Children come to my door
For cancer, for poverty.
All of it their own
Wee children with shiny eyes and bald heads,
kerchiefs testifying their truth.
“I’m your neighbour,” they say.
This is my sister, this is my father.
Will you buy my bauble? 5 dollars for the little one, 7 for the large.
Ugly pieces of who-knows-what hidden by dying, shiny eyes.
A count of coins,
a touch of finger tips,
a sad and sympathetic smile
and they’re on their way.
I wonder if I’ll see them again?
Metrowoman bearer of a name reminiscent of a comic book hero has written a piece and asked for feedback.
Well, Sister, seeing as I was passing by, I thought I’d take a swipe at some low-hanging fruit.
She writes Why settle for less…
This is a no-holds-barred discourse for young women, waiting for the man of their dreams.
Why is she waiting, and not going to get him?
1) Define yourself; determine what you will or will not take, what standards and values you will not compromise on.
I can tell a whole lot what you think about yourself by the kind of man you choose to be with.
Psychic, are we?
A girl who has low self confidence will give herself to any man at a huge discount.
“Give” herself? What, is she a puppy? Some sort of property of which she can relinquish self-possession?
You must stand up for yourself, appreciate your strengths, downplay your weakness and decide the level of life you want to play at.
You must stand up for yourself, build your strengths, shore up your weaknesses and decide the level of life you want to play at.
2) Don’t be with someone at any level lower than where you are at, socially, educationally or economically except you are convinced of his potentials and you are sure without a doubt that he is bigger than the place where he currently is.
Should she also count his teeth? Of course, I’m sure that you would apply this to men as well. He should not be with someone at any level lower than where he is, socially, educationally, or economically, except where he is convinced of her potential and is sure without a doubt that she is bigger than the place she currently is. You don’t expect him to settle, do you?
3) He must bring more to the table than you do;
Why? Should you not bring as much to the table as he does? Why do you value this person’s presence in your life? Is it for who he is, or that he should somehow make all the finer things in life magically rain down upon you? I word to the wise, to the contrary of nay-sayers: the penis is not a magic wand designed to dispense wishes to wanna-be bon-bon eaters. Geez, even gumball machines expect a coin.
he mustn’t be dependent on you in any way.
Fair enough–as you must not be a dependent on him in any way, right?
He must have a place to stay, drive his own car and pay his own bills, the day you start to prop him up that day you have in your hands a liability.
And the very same could be said about you, yes?
Don’t get me wrong here he doesn’t have to own a house or drive a car, however he shouldn’t be living in your apartment and driving the car you bought while you use public transport.
And vice-versa, yes?
After you are married, of course he should be able to use your things, perhaps life deals him a hard blow and he needs time to recuperate, that’s fine. But before the marriage, before you say I do, make sure he is not using you as a crutch.
And vice-versa, yes?
4) He must buy you gifts; this is a sure sign that he is seriously with you.
No he mustn’t and no it doesn’t.
Do not take the lack of money as an excuse.
He should buy you gifts, and don’t take the lack of money as an excuse? Seriously? Are you buying him gifts when you don’t have money? “Must” you?
The thought of giving you a gift no matter how inexpensive it is, is what is most important.
Never mind listening, being helpful, being there, doing his share of everything. What matters is you, you, you. Bring on the gifts! They are a measure of you, you, you! You are a special princess, absolutely unique, offering something that none of the 3.5 billion women on the planet can offer, right? Well, what are these qualities that you have to offer him that are so spectacularly exceptional that will instantly convert your designated Mr. Right into a walking ATM machine–and gratefully so?
He must get you a gift on your birthday at least.
Why? I believe that you are mistaking “gift” for “contractual obligation”.
Note that if he forgot your birthday its not a crime, some people are bad with dates so that’s fine. He can make it a belated birthday gift.
Are you with the man for who he is, or for the gifts? You strike me as being quite mercenary and contemptuous of “The Man of Your Dreams”.
5) You must be proud to show him off to your family and friends, he could be short and fat and ugly but if you love him, you will be fine with his looks.
And this should go both ways, right?
6) Don’t manage him ever;
Fair enough. That’s called “human respect,” which hopefully goes both ways as well.
If you don’t really know if you love him and are just cordial to him, you are probably with him because you feel you are getting old.
Ah, the psychic bit again…
Well wine gets finer with age so who cares, (flips weave). Its better to be 40 and have peace than be 30 and unhappy with broken ribs.
Are you presuming that The Man of Your Dreams is a violent person? Or just men in general? You know that people who hurt other people have a group designation, don’t you? These people are known as “criminals.” Remember also, that wine only becomes finer under the right conditions, otherwise it become vinegar.
7) Let him be the one to impress you not the other way round;
Give me one reason for the lack of mutuality.
before you are married to him, you shouldn’t be the one trying to impress him, you are the queen, the princess,
And why should you not? And incidentally, unless you are in fact genuine royalty, no, you are not the queen or the princess. You are The Average Jane, common woman of the same status as Average Joe, the common man.
it is on you that the choice ultimately rests.
Uh, no. A man has as much choice as to whether he wants to partner with someone or not. So far, you have provided more reasons for him NOT to partner with you, than to do so.
Now I am not saying that you should be high handed and rude. I am just saying be sure you are not doing for him, what he is supposed to do for you.
Oh? And what exactly is he “supposed” to be doing for you that you should not also be doing for him–or for yourself, for that matter?
8) The people that matter most in your life should at least be comfortable with him, your parents and siblings and close friends.
While I agree that this is pleasant and practical, who is the one that is engaging him in a partnership, you, or others?
9) Remember that he will not change, the story of the princess kissing a frog and turning him into a prince is a fairytale.
If he beats you, gets drunk, flirts around, is irresponsible before you get married, he will be exactly the same man after the marriage.
And if you beat him, get drunk, flirt around and are irresponsible before you get married, you also, will be exactly the same after marriage too. Men are starting to wise up. We now actively look for The Crazy, as a protective measure. One of the warning signs of The Crazy is someone who thinks that they are an entitled princess.
10) There are good men around; don’t think the good men have finished and stick to one who treats you badly.
As there are many good women around, don’t be surprised if he dumps you for one, after all, what have you done for him, other than make demands based on expectations of zero reciprocity?
If he is treating you the way you do not want to be treated, don’t for once think that that is the way all men are.
Be sure that he doesn’t have issues to deal with. If he was molested as a child, or came from a background of domestic violence the truth is that he will have issues to deal with. Be sure that you don’t want to live with the consequence of another person’s actions
Men call that “Avoiding The Crazy”. You have already fired off more than a dozen red lights.
Because you are special and you deserve the best.
You are, are you? What makes you special? What are you bringing to the table? So far, little more than expectations, demands of gifts, higher status, prescribed behaviour and what have you suggested that a young woman offer HIM in return? Bupkus. Zip. Zilch.
So why settle for less…?
It’s not “settling” when you don’t bring equal value.
I’d like to know your thoughts on this article.
You asked for it.
You are are urging young women to be narcissistic, entitled, self-centred, demanding, greedy little wanna-be princesses who expect The Man of Her Dreams to appear and stay, while demonstrating zero regard for him. You have completely absolved her of any responsibility or duty, or even respect for someone she wants to partner with. Read your entire article and reverse the roles. Pretend that a man had written this to young boys describing how he should treat women. What would you think of the advice then?
Your “article” in no way “no holds barred” or “discourse”, it is the typical self-centred irresponsible advice that suggests to young women that they deserve The Best while offering nothing in return. Your advice is trivial, ignorant and harmful.
Why should you settle for less? Because you seem to offering nothing worth more. You get what you pay for, so to speak.
Dear Young Woman, should you find yourself reading this article, a good response would to shake your head and proudly exclaim “No! I will build my life, though strength, determination and character. I choose to be a valuable member of my community and I will give as much as I get. I shall rudely shove aside the simpering, hypocritical and retrograde thoughts fed to me by those who do not look beyond their own noses. I choose to be a full human adult that recognizes that she is merely one small part of the world, not its centre, yet, with the power to change it. I will learn how the world works, build my strength and take action. This is my life, and I claim it. This will be good for me and for those that I care for. I will become a fully self-actualized adult that builds her own life instead of passively waiting for life to be gingerly placed into my delicate outstretched beggaring hand. And I will do so for a simple reason: I have self-respect.”
