Archive | The Patriarchy!!!! RSS feed for this section

Food = Love. Careful now. That’s a trap set by the patriarchy to encourage meaningful relationships, and we can’t have that!

26 Sep

 

walmart

 

Captain Capitalism has a theory that people whose political inclinations tend to lean left are less physically attractive than those who lean more to the right. According to the Captain, looking physically attractive takes work and effort and leftists have a strong tendency to look for someone else to blame for their problems, including having a huge ass and a muffin top that makes the People of Walmart look positively lithe.

 

I do NOT believe liberals and leftists are born uglier than their average conservative counterpart. It’s not like they’re genetically inferior or anything. What I am talking about is that they put A LOT LESS EFFORT into their physical appearance. Ergo, this is not a criticism of their basic, physical beauty, let alone their genetics, but it IS a criticism of their psychology. You could take that Prius-driving, 45 year old, gray haired, super skinny yoga woman who never wore make-up, never did her hair up, give her a make over and she’d come out looking just fine. Just as you could take the cowering, tubby orbiting beta with the Seth Rogen beard, through him in the gym for 3 months and have him come out looking just fine.

 

But that’s the not the point.

 

The point is to your average leftists such working out and maintenance requires effort. That AND the added risk they may still “fail” in attracting a mate. It is their pure hatred and fear of effort and competition that not only drives their political and economic ideologies, but also drives their “romantic” or “mating” ideology.

 

http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.ca/2012/09/why-leftists-tend-to-be-uglier.html

 

http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/photos/

 

I don’t want to discuss Cappy’s theory per se, other than to point out he cites some research that suggests he may be on to something, and that more feminine looking women tend to be Republicans. It’s colloquially known as the “Michele Bachmann” effect.

 

michele

 

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103112001758

 

What I want to discuss is how an entire worldview can play out in various aspects of one’s personal life without necessarily any awareness on the part of the actor. Liberals may not realize that in blaming the “Man” for why they have a shitty job, they are also providing the justification for not hitting the gym, but the relationship exists nonetheless.

 

sandwich

 

And I want to discuss that in the context of the woman who made 300 sandwiches for her boyfriend after she made him a sandwich and he told her she was on her way to earning an engagement ring, because to him, the act of making a sandwich was an act of love. And why else do you get engaged if not for love?

 

To him, sandwiches are like kisses or hugs. Or sex. “Sandwiches are love,” he says. “Especially when you make them. You can’t get a sandwich with love from the deli.”

 

http://nypost.com/2013/09/24/i-wooed-my-man-with-a-sandwich/

 

It’s actually pretty funny to see the feminist ladies at Slate’s Double XX blog and Jezebel try to understand how a woman, ANY woman, could possibly want to indicate her love for a man, and make that the basis of a potential marriage.

 

Who does that? Who shows a MAN they are loved and then thinks love is something that can sustain a marriage?

 

Amanda Hess is particularly hilarious trying to parse out the relationship between love and actions that demonstrate love.

 

How do we make sense of love in the time of “I’m 124 Sandwiches Away From an Engagement Ring”? The traditional romantic structures that previously organized our physical and emotional connections to other people are crumbling fast. Nobody buys one another root beer floats anymore. Everybody’s touching everybody else before they marry anyone. There are no boyfriends here. In the face of all this romantic disruption, some lovers are frantically constructing new frameworks—diamond-fishing sandwich blogs, for example—in a desperate attempt to reduce our strange and wonderful human experiences into another rote mechanical exercise. Stop. Love each other. Eat sandwiches. Don’t trade either of them for anything.

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2013/09/25/just_300_sandwiches_for_an_engagement_ring_stephanie_smith_s_300_sandwiches.html

 

Don’t trade either of them for anything.

 

How can she not see that sandwiches and love are ONE AND THE SAME THING? Love is not just something you say. It’s something you do. Every day. For the rest of your life. For someone else. If you’re a heterosexual woman, that someone else is going to be a man.

 

couple

 

And there’s the problem.

 

It doesn’t have to be a sandwich. It can be anything. Pizza. Cookies. Bread. A different handmade pasta every day for 300 days. Those things take skill, though. The beauty of a sandwich is that anyone can make one, regardless of their familiarity with the kitchen and the tools therein.

