If only we’d realised it was that easy

Yet another unpublished email from yet another concern troll over at FF101:

darla (email address redacted)

I think all women should embrace the fact that God made us different for a reason, stop being mad. you kind of women is what actually hurts women.

From FAQ: Aren’t feminists just sexists towards men?

OK, all you kind of women. Stop being mad. Just stop it. Then no women will ever be actually hurt anywhere ever again.



Categories: gender & feminism

Tags: ,

20 replies

  1. 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]

  2. Ohhh, it’s all my fault, silly little me. Of course I’ll stop. As soon as violence towards women stops. Deal?

  3. 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.

  4. Beppie @ 1 – glad that you also pointed out the grammar issues. “you kind of women is what actually hurts women”? Sentence construction courtesy of George W?
    Plus – really? It’s us who rape women? It’s us who beat our wives? It’s us who post naked chicks up around the workplace and make running comments on the inferiority of women? We really are some busy, busy feminists.

  5. 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.

  6. for a reason.
    Pav’s Law #85: if you’re snarking in a comment about someone else’s level of literacy, you will inevitably make a mistake yourself.

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

  8. Oh, I’m SUCH a believer in Pavlov’s Law # 85 – sometimes referred to as The Extreme Embarrasment Caused by the Inevitability Of Egg on the Face Right When You’re at your Haughtiest…but Pavlov’s Law #85 is catchier.
    fuckpolitenesss last blog post..Paper suggestions: msm and the use of extreme photos to make points

  9. 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

  10. I hear this all the time, and sadly, I often hear it from women. It makes me sad. 😦

  11. …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”.

  12. har har! s/We’ll be it/We’ll make it/;
    There is no preview. Bad Hoydens.

  13. 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.

  14. I don’t regard illiteracy as an inherent sign of stupidity; it may equally well be learned, or acquired through other means.

  15. 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…..

  16. Seems that what feminism has done is shown women alternatives, and we are less able to endure what happens to us.

    I think you’ve got something there, calyx. Unlike Darla, I think this is a good thing.

  17. 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.

  18. Which to my mind, makes it very indefensible. Stupidity, you can’t help. Ignorance, you can.

  19. 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.

  20. I know Lauredhel has wandered over to OLO at times where the correlation between right-wing absurdists and illiteracy is brilliantly illustrated on a daily basis.
    What strikes me as rather quaint however, is that in the no-holds barred world of on-line opinions posters can accuse each other of being conspiracists, fundies, liars, misogynists, idiots, red-necks etc. But to accuse anyone of errors of syntax, grammar or spelling is unilaterally considered to be beyond the Pale. It just isn’t done, and draws hisses of outrage from all corners.
    Accusations of being elitist, latte-sipping (I, personally LOATHE latte)and inhabiting ivory towers are casually accepted however, as being perfectly acceptable markers of the ‘loonie left’.

%d bloggers like this: