Some tool, called Mark Manson, wrote a list of 7 “Flaw” he likes in women for Thought Catalogue. I am so bored of the constant articles, nearly always written by men, trying to extrapolate their personal sexual desires as the “norm”. The self-indulgent, narcissistic approach to sexuality in our culture is abusive and exploitative. The idea that the orgasm of one person is more important than the safety and personal boundaries of the person they are fucking is disgusting.
I hate the privileging of male sexuality and I loathe the men who take advantage of this: like Mark Manson. Normally, I’d ignore this shite but Manson brings the “domestic violence as romance” theme to a whole new level: one where he “forgives” us our imperfections in his voyage of self-discovery [which seems to miss the whole he’s an asshole bit].
The first paragraph is Manson explaining what every woman has known for a millenia as if its somehow a new and exciting theory:
I feel more and more that our culture is conditioning us to expect, no — demand a perfect romantic or sexual partner for ourselves. It’s easy to forget that finding someone you truly want to be with isn’t a matter finding someone who is perfect or flawless, but finding someone who you actually grow to love their flaws.
Clearly, Manson missed the whole medieval knights and chivalry bullshit poetry period. And, every self-help book written in the 19th and 20th century. Seriously, does he genuinely believe this is a new pet theory? I don’t know if I should be laughing hysterically at this point or leaning my head on my desk and crying for our species.
Having psycho-analysed himself [and continued to miss the bit where he’s an asshole], Manson dedicates the piece to “the girl of my dreams and her issues, her traumas, and her deepest flaws. And not just the faults that I can tolerate, but the faults that I can love.” Well, isn’t that just peachy-keen and lurvely. Just reading that makes me cream myself with excitement or vomit. One or the other. My poor ickle girlie brain just can’t compute the level of romance in that statement.
I’ve reproduced all “The Flaws” below as they have to be read fully to be believed. All of them are disgraceful, woman-hating twaddle with a serious side of domestic violence. They are all huge red flags. Part of me is glad Manson wrote this so that potential partners can be aware of his violent personality at the start but the other part of me is angry that anyone would publish this bullshit.
The first two flaws are the most important to read, everything after that is Manson’s Ode to His Penis. The first “flaw” is Manson clearly looking for a woman to emotionally and psychologically abuse. It is an obvious indicator of a man who is controlling. The second flaw is the same indicator with Manson looking for a woman to shoulder the responsibility for everything that goes wrong in Manson’s life.
Manson belongs on the #DickheadDetox. He certainly doesn’t deserve to ever have a relationship with a woman [or be a potential father to children].
FLAW #1: She’s Slightly Neurotic – I’m an extremely laid-back guy. Some people may say too laid-back. But every girl I’ve developed a strong emotional connection with has told me that I have a calming effect on them. Girls who are slightly neurotic feel right to me for two reasons: for one, if there’s something I should be worrying about, but I’m not, they’ll always catch it. And secondly, when they’re worrying about something that’s unnecessary, I enjoy being able to help them relax and feel more secure about it. It’s a nice dynamic, as it makes me feel needed and they’re always appreciative.
FLAW #2: She Blames Herself Too Often – This one’s a little twisted, but I like it. It makes me feel more at ease. My biggest pet peeve in the world is people who do not take responsibility for their actions. So if a girl blames herself too often, then I never have to worry about her shirking responsibility for things going wrong. But the biggest reason is I don’t handle people blaming me or judging me well. Never have. When I feel like I’m being blamed unfairly, my tendency is to either shut down or to simply leave. Obviously, this is not a helpful tendency in a relationship. On the other hand, I’m an EXTREMELY non-judgmental person and rarely blame the person I’m with, so I’m unlikely to pile on the blame if she’s being hard on herself. On the contrary, as a recovered Nice Guy, I have a tendency to want to help my partner feel better about herself and let go of whatever is bothering her, so this gives me another opportunity to do that. Hey, I never said I didn’t have flaws either. But it seems women with this flaw complement my flaw really well and the relationship works.
FLAW #3: She’s A Work-A-Holic – I get bored easily. If I’m with a girl who doesn’t have a lot going on in her life, I get bored with her easily. I find ambition sexy. I run my own business and will often pull 14- or 16-hour workdays and I need her to understand and support that. Women who work their ass off for something just tend to be much more interesting.