 

What it takes is a particular mindset. Your whole worldview needs to change to do something like make 300 sandwiches. You have to put the other person first, and take time out of your day, every day, to make a special effort to please another person. You think about their comfort and feelings and well-being and you put those things ahead of your own, not forever, not always, not in every single situation you will ever confront in your life together, BUT FOR THE TIME IT TAKES TO MAKE A SANDWICH.

 

minutes

 

What is that? Maybe 15 minutes? 15 minutes of your day, every day, is dedicated to the care of the person (man) you love.

 

And that’s just too much to trade, is it?

 

How sad. It’s not hard to imagine Amanda’s response, is it?

 

Well, what does he do for ME fifteen minutes a day? Get out the spreadsheets and start tabulating. 15 seconds to open the door for me. 45 seconds to go to the bedroom and fetch my purse because I have my boots on already and I forgot. 3 minutes to select an excellent Shiraz for our evening meal (South Africa! Try South Africa!). 8 minutes to run a hot bath and fill it with vanilla scented bubbles.

 

Keep careful tabs, and if he doesn’t hit the 15 minute absolute perfect trade-off mark, then fuck him and his sandwich. Chuck it in the trash. We’re after perfect equality, right? And the best way to achieve that is to be a temporal bean-counting bitch.

 

garbage

 

Yeah, okay. Good luck with that.

 

Jezebel wonders just how piss-poor a sandwich can be offered. If you’re gonna make someone a sandwich that he interprets as a gesture of love, then you want to put the LEAST amount of effort into that as possible, right? And maybe even try to trade off for blow-jobs instead?

 

Even though we now know, collectively as a Lady Monolith, how to please men, collectively as a Man Monolith, a few loose ends were left untied in Smith’s piece. Namely: how complicated a sandwich are we talking here? Would Eric still light up Stephanie’s ring finger if she just half assed the last 124 sandwiches by making him a pile of peanut butter on folded bread monstrosities? What is the minimum number of ingredients required for Eric to count it as 1/300th an engagement ring? Are there any substitutions for sandwichmaking? What’s the sandwich-to-blowjob conversion rate (my boss suggested that 1 BJ is worth 2 4-or-more-ingredient sandwiches; I’m inclined to agree)?

 

http://jezebel.com/lady-earns-engagement-ring-by-making-300-sad-sandwiches-1383822830

 

bitter

 

Where on earth does the stereotype of feminists as sulky, sour, bitter, loveless bitches come from? It’s such a mystery. There is just so much love and affection in that quote, isn’t there?

 

Let’s look at some of the comments. They’re so cute!

 

cassiebearRAWRU

Deli sandwiches don’t have love?

Why the fuck would I want love in my sandwich? That just takes up room that could be used for sliced jalapeños and bacon. Yesterday 12:46pm

 

Straight up denial. Food is not love.

 

food

 

quashitlikeitshot

Exactly. I am a great cook, and my husband loves my cooking. He has never, ever, once made me feel bad for not cooking. There is a difference.

This guy is an ass, and he can certainly kiss mine. Yesterday 1:02pm

 

Point right over the head. He never made her feel bad. On the contrary. He told her that the love she put into making to sandwiches was NOT going unnoticed, and that he was prepared to love her forever.

 

 

Wenchette

This morning I made a piping hot cup of disappointment for my husband. Rich black disappointment, tinged with regret and a sense of impending loss, served piping hot with two sugars and some cream. Yesterday 12:47pm

 

This is funny in the way that watching socially impaired people try to interact is funny. You feel awful at the same time. Schadenfreude. That’s what the word really means. You laugh at someone’s misfortune, but at the same time you feel absolutely terrible for them. The second part has to be there in order for the word schadenfreude to be the correct choice. Laughing at someone’s misfortune is just sadism.

 

Trust me. My father speaks German as a first language and it always drives him nuts when people confuse sadism with schadenfreude.

 

This comment made me laugh, but at the same time, holy fuck, what a bitch! I feel sorry for her and her husband.

 

One commenter acknowledges that buddy in question is no slouch in the kitchen, but it has no effect on the Jezzie ladies.

 

young man cooking food in the kitchen

see you in rach-hell

I guess I’m the only person who has read her blog and realizes that their relationship seems fine, he cooks an equal amount for the both of them, and it’s not really as serious crazy-woman-desperate-to-get-married-to-a-misogynist as this article makes it sound.

