Archive for the 'Woman-Hating' Category

This week in fat hatred

Published at August 14, 2009 in Health, Food, I see fat people, Woman-Hating and Dipshittery. 4 Comments

Item the first: Anti-donut signs can get you fired from your job as a county health director, but only if you name and piss off local businesses:

A 38-year-old former Army doctor who served in Iraq, Newsom returned home to Panama City a few years ago to run the Bay County Health Department and launched a one-man war on obesity by posting sardonic warnings on an electronic sign outside:

“Sweet Tea (equals) Liquid Sugar.”

“Hamburger (equals) Spare Tire.”

“French Fries (equals) Thunder Thighs.”

He also called out KFC by name to make people think twice about fried chicken.

Then he parodied “America Runs on Dunkin’,” the doughnut chain’s slogan, with: “America Dies on Dunkin’.”

Some power players in the Gulf Coast tourist town decided they had had their fill.

A county commissioner who owns a doughnut shop and two lawyers who own a new Dunkin’ Donuts on Panama City Beach turned against him, along with some of his own employees, Newsom says. After the lawyers threatened to sue, his bosses at the Florida Health Department made him remove the anti-fried dough rants and eventually forced him to resign, he says. . . .

In May, lawyers Bo Rivard and Michael Duncan, co-owners of a new Dunkin’ Donuts, asked Newsom to take down the “America Dies on Dunkin’” message. Newsom already had run other anti-doughnut warnings, including “Doughnuts (equals) Diabetes,” and “Dunkin’ Donuts (equals) Death.”

The businessmen had the backing of County Commissioner Mike Thomas, who owns a diner and a doughnut shop. Thomas called for Newsom’s ouster, saying the doctor shouldn’t have named businesses on the message board.

Note the two statements I’ve bolded. If that’s not conflation of health and thinness/aesthetics, I don’t know what is. But what I find a little disturbing is that his bosses were okay with this kind of hatefulness being funded by the taxpayers until the businesses he called out by name lawyered up.

Continue reading ‘This week in fat hatred’

They do say that the definition of insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result

Published at May 20, 2009 in I will die alone eaten by my pets and Woman-Hating. 9 Comments

So, remember the guy who went from zero to “blow me” in three emails because I failed to find his story about leaving a date via the back door because he couldn’t just say that he didn’t want to pay for her lunch (and then calling her to tell her she was a bitch) a fine example of sparkling wit and charm?

He’s baaack!

And he’s as big a charmer as ever.  First email:  “Do you not like men?”

He caught me out, that sly fox!  And here I thought I was hiding my lesbian tendencies by filing my ad under “women seeking men” and describing myself as straight.  I asked him what it was to him.  Response?

you have the curves and the brains but theres also something else there.. just wondered if it was that you didnt like men.

I see he’s a devotee of the school of seduction which counsels men to insult women in order to keep them off-balance and interested in you.   Oh, that silver-tongued devil!  I just had to reply to him.

I like men just fine. Men who can do things like negotiate who’s going to pay for lunch without running out the back door.

You have a new profile, I see.

But he was just too much for me.  See, he knew that I was really into him.  He could tell.  But he wasn’t going to let me think that I could have him just because he showed interest in me by contacting me a month and a half after he told me to blow him because no bitch was going to make him pay for lunch.  That, and setting up a new profile so he could get around my blocking his profile.  No, he was too much of a fox for me.

I do have a new profile. I left for a few eeks and came back. Thanks for noticing. I prefer women myself, Women that arent embittered by their failures and can meet a man half way in a spirit of equity and warmth without telling them to pay( psychologically/financially) for them for their own edification.

It’s like the mating call of one of those trolls whose comments never make it out of moderation.  Well, he showed me, didn’t he? I certainly showed no spirit of equity or warmth when I blocked his new profile, I suppose.  Just a cold, unfeeling bitch unwilling to meet a man halfway after he tells me to blow him.

Hulk Hogan, MRA

Published at April 15, 2009 in Crime, Anxious masculinity and Woman-Hating. 6 Comments

How dare the bitch leave me!

Pro wrestling legend Hulk Hogan, embroiled in a bitter divorce with his wife, Linda, told Rolling Stone magazine he can “totally understand” O.J. Simpson, the former football great found liable for the deaths of his wife and another man.

