Their righteous wrath is enough to sustain them. :-)

Don't miss the masculinity confession booth!

http://dailycaller.com/2017/03/27/students-share-their-sins-at-masculinity-confession-booth/

“We have all reinforced hypermasculinity one way or another regardless of our gender!!” explains the University of Regina event description. “Come and share your sins so we can begin to discuss how to identify and change our ways !!!”

They have feminist confessionals now? Creepy.

I frequently tell my wife that she is pretty smart for a girl (because she is). It's a regular joke at our house

Women are not designed to fight the patriarchy but are built to sleep with its representative.

>I don't know how they manage to get through the day, living dour like that.

Pious zeal and wielding power over other peoples' lives helps.

Somehow I think what the confession booth is going to hear is a lot of "I confess that I wuv kitties and bunnies and that I once rode a grizzly bear across the Rockies in the dead of winter to rescue a some genderfluid minority womyn from an armed gang of Klan biker rapists. Oh, and I'm hung like a stallion."

Man, you people are on it today.

Sure this is not an acceptable book title nowadays

https://www.amazon.com/Men-Mars-Women-Venus-Communication-ebook/dp/B00IHZ91T6/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1490721731&sr=1-1&keywords=men+are+from+mars+women+are+from+venus

"University of Regina" rhymes with..

Feminism is a hate movement. Feminists, by definition, are hateful people.

And they wonder why no one loves them?

I guess they're as stupid as they are hateful, and as delusional (a "patriarchy"?!) as they are stupid.

Feminism is a hate movement. Feminists, by definition, are hateful people.

Do you really believe that, or is it hyperbole?

Do you really believe that, or is it hyperbole?

Well, by their fruit I find them to be...lacking in a dedication to actual equality. Can you, for instance, point me to feminists whose name(s) I would recognize that came out for making women register with the Selective Service?

Some background: http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/ndaa-women-draft-dropped

Lots of downside if one fails or refuses to register for the draft: https://www.sss.gov/Registration/Why-Register/Benefits-and-Penalties

Failing to register or comply with the Military Selective Service Act is a felony punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 or a prison term of up to five years, or a combination of both. Also, a person who knowingly counsels, aids, or abets another to fail to comply with the Act is subject to the same penalties.

It appears that a lot of what passes as feminism is "I want all the perceived benefits with none of the responsibilities".

Keep in mind that all military MOSes are open to women.

When are the feminists going to get riled up over the "death gap"?

https://www.aei.org/publication/equal-pay-day-this-year-is-april-14-the-next-equal-occupational-fatality-day-will-occur-on-july-29-2027/

Maybe that has something to do with the "pay gap"?

> Do you really believe that,
> or is it hyperbole?

☑ What Kevin said.

There's a trend, on this blog at least, toward belittling anyone who could in any context (including self-proclaimation) be described feminist. I think this is profoundly stupid. It's ugg, grunt, and fart stupid.

If you live in the United States in the 21st century, don't kid yourself... You are feminist. About half, or maybe seven fifths, of the richness in your life comes from the freedom of women in every context. Economics and eroticism ought to come to mind easily for you, and they're the tip of a magnificent iceberg.

Read a history book. And this paragraph can end, because I'm not sure it matters which one.

If you need to belittle feminism because what you really mean to say is "But Golly, some things seem to have gotten out of hand in the lives of distant people!", but you know saying that won't be as colorful and fun for you, then perhaps rhetoric simply isn't your game.

The last sentence of that Gornick doesn't perfectly cohere, does it? Human souls are tricky things, with misdirection intended for the audience inside as well as the one outside.

She's as much as admitted that she wasn't up to being close to someone across the prime of her life... And so she wasn't. She seems to be exonerating feminism to fault her own base and cowardly motives, and good for her for finding the humility.

A lot, lot, lot of the 'feminists' on campus seem to be doing that, though of course, it's (sincerely) not my place as a distant older guy to say so. Mostly, they look terribly ill-at-ease in their own young skins, and for that I am (sincerely and quietly) saddened.

"If you live in the United States in the 21st century, don't kid yourself... You are feminist."

No. Fraid not. You can be an equaltist or a humanist and not be a feminist. At one time the two aligned because there was actual structural discrimination against women in the US. Today there is actual structural discrimination against men that far exceeds that against any modern woman in the US.

Feminism isn't for equality. They wouldn't call it feminism if it was.

"Feminism is a hate movement" is mere hyperbole? Not a chance!

Crid, you're dribbling again. Slime yourself as a feminist, if you must, but don't drag the rest of us along with your attempt at virtue signaling. You make the (common) mistake of conflating "women's freedom" (which was provided to them by men and modernity, for the most part), with "feminism" -- which is marxism in panties. Anything designed to destroy the family is not only hateful, but evil. After all, the "patriarchy" which feminism seeks to destroy at all costs is just another term for "civilized society."

If nothing else, check statistics on how many people -- men and women -- now refuse to identify as "feminist." You are in the distinct minority.

By the way, I'm unfazed by "fart stupid." You'll have to come up with some rhetoric which is a bit more ... creative.

There are obviously multiple definitions for the noun "feminist" these days. Doesn't mean true humor doesn't exist - for MANY of them.

Namely:

"Pulling Our Own Strings: Feminist Humor & Satire"
edited by Gloria J. Kaufman, Mary Kay Blakely

https://books.google.com/books?id=eyK52OvOMb0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=pulling+Our+own+strings&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi2rf_7nfrSAhUnxVQKHaDqBQ4Q6AEIHjAA#v=onepage&q=pulling%20Our%20own%20strings&f=false

> You can be an equaltist or a
> humanist and not be a feminist

Or you can a defensive quibbler and still not take the point.

> don't drag the rest of us along
> with your attempt at virtue
> signaling

Not dragging anyone. There's no room! My van is a coupe, and I don't like others enough to signal my virtue to them anyway. (Peeps often spot it on their own nonetheless.)

What, you guy want a simpleton's labeling on things, so you can keep it all straight? To help remember which ones you don't like?

And:

"In Stitches: A Patchwork of Feminist Humor and Satire" (1991) edited by Gloria J. Kaufman.

https://books.google.com/books?id=4Tb420M3P48C&printsec=frontcover&dq=in+stitches+feminist&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiK8JrLnvrSAhVIsVQKHUAzCmkQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=in%20stitches%20feminist&f=false

Contributors to that one include Margaret Atwood, Dave Barry, Alison Bechdel, Berke Breathed, Jules Feiffer, Alison Lurie, and Jane Wagner.

Also, re the previous book, I'm pretty sure that it included some Doonesbury strips with the character Joanie Caucus. As the late Nora Ephron once wrote in an introduction to the book "Joanie":

"I am not one of those who believe that there is nothing to laugh at about the women's movement; in fact, there is plenty to laugh about without in any way putting down the movement, and I become downright irritable when I read lengthy feminist tracts justifying the women's movement's lack of a sense of humor. 'How can we laugh when we're so oppressed?' That kind of thing. It seems to be that the exact opposite is true: how can we NOT laugh when we're so oppressed...

"...I have no idea why (Joanie's) so funny. I just know she kills me. It's not just that I know women like her and that I'm a little like her myself. It's not just that my friends constantly tell me stories about trying to bring the movement to their children, stories that are remarkably like the episodes in this book. It's also that there is something about what she looks like and the way she behaves—so downtrodden and yet plucky, so saggy and yet upright, so droopy-eyed and yet wide awake, so pessimistic and yet deep-down sure that she's on the right track."

And, while I admit to not keeping up with later books or self-described feminist comedians (or most comedians), I would guess that Roseanne Barr, for starters, was pretty much always willing to laugh at herself.

In fact, they'll hang you for funny.
___________________________________________

One could easily argue that SNL and its crew is heavily liberally biased. Yet they often manage to make fun of liberals and their lifestyles, I would say. Not to mention they often make fun of those who sometimes - but not always - overlap with liberals, such as self-described feminists. Or black activists.

I mean, given the title of the blog post, it's ironic that the harsh ideological demand of some commenters is a razor-blade/square-wave intolerance of the mere word "feminist."

Is that about history? Is that about ideas?

"...equaltist..."

Egalitarian. (Stuck at home with the flu. Will be even less tolerant of errors for the next two weeks.)

Feminism is like any of the -isms.

They all seem to start out with a noble ideal and then collapse as they become dominated by folk who would be more valuable stamping corrugated cardboard into helpful shapes.

Boxes, for instance.

I've told my gf a few times that women are lucky to have boops. If they didn't, noone would bother talking to them.

She's not a feminist and has a pretty good sense of humor. Enough to even find ME funny every now and then.

That's funny Jesper.

"If you live in the United States in the 21st century, don't kid yourself... You are feminist."

Which is why (putting aside specific meanings of words for a moment) I usually try to specify what flavor of feminism I'm talking about. First-wave feminism accomplished a lot of the most important moves towards legal equality. Second-wave feminism did the bulk of the heavy lifting on social equality. By 1980, the big goals were all pretty much accomplished.

Post-modern feminism is essentially a special-pleading movement. It argues for privileges, government-enforced advantages, and rights without responsibilities. It doesn't seek to lift women up so much as it does to tear men down. So we seek things like feminists who deny that college women can have agency over their sexual choices, and that the government (read: the patriarchy) must come in and "fix" things for them. It harms men, without doing anything good for women.