Some might say the idea is sexist. “A woman in the kitchen—how Stepford Wife of you!” a friend argued. I say come over for dinner, and watch E whip up roasted duck breast with a balsamic and currant sauce with a roasted parsnip puree and shaved pickled beets in no time, and you’ll see who spends more time in the kitchen.

Some say I’m just desperate to get engaged. Hardly. I don’t have to be. E didn’t say “cook me 300 sandwiches or I’m leaving you!” He gave me a challenge—a dare, to some degree—and the type-A, Tracy Flick side of me can’t stand being challenged. I will prove to him and the rest of the world I can make the 300 sandwiches.

 

Seems hyperbolic to me. Yesterday 1:22pm

 

Nope. That kind of reasonableness won’t play here.

 

InterrobangUsee you in rach-hell391L

Her premise is revolting. That her husband cooks changes nothing about the fact that her blog is about making enough sandwiches to “earn” an engagement ring.

 

Or, you know, maybe that demonstrating the willingness to care and make an effort to provide for the other person is mutual? Seems like Stephanie has the better deal here, with Eric pureeing parsnips to go with roast duck.

 

Seriously, these women just can’t STAND the idea that any woman would demonstrate love by providing food for a MAN even though he obviously takes the time to provide food for her.

 

That is what brings me back to Captain Capitalism’s theory. Women who embrace feminism don’t seem to be able to perceive that they are encouraged to blame men for all their problems and actively hate men, and simply REFUSE to make a fucking sandwich because severe cognitive dissonance kicks in and it is impossible to reconcile all the contradictions of feminism as a philosophy.

 

“We don’t hate men” claim the feminists.

 

But make them a sandwich? Oh hell no. That will be interpreted as love and we love men so we can’t do anything that shows we love men.

 

head

 

Remember my advice on how to pick a wife? I mentioned providing food as being a critical condition, and I am now inclined to believe it may be the ONLY flag you need to look for.

 

http://judgybitch.com/2012/11/16/how-to-pick-a-wife-advice-for-single-men/

 

Food = love.

 

A woman who doesn’t provide food for you doesn’t love you. She doesn’t have to be Julia Child. Anyone can make a sandwich. Anyone can order pizza. Anyone can fry bacon.

 

“Make me a sandwich?”

 

It really means “do you love me”?

 

I’d listen to the answer very carefully. A woman who refuses is likely very much a feminist, even if she won’t use the word to describe herself.

 

And that’s not a woman you want.

 

Lots of love,

 

JB

 

 

 

 

People need to stop being dicks on the subway by taking up way too much space. Oh wait. No, just men need to stop doing that. More equality!

16 Sep

I’m a bit cranky today, owing to the fact that I am suffering from a wicked head cold thanks to the filthy, germ-ridden little creatures who live here with me.  Kindergarten plague. Ugh.  Even so, this tumblr has pissed me off royally.  It’s called Men Taking Up Too Much Space on the Train.

bag guy

http://mentakingup2muchspaceonthetrain.tumblr.com/

Having spent a good deal of time on public transportation in Shanghai, Melbourne, Manchester, Toronto, Athens and Seattle, I know a bit about how to travel with a few manners.  I also know how to travel with a modicum of sense when it comes to protecting personal belongings.  And when I looked at these pictures, for the most part, I saw people taking reasonable precautions not to get their bags stolen, and not to trip people moving past them.

bags2

Almost all the men taking up too much space have large bags or backpacks between their feet, meaning that A) they aren’t taking up the seat next to them, and B) they can smush the bags against the lower portion of the seat so that people walking by don’t get tangled up in the straps.

bags 3

Why is this even an issue?  Well, duh, it’s because people men who sit with their legs apart and bags between them are trying to send a message to fellow travellers that they have really big dicks and that the entire world needs to stop spinning on its axis and accommodate said ginormous dicks.

fuck you week

Maybe these fucking idiots think we women are impressed when they act like their penis is so fucking big that they can’t even try to make room for you next to them on the bench. Because if there’s one thing we ladies like, it’s a monster dick the size of yule log (Happy Holidays!) and a man who won’t offer us a seat because it makes him slightly uncomfortable.

