More feminist make-believe

From the Daily Mail:  Brave female Papa Johns manager tackles pair of Ferguson looters with her bare hands as they kick in windows… and quickly sends them packing

Yet neither the text nor the video support such a claim.  Instead of a feminist hero tackling thugs with nothing but the power of moxie, what the video shows is a modern day Blanche DuBois relying on the kindness of looters.

The comments are nearly as funny as the headline.  Some celebrate her girlpower, while another bemoans the lack of a white knight riding to her rescue.

This is what it takes, more good people standing up to these backward thugs and saying enough. She has more b a l l s than most men I know.

As is Lea:

What a great woman! She has shown real courage! This is how people should be.

But summers53 was alarmed that the manager was permitted to put herself in danger.

A woman is being pushed around and threatened and a guy is filming it. What is wrong with people today?!

Edit:  I found the same video on youtube:

Posted in Fantasy vs Reality, Moxie | 70 Comments

Breasts can’t be sexual if there is a baby in the picture.

Facebook has received quite a bit of criticism the last few years over their policy on pictures involving breastfeeding.  I’m not a fan of either Facebook or Zuckerberg, but there is an absurd yet common argument that breastfeeding pictures are never part of the online arms race for sexual attention, and public displays of breastfeeding are never done to garner sexual attention.  As Salon explained in their article Facebook’s hypocritical breast-feeding controversy:

…a person whose photo is deemed by Facebook to have an unacceptable degree of nipple will not just find the picture removed, but often her account temporarily deleted on a vague “breach of terms of use” charge. Treating women like petty criminals for posting what are obviously not sexually explicit images is just stupid business.

[Facebook’s Policy] illuminates the depressing reality that breast-feeding, after all this time, is still deemed inappropriate, unproductive and just plain icky. And that a nipple, even one with a hungry baby nearby, is just darn scandalous.

Blogger Dena makes the same basic argument with even greater force about women breastfeeding in public:

There is no such thing as indiscreet nursing. Mothers do not walk around topless, flash the general public on purpose, or shake their tatas in passerby’s faces in an effort to feed their babies. All nursing is discreet nursing. You expose your breast, your child latches on, and nursing begins. Period.

With this argument in mind I present today’s “intimate” photo-shoot at The Daily Mail, which of course cannot possibly be intended to present Tamara Ecclestone as an object of sexual desire.  After all, there is a baby in the first picture.  Sure she is only wearing a towel in this picture, but I can only assume the photographer showed up without notice and didn’t give her time to get dressed.  Besides, after seeing the first picture (with a baby), we already know we aren’t supposed to see her in a sexual light.  That would be absurd.  Likewise, since there is a baby carriage in this picture, it is clearly all about motherhood, not an attempt to out compete other women for sexual attention on the internet.

Posted in Denial, Rationalization Hamster, Satire | 109 Comments

Put a ring on it!

So she can take it off.

Until you had enough then you took that ring off
You took that ring off
So tired of the lies and trying, fighting, crying
Took that ring off
Oh, now the fun begins
Dust yourself off and you love again
You found a new man now you shine and you’re fine

For those playing at home, the Beyoncé female empowerment lyrical progression on marriage and rings is:

  1. 2000:  Independent Women “I buy my own diamonds and I buy my own rings”
  2. 2008:  Put a ring on it.
  3. 2013:  The Mrs. Carter World Tour.
  4. 2014:  Ring Off (a divorce empowerment anthem for her mother)

See also:

Posted in Divorce, Feral Females | 150 Comments

It gets better.

In my last post I pointed out the irony of feminist Jessica Wakeman wanting her nieces to play pediatric oncologist Barbie when she herself worked for a gossip site.  Why constantly try to steer her nieces away from focusing on hair, beauty, fashion, and relationships (like the blog she wrote for) and towards career choices she wasn’t interested in enough to follow herself?

It turns out that Wakeman has recently left her post at The Frisky, and moved instead to YouBeauty.com:

I don’t think that blogging about hair and skin care and beauty will be be easy by any means, but I’m pretty sure it won’t make me cry!

