book go like this – just for reference ‘They’ are teh wimmenz:

  • They push men for commitment

  • They get what they want

  • They lose interest in sex

  • They become attracted to someone else

  • They start cheating

  • They become angry and resentful

  • They begin telling their partners that they need time apart

  • They blame their partners for their behavior…and eventually, after making themselves and everyone around them miserable for an indefinite, but usually, long period of time, they end their relationships or marriages

  •  

     

    Now I kinda hate this formulaic ‘this is what people do, for real, for all time’ stuff. And wow, don’t you love the whole slide gently from ‘neutral’ descriptors of ‘facts’ into ‘and then women make everyone’s lives utter misery before destroying them completely’ crap at the end. But leaving aside that it’s just cited briefly as it’s Convenient Theory For Sam 1546 for her to push some final premise of Women Are Decietful Sluts** Emasculating Their Poor Innocent Boyfriends And Ruining Mens Lives Everywhere, the one quote she gives us actually doesn’t appear so bad:

     

    By Langley’s reckoning, when a woman hits her sexual peak – usually around the mid-30s mark – her libido awakens. And if a bloke isn’t meeting her demands mentally and physically – which he often isn’t considering a man peaks in his early 20s – there’s going to be more chance of her looking elsewhere if she isn’t entirely happy.

     

    This to me speaks far more to heteronormativity, conditioning of women into early marriage, communication issues, patterns of relationships, frustration with ‘womens roles’ etc – it doesn’t appear like it would *have to* back up a Sam-like conclusion about Teh Chicks Are Slutballs**.

     

     

    But that’s not quite good enough. Sam assserts:

    *Of course, it’s entirely disgraceful and cowardly to cheat on your partner* (it would appear though, it’s only *really* disgraceful for a woman, since it’s a Universally Acknowledge Truth* that men are unABLE to be monogamous). She goes on to explain the rush and the addiction of an affair, sails right through this stuff, flits about banging on about women not trusting men and therefore never leaving them alone lest their manly genes render them unable to resist fucking someone else simply because their wife is not in the same room – and then goes ‘Uhmuhmaaaaaa! Who would have thought that WOMEN could do this too???’ (Especially since *everyone knows* we’re designed to demur! A side point – if you’re going to utilise evolutionary psychology crap…does it not make more sense for the continuation of humanity for women to ‘evolve’ to like/want/need sex too???)

     

     

    THEN…BANG. We have arrived at the destination we were hurtling haphazardly and nauseatingly towards all the time, in a bizarrely unruly fashion a little like travelling on The Knight Bus in Harry Potter:

    No *wonder* the Poor Innocent Menfolk (innocent cos they can’t HELP where their cocks end up, but OMG you SLUT** for even fantasising about someone else!) are quaking in their boots (a *fact* she doesn’t need to back up apparently, it’s just self evident that men everywhere are undergoing a crisis over the stability of their relationships), filled with mortal terror that their marriage/monogamous relationship (that they are allegedly biologically destined to not want, and will definately shag the first person who is not their wife/partner cos Thats How Much Biology Makes Them Hate Monogamy and Wives and Women Who Fuck Them) is NOT SECURE!!!!!! Women MIGHT IN FACT like sex, and they might in fact not be Biologically Predetermined Asexual Virgin Types which clearly makes them rampaging sluts**…and then….screeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeech, BANG, the doors fly open and here we are: Paternity Fraud Central.

     

    Oh yes. Not only are Teh Menz Innocent and Teh Wimmenz Eeeevil For Fantasizing, but they are EVEN MOAR EVIL because they likes to fuck around, get knocked up and then say Suprise, I’s Havin Yo Baby (except is not yours, is lies…heh heh is funny). Is just the TRUTH now. Sam says.

     

     

    Here we go. According to Sam, in Australia one in four babies is the ‘victim’ (???) of paternity fraud. Yep. Sorry, but a quarter of all kids you know, don’t know their daddies (and is VICTIMS). Cos Women Are Lying Sluts** according to the world of Sam. Sure, she tells us it was on an ABC show. She doesn’t give us a link, we just have to take it on faith. When I do a quick Google Search (Sam, do you need me to show you how this works?) I see MRA sites devoted to paternity fraud, but I find this article by a sociologist who calls bullshit on these claims. I did find a 7:30 Report transcript of one man’s story of this happening to him (and sure, it can happen) but the other ABC link I found was this article explaining that the percentage quoted is for an extremely small subset of men very suspicious of their partner – that the overall statistic is around 1%.

     

     

    I’m just so sick of seeing this woman trot out the same crap. Tune in this time next week, I’ve just spotted the headline for her new post of “Is staying with our first love the secret to a great relationship?” – if I had to give a knee jerk reaction to that, I’d bet money on usually NOT.

     

    * I have deep and abiding problems with the idea of Universally Acknowledged Truths about human behaviour.

    **I have just as many deep and abiding problems with the fact that women still get to choose between virgins and sluts, the old “Damned Whores And God’s Police” division. I hate the word slut used in this way, I’m using it to get at this shaming going on in these sorts of articles. Apologies if the use has offended anyone, I certainly don’t advocate it EVER to describe someone who enjoys sex/does not conform to quaint and rustic ideas of how a ‘lady’ should behave.

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