Anyway, these dudes aren’t going anywhere. They’ve been around forever (your pilgrim dick is not that big) and they’ll stay around forever (your cyborg dick doubles as a gun), so all we — women, children, the vast majority of men who understand the basic concepts of space and sitting down — can do is quietly rage and occasionally work up the courage to ask you to move your fucking legs. But that doesn’t mean we’re not glaring at you with the power of a thousand fuck yous when we see you treat the service that we all pay the equal amount to use like it’s your own fucking castle. Trust us, the major dick here is not in your pants — it’s you. You’re the fucking dick, so close your legs or go fuck yourself.

That little screed was part of the delightful Fuck You Week at Jezebel, and demonstrates the usual level of vitriol, bitterness, stupidity and hate we have come to expect from the ladies at good ole Jez.

http://jezebel.com/5967972/fuck-you-dudes-who-sit-with-their-legs-spread-so-wide-that-they-take-up-two-seats-your-dick-is-not-that-big

Because you KNOW it’s only ever men who sit with their legs apart on the tube, right?

women

And women never, ever keep their bags between their feet.

train

And they certainly never collapse over into someone else’s seat.

Fat woman in subway, Fat Frau in U-Bahn, Grosse femme dans le métro, Tlustá ¸ena v metru

Nor do they ever take up an inordinate amount of space giving each other pedicures on the fucking train.

women 7

They never fall alseep with their legs splayed.

women6

And they never, ever sport asses so huge they have little choice but to take up two seats.

bus 3

They don’t take up the seat next to them with their bags.

bus 2

Women never carry giant bags you just know are gonna end up shoved in someone’s crotch.

backpack

They don’t spread out their legs at the bus stop, cramming Doritos (or whatever healthy snack that is) into their fat maws while airing out the lady cave for passerbys.  Nope.  That neeeeeeeever happens.

park

This kind of idiocy and first world problem bullshit makes me so angry because it seems deliberately designed to encourage women to get on trains or other forms of public transportation, ignore all the women doing the EXACT SAME FUCKING THINGS, and just spend the journey “leaning in” to perfect their hatred of men.

It irritates me because there is no reason for it. Everyone can be as asshole on the train or bus, and sometimes the things that we consider “asshole” behaviour actually have a pretty good reason behind them.  One of my pet peeves is parents with monster strollers on public transportation.  Or anywhere for that matter.  Strollers are not required.  The number of times I took a stroller on public transportation and forced other people to trip and squish themselves against an ugly, wheeled monstrosity:  ZERO!

Hello, baby sling.

baby sling

Strollers are not required equipment, and taking them on public transportation makes most of the stroller brigade assholes.

Now, having said that, I travelled with Pixie on public transportation with 5 year old LittleBear in one of those gigantic jogging strollers that everyone had to contort themselves to get around.  LittleBear has had his abdominal muscles cut through 63 TIMES, and he isn’t very good at standing up on the subway, so fuck all the haters – he was in a super comfy stroller that maximized his comfort and forced everyone else into some momentary discomfort.

stroller

So sad, too bad.  LittleBear had a good reason to be in stroller.  Most kids have no reason.  Their parents are just dicks.

It happens.  People are assholes.  They act as though the whole damn world belongs to them, and everyone else should just put up and shut up.  What this tumblr blog is claiming is that MEN, and ONLY MEN are assholes on public transportation, and that really, really annoys me.

I don’t know if it’s just because I’m in a really foul mood today owing to the fact that I despise being colonized by the snot virus, but it seems to me that the level of hate has been ratcheted up a notch lately.  Hannah Roisin, in a recent Slate column, proclaimed that the patriarchy is dead, and that it serves little purpose for women to continue to blame their problems on a nebulous at best entity that hasn’t been in evidence in North America for at least the last 70 years.

Marble Gravestone

http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/09/the_end_of_men_why_feminists_won_t_accept_that_things_are_looking_up_for.html

Critics responded by creating a list of 39 things the “patriarchy” is responsible for, including vajazzling, juice cleanses, cardio pole-dancing, peak fertility and the fact that women can’t seem to nail down those pesky Nobel Prizes in any meaningful category.

http://nymag.com/thecut/2013/09/39-things-well-miss-about-patriarchy.html

Yeah, peak fertility is totally the fault of patriarchy.  And so are cupcake shaped vibrators.  Totally rapey patriarchy.

cupcake

http://jezebel.com/cutesy-vibrators-rub-us-the-wrong-way-754942907

Really? That’s your fucking argument?  You’re oppressed by vibrators shaped like cupcakes?

Meanwhile, in the real news, boys continue to slide behind girls in academic achievements, which has profound consequences for our whole society and economy because boys are the ones who grow up to actually MAKE SHIT THAT WE USE.   You know, when they’re not cooling off their gonads on the train.

The achievement gap has life and death consequences for working class men, and men of color, in particular.

“Nearly half of young men of color age 15 to 24 who graduate from high school will end up unemployed, incarcerated or dead.”

Nearly half!   We are throwing away nearly half of our young men of color and the shape of your vibrator is the key issue feminists want addressed?

fuck off

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2013/09/how-to-make-school-better-for-boys/279635/

It’s not like the problem is even difficult to remedy.  Bring back vocational and technical training at the high school level – areas of education traditionally dominated by boys, who have this weird little quirk that makes them want to DO USEFUL SHIT.

shop class

The American system for preparing young people to lead productive and prosperous lives as adults is clearly badly broken.

Failure to aggressively overcome this challenge will surely erode the fabric of our society. The American Dream rests on the promise of economic opportunity, with a middle class lifestyle for those willing to work for it. Yet for the millions of young Americans entering adulthood lacking access to marketable skills, the American Dream may be just an illusion, unlikely ever to come within their grasp. If we fail to better prepare current and future teens and young adults, their frustration over scarce and inferior opportunities is likely to grow, along with economic inequality. The quality of their lives will be lower, the costs that they impose on society will be higher, and many of their potential contributions to society will go unrealized. This is a troubling prospect for any society and almost certainly a recipe for national decline.

http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news_events/features/2011/Pathways_to_Prosperity_Feb2011.pdf

For all the impressive gains women have made in education and labor force participation, they are incapable of preventing national decline, and indeed, may even be hastening it.

Girls don’t typically grow up to do useful shit that we NEED as an economy and society to survive.  Boys are the ones who grow into the men who do the hard, dirty, difficult, challenging work of creating our machines and keeping them running.  Work that typically doesn’t take place in an air-conditioned office, and tends to be hell on manicures.

nails

The skilled trades sector is in precipitous decline, with few workers in the pipeline to replace the aging workforce.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emsi/2013/03/07/americas-skilled-trades-dilemma-shortages-loom-as-most-in-demand-group-of-workers-ages/

The majority of those workers are men, and no doubt, will continue to be men, who express more interest in the skilled trades than women.

employment sector

http://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2009/jan/wk1/art03.htm

We’re throwing away half of our young men of color, denying all young men the opportunity to learn the skills they need to contribute to society in the way they WANT TO which happens to coincide with the way we NEED them to, and the problem we’re gonna talk about is that they take up too much space on the trains?

trains high

The trains that men designed?

Most engineers are men.

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind12/pdf/c03.pdf

That men built?

Most manufacturing, especially heavy manufacturing jobs are held by men.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2012/05/03/151282913/what-america-s-women-do-for-work

That men drive?

Most train conductors are men. In fact, the 2010 census shows 0% of women working as locomotive engineers, which means there are a few, but not enough to reach 1% of the total workforce.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm

That men maintain?

rails

Another 0% of women work as railroad brake, signal, and switch operators, while a whopping 6% of conductors and yardmasters are women.

http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpsaat11.htm

I have an idea.  How about until we have a rail line with trains that were designed by women, built by women, maintained by women, driven by women –  how about women shut the fuck up about how much space men take up on the train?

And try taking up a little less space yourself.

women 5

And perhaps, just perhaps, we should start talking about just who is going to continue to run our national transportation network when we throw all our public resources into educating more baristas of arts and ignore the boys who will grow up to design, build, operate and maintain our basic infrastructure?

The patriarchy may be dead, but the matriarchy certainly isn’t, and it looks poised to bring the whole world to a standstill.

cage

Force boys into smaller and smaller spaces, and you destroy us all.

How very clever.

Lots of love,

JB

Newlywed woman kills her husband after 8 days of marriage by shoving him off a cliff from behind, and still only gets a second degree murder charge. Because she totally didn’t mean to kill him, right? Lots of people survive being shoved off cliffs. :/

11 Sep

jordan

Jordan Graham, 22 years of age, had been married to Cody Johnson, 25, for just eight days when he “fell” to his death off a cliff located in Glacier Park, Montana.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/09/10/us-usa-crime-montana-idUSBRE98904Y20130910

Jordan initially spun a web of pure and utter bullshit, and then eventually admitted that oh, oops, she pushed Cody off the cliff. Because they had been arguing and he beat her mercilessly grabbed her arm. To the surprise of no one, including Cody’s family, Jordan is up on murder charges.

glacier-national-park-montana-350x262

Because the crime happened in a federal park, she is not being charged under Montana statutes, but under federal ones, which distinguish between different types of murder.

First degree murder is when a killing is planned and carried out.

Second degree murder is when someone is killed, but it wasn’t planned.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1111

Jordan lied about what happened, pushed Cody FROM BEHIND and most importantly, she left him there to die. And prosecutors don’t think they can make a first degree charge stick?

occam

Occam’s Razor:  the simplest explanation is likely correct.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam’s_razor

Jordan wooed Cody to the edge of the cliff and when his back was turned, she shoved him over.  She planned it.  Picked a good spot and got him to turn his back.

And then he fell for her all over again.

The way we treat people in the criminal justice system is ground zero in the definition of human rights. Justice is blind.  Any time justice sees skin color or class or ability or gender and applies a harsher penalty to some humans on the basis of one of those factors, that human’s basic rights have been violated.

A conviction for first degree murder in the United States carries the possibility of the death penalty.  I don’t agree with the death penalty precisely because it is not applied to ALL humans fairly and equally.

The people most likely to receive the death penalty?

Black men who kill non-blacks.

chart

And that is bullshit.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/death-penalty-black-and-white-who-lives-who-dies-who-decides

Who is least likely to receive the death penalty?

woman

Women.

One percent of men convicted of murder are sentenced to death, while only one tenth of one percent of women convicted of murder are sentenced to death.

http://stratification.wikispaces.com/Group+4-+Gender+Differences+Within+The+Death+Penalty

In general, both the death sentencing rate and the death row population remain very small for women in comparison to that for men. Actual execution of female offenders is quite rare, with only 571 documented instances as of 12/31/2012, beginning with the first in 1632. These executions constitute about 2.9% of the total of confirmed executions in the United States since 1608.

http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/women-and-death-penalty

Curious silence from the feminist brigade when it comes to making sure men and women are treated equally before the law, no?  In fact, it’s quite the opposite.  Feminists argue that women should not be in jail, period. In the UK, the Women’s Justice Taskforce is making headway in eliminating women’s prisons altogether.

Roma Hooper, director of Make Justice Work, which campaigns to reform short-term prison sentences, said: “The increasing incarceration of women is a disgraceful situation which must be challenged.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13666066

Well, that’s one way to eliminate gender disparity in sentencing.  Just make sure women don’t get sentenced at all.

Lest anyone think that such a blatantly discriminatory and sexist policy is beyond the tolerance of the government and the British public, it should be noted that it was only last year that British judges were recommended to issue lighter sentences to women offenders, regardless of their offense. That recommendation was issued by the Equal Treatment Bench Book, published by the Judicial Studies Board (JSB).

Yes, that is correct, the Equal Treatment Bench Book recommended that half the population, based solely on sex, should get lighter sentences for the same crimes than the other half.

http://www.avoiceformen.com/misandry/chivalry/it-is-now-suggested-that-womens-prisons-close/

Gee, what can go wrong with that?  Women will really be able to “Lean In” to their criminal careers in the UK, won’t they?  Those two guys who slaughtered Pt. Rigby in broad daylight only need to get their girlfriends to wield the machetes next time.

lee

http://gawker.com/terror-in-london-soldier-hacked-apart-by-machete-wield-509321352

Oh, but wait, women never commit those kinds of atrocities, right?

lady terror

http://www.smashinglists.com/notorious-female-terrorists-aka-girls-with-guns/

Sweet little ole grannies would never hack an intruder to death with an axe, right?  Maybe granny was well justified, but the idea that women don’t engage in brutal bloodshed when provoked is a joke.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/local/2013/07/14/75-year-old-eastern-cape-woman-hacks-intruder-to-death

The question is “what provoked her”?

Mens rea.  It means “guilty mind”.  Criminal intent.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

And that really should be the only thing that factors into deciding if Jordan is guilty of first degree murder.  But it’s not.

Jordan is a woman, and therefore she gets a pass.  It begins with not even facing the harshest penalty.  2nd degree murder?  And it will continue right up to conviction and sentencing.

Male violent offenders receive, on average, an additional 4.49 years on their sentences compared to women, while gender differences for property and drug crime (3.14 and 2.35 years, respectively) are considerably lower.

http://digitalcommons.utep.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=gang_lee (p. 335)

Why is this? Why do women get the pussy pass?  What is the rationale behind lenient sentencing for women, even when they commit the exact same crime as men?

The Chivalry Thesis posits that women are seen as less morally culpable than men, and are therefore treated delicately and absolved of responsibility.

knight

The Chivalry Thesis posits that gendered stereotypes about both women and men influence sentencing outcomes according to the sex of offenders. Sometimes called paternalism, chivalry asserts that women are stereotyped as fickle and childlike, and therefore not fully responsible for their criminal behavior. Women therefore need to be protected by males who, with all due gallantry, are portrayed as wanting to minimize any pain or suffering women might experience.

http://digitalcommons.utep.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=gang_lee (p.320)

The Chivalry Thesis predicts that women will receive more lenient sentencing for stereotypically female crimes, like shoplifting. The more “feminine” the crime, the more men will feel the need to protect the poor darling, and make sure her sentence doesn’t cause her any suffering. When women commit manly crimes like murder, the Chivalry Thesis predicts that women will be treated harshly because they are violating gender norms as well as the law.

But that doesn’t seem to be the case.  Women get even more lenient sentencing when their crimes are strongly associated with men and masculinity.

So what is going on?  Why do we, as a culture, sentence women more lightly, assuming we can even be bothered to charge and convict them?

Females arrested for a crime are also significantly more likely to avoid charges and convictions entirely, and twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/11/men-women-prison-sentence-length-gender-gap_n_1874742.html

It’s tempting to jump on the “women are helpless and never responsible for anything they do” meme because it is so strongly related to feminist thought.  #rapeculture

But disparity in sentencing has been going on for a very, very long time.

Here’s my theory:  it’s a key part of the Myth of Male Dominance aka “patriarchy”.  A word on “patriarchy”, if I may.  At no point in our collective North American history has it ever been acceptable to kill a woman for no reason OTHER than the fact that she’s a woman with two notable exceptions, one of which is not an exception at all, and one of which is a “right” fiercely protected by feminists.

1.  During slavery, it was acceptable to kill a woman if she happened to be black.  In other words, it was acceptable to kill SLAVES.  Men and women alike.

2. It is acceptable, and remains acceptable to this day, to kill women who are not yet born.

http://judgybitch.com/2013/09/08/a-fetus-isnt-a-person-unless-its-a-female-how-to-have-your-cake-eat-it-too-and-blame-the-whole-mess-on-men/

You have to go all the way back to the Salem Witch Trials to find the wholesale slaughter of women, and even then, a sham trial was enacted.  The principle of justice may have been adulterated beyond recognition, but it still held enough sway to convince adjudicators that a “trial” was required.

salem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salem_witch_trials

Oh, and a shitload of men were killed in Salem, too.

salem men

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_of_the_Salem_witch_trials

I’ve written about this research before, but it’s such a hidden gem of ignored scholarship that I think it’s worth quoting at length again.

http://judgybitch.com/2013/04/14/there-never-was-a-patriarchy-and-there-isnt-one-now-in-related-news-mr-jb-cant-do-shit-without-running-it-by-me-first/

…although peasant males monopolize positions of authority and are shown public deference by women, thus superficially appearing to be dominant, they wield relatively little real power. Theirs is a largely powerless authority, often accompanied by a felt sense of powerlessness, both in the face of the world at large and of the peasant community itself.

…a non-hierarchical power relationship between the categories “male” and “female” is maintained in peasant society by the acting out of a “myth” of male dominance.

The perpetuation of this “myth” is in the interests of both peasant women and men, because it gives the latter the appearance of power and control over all sectors of village life, while at the same time giving to the former actual power over those sectors of life in the community which may be controlled by villagers. The two sex groups, in effect, operate within partially divergent systems of perceived advantages, values, and prestige, so that the members of each group see themselves as the “winners” in respect to the other.

Neither men nor women believe that the “myth” is an accurate reflection of the actual situation. However, each sex group believes (or appears to believe, so avoiding confrontation) that the opposite sex perceives the myth as reality, with the result that each is actively engaged in maintaining the illusion that males are, in fact, dominant.

Now, the reality is that men still overwhelmingly control the justice system in the United States.

