DISCUSSION – Gendering Class, Part IV – “Ladylike” and policing femininity

It’s been a while since we have look at the gendering of class. Something that occurred to me recently was how in many stories women had of being gender-policed as girls that policing was framed in terms of “ladylike” behavior. Were you prevented form climbing trees or wearing certain types clothing of clothing because they weren’t ladylike, or did you hear girls who did act ladylike praised for being so feminine?

First point of discussion: Women, please tell us your stories of being expected to behave like ladies, regardless of your social class.

It seems a natural consequence of framing proper feminine behavior as ladylike that it will contrast male behavior as being crude, brutish, lustful, stupid – all the derogatory stereotypes people through the ages have aimed at low-status people.

So this would position women as the natural authorities on manners, matters of esthetic judgment such as clothing and design in the home, the arts and similar refinements.

Second point of discussion: What examples of this dynamic have you seen ? And since this is going to apply across the gender spectrum, anyone regardless of gender will have something to offer.

Another corollary of this is that the less a woman presents as a upper class, a lady, the more people are going to degender her – the less she is going to benefit from displays of chivalry, the less female sentencing discount she is going to get, the less the “Women Are Wonderful” effect is going to apply to her. And the lower she ranks socially, the likelier she is to come in for derogatory appraisals of her femininity. Slut-shaming seems to disproportionately be a female-on-female form of gender norming, and it seems to be directed at low-status women disproportionately. 

Third discussion point: Have you seen or experienced examples of this dynamic? it’s obvious how it reinforces class hierarchy, but note also how it is a form of gender norming.

Finally, if you think of any other aspects of this I haven’t, I’d be glad to talk about those too.




IT’S SHIT LIKE THIS FEMINISTS: What bell hooks got right and what got right past her

We have commenter log to thank for this post. Thank you, log.

For discussion:

I picked up a copy of bell hooks’ Feminist Theory since I’ve seen her name come up repeatedly. I’m only about halfway through, but I feel like I’ve seen what I needed to see.

Her own criticisms of “white feminism” are pretty biting, and I have to say it sounds applicable even now, thirty years later. She notes the dogmatism in feminism, the hostility toward men, the lack of definition for the word “feminism”, and so on. I would find her recommendable for that, at least. Hey, she can’t be dismissed as easily as dissident feminists are.

However, this book also establishes her very clearly as a “Patriarchy Hurts Men Too” feminist. It’s kind of funny how some of the issues she has as a black woman relating to white feminists sound a lot like non-feminist men relating to feminists, yet it’s not apparent whether the parallel occurred to her. I mean, I realize explicating that would not go over well today, let alone the mid-eighties, but it still falls short of inspiring.* Oh yeah, and she totally quotes Carol Hanisch’s “Men’s Liberation” with some approval, to the end of suggesting that men do not need or should not have a movement outside feminism. It seems like she basically just wants to recruit men to be feminist foot soldiers who possess no intellectual autonomy.

I also have a copy of Millett’s Sexual Politics, which I haven’t read. Good god, she devotes as many pages (60ish) to D.H. Lawrence as she does to the eponymous subject of the book! This is not promising.

*It reminds me of FC’s Daran once categorizing his interactions with Tigtog of finallyfeminism101 as a “win” insofar as receiving basic courtesy from e-feminists is a coup.

Honey Badger Radio: Femen, Freedom and Women against Feminism

Recently the media noticed a growing group of women online, the women against feminism. Despite the claim that feminism is about freedom of choice, feminists had no problem harrassing these women for their beliefs.

With violent Radfem groups like FEMEN making headlines around the world, it’s easy to see how the average woman would have nothing in common with them.

But feminism doesn’t care about your feelings, they’re about freedom of choice. The freedom to make “their choice.”

Join the Honey Badgers tonight, as we discuss FEMEN and the Women against Feminism.

Show Page

Show Time: 9 PM EST

Show Date: Thursday 24th of July, 2014

RSS Feed


I’m going to be busy for the rest of this week and most of the next two weeks, so posting from me will be light if there even is any.

Time for some vacation and for me to get vacant.

Honey Badger Radio: Veteran Mental Health

It’s tough being a veteran. You sacrifice everything you have for the greater good. However, the degree to which soldiers suffer is a consistent taboo. Many return to civilian life with a pile of hospital bills, crippling PTSD, a biased family court system, and a world that would rather sweep them under the rug than deal with their problems. Sadly many service men lack the support systems needed to help them through these rough patches, and often with tragic results.

