If only we’d realised it was that easy

Wow, I’m blown away.

It’s amazing how one badly punctuated and grammatically incorrect message can open one’s eyes to the evils of feminism!

[/snark]

Well, shoot. It’s a little cold to be barefoot, and one’d have to speak with Mr. Bene about the pregnant thing…so I guess darla is SOL.

She says God made us different or a reason but she doesn’t say what that reason is. I find that suspicious.

It’s also a very revealing comment in that it implies that she believes the goal of feminists is to be the same as men. I’m not sure how this common misconception gained traction but it may have something to do with the notion that being a man is everyone’s ultimate goal. This is where Freud fell down badly.

Fuckpoliteness, I’ve observed there’s an almost exact correlation between the degree of right-wingness/sexism/racism/homophobia of expressed opinions and the degree of people’s inability to construct and write a sentence. I wonder if God made that difference for a reason too.

lol Pav. Illiteracy, not a bug but a feature!

The idea that if women were to suddenly stop resisting that men would become less violent is ridiculous. Her arguments are victim blaming 101.

Renees last blog post..That One Indeed

…almost exact correlation between the degree of right-wingness/sexism/racism/homophobia of expressed opinions and the degree of people’s inability to construct and write a sentence. I wonder if God made that difference for a reason too.

y’know Pav, that actually makes a great deal of sense. I can just imagine the Almighty sitting down thinking “shit, what did we do there, and how can we fix it?” and then coming up with “That’s it! We’ll be it obvious these people are fuckwits”.

I came across a great quote at Womanist Musings from Maya Angelou the other day: “Children’s talent to endure stems from their ignorance of alternatives.”

Seems that what feminism has done is shown women alternatives, and we are less able to endure what happens to us. This is what Darla is saying, more or less, I think. Ignorance ain’t bliss, it’s a dull meek hopelessness. Better to live on your knees. Where god and man placed you!

I do have to say that there are some class/cultural issues with talking about literacy as if it’s an inherent sign of stupidity. And I definitely think that tertiary education and inner white suburbs of major cities encourage one to keep one’s bigoted opinions close to one’s chest and wrapped in smooth words unlikely to overtly offend.

Weighing in on using not having “learnt to grammar” as a wingnut marker, perhaps it’s not so much “illiteracy” as a sublime recognition of one’s absoloute unquestionable rightness in everything that convinces one that proofreading is unneccessary…..

Weighing in further on not having “learnt to grammar” as a wingnut marker, I am absolutely convinced that ability to grammar (ha ha) is based on how much you read material that’s properly grammared. I submit, therefore, that the crazy right-wingnuts have (a) never read anything that might disrupt their world-view (thus ruling out most of the world’s literature and media) and (b) have therefore only read things written by other crazies, which is by definition not properly grammared.

So it’s ignorance, and narrow-mindedness, not stupidity.

Calyx, that is a brilliant point about alternatives.

On the literacy/class marker thing, yes of course that is an issue and I agree up to a certain point. But that idea has far less power than it did in the days before free(ish) basic education became the ideal/norm in the west, ie in the 19th century.

And what I do not agree about is the idea that one should therefore not mention it, when it is so crystal clear that on the whole (though of course there are exceptions) one has to be someone who rarely reads or writes in order to be someone with right-wing views.