Most police officers are men.

police

In 2007, about 1 in 8 local police officers were women, compared to 1 in 13 in 1987.

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=71

Most judges are men.

judges

State Final Appellate Jurisdiction Courts: 116 women / 361 total (32%)

State Intermediate Appellate Jurisdiction Courts: 316 women / 977 total (32%)

State General Jurisdiction Courts: 2,768 women / 11,049 total (25%)

State Limited and Special Jurisdiction Courts: 1,596 women / 5,072 total (31%)

State Court Judges in the US: 4,711 women / 17,489 total (27%)

http://www.nawj.org/us_state_court_statistics_2012.asp

Most criminal defense lawyers are men.

lawyer

Today women make up 31 percent of practicing lawyers in the United States and just over 20 percent of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) members.

http://www.nacdl.org/Champion.aspx?id=28960&terms=women

Men are very firmly in control of the judiciary, which is an institution of formalized power.  It’s an area where the myth of male dominance plays out – a trade we all make to disguise the fact that women continue to wield a disproportionate amount of the real power.

Feminism is interested in hanging on to all the traditional, informal power of women, and indeed tries hard to formalize that power into laws where women and men’s power intersect:  child custody, divorce and alimony being prime examples, while attempting to wrest formal power from men.

family court

Feminists want both powers:  formal and informal.

Two problems with that little project:

Where does that leave men?

What do you think the world will look like if feminists succeed in making men socially powerless and then humiliating them to boot? Feminists are nowhere near that goal when it comes to the men who command the formal institutions of power, but they have certainly created a world in which men who don’t have access to those formal institutions – meaning MOST men – have indeed been rendered powerless.

The G8 leaders pose for a group photograph at Lough Erne, Northern Ireland

Second problem?  Feminists have not considered what they will be giving up when the “myth” is shattered.

To put it bluntly, they will be giving up the privileges that have always accompanied women, including the right to lenient treatment when sisters go off the fucking rails and shove their husbands off cliffs.

The reason the judiciary is still enmeshed in treating women more leniently is precisely BECAUSE they judiciary is still in the control of men, with the exception of family courts.

The myth of patriarchy ultimately protects women, even the ones who are very, very unworthy of protection.

But it requires a trade.

Given the fact that peasant women actually wield considerable amounts of power, several anomalies remain: both men and women behave publicly as if males were dominant, while at the same time male peasants seem to be characterized by a felt lack of power. I suggested a model to explain these apparent contradictions, in which male dominance is seen to operate as a myth, while a balance is actually maintained between the informal power of women and the overt power wielded by men. Furthermore, the power of both depends on the persistence of the myth, which itself is maintained by a degree of ignorance on the part of both groups as to how the system actually operates.

Ultimately, it comes down to understanding, and respecting one another.  And understanding that when humans fail, men or women, we embrace the myths of our society so we can all keep functioning.

The most important point to be made is that it is only when we stop looking at male roles and forms of power as the norm and begin to look at female arrangements as equally valid and significant, though perhaps different in form, that we can see how male and female roles are intertwined and so begin to understand how human societies operate.

In the case of lenient sentencing for women who are monsters, powerful men send a message to all the other women that they will not be held accountable for the actions of monstrous sisters.  All of which depends on women being, by and large, not terribly monstrous.

Men sentence other men more harshly because they hold them to a higher standard when it comes to respecting formal power, because formal power IS male power.

Modern, liberal feminism has shattered the myth.  Feminists rage and scream and cry at the power men wield in the formal institutions that govern our world, but refuse to relinquish one iota of their traditional informal power.

protest

Of course there is a price to pay for surrendering formal power in favor of informal power.  It means that our sons, our brothers, our fathers, our nephews, our cousins, our friends can be shoved off a cliff and the murderess will face little to no consequence for that.

In return for that sacrifice, we get the protection of men.

Price is what you pay. Value is what you get.

Warren Buffett

It’s really what it comes down to.  Do you value men or do you not?

It’s seems almost obscene to say that valuing men means you are willing to sacrifice a few to murderous women, but in truth, the only obscene thing is that women are prepared to sacrifice those men without giving up any of their own privileges.

protects

Pick one.  Men protect us.  Or they sentence us.

In equal measure.

death penalty

We cannot have both.

Lots of love,

JB

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,361 other followers

%d bloggers like this: