Misogyny 101 For Women
by Natasha Chart, Sun Mar 02, 2008 at 01:22:28 PM EST
Did you know that women could be raging, misogynist jerks, too?
Well, they can be! Even though this ironically proves that women are fully capable of doing jobs often considered the exclusive domain of men. The only caveat is that you have to pretend you're stupid. But come on, we're women; all too many of us had an MA in pretending we were stupid by the age of 12.
(Hey misogynist guys, question for you ... Would you find it more disturbing if you discovered that your female SO was faking climax or that she was secretly wicked smart? Hmmmmm. I digress.)
Yet, like being a Black conservative, being a female misogynist can land you some really lucrative, high-profile, media and foundation gigs. Since I am nothing if not interested in helping other women compete equally with men in the job market, I've helpfully pulled together a guide to woman-bashing for women, below the fold.
Ooh, and huge thanks to my super empowered Sisters whose recent writings made this task so easy that even a woman could knock it out in an afternoon ;D LOL! Shall we get on with it, girls ...
First, and most importantly, remember that rape is the woman's fault. Always. And it isn't really a problem. No, sirree. (Ahem. I meant, no Sir! Sorry if any of my male natural superiors took offense at my playful taking of their title in vain.)
Fellow women, you have to step up and keep people from taking rape seriously because, and you're going to get tired of hearing me repeat this, men totally can't get away with it anymore. How are we to stop taxpayer dollars from going towards useless programs that protect women from violent attacks by people they know if rape isn't treated like some campy, youthful lapse in judgment? Hilarious!
Second, make sure and use the word "hysterical" in reference, however subtle or sidewise you need to make it, to positions and arguments likely to be advanced by other women.
This is a really, really important one! See, the word hysteria is a centuries old slur against women that gained currency as a way to accuse endometriosis sufferers of being hypochondriacs. Throughout recorded medical history and up to this very day, the medical profession has been split (and not necessarily evenly, hah!) between doctors who think it's a real problem and those who think that 'female troubles' are best treated with sedatives. If women can't even reliably know when their own bodies are sick or in pain, how trustworthy is their judgment about anything else?
This line of attack stems from revulsion towards women's 'mysterious' (read: irrational and therefore unpredictable) bodies, which are objects simultaneously of fetishization and fear.
'Hysteria' comes from the word for womb, and is literally a way to call someone crazy just because they're a girl. Use with abandon, then follow it up by telling the woman you're mocking to "calm down," because what she's concerned about is clearly a distortion of overwrought nerves. Yet another one the dudes can't get away with.
Third, stereotypes are your friends.
It doesn't matter if they've been disproved or not. In fact, you need never worry your pretty, little (little! did you catch that?) head about that, because your target audience is men who are too smug to study up and women who are crippled by doubts about their own competence. Call your detractors shrill nags who hate men and can't face reality.
This will be projection, of course. Fair warning that, should you undertake this job, you'll acquire a level of cognitive dissonance and self-disgust that'll leave people wondering if you'd be happier with a gender reassignment surgery (which you could easily get in Iran, btw) due to your clear loathing of your own gender.
To wit, with counterarguments, so you can be adequately prepared for them:
- Relationships are stupid things that only chicks care about. This is why men have never been driven to violence, or the writing of weepy ballads, novels and world famous plays, over women they were desperately in love with. Real men would rather live alone in the woods with the uncomplicated company of their right hands, though they'll periodically deign to try and impregnate someone.
- Men only have car accidents at 89% the rate of women, in spite of practicing driving 75% more, and while men's accidents are deadlier, this is all a clear indication that women are lousy drivers. Because everybody knows that. Just don't expect that argument to wash with issuers of car insurance and you're good.
- Memory and verbal intelligence don't really count as 'intelligence', as such. If you have a hard time with calculus, it's because you're a stupid woman, not because calculus is an objectively difficult subject, for which having a Y chromosome does not provide a secret decoder key.
- Women have smaller heads than men, so they're not as smart, because size is everything. Relentlessly ignore the fact that this recycled racist argument positing a link between head/brain size and IQ has not been demonstrated in healthy adult human beings whose mothers had adequate nutrition during pregnancy.
- Typically female hobbies and interests are stupid and frivolous by definition. You can coast for years on snide references to shoe collections and overshopping in a culture where women are judged primarily by their appearances. Just remember that video games, cars with engine capacities that few mortals ever get to fully test, groups of grown men chasing balls around a grass lot cheered on by other men in garish face paint, and really tricked out audio equipment are deadly serious interests. Unless women are interested in them, in which case it's cute how they want to tag along.