Join the honey badgers along with special guest Terrence Popp as we discuss the topic of veteran suicide.

Show Page

Show Time: 9 PM EST/ 8 PM CST/ 6 EST

Show Date: Thursday July 17th, 2014


GENERAL – New terms

Time for some new words and expressions. Those that promote the discussion get taken up and used, the others just fade into obscurity on some server somewhere.

Tit swinging – This is the direct equivalent of “dick swinging”. Dick swinging refers to competitive, macho boasting. Tit swinging is the swarming you see in feminist spaces to shower sympathy on someone who has just told a story of pain, and frankly it is comforting to see. It isn’t really a competition at all, it is just about belonging – making that person feel surrounded by support, and reaffirming their own worthiness to belong, which we all need to do from time to time. In this it is a lot like dick swinging. Dick swinging is competitive and tit swinging is not, but the competitiveness of dick swinging is all about belonging, all about making the team, so at bottom they are both quite alike.

Cave fish – A cave fish is someone who has lived in their own dark little world for so long that they have finally gone blind and can’t see the reality that other people live in, also known as “your privilege blinds you”. Tumblrfems are a common form of cave fish. Some of the more extreme corners of the manosphere harbor cave fish too.

Female chauvinist pig – This is a woman who thinks women are more moral, more caring than men because men cause all the violence and oppression in the world and control everything, that women’s concerns should be centered and that men should just suck it all up because after all they already control everything, that the metric of a good man is how well he takes care of a woman or how much he “respects” them…and you know all the other attributes and attitudes.

She values females over males and thinks a woman’s suffering requires more and better attention than a man’s. This comes out in various ways. Either she downplays the suffering of a male, as in trying to explain away women’s rapes of boys – the rapists weren’t really doing any harm, the boy really wanted it anyway, the little perv – or she tries to equate it to some lesser suffering that women experience – equating rape of women to the murder of men for decades is a common example. She can erase the male any number of ways – simply omitting the gender of the majority of war victims is common, or else dismissing male victims by saying it’s all just men doing it anyway (a form of objectification).

There are some sub-categories:

Princess Fish Sauce – This is a woman, generally young, who thinks men’s bodies are icky but hers is the Ultimate Prize for which all men should strive, and must prove their worthiness through many trials and perils and shit tests, or else they are misogynists trying to marginalize women.* (MGTOW is misogyny!) She’s very clear on insisting that every real man she goes with is going to go down on her, fish sauce or not; or else he’s a misogynist asshole, but she thinks fellatio is eewwww and a form of patriarchal submission, and besides, penises are just icky, m’kay? Squeeeee!!!!

Phallophobe – This is someone who believes in the Evil Penis – that the phallus is a threatening weapon rather than something that can easily be injured, that it is just axiomatic that rape is something men do to women, that any display of masculinity is suspicious. This is someone who uses “phallic” and “testosterone-fueled” as derogatory terms or says someone is “testosterone-poisoned”. This is someone who is phobic about phalluses.

Foaming feminist – as opposed to a feminist who actually does want to dismantle traditional gender roles rather than exploit them for victimhood, who actually see all people regardless of gender as full human beings with rights and hurts and the whole load, who really makes her feminism about gender equality. A foaming feminist on the other hand is motivated by a sense of moral superiority over men, and who derives her ideology from a sense of rather Victorian outrage at the brutishness of men.

Moving along:

Gynophile; gynophilia – and this is the male reflex of the Female chauvinist pig. Like a pedophile who “loves” children, but in a bad, predatory way, he “loves” women, but in a bad, pedestalizing, bigoted way. Both are perversions, since bigotry is a perversion. This is the man who thinks Women Are Wonderful and that little girls are made of sugar and spice while boys are made of snails and whatnot. what a wonderful word it would be if woman ran it! No more war or hunger or over-consumption or consumerism, no more competition, no more homeless puppies…. Of course there might still be plenty of inhumanity to man, but so what? Men deserve most of it, right? And there would still be plenty of homeless men, but hey, what about all the women forced to wear high heels?

That’s it for this installment. Nominate some more!

*As Carol Hanisch, founding member of the New York Radical Women, 1967, said:

“Men’s liberationists always bring up ‘confronting their own feelings about men’ by which they mean homosexuality. Male homosexuality is an extension of the reactionary club (meaning both group and weapon). The growth of gay liberation carries contempt for women to the ultimate: total segregation. The desire of men to ‘explore their homosexuality’ really means encouraging the possibility of homosexuality as a reaction against feminist demands. This is the reason the movement for “gay rights” received much more support only after women’s liberation became a mass movement.”