FLAW #4: She’s A Risk-Taker – I need someone who thinks outside the box, who is open-minded and up for trying something crazy or stupid on a whim. My last serious girlfriend, the day we broke up, we decided to go skydiving together to commemorate it. Don’t ask me why, but it was awesome. I love taking risks and having adventures. I want a girl who if I say, “Hey, I just bought us plane tickets to Dubai tomorrow, let’s go!” she won’t hesitate to say yes. She won’t complain about work or worry about what her mother would think or whatever. She’d drop everything and go.
FLAW #5: She’s Vain – I realize this is entirely self-indulgent, but I love it when women take the time and effort to make themselves as beautiful as humanly possible. The 90 minutes in the bathroom before we go out to get dinner? I like that. I want her to look stunning. I then want to tell her that she looks stunning. I then want her to love it when I tell her that she looks stunning.
FLAW #6: She’s Pushy – Like I said earlier, I have a tendency to be too laid-back some times. And I also have a tendency to avoid commitment. As a result, some times I pull away from the person I’m seeing even if I really care about them and feel strongly about them. It’s an unconscious reaction and habit. So I need someone who won’t let me off the hook easily, because I know at some point I will try to get off the hook. Even though it annoys me at times, it’s good for the girl I’m dating to be pushy, the kind of girl who will call me three days in a row and bother me for not hanging out with her. I’ll hate it in the moment, I’ll complain that she’s needy and annoying and smothering me, blah, blah, blah — but I think in the long-run it works out better because if left to my own devices I’d let myself drift away and never come back.
FLAW #7: She Wears Her Heart On Her Sleeve – You know the stereotype of the concerned husband saying, “Honey, what’s wrong?” and she says, “Oh, nothing.” So he tries again, “No, really, what’s wrong?” and she still says “Nothing,” even though she’s obviously really pissed about something. Then eventually she blows up and acts as if he was supposed to magically know why she was pissed off the entire time and fix it. It’s a stereotype you see in movies and TV shows a lot. Yeah, I hate that. I can’t be with a girl like that. I think if that happened to me now, she’d be out the door. Anyone who reads this site knows that I’m obsessed with blunt, painful honesty. I always want to know what people are thinking and feeling and I want everyone to always know what I’m thinking and feeling. I love women who wear their hearts on their sleeve. I want them to have the opposite problem of not being able to hide their emotions even if they want to. This goes along with passion as well. Women who let their emotions just flow out of them tend to be incredibly passionate. I get weak in the knees for passionate women. It’s why I love Latin women and Eastern European women so much. Their emotions are so intense you think the world is going to crack in half some times. As a boy who came from an emotionally-stifled family in an English-speaking culture, I can’t get enough of it.
Yesterday, Facebook blocked a page from Human Rights Watch.
And, yes, you read that right.
Facebook deemed a page by Human Rights Watch so hateful that it contravened their official policy on “offensive” material. You know, their policy which allows violent pornography, images of abused children and women, racism, homophobia, disablism and rape threats to remain as “free speech”.
Human Rights Watch‘s crime: requesting the Tunisian government grant feminist activist Amina Tyler pretrial release, as she is entitled to under the law. Amina Tyler, whose only crime was writing Femen across her bare breasts and posting the image on Facebook, has been detained since May 19th. Tyler’s photo did not contravene FB’s standards despite the fact that images of infants breastfeeding does.
Human Rights Watch are a subversive group because caring that no human be tortured, imprisoned, raped or murdered for being human now contravenes Facebook standards. We have arrived at the point where “free speech” only applies to violent men. Those who campaign for the protection of vulnerable people from male violence have no legal right to free speech.
Welcome to the Patriarchy where Feminist activism is required to ensure that internationally recognised human rights organisations aren’t deemed “offensive”.
I have not blogged about this case because I couldn’t. I could write a whole load of plausible excuses here why but they wouldn’t be true. I haven’t written because I cannot believe a child has been murdered for walking home at night in a hoodie. I don’t know how to express my anger and my distress and my guilt for being white in a White Supremacy; for being responsible for perpetuating a culture which believes the life a child is worth nothing.
I cannot write anything that doesn’t sound like I’m trying to excuse myself from being held responsible.
