Silly women, don't you know that 8 is the new 15?

So I’m sure most of you have heard the whispers on the internet, but in case you haven’t, here’s a real tale of horror right here.

In case you don’t think that you’re really reading what you’re reading, let me assure you that you’re reading right. Wal-Mart plans on marketing ANTI-AGING makeup to tweens from 8-12.  I don’t think there is a level of wrong that hasn’t been touched.

The first question that ran in my mind was “since when do little girls need makeup”?  This isn’t just playing in mommy’s stuff here, this is promoting the same crap beauty standards that fuck all of us up.  When I was 8 I was still rolling around in the mud and finding ways to destroy my Barbies.  I remember going through that crap in my later teen years.  I don’t think I need to ask how unnecessary this is.  Don’t get me wrong, if you want to use makeup and it makes you feel good, then great.  But why are we basically training little girls to do it?!

I have always been severely creeped out by small children wearing makeup that’s not in a play fashion and as much as I don’t want to give into the “sexualizing our young girls” thing, I can’t help but go there.  I don’t think that wearing makeup will lead to overt sexuality or anything, but I do question why these companies feel the need to market to young girls and have them “look better” so to speak.  What kind of unneeded attention is this going to bring?

The second question that I can’t even analyze or comment on at all is why in the HELL is it anti-aging makeup?  I do not care one bit that the anti-aging materials are natural and won’t be harsh to young skin.  Since when in the history of the world does a 12 year old need to shave a few years off?

I dunno.  Between this and pole dancing classes geared towards kids, I’m beginning to lose my faith in society.  I would definitely love to hear your thoughts on this.

Me hate lesbian

An’ me hate batty-boy

Leave me alone!

Repeated, for as long as it took me to pick out a couple of ears of sweet corn at the produce market, wait in line, pay, wait for the light to change, cross the street and walk down the block to my building.

In my imagination, this is where Miss Manners writes her columns. Via joeke pieters @ Flickr.

From today’s Miss Manners column:

Dear Miss Manners:

I took the father of a young lady I would like to pursue to lunch a few months ago, seeking his permission and approval to date his daughter. After an encouraging lunch and conversation about our relationship, we decided that it would be best to wait until she was done with school for the year.

As we parted ways, I was instructed to wait until he told me it was okay to talk with her. Now, months later, I still haven’t heard anything.

Is it wrong to discuss this with him again? I don’t want to come across as impatient, as I certainly believe she is worth the wait, and I trust that he has her best interests in mind. How would you recommend approaching this conversation?

Yeah, I had to pick my jaw up off the floor, too. WTF? He took her father to lunch and asked if he could have permission to date the daughter? And they–the dude and the dad–decided together to wait until the school year was over for the dude to even talk to the daughter? Holy Patriarchy, Batman!

There are a few questions, that, if answered, would provide a much clearer picture of what’s going on here. Is the daughter attending high school? College? Are they from a conservative culture where prospective suitors usually seek a father’s permission first? If they’re from a traditional Indian or Muslim family, or even a Christian evangelical one, that might explain why the dude felt it was necessary to go to the dad, and why the dad apparently negotiated his daughter’s love life over a meal with a relative stranger.

Regardless, I found the whole thing pretty skeevy.

Miss Manners didn’t seem as skeeved as I was–she avoids the obvious “WTF?” response, presumably because of her exquisite politeness. (Exquisite politeness being one of the many areas in which Miss Manners and I differ.) She responds politely but pointedly:

What conversation? The one that starts with the premise that the father is willing and the daughter is eager, but somehow they have neglected to inform you?

Let us hope that the gentleman was charmed or amused or both by your use of the 19th-century formality of asking a father’s permission to court his daughter. Or perhaps you had rather hoped that the daughter was charmed — because one of the two has vetoed the idea. And even in Victorian times, as Miss Manners recalls, daughters would ultimately prevail in such matters.

I especially like the “Let us hope” line, which implies the distinct possibility that the father was skeeved rather than charmed by the dude’s bizarrely retro approach (as both DaddySharper and Bigstepdaddy would undoubtedly have been). Wielding her elegant blade, Miss Manners also deftly skewers the dude by pointing out that regardless of the approach or the conversation, the answer is clear: She’s just not that into you, dude. Now back the fuck off. I give the lady credit for being true to her nom de plume–she’s WAY more mannerly in her response than I would ever be.

I don’t think anyone I know was anticipating that.  Lot of lost bets, I’d imagine…

Anyway, I’m shocked, and apparently many others are, too.  I’ve had to stay away from FB and other media this morning, but I have no doubt they’re all buzzing, whether in celebration, rage, or bemusement.  I’d like to raise the discourse a little on the subject, as I fear cable news will play the Saint or Demon? game, and there will be a lot of unwarranted fist-pumping or -shaking.

So, today’s FFT might be less “fun,” but I am genuinely interested in hearing from our readers about their reactions–not so much yay-or-nay referendums on the honoree or the committee, but rather, what exactly it is that the committee has bestowed the award for.  Certainly, in the 100+ year history of the Nobels, people have won for different reasons, which vary in legitimacy, depending on who you ask.

The Nobel Committee’s statement is as follows:

The Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided that the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 is to be awarded to President Barack Obama for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples. The Committee has attached special importance to Obama’s vision of and work for a world without nuclear weapons.

Obama has as President created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play. Dialogue and negotiations are preferred as instruments for resolving even the most difficult international conflicts. The vision of a world free from nuclear arms has powerfully stimulated disarmament and arms control negotiations. Thanks to Obama’s initiative, the USA is now playing a more constructive role in meeting the great climatic challenges the world is confronting. Democracy and human rights are to be strengthened.

Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world’s attention and given its people hope for a better future. His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world’s population.

For 108 years, the Norwegian Nobel Committee has sought to stimulate precisely that international policy and those attitudes for which Obama is now the world’s leading spokesman. The Committee endorses Obama’s appeal that “Now is the time for all of us to take our share of responsibility for a global response to global challenges.”

That’s officialese.  What’s really going on here?  Is Obama seen as a national leader of promise who thus should be honored (and his power strengthened)?  Do they see him as the guy under whom the financial crisis that’s wreaking havoc all over the Global North (and elsewhere, of course, we’re all connected) will be remedied by his “socialist” interventions? (ONE OF US!  ONE OF US! (GABBA GABBA WE ACCEPT YOU!)  Are they awarding his (in)famous “working across the aisle” ethos?   Might it be a way to increase the global pressure on Obama to deliver on his various campaign promises?  Or are they just so so glad he’s not GWB?

Weigh in, oh Brainy Ones!

The bunny has the same reaction I do. via blue meridian @ flickr

Should we really give disordered appetites civil rights status under the law? Let’s consider an absurd example. I have struggled most of my life with fighting obesity. I am on the “winning end” lately, but just give me another Holiday! A very good argument can be made that obesity also has a genetic predisposition. However, I will fight it my whole life because it is unhealthy. It is a disordered appetite. Should we as a Nation decide that fat people have a civil right to be fat? Should those who insist that they resist that “genetic predisposition” to overeat be called Fata-phobic?

The “disordered appetite” referred to by Deacon Keith Fournier, who authored this spectacularly headdesk-inducing piece, is a simple matter known as homosexuality. As if that’s not enough, Fournier questions whether fat people have a right to be fat? This is an epic WTF? moment.

Yes, Mr. Fournier, those who somehow disbelieve that being fat is never due to genes should indeed be called something akin to your term “fat-a-phobic”. Oh, and those who believe that a perfectly normal sexual preference for those of the same gender is somehow “disordered” really are bigots and homophobes. The truth hurts, doesn’t it?

However, namecalling will not change our position on this matter nor will it make us go away.

Did someone offend you by calling you out on your bigoted position? Tough. That so-called name calling is nothing compared to telling people that the way they are (or, perhaps, the way God made them if you believe in a higher power) is deviant and unnatural. Now that is objectionable. Fournier goes on to quote the writings of Pope Benedict XVI from when he was still known as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger:

To choose someone of the same sex for one’s sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator’s sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.

As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one’s own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood.

Well, thank you for at least mentioning that gay people aren’t all murderous fiends. Look, I understand the Catholic doctrine that sex is for procreation. I didn’t major in religion for nothing. I’m not writing this post to bash anyone’s faith, but passages like this really infuriate me, as do articles like Fournier’s. As a bisexual woman, I staunchly reject the notion that I suffer from a “moral disorder” as well as from “disordered appetites”.

Another choice bit from Fournier:

Marriage between a man and a woman, intended for life, open to children, and the family founded upon it, is not up for grabs. Nor is it an antiquated institution. It is the first society, first government, first school, first economy and first church. Strong marriages and the families founded upon them pave the path to the future. Continuing efforts to use the Police Power of the State to give the same legal status as a marriage to homosexual paramours and force the entire society to recognize their relationships as equivalent to a marriage do not serve the common good.

Ah yes, the same Police Power of the State that features a Supreme Court unwilling to listen to a challenge to Don’t Ask Don’t Tell? The same Police Power of the State that forbids same-sex marriage in 44 of the 50 states? The same Police Power of the State that only decriminalized homosexual acts in Texas six years ago?

I suppose Fournier’s equation of LGBT individuals with people who don’t weigh what he believes they should is a tip-off to the nonsensical nature of his piece. And really, I shouldn’t expect anything more from someone who all but calls his position one of homophobia (but he resents the notion that someone else might call him out on it). Still, it’s dispiriting to read an article like that right after waking up, and to realize that Fournier is not alone in these opinions.

Maybe I should go back to bed. But that won’t work to effect any change, now will it?

Misandry and hate speech? Bish, plz. via i5prof @ flickr

Several of the sites on our blogroll were also featured on the list of “man-hating” URLs — as were The Polly Klaas Foundation, The National Center For Missing and Exploited Children, and The White Ribbon Campaign. Yes, those sites dedicated to protecting children and women against violence are clearly just misandry in disguise! It got even crazier in the comments section, when one commenter said that sites like ours are “propagating hate and inciting violence,” and another declared that these sites are “in fact spewing hatred. They are thus violating the law.” Oh for the fuck of shit! How are people this idiotic still in existence?

I have decided not to link directly to them so that there is not a trackback that sends all of their trolls over here. If you want to take a look at the site, just type antimisandry and then add the dot com. You’ll know you have the right place if the tagline “The cure against feminist indoctrination” shows up. Yes, that pesky feminist indoctrination, the one that we teach children from a very young age, alongside the homosexual agenda. Or not.

The site is not limited, of course, to such fine-tuned critique of sites like Harpyness. It’s a forum for misogyny, in all its manifestations. So you have a section dedicated to female pedophiles and abusers, and a section dedicated to false rape allegations. The false allegations section is particularly enraging, as it devalues the actual horrific crimes perpetrated against women on the basis that there are some people who lie. Oh, and a thread wherein the members all agree that child support is a government tax and not designed to actually help children. I actually managed to laugh at one section’s byline: “The female-supremacist hate movement called ‘feminism’ must be opened to the disinfecting sunlight of the world’s gaze and held to a stern accounting for its grevious transgressions.”

Nasty sites on the Internet are a dime a dozen, but this site is, to paraphrase Obi-Wan Kenobi, a wretched hive of scum and misogyny. And they linked to us. So I have to believe that means we’re doing something right. This is a site that is motivated not only by hatred but also by a misguided fear that feminism is an evil plot to trample men underfoot. It seems like anyone who talks lucidly about gender issues scares the shit out of these people; the fact that we caught their woman-hating eye is almost a badge of honor to me.

Some of you sound like you are definitely on our wavelength:

I want to fight the fight

i hate the world

Some of you need a reality check as to what we are providing on this site:

harpy sex movie

Some of you are possibly doing a research project for your eighth grade health class:

introducing sperm to egg

sperm magic

Some of you need a spellcheck:

crhis braown

Some of you have interesting tastes in erotica:

friar fuck with nun

SOME OF YOU NEED TO EASE UP ON THE ALL-CAPS:

I CAN’T GET A GIRLFRIEND AND I FEEL HOPELESS

Some of you are just frightening:

women bein fuck in their sleep

fucking women without clothes and enter it inside their backs

Some of you clearly have skewed perceptions on what is “fat”:

Michelle Obama’s fat ass

Some of you provided epic moments of WTF?:

sojourner truth flashes men?

Jill, Slut, Manly

ineed sexy lady in dubai to come with me for facking

in psychology 101 i have learned that low tolerance people who smoke blog

And some of you are completely off-base as to what our interests are here, because you keep spamming us with Viagra ads. As BeckySharper said, that is the epitome of a demographic FAIL.

These range from the oddly romantic:

the only thing I want to fight for is your love

Chris Brown rape Richard Simmons

which race rapes more

naked old men yahoo e group

how to tell if I’m crazy

if hillary clinton had gray hair

harpy naked

Hiya gels,

Just another misogynist troll surfing through here. Enjoyed reading your discussion. I’m right drunk, so this will be staccato and filled with non-sequiturs, but though I’m trolling I do mean it:

Cosmo – sucks

A lot of women – suck

and therefore are whores.

You guys are possibly OK

possibly.

How sweet is that?  Possibly OK!  Maybe not whores!  Cosmo sucks!  Hey, at least we can agree on one of the above.  And we do appreciate the time and effort he put into it, especially as it goes on for another seventeen increasingly bizarre and disjointed lines.  

So thanks to the interwebz for bringing us all together!  

Now some of y’all, please go away.