Posted in Fantasy vs Reality, Feminists | 32 Comments

Confusing make-believe with reality; why feminists obsess over Barbie.

The feminist obsession with Barbie dolls seems odd at first glance.  Whether it is their compulsion to create ugly feminist Barbie or Computer Engineer Barbie, we see a great deal of focus on make-believe for a group of grown women.  But feminism at its core is very much about make-believe, and feminists have demonstrated an incredible capacity to treat make-believe as if it were reality.

You can see this historically with the feminist/media creation of Amelia Earhart.  After Charles Lindbergh captured the world’s imagination by flying solo across the Atlantic in an aircraft he had custom built for the flight, feminists wanted to show that women could do that too.  Earhart was selected because she looked the part and had a pilot’s license.  However while she looked the part, she was not a gifted pilot:

There is no denying that Earhart had difficulty learning to fly. It took her more than 15 hours of flight time and nearly a year to solo the Kinner, and she had a number of mishaps afterward, most of them during landings. As one biographer noted: “Unfortunately, though highly intelligent, a quick learner, and possessed of great enthusiasm, Amelia did not, it seems, possess natural ability as a pilot.”

But skill as a pilot wasn’t needed for what Earhart’s media handlers had in mind.  They commissioned two men to fly her across a short span of the Atlantic in a Fokker Tri Motor.  After Earhart did her part by looking pretty in the passenger seat while the menfolk did the flying, her media handlers triumphantly dubbed her “Lady Lindy”, threw her a ticker tape parade, and arranged an invitation to the White House to meet President Calvin Coolidge.  As a newly minted feminist icon, Earhart then wrote a book and gave lectures about her experience riding across the Atlantic.  It could be no other way, as The World History Project explains in Amelia Earhart becomes first woman to fly across the Atlantic:

Since most of the flight was on “instruments” and Amelia had no training for this type of flying, she did not pilot the aircraft. When interviewed after landing, she said, “Stultz did all the flying—had to. I was just baggage, like a sack of potatoes.” She added, “…maybe someday I’ll try it alone.”

But make believe is good enough for feminists, which brings us back to Barbies.  Back in July of 2013 Jessica Wakeman wrote an article at The Frisky about her failed attempt to play feminist Barbie with her nieces.  Wakeman wanted to pretend Barbie was a pediatric oncologist:

I pulled a naked Barbie from a box and dressed her in a yellow gown. (Barbie’s closet seems to be entirely gowns and miniskirts.) Then I announced, “My Barbie is a doctor.”

I cleared my throat. “She’s a pediatric oncologist. That means she helps kids with cancer. She graduated at the top of her class from Yale. No, Harvard. She is trying to find the cure for lymphoma.”

But her nieces didn’t want to play pediatric oncologist Barbie.  They wanted Barbie to be focused on girly things like fashion, hairstyles, and meeting Mr. Right.  No matter how many times Wakeman tried to return to the feminist narrative, her nieces always steered back to traditional girl areas of focus:

Elly’s Barbie then started “doing” my Barbie’s hair. I tried again. “Maybe one day, she’ll run for office,” I mused. “She could be a senator. She could sit on the Senate Judiciary Committee.”

“I like her gown,” Mackenzie replied.

What is so unintentionally comical about Wakeman’s piece is that there were two games of make-believe going on.  One game had her nieces imagining Barbie going to balls, dressing in the latest fashion, and attracting prince charming.  The other game of make-believe had Wakeman imagining herself as possessing great professional gravity and as a feminist role model for young girls to follow.  Ironically Wakeman lives in the very world her nieces wanted to play in, she was just too busy playing make-believe to see it.  In the real world Wakeman is a staff writer for a gossip site, not a senator or a doctor.  The first five main categories in The Frisky’s banner are:

  1. Sex
  2. Relationships
  3. Celebs
  4. Style
  5. Horoscopes

Had Wakeman only played Barbie the way she has played her real life and not her make-believe life, her nieces would have been delighted.

Update:  

Posted in Amelia Earhart, Charles Lindbergh, Fantasy vs Reality, Feminist Territory Marking, Feminists, Moxie | 125 Comments