But, I am responsible.
We are all responsible.
I have lived with the hope that George Zimmerman would be found guilty; that the life of a child would be declared valuable in court.
I knew it was unlikely but I hoped. And, I prayed.
And, Trayvon Martin has been declared unhuman in a court of law; murdering a black teenager is now legal (as it always has been).
What worries me, as a British-Canadian citizen, is the rhetoric that this is an ‘American’ crime that couldn’t possibly happen here.
Do I hope that this is true?
But, it isn’t.
Black teenagers die in the UK and Canada.
And we don’t care.
A child was murdered for being the wrong colour.
If a similar case happened in the UK/ Canada, I believe a similar verdict would occur.
I don’t want to believe this. I want to believe we lived in a post-racial society.
And, the murder of Trayvon Martin suggests we never will.
I’ve been spamming every Facebook group I’m in with links to JumpMag which is an utterly brilliant advertising-free magazine aimed at young girls from 7-13 and has no make-up tips or free lip gloss or OMG look at Justin Bieber’s hair!!!! articles.
I love JumpMag as both a mother and a radical feminist. It combats harmful gender stereotypes and cultural femicide which are two issues which greatly concern me. JumpMag publishes lots of articles, poems, and reviews by girls themselves. The silencing of women’s voices begins in childhood so having an online space where girls can share their lives, their stories, their art and their dreams without being told to be quiet or make space for boys is so very, very important to destroying the patriarchy.
I’ve been awed by the support of women for JumpMag. Today, I shared it again and the support was amazing.
Yet, that one niggly question rose up again: isn’t JumpMag sexist because it excludes boys?
I mean, seriously? Does every single fucking thing have to include boys? Can’t girls have one little thing just for them in a culture which is dominated by men’s voices?
Where are the men whining about Ben 10 and Young Justice excluding girls? Or, Harry Potter having to be written about a boy and by an author with a non-woman name so that boys would read it? Where are the men whining about girls being excluded from footballl? Or, the music industry?
Nothing is gender-neutral in our culture. JumpMag is trying to eradicate this by showing girls that there is so much more to life than what the media dictates is acceptable for girls.
This is JumpMag’s official statement on inclusivity:
From time to time, we are asked, ‘Isn’t a magazine aimed only at girls sexist?’
Jump! Mag was founded to offer girls something that boys already have. Magazines aimed at their gender, which neither patronise, demean nor make them feel inadequate about their body, their minds or their feelings.
We did consider a gender-free magazine, but there are other magazines on the market already, which cover this sector for preteens, such as the excellent Anorak Magazine.
Jump! Mag aims to inspire girls to be more than they ever thought they could be. To aim high, and to never stop believing in themselves. If we inspire some boys along the way, then that is a bonus.
See, JumpMag doesn’t exclude boys. It just focusses on girls. How fucked up is our culture that the first comment about a magazine aimed at girls is that it’s “sexist” considering the sheer amount of television, books, films and video games aimed at boys?
Frankly, if you are worried about boys feeling excluded by one measly online magazine for girls you’ve got some seriously fucked up values and internalised misogyny.
I’d suggest you start working on that instead of belittling a magazine aimed at teaching girls that they have the right to be whoever they want to be.
There isn’t much I can say that hasn’t been said already on twitter. This is, obviously, rape culture in action.
I want to say, yep that’s the University of Alberta for you: bunch of misogynistic, racist, homophobic and disablist rednecks. We all know the jokes and stereotypes about rednecks. And, hey, I’m Canadian. I know all the jokes about Albertans: the Texas of Canada.
That would be the lazy way out though.
Claiming that this kind of poster is representative of a cultural stereotype of stupidity allows us to ignore our own responsibility for perpetuating rape culture [and allows the dickheads of twitter more space to pretend they are Nigels].
Blaming rape victims for being raped is the basis of rape culture. It isn’t just some Albertan thing.
Making rape apologists The Other makes it easier for rapists to rape.
We need to start examining the obvious: that these are stories of MALE violence instead of hiding behind cultural stereotypes.
These posters were created by men for the sole purpose of labelling rape victims liars.
We need to name the problem: Male Violence.
Normally, I avoid Tom Cruise. His films usually put me on the wrong side of cranky. They are inevitably misogynistic with a side order of homophobia, racism and disablism thrown in. Despite knowing all of this, I chose to watch Jack Reacher.
I didn’t think Tom Cruise films could get any worse but I was wrong. Jack Reacher delved into a whole new level of misogyny.
- “the town whore”
- the “town whore” being used and abused
- “town whore” being publicly humiliated
- “town whore” being murdered for being “town whore”
This idea that women who have sex deserve to be murdered is old school victim-blaming. It’s offensive, misogynist and vile.
The film also includes this charming piece of dialogue:
Sandy: I don’t mind the sight of blood.
Jack: Not when it means you’re not pregnant.
You see, she’s a whore so she can’t possibly every want to get pregnant. And, we all know whores make bad mothers. It’s in the Bible and everything. Course, men who have numerous sexual relationships and cheat on their partners are still good fathers. After all, being in possession of a penis makes one a good father by default.
Jack Reacher is the last Tom Cruise movie I will watch. I’m boycotting his shit from now on.
A friend brought this thread from Mumsnet to my attention.
The basic premise is a mother of a new baby who is being bullied by her in-laws over her refusal to get into a car with them after they have “had a few gin and tonics”. Hardly a controversial stance since drunk-driving is illegal for a reason. Yet, the thread is full of women trying to blame a new mother for not doing what she is told.
This might not seem a classic case of victim-blaming but it demonstrates all the normative behaviour with which we engage in when blaming victims. A new mother is being insulted for putting the safety of her new baby over the desires of others to meet the baby. It is her fault for not getting into the car with her drunk father-in-law [or coming with one of a thousand complicated ways of travelling with a 4 month old on public transport during one of the biggest holiday seasons in the US]. The fact is that her baby is being treated as a toy by others for their personal viewing pleasure. They aren’t willing to travel to see the baby so she is selfish for not putting her child in danger to visit them.
Have we really arrived at a place where a new mother can’t prioritise the safety of a new baby without being treated like a nincompoop for doing so? Do we really have to make excuses for the behaviour of others? There are women on the Mumsnet thread blaming a new mother for not travelling across state lines with a new baby and a drunk driver. They are blaming her for being selfish; just like we blame victims for being victims.
I support the Mumsnet Bounty Campaign.
I wouldn’t have bothered writing this since I assumed most people were against capitalist intrusions on new vulnerable mothers. But, it turns out, the anti-Mumsnet whiners who have to complain about absolutely every freaking thing Mumsnet does have been whinging about the Bounty campaign. I’ve had some serious differences opinions with MNHQ. Who hasn’t? You can’t have a community of a couple of hundred thousand people without having the occasional difference of opinion. Or, barney. Really, both words work there.
There comes a point, however, when the phrase “grow the fuck up” becomes necessary. Not liking Mumsnet talk boards or a group of Mumsnetters or Justine’s hair or Helen’s taste in beverages or whatever the hell it is that gets up your nose is not excuse to belittle an entire campaign to help other women. Yes, I get that once upon a time someone on Mumsnet was rude to you so you feel justified in slating absolutely everything they do. But, come on, nothing shouts “I’m a nincompoop” more than continually dredging up the same thing over and over again as evidence that Mumsnet is a harem of Satan-worshippers.
Sometimes, when a group of people suggest you are behaving like a buckethead, well, you might just be acting like a buckethead.
Equally, you could have wound up on a thread full of bucketheads. That’s not outside the realm of possibility either.
The thing is, it’s not normal to hold a grudge for so long that you feel the need to whine and complain about every single campaign Mumsnet runs to try to make the world a better place for women [and don’t think I didn’t notice those of you who attacked the We Believe You campaign. That was just pathetic]. Yeah, Mumsnet doesn’t get everything right but slating a campaign because some woman was mean to you once upon a time is mostly evidence that you need to deal with your anger issues.
The Mumsnet Bounty Mutiny is a small campaign that will only help a limited number of mothers but that is no reason to slate it. The commodification of childbirth is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. Preventing Bounty, and it’s rather unfortunate inability to hire people with some basic empathy skills, from accessing vulnerable new mothers, including ones with seriously ill babies or whose babies have died is an important feminist campaign. The systemic and cumulative effects of misogynistic practises means we need to support all feminist activism, regardless of whether or not one specific issue impacts on you personally. Bounty has continued to violate women’s boundaries despite years of complaints. It needs to stop.
No one should have the right to flog anything to new mothers in hospitals. Ever.
I don’t care if that’s Bounty, Mumsnet or Gove trying to sell his dignity. No one should be allowed to sell any product to a patient when they are in their hospital bed either ill or recovering.
Bounty does not belong in a hospital ward.
Bounty has continually made it clear that they are uninterested in the welfare of patients by continuing to allow bad practise. They had a chance to fix this years ago. They chose not. Their choice: they need to suck up the consequences.
My personal loathing of reality TV star Dr. Christian Jessen is well-documented. I have no tolerance for men who think it is acceptable to define women’s fuckability nor any medical professional who actually knows nothing about breast feeding who thinks it’s “icky”. Honestly, the man is nothing more than your average dickhead, except he also has a television show in which he gets to deliberately humiliate and denigrate people. Yay Capitalism.
This is what dear ole’ Christian tweeted out today:
Terrible story of cabby accused of rape by female passenger only 2b saved by his recording of journey where nothing of the sort happened.
Why do women do this?! 2 many rape cases ignored, which is terrible, so why try this sort of damaging nonsense on to make it worse? Loons
False accusations of rape are thankfully rare but very damaging to all. It’s interesting how much bias there is in talking about rape…
female rape is abhorrent but much male rape goes on in prisons and is shrugged off as ‘that’s just what happens’ -equally abhorrent!
Well, isn’t that some lovely “women are all liars” twaddle for a Friday morning.
When are men who insist on pontificating about rape actually going to bother reading some research
into false rape accusations
. Or, you know, actually engage their brain and think.
Dr. Christian is a misogynist. He won’t bother listening to those pointing out that he is wrong. That is too much like making him take responsibility for his actions.
He is on the #dickheaddetox
This was Dr. Christian’s response to criticism:
become clear that many of most aggressive feminists here have become so blinded by rage they no longer see any other points that their own.
I may need to start a #SuperDickheadDetox just for Christian.
Damian Gee has been convicted of assault because he chose to punch his partner in the face and then he threatened to kill her with a knife.
Damian Gee assaulted his partner because she ended their relationship because Gee had an affair. He turned up at her residence at 3 in the morning, uninvited and assaulted his partner because she ended their relationship.
Yet, Neil Hunter of the Northern Echo, wrote an article claiming that the “cheating boyfriend attacked his partner during showdown talks”. I’m not sure how turning up at 3 in the morning, whilst intoxicated and without invitation constitutes “showdown talks” but ignoring that piece of victim blaming, Hunter also points out that Gee was having an affair with the victim’s sister. Not only is the victim responsible for Hunter showing up without invitation, she is also responsible for Gee choosing to have sex with her sister. Hunter has clearly been watching Jeremy Kyle to understand the full dynamics of victim-blaming.
Hunter’s lack of understanding of domestic violence is quite obvious. Hunter suggests it’s “bizarre” that Gee accused his partner of cheating on him before assaulting him. This is classic emotional abuse and controlling behaviour as exhibited by abusive men. Frankly, anyone with access to google could discover that this behaviour is “bizarre”; it’s the normal behaviour of abusive men.
Hunter, demonstrating a further complete lack of awareness of domestic violence, ended the article with this tidbit:
Mr Mochrie said initial accusations of rape and false imprisonment – later dropped by the prosecution – had caused him trouble in jail.
“It is not over just because the prosecution decides to discontinue the case. It has tarnished his reputation in the community.” “
Mochrie, Gee’s defence attorney, is worried about the reputation of an abusive man. And, Hunter buys this without mentioning how rare “false” accusations of rape really are or why the prosecution would choose to drop charges of rape and false imprisonment. Here’s a hint for Hunter, it’s unlikely because the charges were “false”. Statistically speaking, it’s much more likely because accusations of rape are rarely brought before the court and when they are, rapists are frequently not convicted. It’s also likely the victim chose not to pursue the charges.
Neil Hunter could really do with researching myths about rape and domestic violence so he doesn’t write such victim-blaming twaddle again.
The only person responsible in this case is Damian Gee.