Posted by Richie on September 23, 2007
Hoping to follow up the “Australia’s Sexiest Feminist” story, I bought Zoo Weekly – at full price, this time – and then discovered it was the wrong issue. Since every issue is “The one with the skinny blonde woman with fake breasts on it”, this is an understandable mistake, although it doesn’t change the fact I just lost $4.25 and the remnants of my dignity. However, sandwiched in between a photo shoot / interview with Big Brother evictee Emma (In which she relates her softcore pseudo-lesbian experiences. But don’t worry, boys, she still loves cock!) and “The Thirty Hottest US Girls” (Or the one hot girl duplicated 30 times; it’s difficult to tell) is “50 People We Hate”, a countdown of “The gits, twits and sh*ts who send our blood pressure soaring”. The asterisk in “sh*ts” is theirs, because Zoo will not abide filth. “Tranny”, “Cow” and “Bitch” remain, as ever, acceptable.
Given that this blog, along with everything else I’ve ever written, is largely motivated by spite, there’s a connection to be made here. By going down the list and checking off the ones I hate as well, we can work out whether or not Zoo really is the antithesis of everything I believe in, or if our differences are only skin deep and we’ll get together just before the closing credits. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Bit o' fun for the lads, General grumpiness | 10 Comments »
Posted by Richie on September 23, 2007
Posted in General grumpiness, Miscellany | 10 Comments »
Posted by Richie on September 14, 2007
In today’s media, anti-male sexism is the rule far more than anti-female sexism. Whether it’s calling men “idiots,” creating smart mom/stupid dad TV shows, publishing books with titles like “Are Men Necessary,” our culture is full of what some scholars are calling the “WAW effect,” short for Women are Wonderful. These days, it’s tough to catch a break if you’re an unapologetic male. [source]
Man A and Man B arrive at their lodge meeting late, bumbling in and making fools of themselves. Man B is worried that he won’t be able to attend the upcoming lodge party, because his wife runs the house and she won’t let him. Man A scolds him and tells him to take charge, because “Every man should be the king in his own castle”. They return to their homes. Man A’s wife – depicted as sensible, long-suffering and busy cleaning whilst her husband is a fool who wastes his time goofing off at the lodge – tells him that Man B’s wife has gone duck hunting, an activity which is clearly chosen to undermine Man B’s masculinity. Man B, with typical male incompetence, then locks both of them out of Man A’s house, and must rely on Man A’s wife to open the door for them. She scolds them and tells Man A to “come inside, you bad boy”. Man B, depicted as a childish ignoramus, eats wax fruit, to the despair of Man A’s long-suffering wife, who just can’t stand being around these two morons, calling Man B a “dodo”. She then refuses to allow Man A to go to the lodge convention, telling him off like a naughty child, mocking him and demanding he go to the mountains with her instead, where they’ll learn about art and culture, because women are sensible and men are stupid. She then threatens him with a carving knife and tells him to “shut up and don’t talk back”.
Man A waits for her to leave the room before he tries to talk to Man B. However, when Man A turns around to initiate the conversation, his wife returns to the room and hits him over the head with a clay vase so hard that the vase shatters. The audience is encouraged to laugh at Man A’s predicament, turning the contempt for men into comedy and disguising its real danger. Man A then attempts to stand up to his wife, but she hurls two more vases at him, both of which shatter upon contact with his head. Man B’s wife returns home, holding the ducks she’s shot and brandishing a gun. The two competent, collected and intelligent women then laugh about how stupid their husbands are, calling them “barnacles”. Man A’s wife later throws a metal basin at him hard enough to break it, and the audience is again encouraged to laugh at women hurting men.
Now, am I describing:
- The nightmarish future of comedy. Good God, if only we’d listened to Nathanson and Young WHILE THERE WAS STILL TIME!!!
- An episode of Everybody Loves Raymond, the feminist Trojan Horse responsible for driving misandry to its highest recorded level since the Depression and rainfall to its highest level since the Wall Street Crash.
- Sons of the Desert, a Laurel & Hardy movie from 1933, which, if I’ve done my sums right, predates “today’s media” by some considerable margin.
Correct Answer: Can we just stop pretending “Men are dumb, women are sensible” is a recent development? It’s getting embarrassing. Christ, The Benny Hill Show depicted men as dumb, and I don’t think anybody’s going to argue that particular piece of television was influenced by feminist ideology. Also, #3.
Posted in All-Pervading Matriarchal Conspiracy, Gender stereotypes, Movies, Reverse sexism! | 13 Comments »
Posted by Richie on September 10, 2007
Damn woman-firsters, putting women’s right not to be licked by strangers ahead of men’s right to do whatever the fuck they feel like with absolutely no ramifications. The harassment in the video is, of course, “fun”, but whoever he (or she, since not all women are lesbians… yet O_o) is replying to was “promoting the use of lethal weaponry” and is “clearly a freak”. There’s an attempt to score pedantry points with the correct definition of “Chauvinism”, although I’m not sure what, precisely, he’s referring to: Either he means that “Chauvinism” doesn’t necessarily refer to sexism and can be applied to any ideology (it was originally specific to nationalism), or that there was no (male) chauvinism present in the video in the first place. Either explanation redefines “clutching at straws”.
On a related note, the Wikipedia article on “Chauvinism” has more on “Female Chauvinism” than any other form, and that section has all the citations. Remove the stuff on Ariel Levy and it’s still the longest section. I’d also draw your attention to this, which was later deleted by a woman-firster. Proof, if proof need be, that Wikipedia is the latest casualty of our culture’s pervasive misandry.
And while we’re taking screenshots of eBaum’s world:
Posted in Bit o' fun for the lads, CAN'T YOU TAKE A JOKE?, I'm not a misogynist, I LOVE women!, Now I know my MRABCs, YouTube | 33 Comments »
Posted by Richie on September 6, 2007
THE D-list media crit blog which sparked outrage when it suggested women were human beings has responded to its critics by launching a search for the world’s sexiest Men’s Rights Activist.
Crimitism angered Men’s Rights Activists as well as sundry common-or-garden misogynists when it revealed that bashing already disadvantaged groups doesn’t suddenly become a noble quest for truth if you call it “Activism” rather than “Kicking people while they’re down”.
The blog today revealed its new competition – a search “for the hottest guy who nevertheless can’t get women to come anywhere near him due to his thinly-disguised hatred of them” – promising the winner, I don’t know, a picture of a fish or something.
“If you hate women, at least make sure they know what they’re missing out on”, the ad reads.
Blog editor Richie said the new competition was the blog’s way of offering its critics an olive branch.
“We did get our fair share of complaints when we suggested that the incompetent husband in the hit new sit-com Bickering Married Couple didn’t represent the downfall of Western civilisation, so we thought the best way to handle this was to redress the balance by launching the search for the world’s sexiest Men’s Rights Activist,” Richie said.
“We’re calling for Men’s Rights Activists all over the world to show that men can be sexy even if no woman alive would think about touching them unless coerced physically, emotionally or economically”.
Featuring a sexy photo of iconic Men’s Rights Activist Warren Farrell giving one of his trademark come-hither looks, the competition instructs entrants to send in a photo of themselves and 50 words on why they deserve to win, 49 of which are expected to be “mangina”.
Posted in CAN'T YOU TAKE A JOKE?, Now I know my MRABCs | 18 Comments »
Posted by Richie on September 6, 2007
“We did get our fair share of complaints when we launched the search to win your girlfriend a boob job, so we thought the best way to handle this was to redress the balance by launching the Search for Australia’s sexiest feminist,” Mr Merrill said. “We’re calling for feminists all over Australia to show that women can be sexy even if they disapprove of sexy women.”
Because that’s why feminists hate Zoo Weekly: It’s just too sexy for them. Is he intentionally invoking a strawfeminist here, or does he really believe that? Is the editor of Zoo going to be more dishonest than he is stupid, or stupider than he is dishonest? I think about these things so you don’t have to.
Featuring a naked photo of iconic feminist Germaine Greer and an image of a burning bra, the competition instructs entrants to email a photo of themselves and 50 words on why they deserve to win.
Much is revealed about both the standard of entry they expect and the literacy level of Zoo‘s editorial staff. I nominate Andrea Burns: Urban Princess, although she’s probably too highbrow.
It’s late and I’m tired. You can read the rest here. Hat tip to LM.
Posted in Bit o' fun for the lads, I'm not a misogynist, I LOVE women! | 24 Comments »
Posted by Richie on September 1, 2007
Amount of work I was supposed to do this week: 
Amount of work I actually did this week: 
Amount of work I need to do next week to catch up: 
This week in Ballarat: There’s a For Sale sign at the end of my street. Somebody sprayed “CUNT” on the top, so it read “Cunt For Sale”, which is probably supposed to looks rebellious if you squint at it. Only now somebody else has come along and sprayed “CUNT” again, this time over the top of “Sale”, so it now reads “Cunt for Cunt”. This makes me think of Cunt4Cunt, a teen pop group targeted at TXT-happy lesbians.
The terrible secret of Mancans will be revealed tomorrow. Does anybody want to take a guess now?
Posted in PSAs | 3 Comments »