*snerk* The Personality Traits of Feminists

So many terrible, terrible attributes we have – oh the shame! Discovered by David Futrelle at man boobz, who reads MRA/MGTOW sites so that you don’t have to:

If you are a feminist, you do not sincerely believe in God, you endorse Zionism, rectal sodomites, violence, police brutality, are two-faced, a liar, treacherous, a prospective adulterer, swear a lot, disorganized, vulgar, angry, a hacker and cybercriminal, untrustworthy, unfair, unjust, you share private information, are a misandrist, you commit blackmail and extortion, you are unpatriotic, you do not support the Constitution, are not humble, you hate straight whitey, have an erratic temperament, raise your voice to get a point across, are a sexual deviant, sadistic, violent, manipulative, fake friendships, enthusiastically associate with criminals, Zionists, sociopaths and psychopaths, cheat, are worthless and nonconstructive, are anti-heterosexual, heterophobic, atheist, agnostic, engage in gang-stalking, promote ugliness and scatology, do not respect other’s privacy, and do not believe that all rectal sodomites are homosexuals.



Categories: gender & feminism

Tags: ,

13 replies

  1. *snort* I really want teh butt secks now…

  2. No, I hate able-bodied, cisgendered, straight whitey. There’s a difference!

  3. I identify with ten of those characteristics. More if you count the redundancies.
    I am a little confused about ‘feminists endorse police bruality’. I’ve heard a lot of anti-feminist rhetoric in my time, and that one’s new to me.

  4. I sure do love those enthusiastic fake friendships with criminals… why aren’t I a hacker and cybercriminal? that sounds fun 😦

  5. Disappointed. With a list like that I was really expecting “multi-tasker” to be included.

  6. Anti-heterosexual?

    So just because you do not rally against the rights and freedoms of LGBTQIA folks(and do not other them, or regard them as less-than), you are anti-heterosexual people, or heterosexuality?
    This, in my mind, is taking the right-wing attitude highlighted by tigtog and notgruntled the other day one step further.
    By not condemning something perceived by some as “other”, you are not only promoting it, but condemning those who happen to fall into the “mainsteam” group or “norm.”
    Wow.

  7. True, false, when all parties are consenting, not in general, false, not often, occasionally, rarely, not actively looking, indeed, at times, yep, more often than I’d like, no and no, probably, occasionally, I try not to be, when I have to, no, no and no, I am not big on national identity it’s true, irrelevant to me, not really a goal of mine, not universally, noted for the opposite, have been known to do so, depends on your definition, certainly not, again no, not in the main, that sounds like a lot of effort, no more enthusiastically than anyone else, don’t know a lot of Zionists, don’t tend to ask about the personality disorders of acquaintances, would fetch a lot of money in the human market believe you me, do tend not to build things though, no, no, yes, no as that position tends to conflict with previous yes, have not so engaged, yes.
    So you know, right less often than chance there.

  8. If I were faced with someone plunking down this list and expecting me to abide by them, I’d probably be earning the titles of “nit-picky”, “rules lawyer” and “bitch” in no time flat as well. Mostly because I’d be asking for definitions of things like “a lot” (in “swear a lot” – what’s the measure of comparison here?), “trustworthy”, “fair”, and “just”. I’d also be asking what counts as a “sexual deviant”; what “heterophobic” means; what counts as “ugly” in regards to promoting ugliness and scatology; and which country I’m supposed to be being patriotic toward and supporting the constitution of.
    But as for “you raise your voice to get a point across” – if there is a single human being in the entire world who has not done this (or its equivalent) at one point or another in their lifetime, I’d like an introduction, please.

  9. So is that a summary of lots of people, or does one guy think you’re* all that.
    * I’m male; I probably have a different list, featuring many obscure synonyms of castrated.

  10. *ahem* for the unenlightened e.g. me, what is the difference between garden variety s*domy and rectal s*domy?
    Does hanging out with cybercriminals, psychopaths, police brutality, criminals etc in a fictional literary book reading sense count do you think? I do so want to be a good feminist. Some of them I have to work on though. I’m not sure if I actually know any Zionists, although I did read a book about them the other day so that may cover it. I do have to say that should Mr Darcy suddenly tire of the lovely Lizzie I would be sorely tempted…

    • Strictly historically/legally speaking, Mindy, oral sex is also sodomy. As are probably a few other sexual acts that don’t involve penis-in-vagina sexual intercourse.
      “Sodomite” as a term of descriptive abuse back in the day for folks like Oscar Wilde was used because it was the polite euphemism of the time for what in more forthright moments was known as a buggerer.

  11. Well there you go. I’ve been edumacated today. Thanks TT.

  12. Mindy, the history of the word is kind of amazing. It came originally from the biblical story about ‘Sodom and Gomorrah’ and was premised on some extremely dodgy translation (the word which could be translated as ‘to know’ oddly wound up being translated as ‘to anally rape’ which has been demonstrated to be what one might call a ‘radical interpretation of the text’ (see what I did there? BtVS and the bible in one sentence! ;-)). But it also got associated, much later (early to middleish ages), with the also biblical story of Onan (which supposedly gave god’s opinion on the withdrawal method) and came to mean basically any kind of sex that wasn’t PIV+potentially-reproductive-no-withdrawal-no-contraception-every-sperm-is-sacred. Sometimes I’m astonished by how many different sexual practices can get collapsed into one!
    Also… ‘prospective adulterer’? I’m not sure I even understand what that means: potential adulterer? or prospective as in one prospects for adultery? It does make me realise, though, that ‘frigid’ or ‘anti-sex’ (of any kind) didn’t make the list. I find this surprising, given the regularity with which feminist bloggers are accused of same!

<span>%d</span> bloggers like this: