Since we pick on the moms so much that I thought I’d share this YouTube video condensing 9 months of pregnancy into 20 seconds, which you may have already seen. But the video is not the trainwreck. The video is perfectly cute and adorable; the mother-to-be gains what looks like a normal amount of weight, and she certainly isn’t “fat.” The trainwreck is in all the baby hater comments:
Well, you have to eat extra so the baby gets fed too, and sometimes I guess you eat a little over. Another reason I’m glad to be a guy.
and:
you are really really gross!!
and:
your belly was so beautiful on the first pic, than you got fat… so have fun with the baby, fatty. hahaha
Is there more?--Shit, is pregnancy rough on a body?
I'm going to overlook Mr. Pickles' incidental use of the term "twat" to describe a woman horrified by the prospect of pregnancy, because the larger point stands: It's a sad, miserable world fulla patriarchy if video (time-condensed video, even) of a perfectly normal human reproductive process elicits responses like those quoted above. But let's not focus on the larger point; let's go ahead and write me an impassioned objection to ever condoning use of the word "twat," because that is what blogs were made for: Unabashed, unchecked pedantry. Then again, you pedants were right about exactly how many instances of the letter "h" appear in "Cheetos," so maybe I'm not in the best position to judge?
(Not related at all to this post, but it's going to come up and I'd rather head it off here: There's something about announcing I'm on hiatus that is so liberating to me, I start posting again. It's when it feels like just another item on the to-do list that I can't tolerate it.)
11 comments:
Define "the patriarchy," Gower, and I'm certain we'll find you don't actually know what you're talking about, not that this has ever stopped you before.
As a bonus followup, find where I said the illiterate kids were exactly equivalent to it.
Ilyka, I don't need to define 'Patriarchy' You used it. You define it.
I view it myself as a mythical construct radical feminists use to create the phantom of some massive force oppressing them. (and raise some daddy issues too)
Gen, feminism has gone mad when it assigns blame for the behavior of stupid youtube twerps who are probably all of 14, to the PATRIARCHY.
Might as well assign it to the freemasons or the vast right wing conspiracy, instead of holding people accountable for their own behavior.
I mean I don't blame the Matriarchy for this blog, do I?
And just because I'm a glutton for common sense;
Whether anyone finds a pregnant woman sexually attractive or disgusting is a subjective matter of personal taste. It's not some sort of political statement.
Why do we need to compulsively politicize sex? People are going to be attracted to what they're attracted to no matter what the High Commissar(ette?) of Feminism decrees.
Ilyka --
Are you sure at least one of the YouTube fools didn't follow you here?
Gower:"Whether anyone finds a pregnant woman sexually attractive or disgusting is a subjective matter of personal taste. It's not some sort of political statement."
Yeah, gower, there's no difference between finding someone sexually disgusting and telling them that you think they're disgusting.
Oddly enough, though I have over the years encountered men, probably thousands of them, that are sexually repugnant to me, I never once, not ever, felt an uncontrollable urge to inform them of this ineluctable truth of nature. In fact, I didn't even have controllable urges to do so. Now that I consider the question, I can't for the life of me even imagine any possible reason why unattractive male strangers or acquaintances, or fat ugly guys in cyberspace, need to be apprised of my sexual antipathy toward them.
Should I seek counseling? Am I failing in civic duty? Because, curiously, there seem to be so many men out there - on the streets, in workplaces, in restaurants, bars, schools - who are gripped with the conviction that females who don't turn their cranks really, really need to know that said men don't find them sexually desirable. The fat, the ugly, the charmless, the pregnant - they need to know this. It's important that these women know this. Immensely important. (That's an inference on my part, by the way. I don't know why it's important, but from the volume, frequency, and emotion with which this behavior is practiced, I can infer that it is. Really important . I mean, it's important.)
Ilyka - Morons with keyboards are one thing. The really foul thing is men who talk to their pregnant wives like this. And apparently not just behind their backs, either. But I confess to liking "twat" and using it often. It just sounds so right so often, so exactly what I mean to convey. All the contempt of "twit" but with crunchy obscenity added. It's kinda like "peckerwood". I just like saying it. "Twat!" "Peckerwood sumbitch!" Too bad "peckerwood twat" just doesn't work.
You used it. You define it.
Excuse you? Don't come to the table ignorant, amigo. I don't read business blogs expecting them to define financial terms for me; don't read feminist blogs expecting them to do your homework for you.
As I suffer from chronic niceness, however, here is what patriarchy is not:
--A nebulous fantasy born of feminist paranoia that feminists invoke to shirk personal accountability for solving their problems.
--Thinly veiled man-hating.
--Any one individual. Thus the stupidity of "dumb illiterate kids on youtube = the patriarchy." As Genni explained, "The idea that pregnant women are disgusting, fat, repulsive, devoid of sexual attractiveness and physically ruined permeates our patriarchal culture, as evidenced by the youtube commentary." It would be just as foolish to interpret an angry editorial about Enron's Jeffrey Skilling, in which features of our capitalist society were noted to have enabled his criminal behavior, as an editorial equating Skilling with capitalism. One is a person. The other is a system. This is not brain surgery, Gower.
To Moira, I was replying to Genni who said the following.
"The idea that pregnant women are disgusting, fat, repulsive, devoid of sexual attractiveness and physically ruined permeates our patriarchal culture,"
The issue isn't someone saying, it's the 'idea' that supposedly permeates my culture.
next time read the context before going into a rant of snarkiness.
Now I'll grant you that being unattractive is one thing, putting up a video of yourself though opens the door to people making remarks about your appearance, just as if you run for public office, you open the door to people making remarks about your ethics.
Ilyka, I didn't come to the table ignorant. I gave you the opportunity to define the meanings of the terms you use.
If you'd rather hide behind nitpicking then express an idea that can be debated, it's your call.
Oh and are you seriously comparing feminism to business which is an actual real world set of practices with rules, to a nebulous political ideology
If you'd rather hide behind nitpicking then express an idea that can be debated, it's your call.
This is rich, considering the source.
Oh and are you seriously comparing feminism to business which is an actual real world set of practices with rules, to a nebulous political ideology
Actually, she said she wouldn't go to a business blog/site and demand that people define the terms for her, which is exactly what you're doing WRT feminism. She never goes to business blogs and says "I regard 'capitalism' as a mythical construct of opportunity the rich use as a way to justify their ridiculously skewed worldview (and raise some entitlement issues too)." (Yes, the definition of anything can be debateable, 'rules' nonwithstanding, especially when it comes to trolls.)
Telling though, that you keep coming back here to the feminists you despise so. If you've got such a problem with feminists, why keep coming back to hump Ilyka's leg?
Don't answer that. It's a rhetorical question. And I'm not going to define 'rhetorical' for you, either. Look it up.
--Sheelzebub
Post a Comment