The terrorists can fuck themselves.

In case you’re wondering whether we can call the Orlando shooting a terrorist attack: yes, it most assuredly was a terrorist attack. It was terrorism in the same way the attempt on LA Pride would have been terrorism: they were doing terrorism on us queer and gender-non-conforming folks. They want us to be ashamed of our existence. Too bad, sorry-ass fuckers: we still exist. Dudes will kiss dudes and girls will keep on licking pussy as long as humanity stands. Get on board or get off the planet.

Don’t like that we exist? Frozen pineapples. They also still exist. Find a frozen pineapple and fuck yourself sideways with it. I’ll be over here, licking pussy along with other bossy fat bitches.

Breaking news: Men can also refuse to consent.

I am very sorry to hear about this case of sexual assault in Toronto:

Over the weekend a young man came forward to the police to file a report of a sexual assault that occurred early on March 31. The 19 year old told police that he had been out and upon leaving a club in Toronto’s Entertainment District he was offered a ride from four women. Instead of dropping him off, the four women took him to a parking lot and each sexually assaulted him. The police are looking for four white women between 30 and 36 around 5’4″ and between 190 and 200lbs who were out in a Honda SUV on the night of March 30.

And I am utterly unsurprised to see that social media is chock-full of people behaving like utter shitbags to this poor kid.

It’s not often that we hear about a case of a guy being raped by a woman (or several women), and with attitudes like these, is it any wonder that male rape victims are generally not interested in reporting their assaults? A male victim of female assailants can expect to be told that there’s no such thing as female-on-male rape (because men are always open to sex, donchaknow), that he’s probably gay and therefore should be ashamed (because it would be okay for those women to force themselves on a straight guy?), that the important thing is not that he didn’t consent but that the women were fat (because it would be impossible for him not to consent if the women were skinny?), that he’s reporting the rape to cover up that he cheated on his partner (because women can never be aggressors and men can never be victims), and that he should be embarrassed about this happening to him and should not bother anyone with his complaints.

In case you’re confused about the mechanics of female-on-male rape: it is possible for a guy to get an erection and ejaculate in response to non-consensual stimulation. It happens all the time. That he got it up doesn’t mean he wanted it.

All-China Women’s Federation Insults Single Women

Leta Hong Fincher at NYT shows us how the All-China Women’s Federation, which was founded in 1949 by the Communist Party to “protect women’s rights and interests,” is trying to scare single young women into lowering their standards. They really do not mince words.

Pretty girls don’t need a lot of education to marry into a rich and powerful family, but girls with an average or ugly appearance will find it difficult. These kinds of girls hope to further their education in order to increase their competitiveness. The tragedy is, they don’t realize that as women age, they are worth less and less, so by the time they get their M.A. or Ph.D., they are already old, like yellowed pearls.

How many bullshit misogynist beliefs can you pack into a short paragraph?

Is it really so unlikely that many young women are pursuing higher education because they want to be highly educated and have ambitious careers? Is it possible that some women want to be professors, attorneys, physicians, historians, or otherwise noted experts in their fields? Do you really think they go to all that trouble just to make themselves more interesting for potential husbands? Does it take an M.A. or Ph.D. to get an MRS?

Many highly educated “leftover women” are very progressive in their thinking and enjoy going to nightclubs to search for a one-night stand, or they become the mistress of a high official or rich man. It is only when they have lost their youth and are kicked out by the man, that they decide to look for a life partner. Therefore, most “leftover women” do not deserve our sympathy.

Don’t sleep around, ladies! Don’t spend your 20s having fun and fucking all the dudes you want! You need to marry the first guy who shows an interest, or else you’ll be old and single. And by “old” we mean over 27.

The main reason many girls become “leftover women” is that their standards for a partner are too high … As girls are not too picky, finding a partner should be as easy as blowing away a speck of dust.

Can you find the contradiction in this statement?

When holding out for a man, if you say he must be rich and brilliant, romantic and hardworking … this is just being willful. Does this kind of perfect man exist? Maybe he does exist, but why on earth would he want to marry you?

So, how are single men supposed to set their standards for potential mates? There are actually more men under a certain age in China than women, so what kind of advice are men getting to make themselves more appealing to eligible young women?

This is possibly the best part:

When you find out that he is having an affair, you may be in a towering rage, but you must know that if you make a fuss, you are denying the man “face” … No man is capable of spending a lifetime being loyal to an outmoded wife who never changes … Try changing your hairstyle or your fashion. Women must constantly change for the better.

*blogger pours herself some more vodka*

What the effing shit.

Ms. Hong Fincher explains the agency’s motivation:

Curious, I searched the Women’s Federation Web site and found that it posted its first article on “leftover” women in 2007, shortly after China’s State Council issued an edict on strengthening the Population and Family Planning program to address “unprecedented population pressures.” These pressures include the sex-ratio imbalance — which “causes a threat to social stability” — and the “low quality of the general population, which makes it hard to meet the requirements of fierce competition for national strength,” according to the State Council. The State Council names “upgrading population quality (suzhi)” as one of its key goals, and appoints the Women’s Federation as a primary implementer of its population planning policy.

What better way to upgrade population quality than to frighten “high-quality” women into marrying and having a child for the good of the nation?

Let’s get this much out of the way: Eugenics is SO 1930s. We see through your “population quality” nonsense, China.

The sex-ratio imbalance is significant. The agency’s scare-mongering of single women makes it sound like their country is suffering a serious shortage of single men.

It is a well-documented fact that, due to the combined pressures of their one-child policy and the cultural preference for sons, there are significantly more men than women in the Chinese population of marriageable age. A man shortage is the very opposite of China’s problem in “population pressures.”

They’re not worried about women being unable to find men who want to marry them. The All-China Women’s Federation is really looking out for the interests of “leftover” men. They’re trying to minimize the number of men who can’t have families by convincing women that their time is running out. They could try giving men advice on how to make themselves more attractive to women, because, let’s face it, women in China can afford to be choosy in ways that men can’t, but that would require the government to acknowledge that men are not superior to women in every way.

I understand that there is a healthy rate of population decline, and it is possible to go beyond it, but perhaps the Chinese government should have thought about that before they instituted a one-child policy in a culture that views daughters as dead weight. If the problem really is a matter of women having expectations that men can’t meet, then there should be a campaign of teaching men how to be better partners so that women will be more likely to have their one baby apiece. There would still be some men left out, unless they also decide to encourage polyandry, but if the emphasis were on teaching men how to improve themselves, it might actually achieve the goal of persuading more women to get married.

That is, of course, assuming that China suffers from legions of women holding out for the man who is “rich and brilliant, romantic and hard-working,” which I doubt. I think it’s more likely that some Chinese women just don’t want to get married or raise a kid. They want to be highly educated, have interesting jobs, and spend their younger years having a good time. They’re not looking for Mr. Right because they don’t need him. Perhaps China is a victim of its own success in population control. Many young women see that the population density is too damn high, and they figure they’re doing their country a favor by not adding one more human being per couple to the country’s already-limited real estate. Or perhaps marriage is unappealing to them because men have been taught to believe that they can sleep around and then blame it on the wife for not keeping her hairstyle up to date.

I will offer a reality check: if a man in a population with China’s sex-ratio imbalance cheats on his wife, it’s not because his wife isn’t keeping up his interest, it’s because HE’S A FUCKING MORON.

I tell you, China is pissing me off. I gave them a uniquely varied approach to gender roles in the post-Plague world of Charlinder’s Walk, and the All-China Women’s Federation is partying like it’s 1955. They target highly educated women and treat them like they have peanut shells for brains. It’s safe to assume that a woman with an M.A. or higher knows how to count, and understands what her country’s ratio of females to males implies.

Message to the Chinese government: “high-quality” women do not owe their vaginas to your men, or their uteri to your tax rolls. You would make far better use of their training and qualifications if you appreciated them for their brains.

Sister Margaret Farley is awesome; cue the Vatican’s tantrum.

Tom Kington via Raw Story tells us about the badassery of Sister Margaret Farley, a professor of Christian ethics at Yale, who has written a book that sounds like it takes some very sensible positions on sexuality. Does this mean the Vatican is throwing a fit at her? Does a deer shit in the woods?

The statement singles out Farley’s claim that many women “have found great good in self-pleasuring – perhaps especially in the discovery of their own possibilities for pleasure – something many had not experienced or even known about in their ordinary sexual relations with husbands or lovers.”

Masturbation, she concludes, “actually serves relationships rather than hindering them”. That view, the Vatican stated, contradicted the Catholic belief that masturbation is a “gravely disordered action”.

Farley’s approval of gay sex ignored “Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity”, while her backing for gay unions was tantamount to “approval of deviant behaviour,” the Vatican said. Her openness to divorce and remarriage was deemed as “contravening God’s law”.

Sister Margaret Farley says that masturbation is awesome, including for women, that gay sex and same-sex unions are fine, and that divorce is something that sometimes needs to happen.

The Vatican’s doctrinal office says that women should never feel free to to enjoy the awesomeness that is the clit, that queer folk are objectively disordered, and that you should stay in a shitty marriage forever rather than get divorced.

I’m sure the Vatican would rather she follow the lead of Cardinal Timothy Dolan of New York, who continues to rail against marriage equality and contraceptive access and has paid hush money to child-raping priests in Milwaukee to get them out of the way.

Sister Farley is a voice of sanity, compassion and realism, while the berobed old men at the Vatican are advocates for misery, hate and self-loathing.

Get a room, heterosexuals.

Leisha Hailey and her partner were booted off a Southwest Airlines flight for smooching where other people could see them.

Leisha Hailey took to Twitter to call for a boycott of the carrier after a flight attendant told them other passengers had complained after witnessing the affection.

Her first tweet said: “I have been discriminated against.” She later added, “Since when is showing affection to someone you love illegal?”

Southwest Airlines Co. responded on its website that Hailey was approached “based solely on behavior and not gender.” The airline’s four-sentence response said passengers were characterizing the behavior as excessive.

A discussion followed on the flight, and the airline said it “escalated to a level that was better resolved on the ground.”

Yeah, I think I know what happened.

Leisha and her girlfriend were making out while the plane was in the air—like heterosexual couples feel free to do in public spaces everywhere—and some passengers got all hot and bothered and complained to the flight attendants that there was ZOMG lesbian PDA going on. And, rather than tell those passengers to find something else to do with their time, unless they also make similar complaints about het couples sucking face where strangers can see them, which I’ll bet none of them do, the flight attendants told Ms. Hailey and her partner to knock it off because they were offending the bigots’ delicate sensibilities.

Since Ms. Hailey and partner declined to roll over like good little invisible perverts who stay in their room, make no noise and pretend they don’t exist, Southwest is now acting like it’s not because they’re a lesbian couple, oh not at all, it’s because the other passengers complained about them getting “excessive.”

I don’t like to see PDAs, either. I have had more than my fill of seeing man/woman couples standing on the Metro escalators with their arms wrapped around each other, often with their tongues in each others’ mouths, just letting it all hang out for all to see. I would like to be able to get from my home to my workplace and back again without being subjected to the slurping sounds of some dude and his girlfriend making out like their relationship would suffer irreparable damage if they didn’t nom on each other RIGHT THEN AND THERE. So many times, I’ve made my way to the end of the platform at Rosslyn to wait for the Orange Line, and found some entitled straight couple using the area like their own hotel room.

You see, heterosexual couples feel free to give each other tongue wherever they happen to be, and nobody complains.

It’s like Phyllis Schlafly let her cat dance on her keyboard!

According to ThinkProgress, Crazy-Eyes Bachmann is the first occupant of the GOP Clown Car to sign onto the FAMiLY LEADER pledge (no, I am not making up that random non-capitalization), a little manifesto for The Handmaid’s Tale with a wee side of V for Vendetta theocracy.

I have found a copy of the full text of the pledge, and I’ve read it so you don’t have to. Here are some selected highlights!

Faithful monogamy is at the very heart of a designed and purposeful order – as conveyed by Jewish and Christian Scripture, by Classical Philosophers, by Natural Law, and by the American Founders – upon which our concepts of Creator-endowed human rights, racial justice and gender equality all depend.

Yeah, that same Jewish and Christian scripture that portrayed powerful patriarchs with multiple wives and hordes of concubines. “Natural Law” just means they want more juicy sperm-meets-egg goodness. The “American Founders” would have to be some weird secret society I’ve never heard of, as our Founding Fathers weren’t really concerned with “family” “values.” We’ll see what these idiots mean by “racial justice” and “gender equality” in just a moment.

Continue reading

A ladymag’s manchild dating blogger doesn’t get it? Color me surprised!

Thank you, Tracey Egan Morrissey at Jezebel, for pointing out the lameness of Rich Santos at Marie Claire!

Because men don’t like overly confident women—apparently the characteristic of a bad girl—and men “don’t necessarily want to be in bed with a girl who knows more than they do.” Here’s the thing, though: I think he’s sort of right here. He should stay away from women who are confident and experienced—mostly because they wouldn’t want him to touch them with a ten-inch pole, even if said pole was his peen. Chicks like that don’t like insecure pussies who don’t know how to properly go down on a woman.

I will do my best to encapsulate why Santos’s theory is so obnoxious to women: he is asking them to hold up their end of a bargain while simultaneously admitting that he cannot reasonably expect to hold up his end.

Continue reading