- All women love kids, want their own, and are instinctively competent at caring for them at a mysterious, almost animal level. Women who disagree ... look, we already covered the hysteria part, don't know their own minds, etc., don't make me do it again. I have limits and tell you what, you get into character too fast and I will rain some hellfire snark down on your mincing self.
Fourth, as often as possible, it's women and children.
This is important because most of the restrictions placed on women by patriarchal society are the sorts of restrictions you put on kids. That's the basic premise, after all; that women lack full moral agency. Men get to be adults someday, women, not so much.
So when you talk about women acting on behalf of children, make sure to equate the two so that the women themselves are seen as childish and in need of stern, steady adult guidance. (See how that sticks it to those uppity, irresponsible bitches, while subtly flattering men? Learn.) Because it's somehow childish to be accountable for the welfare of another human being, unless you're a man.
[In an article about moms who are active in local politics to support taxes that fund schools and other local services in Massachusetts] "These are people who have the spare time to do this," said [Barbara Anderson, executive director of Marblehead-based Citizens for Limited Taxation]. "They are obsessed with what they want for their kids, which is a private school experience that they don't have to pay for themselves."
... Still, Anderson said she saw the constant push for overrides as a dangerous lesson for young people.
"It is teaching kids to be selfish and to live off other people," she said. ...
Anderson approaches mastery at this technique. Leading off with a standard conservative trope that people who use public services should expect those services to suck, she segues right into drawing a comparison between women who want their kids schools not to suck and the archetypal stay-at-home mom who's perpetually in the position of having money only through the charity of her husband, because she doesn't do any real work.
This applies just as well to moms with jobs, because the momness invalidates their adulthood. (And they say conservatives value motherhood. Tsk. ... What? Did I say I agreed with this BS, or something, just because I know how it's done?)
Then note, she says that the women are teaching their kids, by example, clearly, to be selfish. See how she didn't come right out and say that the women themselves were selfish?
Though mind, the rest of her argument, I'd advise you to be more cautious about emulating. Kids do, in fact and virtually by definition, live off other people. You could drive a truck through the gap in that construct. Though what she's saying here, that you don't want kids to think they have any value beyond what they can personally earn in a paycheck, is important. It tells young boys that they oughtn't put anything ahead of earning money, and young girls that work traditionally allocated to women is valueless, as are the women who do it.
Coming back around to the way anti-feminist woman-bashing meshes with conservatism, absorb the important base perspective that people's value to society is represented perfectly by their annual salary.
If this is true, and if women are relegated to low-paying professions, or lower pay for the same work, or, glee!, prevented from ever taking salaried work, whether they want to or not, then they are permanently second-class citizens. Lowly. Of very little intrinsic merit. Like the poor, and kids.
People who are dependent, like women and children, are pathetic.
Men, naturally, never depend on anyone. They're born needing no one and no one's help. Except when the right hand gets a little boring. This is why men are never selfish, because any little thing they do for someone else is a supreme act of charity.
Tread carefully with this, though. If you can't write a coherent, 1,000 word essay on why earning a salary by working for someone else isn't living "off other people," you may make some of the same mistakes Anderson makes above. This is an exercise with which I can't be of assistance. Though clever, certainly enough to mock those of you who fail to attain this level of skill, I'm not quite that clever.
Fifth, pull the 'catfight' card.
This builds on several of the emergent themes you may have noticed threading through this primer. Women as mysterious and moody animals, and therefore subhuman. Women who are out of control and probably acting against their best interests. Women acting out of primal, not rational, motives. Women as agents of limited intellect, were they inclined to try to use it in the first place.
Work the word 'claw' into your argument for maximum effect.
Guys can still get away with this one, obviously, but they need your help to keep it legit. And remember, when men disagree enthusiastically and perhaps irreconcilably, or nurse long grudges against each other, they spar, battle, lock horns, engage, argue, thunder, and blast. They don't have spats, except with their female SOs, and it's always her fault he had to get so mad, because the bitch just wouldn't listen.
And ... done!
Well armed with these talking points, you'll quickly achieve dizzying heights (dizzy! hah!) of woman-bashing prowess. You can go ahead and simper to your conservative male cohorts as if it were no big, but your feminist counterparts will know the truth of your achievements.
Even as we mercilessly destroy your misogynist apologism.