“I could have turned everything into a crime scene like O.J., cutting everybody’s throat,” Hogan said in the interview for a feature that will run in Friday’s edition of the magazine.

“You live half a mile from the 20,000-square-foot home you can’t go to anymore, you’re driving through downtown Clearwater [Florida] and see a 19-year-old boy driving your Escalade, and you know that a 19-year-old boy is sleeping in your bed, with your wife… . “I totally understand O.J. I get it,” Hogan said.

Note the possessive pronouns: it’s HIS stuff, goddammit, and HIS possessions include HIS wife. Nothing belongs to her, of course. Not even her own body. HE will decide who she can sleep with, and if it’s not him, it’s nobody.

This is exactly the kind of thing that leads to this. Or this. Or this. Or this.  Or this.

Fortunately, Linda Hogan and her attorney realize this, because she’s putting it out there:

A spokesman for Linda Hogan said Wednesday that the statement amounts to a death threat and that her attorney is “weighing all options necessary to protect his client.”

“Sadly, his recent comments remind us that his definition of fair is much different than what the law dictates,” Linda Hogan said in a written statement.

Her spokesman, Gary Smith, linked the comments to the 55-year-old Hogan’s three-decade career, during which he held multiple championship titles and, during his heyday in the 1980s, was easily the most popular wrestler in the world.

“We have always maintained that the fear that Linda has had to live with comes from the rage and instability much too often associated with pro wrestlers,” Smith said in the statement.

Though I definitely take issue with the idea that this is something limited to pro wrestlers. Sure, there have been some high-profile cases of pro wrestlers killing their families and themselves in rages, but what really fuels these guys is a frustrated sense of entitlement. There’s a reason that women are most in danger of being killed *after* they leave their abusive husbands or boyfriends. There’s a reason that MRAs are so obsessed with keeping control of their wives even after the divorce, through use of the courts or playing games with child support. There’s a reason that MRAs are so obsessed with bitches “getting themselves pregnant” just to trap them and take their money.

And there’s a reason a guy I met through OK Cupid last week (and I think the issue there is the free nature of the site attracting the freaks, not any sort of personal tear in the space-time continuum that keeps feeding me these jokers) went off on a long, angry screed about two women with whom he’d been on dates who’d committed the mortal sin of not reaching for their wallets on the first date when the lunch check came — to the point where he bailed on the second one in the middle of the date, called her from Starbucks to tell her she was old enough to pay for her own fucking lunch, and then passed the phone to some strange man (for some bros-before-hos support, I suppose) when she started yelling at him for being an asshole.

I failed to find this amusing, and told him so. And for pointing out that at age 41, he should really learn how to negotiate the lunch check in a civilized manner if he wants to go Dutch treat instead of running out the back door and then enlisting strangers in his efforts to avoid the consequences of such behavior, I got the following from him: “No bitch tells me to buy her lunch.”

When I responded that I considered bullet dodged, thanks much and happy hunting, he emailed back, “blow me.”

“Not,” I replied, “if your dick were made of chocolate.”

Zero to “blow me” took about four emails. If he ever manages to marry anyone, he will undoubtedly wind up in divorce court singing the same sort of tune as Hulk Hogan.

Oh. Boo. Hoo.

Published at March 12, 2009 in Female trouble, Sex miseducation, Anxious masculinity, Woman-Hating and Dipshittery. 7 Comments

How little sympathy do I have for Travis Henry?

Travis Henry was rattling off his children’s ages, which range from 3 to 11. He paused and took a breath before finishing.

This was no simple task. Henry, 30, a former N.F.L. running back who played for three teams from 2001 to 2007, has nine children — each by a different mother, some born as closely as a few months apart.

Reports of Henry’s prolific procreating, generated by child-support disputes, have highlighted how futile the N.F.L.’s attempts can be at educating its players about making wise choices. The disputes have even eclipsed the attention he received after he was indicted on charges of cocaine trafficking.

“They’ve got my blood; I’ve got to deal with it,” Henry said of fiscal responsibilities to his children. He spoke by telephone from his Denver residence, where he was under house arrest until recently for the drug matter.

Henry had just returned from Atlanta, where a judge showed little sympathy for his predicament during a hearing and declined to lower monthly payments from $3,000 for a 4-year-old son.

Three days after the telephone interview, he was jailed for falling $16,600 behind on support for a youngster in Frostproof, Fla., his hometown.

“I love all my kids,” he said in the interview, but asserted he could not afford the designated amounts, estimated at $170,000 a year by Randy Kessler, his Atlanta lawyer. Kessler said Henry was virtually broke.

$170,000 a year works out to $18,888.88 on average per child.  Obviously, some are getting more, such as the 4-year-old in Atlanta, but it works out to an average of $1574 per month per child.  Which is neither a huge burden for a pro football player with a $20 million contract *nor* a huge amount of money relative to what it costs to clothe, feed, educate, shelter, entertain and transport a child.  His cocaine habit probably cost more per month.

Actually, he got cut loose from the team because of injuries and the cocaine thing.  So he’s only been paid $6.7 million.  Are those tiny violins I hear? Continue reading ‘Oh. Boo. Hoo.’

David Brooks soils himself in fear over Michelle Obama’s biceps

Published at March 8, 2009 in Political theater, Anxious masculinity, Woman-Hating and Dipshittery. 5 Comments

Let’s ignore for the moment all the other dreck in this typically specious MoDo column. Let’s focus on the glimpse she gives us into the psyche of David Brooks:

Let’s face it: The only bracing symbol of American strength right now is the image of Michelle Obama’s sculpted biceps. Her husband urges bold action, but it is Michelle who looks as though she could easily wind up and punch out Rush Limbaugh, Bernie Madoff and all the corporate creeps who ripped off America.

In the taxi, when I asked David Brooks about her amazing arms, he indicated it was time for her to cover up. “She’s made her point,” he said. “Now she should put away Thunder and Lightning.”

I’d seen the plaint echoed elsewhere. “Someone should tell Michelle to mix up her wardrobe and cover up from time to time,” Sandra McElwaine wrote last week on The Daily Beast.

Washington is a place where people have always been suspect of style and overt sexuality. Too much preening signals that you’re not up late studying cap-and-trade agreements.

David was not smitten by the V-neck, sleeveless eggplant dress Michelle wore at her husband’s address to Congress — the one that caused one Republican congressman to whisper to another, “Babe.”

He said the policy crowd here would consider the dress ostentatious. “Washington is sensually avoidant. The wonks here like brains. She should not be known for her physical presence, for one body part.” David brought up the Obamas’ obsession with their workouts. “Sometimes I think half the reason Obama ran for president is so Michelle would have a platform to show off her biceps.”

Oh. My. Continue reading ‘David Brooks soils himself in fear over Michelle Obama’s biceps’

Because of course there are no female bankers

Published at January 29, 2009 in Delusion, Woman-Hating and Dipshittery. 5 Comments

I’d love to do a thorough fisking of this article on “Dating a Banker Anonymous,” and what it says about how society views women, how the New York Times views women, how the New York Times really needs to hire writers who didn’t all go to Dalton and Nightingale, and how these women view themselves (hint: as accessories for rich, powerful men), but I rather feel the need to take a shower.

Is it so much to ask

Published at January 21, 2009 in Books and Woman-Hating. 2 Comments

That modern novels set in, say, Georgian, Victorian or Edwardian London perhaps consider *not* putting the female characters into either the “lady” or the “whore” categories, as if there were no other options?  And perhaps not have the male protagonists visit brothels as a character-delineation or plot device, to show how very lonely and alienated and dissolute and ripe for redemption they are?

Because you know what really endears a character to me and makes me want to cheer him on and hope he gets the “good” girl in the end?  His sexual exploitation of women in desperate straits.

And is it a coincidence that this usually happens in novels written by men?  I think not.

Question for the ages

Published at January 14, 2009 in Religious nuts, Anxious masculinity and Woman-Hating. 3 Comments

What is it with all these dudes who think that a worldview that requires the submission and suppression of women (and, in this case, any dissent) in order to lift up men is “edgy,” “cool,” “punk” or in any way transgressive?

Sounds like the regular state of play for about the last 5 million years.

Oh, but this one’s got tattoos!  And plays loud music!  Must be edgy!

See also Jill from a couple of years back.

Caitlin Flanagan? Is that you?

