Tagged: stereotypes are fun

That man deserves a DB

… but probably doesn’t need me to buy one for him:

DB Breweries’ managing director, Brian Blake has lambasted the organisers of a Lake Hayes home brew competition after it banned local woman Rachel Beer from entering purely because of her gender.

Mr Blake says he cannot believe the archaic attitude of the event’s organizers, and wonders if they realise it’s 2012 and not the Stone Age.

It doesn’t quite take the edge off that whole Radler debacle, but Brian: you’re a dude.  And not just because you used “lambasts” in a press release.


We’re over here, not reading Michael fucking Lhaws

Paul at The Fundy Post has a 50/50 post up on a teacher barred from teaching for life because she posed for Penthouse.  The good 50 is where Paul dissects the pretty dubious nature of the complaint (i.e. that it was made by the President of the Teachers’ Council, vs a member of the public or other member of the profession, among other things) and the bad 50 is where he agrees with Michael fucking Lhaws:

And where, as Michael Laws asks, are the feminists, the liberals? Looking the other way, it seems. This feminist liberal cannot help but think that if Ms Whitwell had done something pervy – some BDSM erotica or whatever – then there would have been hordes of other liberals complaining about vanilla privilege, the latest opportunity for overprivileged people to claim they are oppressed. But because she posed in an old-fashioned way in an old-fashioned dirty mag, the liberals won’t touch her. If she had done erotica (the name for middle-class porn), she would have been defended as someone who was celebrating her sexuality; but appearing in a magazine like Penthouse is simply participating in the kyriarchy, allowing oneself to be objectified into male stereotypes of female heterosexuality.

Um, fuck you, Paul.  Maybe we’re “looking the other way” because we don’t read Michael fucking Lhaws’ columns, since they’re 99% guaranteed to piss us off royally and there’s far higher-quality wank in the world to get our delicate feminist knickers in a twist over.  There could also be this tiny thing about Feminism not being an actual hivemind and not actually anointing Official Spokesbitches, hence why Chris fucking Trotter ends up valiantly fending off attackers with his glorious moustache on our behalfs (and we aren’t even grateful, bitches that we are).

But since you’ve brought up the topic: no.  I don’t draw a magical fucking line between porn and erotica (cf. terrorist and freedom fighter) and no I don’t fucking write off a woman because she chooses to engage in a form of sex work while being employed in a profession which people like to ascribe all kinds of pure/noble/selfless values to.

Which is not to say I assume she was “celebrating her sexuality” either because I don’t think a woman (or other adult) has to be a sex-positive goddess of clitoral worship and soul-affirming breast massage in order to “justifiably” engage in sex work.  She could, and this might shock you, have just wanted to make some extra money and counter-exploited patriarchy’s commodification of her body to do so, and may ascribe no more emotional/spiritual weight to it than selling off some old shoes on Trademe.*

Sure, Paul, maybe there wasn’t much pickup of this story on the feminist blogs.  But you could probably point that out without slapping a big ol’ cliched “hates mainstream porn but loves kinky erotica, the double-standard-having flip-floppers” label on them.  And I’m not even touching the whole “you just want to be oppressed so you invent new forms of privilege just to feel like martyrs!” thing.

TLDR?  When you find yourself saying “Michael Laws has a point, feminists are stupid” you’re probably just a douche in need of some fresh air.


*This is obvs a really, really complex topic which I’m not fully exploring here for the sake of getting to bed at a semi-reasonable hour.

Fucking scarequote “consent” what the fuck Jezebel?

I’m really just too flabberghasted by the fact that this opening paragraph from a Jezebel article (others have linked, I shall not give them direct traffic) is apparently serious, and got all the way to publication, to really say anything:

Having just returned from living in Paris, I feel more convinced than ever that America gets many things wrong about sex. Right there near the top of the list is our attachment to the idea of consent.

Emphasis mine, though this level of fail doesn’t really need it.

Fortunately, other fantastic stroppy people have it covered.

Apparently “Edward Pasteck”* wants to continue writing! I can only wait with bated breath for his musings on how [different ethnic/national group] women are so [blatant sexual stereotype] and could definitely teach [those bitches who won’t sleep with him] a thing or two about fluffing neckbeards’ egos.


*Whose “book about love he wrote while living in Paris” is sure to provide your correspondent with oh, so many more opportunities to cuss like a lady.

Not what we meant by a feminine mystique

Just a tiny, weeny, last point on the Stephen-Fry-being-a-wanker debacle.

A heck of a lot of people who frankly should know better have been pseudo-defending Fry along the following lines:

Stephen Fry’s gay.  Of course he doesn’t know anything about women’s sexuality!

Stephen Fry’s wrong about women because he isn’t a woman, he’s not attracted to women, he’s [many would presume but who knows?] never interacted sexually with a woman, of course he says ignorant shit about women and sex.

Now obviously it was very naughty of him to presume to comment on matters of which he is profoundly ignorant.*  And of course we can’t expect him to know any better, the dear over-excited puppy.

Hang on one fucking minute.

We’re women, not tablets of Linear fucking B.  Our vaginas [for those of us who have vaginas] aren’t Rubik’s Cubes and our boobs [for those of us who have boobs] aren’t the Grand Unified Theory.

And when we fuck, if we fuck, we fuck just like normal human beings.

I am, really, just a bit fucking disappointed that the defenders, and even the people not defending Fry’s comments, have happily seized on his own sexuality as being the cause, or at least a mitigating factor, in his comments.

As though “women’s sexuality” were some mystic unknown whose secrets were revealed only to The Enlightened, who by virtue of not being A Gay Man must be, or presumably have fucked, a woman.  As though women’s minds were that idea feminism has fought and raged and yearned to destroy:  strange, alien, different things, things that cannot really be understood or acknowledged or Gods forbid treated on a par with the minds of men.

And simultaneously, as though gay men are by default this detached, unaware, unthinking, unempathising group who couldn’t, even if they tried, ever really understand the thoughts and feelings and lives of a group of people they are wholly uninteresting in fucking.

At this point my brain is stuck on a bit of a “what the fucking fuck?” loop.

So just to be clear, here’s some things that even gay men like Stephen Fry can understand about we bizarro women and our sexuality.

1. There are three billion women in this world.

Odds are, some of us do actually enjoy fucking.

2.  The sex women have is policed and punished by society.

Those in a state of disbelief may wish to turn on the television for five minutes, or perhaps read a quaint hard-copy newspaper.

3.  To be open about sexual interest is to be vulnerable to attack.

Or you could crawl out from under that rock you’ve been calling home forever.  Hoyden About Town’s tragically ongoing it’s not sex it’s rape series may be illuminating.

4.  Women trading sex for a stable relationship is the bedrock of patriarchal capitalism.

If women had to be paid for their labour in terms of childrearing and homemaking the economies of the West would die screaming.  [Old sauce, new sauce.]  Entire industries are dedicated to convincing women that they must marry, that they must have babies.  Disbelievers can go read any single issue of Cosmo picked at random, then get back to me.  It is of course necessary for this transaction to occur that women be taught to think of sex in terms of its value as a commodity, and not as something that’s actually fun.

5.  Being a gay man doesn’t make you inherently a fan of anonymous sex in parks.

Shockingly, I as a hetero woman feel entirely secure making that call.  I also feel certain there’s probably some other reason why the practice of cruising has sprung up in societies which massively stigmatise and oppress homosexual behaviour, but darned if I can think what it might be.

6.  Four plus five = REVELATION

[Straight] Women probably haven’t ever had to seek out anonymous sex in parks because they already had an acceptable outlet for sex, vis-a-vis monogamous heterosexual slavery marriage, and weren’t told they were meant to actually enjoy themselves in the process – because if they did, see threeThey were sluts who deserved to get raped.


Hope that answers all your difficult little questions, Mr Fry.


*Henry Wright of 103 Mein Street, Wellington represent!

An “unbalanced response”

You know it’s a bad fucking day when I have to agree, in part, with fucking WhaleOil.

Point the Zero: I’m actually not going to rehash his situation here, because then I’d feel hypocritical for slagging off Eddie at The Standard for Point One.*

That being said, Point the First:  It’s a bit fucking rich playing the “we kept quiet about this because we are Such Noble Creatures” card as a prelude to:

but seeing as the Sunday Star-Times felt differently, a few comments.

It’s a lovely tactic of some of our Parliamentarians to try a variation on this spin, the “well I might call the member a liar, if it weren’t against Standing Orders” line.  It’s childish bullshit and, in Eddie’s case, serves as a handy warning that things are going to go rapidly downhill.

Protip:  if it weren’t okay to comment on it before, it ain’t okay now that one of the trashiest newsrags in NZ has decided it’s a good time to rake through their Most Unflattering Photos file.

Continue reading