So basically her claim is that men ignoring women is contempt. Even when we do nothing we are guilty of harming women, because we owe them attention and it is violence when we “deprive” them of it. Talk about a rape culture – they are entitled to our sexual attention.

SLY INVERSIONS – “Snatching oppression from the jaws of privilege”

There is a very common sly inversion that interprets every benefit society confers on women as some form or other of oppression. I think what drives it is a gender script that casts women as fragile victims so that people who subscribe to that meme think that failing to identify this victimhood defeminizes a woman somehow. I think it goes this deep for two reasons. One is the vehemence of the defense of this meme people who call “benevolent sexism” female privilege are attacked as woman-haters. Look at the resistance and twisting and turning we see when the subject of F>M rape comes up. It simply challenges this meme too hard.

The other reason is its ubiquity, as evidenced by the way it is so seldom challenged. look for this meme and watch to see how often it is called out as opposed to being challenged.

And chivalry! How could I forget chivalry?

This particular sly inversion is so common that it should have a name – “snatching oppression from the jaws of privilege.”

Some examples are:

The argument that the draft is actually misogynist because it presumes women are unfit to serve, (and that’s totes worse than actual death and injury in combat, and the life disruption even if you never are in combat).

Another is the analysis of the dating script as misogynist because it “forces” women to wait for men’s advances, because that is so much worse than being the one designated to brave rejection in every advance.

Another is the assertion, in the face of the fact that men are the overwhelming majority of victims of violence, both at the hands of men and very likely of women too, that women are “more afraid” to go out in the dark, in unfamiliar places, out of the street… and that constitutes a greater restriction on their movement than what men encounter.

Another is the recasting of prison officials’ reluctance to use female prisoners as pharmaceutical guinea pigs with the same frequency in the same scale as male prisoners as some kind of neglect on the part of the medical profession of research on women and how pharmaceuticals may affect them differently. (This is important research and it needs more attention, but one has to ask why those calling out this “neglect” are not clamoring for more clinical tests using these female prisoners. That’s the point here.)

Please nominate some more examples of this particular sly inversion!

And here’s the first one:

The Real Peterman on said:

95% of people who do the dirtiest, most dangerous (yet low-paying) jobs are men. But this isn’t men being told they must earn a living no matter what, it’s women being barred from entering these fields! Not that they ever fight to be allowed to enter them of course.


Alex on said:

Women use kids as hostages to extract resources from men who have been alienated from their kids. The threat of prison rape hangs over men who fail to pay child support.

This is turned into women being left holding the baby!

And Commenter dungone contributes two more:

There’s the one where they explain that women initiating the vast majority of divorce is because neglectful husbands are too lazy to do it themselves (as opposed to women having far more power in family court)?


Or the one where they say that men paying for dates is misogynistic because the men later feel entitled to sex (as opposed to women being able to get men to perform favors for nothing in return)?


Chivalry! How could I forget chivalry? The claim is that the conventions of chivalry reinforce female dependency, that they form a Golden Cage. There is a superficial validity to this, except that women can opt out at any time nowadays yet still opt back in on a whim and whine when men fail to show the expected solicitude.

The sly inversion is in portraying gestures of deference as exercises of oppression. guess what – when a captain holds a door for a general, that captain is not oppressing that general. When that enters the room and the soldiers all jump to their feet, they are not oppressing him either or asserting some kind of privilege or any kind of dominance over him.

There are good reasons for women to argue against this form of chivalry, and they will if have any regard for men, but this whine about chivalry being a form of oppression against women is so ludicrous that the fact it is even countenanced at all is another example of chivalry.


Not only are these sly inversions a smokescreen in the discussion of gender issues, but they also reinforce hypoagentive cultural norms and are dismissive of women. It’s a form of misogyny to employ them and feminists should be ashamed of themselves.

Honey Badger Radio: Men’s Issues Conference–Orgy of Misogyny!

The International Men’s Issues Conference as come and gone, leaving confused and disorientated reporters bobbing in its wake.

Most of the press coverage cherry-picked for maximum drama and offence. Painting the conference as a den of murderers and rapists out to steal all that’s good and wholesome in the world just to shove it in a hole and poop on it.

But are we really that bad? I jest. Of course we are!

Join the Honey Badgers as we discuss the press coverage for the International Men’s Issues Conference and do our part to create flatulence culture with fart jokes.

After all if you make a joke of it, you’re condoning it so fart your part!