Published at December 15, 2008 in Sex sex sex, Pantysniffing, Revising reality and Woman-Hating. 8 Comments

Oh, no, it’s Charles M. Blow, wringing his hands about The Kids Today and Their Hooking Up:

The paradigm has shifted. Dating is dated. Hooking up is here to stay.

(For those over 30 years old: hooking up is a casual sexual encounter with no expectation of future emotional commitment. Think of it as a one-night stand with someone you know.)

According to a report released this spring by Child Trends, a Washington research group, there are now more high school seniors saying that they never date than seniors who say that they date frequently. Apparently, it’s all about the hookup.

“Hookup culture” seems to be the latest bugaboo among those who worry about the degradation of the young people — let’s face it, specifically of young women and girls. Because sex is harmful for girls, dontchaknow.

What’s most amusing about Blow’s handwringing is the fact that he contradicts himself within a few paragraphs. See, in the hip, under-30 lingo, “hooking up is a casual sexual encounter” and yet, a few paragraphs later:

I should point out that just because more young people seem to be hooking up instead of dating doesn’t mean that they’re having more sex (they’ve been having less, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) or having sex with strangers (they’re more likely to hook up with a friend, according to a 2006 paper in the Journal of Adolescent Research).

So Mr. Blow, on the payroll of the New York Times, is just making shit up to fit the latest (or, in typical Times fashion, just-about-over) buzzword. Well, not that surprising for the paper that employs Maureen Dowd, William Kristol and David Brooks (and, for that matter, Caitlin Flanagan herself).

But having defined “hooking up” as “casual sexual encounter, he then backs off that definition and admits that Kids Today aren’t actually having quite as much sex, or that they’re fucking strangers. So. What’s the problem, Charles? Continue reading ‘Caitlin Flanagan? Is that you?’

I *heart* my governor

Published at December 4, 2008 in Hear me roar, Political theater and Woman-Hating. 7 Comments

Check it out:

NEW YORK, Dec 3 (Reuters) - New York Gov. David Paterson said on Wednesday he was “outraged” that no women were nominated to lead the state’s Court of Appeals, its highest court, forcing him to choose from seven men recommended by a panel.

Paterson said he believes the state constitution obliges him to pick one of the men nominated by a 12-member panel. But he directed state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo to explore options for picking a new chief judge for the appeals court that is considered one of the most influential state courts in the country.

“Because we’re citizens of a state in addition to being public servants, we’re outraged,” Paterson said, adding that the panel’s rejection of more than half the population could discourage women.

“What we really wanted to do is just publicly acknowledge … the disappointing fact that they spanned the globe and couldn’t find a woman in New York state that was qualified to serve as the chief judge,” he said. Still, he called the seven male nominees highly qualified.

Four women served on the nominating panel, which was created in the late 1970s to reform the highly politicized way judges were chosen.

The current chief judge of Court of Appeals, Judith Kaye, resigns at the end of the year. Three other women serve on the seven-member court, and Paterson, joined by the Democratic attorney general, questioned why none of them was nominated.

This gives me hope that he won’t appoint a white guy (such as Bill Clinton, or the AG, Andrew Cuomo) to fill Hillary Clinton’s seat in the Senate. Paterson had once hoped to fill her seat himself if she were elected President, but fate (and Republican political operatives) intervened and Paterson found himself becoming governor after Eliot Spitzer was forced out. He hasn’t said who he’s going to pick, but he has said that nobody has been shy about asking him to appoint them, or people they support. But given that the press loves to talk about Bill Clinton or Andrew Cuomo getting the job, as unlikely as that is (Clinton because, why? and Cuomo because he’s in the middle of taking on AIG for its abuse of bailout funds and its shoddy practices), one starts to wonder if he’d give in to that kind of pressure, or pressure from powerful interests. Especially when there are such good women serving New York in Congress already, like Nydia Velasquez, Carolyn Maloney, Nita Lowey and Louise Slaughter.

But this? This makes me think that he’s got his priorities right.

And seriously — not one of the three women on the Court of Appeals makes it onto the list of seven? You could appoint all of the members of the CoA other than Judith Kaye and still have room for one more on the list. What I’d like to know is, how many of the three men on the court got onto the list?

(Via Echidne.)