Prose Before Hos Logo

May 2012

Before you read this, the funniest two lines in this post are the first, ‘Using fancy words to defend a statement and picture’, followed later by ‘you’ll always be able to find some flimsy-ass pseudo-intellectual defense’. Anyway, off and away, AS ANTIQUATED LESBIAN SEAGULL ATTACKS!!!!:

Using fancy words to defend a statement and picture that are misogynistic doesn’t impress me. If you don’t want people to assume that you’re a misogynist, don’t talk like one. If that assumption offends you, well gosh, don’t I feel terrible for hurting your feelings. Yeah, I know the score. I’m not supposed to get all uppity and offended because it might make some man might feel bad about having insulted me.

The thing is, even if you aren’t a misogynist, you provide cover and sanction for people who are. And you get to feel enlightened and amused about it because you, personally, have never had to suffer the consequences of having society-wide contempt for your gender used to deny you opportunity. You’ve never had someone decide that, because you were a woman, it was all right to treat you like a child or cheat you in business transactions. You’ve never had to read about a man being dragged to death behind a car and the community it happened in worried mainly about how to cover up the blood stains on the pavement. Everybody heard about James Byrd, nobody gave a goddam about Luz Fierros. You don’t have your entire merit with others judged on the basis of whether or not they want to bed you because your whole identity has been so sexualized that you aren’t a person anymore to some people. Just a ho, or maybe a rejecting bitch, or too ugly to ‘hit’.

Justify it among your backslapping selves however you like. It doesn’t hurt you, it doesn’t degrade you, and you’ll always be able to find some flimsy-ass pseudo-intellectual defense for it. Like overentitled men always do. ‘It’s *ironic* misogyny, funny, ha ha. We don’t really *mean* that women exist solely as sextoys and a prima facie distraction from serious intellectual activity, it’s just a phrase. Also, we discussed it seriously among ourselves, and weren’t offended at all.’ Whatever.

But you don’t really give a damn what I think. So don’t waste my time pretending that you do while you’re trolling for links. And no, I won’t be linking to you as a news source even if you scoop the world with a picture of GWB himself eating kittens.

{ 1 comment }

Must Preserve White Power Structure!!!!

by Video of the Day on June 1, 2007 |   Trackback URI   |     Email This Post Email This Post   |   173 Views  

A couple of rich white guys talking about how they’re being undermined as rich white guys! McCain and O’Reilly, white power virtuosos:

O’REILLY: But do you understand what the New York Times wants, and the far-left want? They want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, which you’re a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have. In that regard, Pat Buchanan is right. So I say you’ve got to cap with a number.

MCCAIN: In America today we’ve got a very strong economy and low unemployment, so we need addition farm workers, including by the way agriculture, but there may come a time where we have an economic downturn, and we don’t need so many.

O’REILLY: But in this bill, you guys have got to cap it. Because estimation is 12 million, there may be 20 [million]. You don’t know, I don’t know. We’ve got to cap it.

MCCAIN: We do, we do. I agree with you.

Oops, except……. Males – As of the 2006 congress, 83.7% of the Congress is male, while the percentage of males of the voting age population (18 plus) is only 48.4. If this is further evaluated to include the over-representation of white males, the figure is even more staggering: 36.3% of the voting age population are white males, yet there are 79 White Male senators making up the Senate (79%).

{ 1 comment }

Page 15 of 15« First...101112131415