Show Time: 9 PM EST/ 8 PM CST/ 6 PM PST

Show Date: Thursday, July 10th, 2014

Show Page


And if you’re interested in giving fart culture an extra push, please consider supporting us as a patreon. Farts don’t spread themselves!

Honey Badger Radio: We Came, We Saw, We Badgered On

Last week the world witnessed a historic event. A Voice for Men’s first international men’s issues conference successfully brought together men’s issues and men’s rights activists and advocates around the world. Despite death threats, protests and last minute venue changes AVfM and the men’s rights movement persevered.

The dream was realized.

By the end of our short stay, we’d forged both friendships and memories, but most importantly we opened a dialogue between the sexes.

AVfM founder Paul Elam will join us for the first half of the show to discuss the conference. This will be followed by us, the badgers answering your questions about the conference! Please place your questions in the comment section of this video.

And remember folks! Keep Calm and Badger on!

If you’re interested in any fundraiser merchandise we do have left overs that we will be offering as rewards for signing up as a patreon. (Search for “honey badger radio.”)

As always the show will be available for download after the live broadcast at:


IT’S SHIT LIKE THIS, FEMINISTS – The shit men face trying to talk with feminists….Part II

This is one of those “can you tell the difference”? posts. Look at the rationalization hamstering, distortions and refusal to acknowledge plain facts all in the service of an dearly held belief system and tell me if you can tell the difference between the feminist that commenter Eagle was trying to have an honest, intelligent conversation with, and just about any Creationist or White Supremacist you have ever come across?

The prevarications reflect a fundamental lack of respect for Eagle. It’s that simple. And these are the people we are supposed to believe have the answers to gender issues?

These are the feminists that make other feminists tear their hair out. Ever day feminists come onto the men’s rights subreddit looking to see what the deal is, complaining of just this kind of shallow, childish, spoiled, dehumanizing drivel from people who claim to be feminists and have cheapened the brand into nothingness. (When I suggest it, they say they already know how to use an icepick, thank you very much; they’ll look for other solutions.)


Guys, I nearly broke myself again debating another one of those gynocentric feminist. I should’ve known better.

Ginkgo, you think you can do another “It’s Shit Like This, Feminists…” piece on it? It’s a perfect example of why I get so triggered when dealing with the reality that nobody give a fuck about what happened to me as a youngster at the hands of females.

It went like this:

First she said that people had misinformed opinions about feminism. I told her feminism isn’t perfect and has done some nasty things to aid and abet societal stereotypes about men and boys. She then said my opinion was misinformed so I gave her the list I posted here with some additions. I’ll post her responses and my thoughts on them.

Me: 1) When Male and Female rape victims were being tallied, Mary Koss (biased feminist researcher) went over the results of the former and decided that classifying what happened as rape wouldn’t be “Appropriate”. So with one stroke of the pen, she erased an entire population of people looking for validation of their existence from official records. And for decades, all research statistics have followed her methods to the letter: Classifying rape as only something requiring penetration while leaving out forced envelopment and other methods to be consigned to a paltry “Sexual Assault” label that grants nowhere near an equal level of compensation for the victims compared to a charge of “Rape”. No feminist stood to oppose her or rally to stop the research from being tampered with in such a way.

Gynocentric Feminist: “Sorry, I don’t think you understand exactly what Mary Koss was doing. She was trying to normalize a definition of rape dependent on the sources she was using for a literature survey. She has some very good reasons for her definitions, even though I ultimately disagree with them.”


Me: “2) Sometime in the 80s, Feminists lobbied for The Duluth Model of Domestic Violence where Domestic Violence was deemed something men do to women alone, begetting Primary Agressor Laws. If any man reported domestic violence from his spouse, the police were required to arrest him on the spot regardless of whether he was innocent or not. Granted, every state varies, but overall the climate is skewed towards assuming every man as the primary aggressor in domestic violence. Meaning that male victims of domestic violence were put in a rock and a hard place: Man up and take the abuse or call the police and risk spending time in a jail cell. Again, no feminist stood in opposition to this.”

Gynocentric Feminist: “Yet again, there is a good reason for this in that the police cannot risk deciding who is innocent or who is guilty when someone’s life is on the line. Considering women are more likely to be severely injured or murdered in domestic violence, it’s probably a good call. It sucks if the man is the victim, but it’s necessary to prevent tragedy.”


Me: “In the 90s, research showed boys and girls struggling in the school system. Feminist special interest groups lobbied for change in the teaching methods and curriculum tailored towards how girls learned so they could be given a leg up even though the research was right in front of their two eyes proving the contrary. No one thought to say “Hold on, we’re going about this pretty narrowly! Boys are struggling too. Let’s have some perspective here.”. It’s gotten to the point that decades later, any attempt to address the struggles of boys is met with hostility and disbelief in the issue. I’ll give you a guess as to who we can thank for that.”

Gynocentric Feminist: “Oh gosh this one is pretty paranoid.”

Oh wow, what a very convincing counterargument *sarcasm*

Me: “When it was reported that Boko Haram were going off on a killing spree in the name of their beliefs, innocent school boys were caught in their sights. It was also reported that another village had been massacred. They signaled out the male babies, the boys and men as special targets and gunned them down on sight, the death toll 300-400 plus. Yet, when they kidnapped school girls, the media and feminist groups joined together in unity to decry the terrorist group and declared their motives a part of the “War on Women”. They forgot the innocent boys and men dead and didn’t so much as utter a peep of concern back then. How do you explain that?”

Gynocentric Feminist: “No one fucking forgot any innocent boys and men killed by Boko Harem. You hear news stories all the fucking time about people they’ve murdered.”

Did she even read the—aw geez!

Me: “5) Finally, the major example of blantant hijacking of issues that cut across both genders and spectrums: Elliot Rodgers. When all was said and done, the media and feminist groups went on a verbal rampage, lambasting the Mens Rights Movements through unverified and spurious claims of a connection with the PUA forums Elliot frequented prior to his spree. Never one to resist running their mouths further, they declared that his spree was motivated PRIMARILY by misogynistic attitudes towards women. The true facts were thus:

A: Misogyny was ONE motivation, not the primary one. Reading his manifesto, he had deep-seated hatred towards Alpha males, his parents, brother, Asians, mankind, and himself.

B: Of the victims he killed, four were men (three happening to be Asian roommates) along with two women. Now you’re going to say “But he intended also to target a sorority house so it was motivated by hatred of women”. Wrong. He was targeting a SPECIFIC woman. Mainly, blonde women, because that was one of his preferences. You will also note he SPARED the life of a woman at gunpoint while injuring countless others, men and women, on a drive-by, including law enforcement officials.

Of course, the media and these groups never let a few harmless facts get in the way of their agenda. I’ve been on Mens Rights forums. You know how many users were scared to identify themselves as such in public thanks to this targeted smear? That if they so much as identified even support towards Mens Issues? Did you also know, conveniently, that a petition was set up for the White House to label Mens Rights Advocates as terrorists? TERRORISTS! Let that sink for a minute.”

Gynocentric Feminist: “A. It was the primary factor.

B. He literally talked about how he wanted to kill women.”

*bangs head repeatedly on wall*

When she also didn’t respond to my story of three feminist’s invalidating my negative experiences at the hands of females in addition to males and reminded her again, she had this to say:

Gynocentric Feminist: “I’m confused… I don’t know who these people are… what do you want me to do?”

Ginkgo, please tear this gynocentric feminist a new hole here. And wish me luck because right now, my head is swimming with suicidal thoughts again.


New hole? Maybe not. She’s probably happy with the ones she has, and she’s not the problem. The problem is the mis-education and deforming cultural norms she has been exposed to.

How does someone get to the point that she argues like this? Either she is just so plain ignorant – uneducated in how to construct or engage with a rational argument – that she imagines this is any kind of real or good faith engagement; or maybe she is just so entangled in female privilege that she just expects to get a pass on this as on so much else in this society.

Maybe she is so committed to her worldview and belief system that no fact can penetrate her mind of be allowed to unsettle that worldview – her dogmas are just that precious to her. Maybe these dogmas form part of her gender identity and she will cling to them no matter what.

Or perhaps this rejection of accountability is just another facet of the problem, her sociopathic indifference to the men – a learned cultural value, part of her “constructed” gender role, not necessarily any kind of personal character defect - who are finally speaking out about the dehumanizing norms that make up the male role society assigns them, and getting nothing but this kind of dehumanizing dismissal and sometimes even backlash.

And when you try to discuss any of this with these people you hit the same brick wall as you do with Fundamentalists talking about evolution. It is exactly the same true believer mentality – peasant ignorance parading as certainty and confidence.The facts do not matter, clinging to beliefs are what matters.

By the way, I can understand that talking to her would make anyone want to just end it all, but just put her and the actual problem in perspective. The tide is turning and time is one your side, Eagle.