Do it. And do so with a proud, fierce and joyful fire in your eyes. That’s what will make you attractive The Man of Your Dreams and he receptive to you.
Your article, Metrowoman, is the kind of mental rubbish that has been passed on from generation to generation, and–almost without exception–to the disappointment of the women who have accepted it, and the men they have met. Your article is not so much advice or discussion, as it is an example of a cautionary tale.
[The next day]
I followed up on the page to see whether my comment would be approved.
The answer, unsurprisingly was a simple, quiet rejection of the comment. So I followed up.
We’ll see what happens next.
[Moments later] *Poof* gone is the comment.
This was not at all unexpected.
What a lovely thing to wake up to.
[…] A few signs later I approach another woman, Hello, not sure if you’ve seen the Game of Thrones Campaign that says ‘Kill All Men’? We at The Return of Femininity are trying to counteract it with some love -she interrupts ‘Oh no that’s not what it means, it’s referring to a Game of Thrones’. I let her know, yes, I know that, I read the books. I then ask her if she has ever seen ‘Kill All Women’ plastered around. She says, no but in Criminal Minds you can see it. I ask her again, Have you seen ‘Kill All Women’ all over the subways? She says no and again goes into how we can see it in anywhere. I again ask, you see ‘Kill All Women’ on the subways?
We enter the train and continue. She mentions how there is not just one kind of Femininity. I reply, I understand that and share with her the goal of The Return of Femininity [TROF]. She then asks why am I saying that femininity has to have a basis of loving men…I shit you not. I had a moment. A moment of jaw dropping. I said incredulously, ‘Uhh because they are human?!’ We then moved onto discussing the anti-male agenda of feminism her reply was that the Men’s Human Rights Movement began as a reaction to Feminism and I told her no. It did not. The concept began before feminism existed. She then said there are different brands of feminism to which I let her know that doesn’t matter, they all fuel the same thing. Feminism in action is anti-male. She said no it’s equality, I then asked, well then why are they not working with the Men’s Human Rights Movement. Her answer? In her own words that I can’t remember verbatim – the movement is unnecessary and a joke. To which I jumped, how can you say you stand for equality when you minimize men’s human rights? Do you hear yourself? She said, well, the MRM is like a white power movement arising because of the black panther movement. [Emphasis mine–Francis Roy]
I shit you not. But there was too much to address there so I just simply stated, not true, at all.
[Read the full article at the URL below – Francis]
Thank you, Kristal Garcia. How ironic that anti-feminists practice egalitarianism better than so-called Feminists do. How refreshing to hear, from a woman, that men in general deserve to be loved for no reason other than being half of humanity. This, incidentally, is how men, myself included feel about women. Thank you.
My coffee tastes slightly sweeter, this morning.
siˈnekdəkē noun: synecdoche; plural noun: synecdoches
- a figure of speech in which a part is made to represent the whole or vice versa, as in Cleveland won by six runs (meaning “Cleveland’s baseball team”).
How beautiful is that?!
In your video Reconsidering Norms you make the following claim:
“There’s one significant way in which Racism and Sexism are different: There is no word for a ‘non-racist’. There is a word for ‘non-sexist’ […] the word that means ‘non-sexist’ [is] ‘Feminism’.”
You later claim that “… [H]aters, and they will twist whatever I say into something I’ve never said, never meant, never implied…” Thank you for poisoning that well, but that won’t be happening here. If you believe that I have misunderstood you, first, assume a misunderstanding in good faith, and not a mean-spirited argumentum ad gotcha, second I welcome corrections.
You are attempting to support the argument that Feminism is the equivalent of non-sexist by pointing to a lack of a word in the English language for the word non-sexist.
There is no word for non-word therefore it is X.
This is little more than an argument from ignorance [lack of knowledge].
To rephrase your statement: “I don’t know X therefore <insert Y>”
Or more precisely: “I am unaware of the antonym for the word ‘sexist’, therefore its antonym is ‘Feminist’.”
Antonym of sexist: impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced.
Oddly enough: Antonym of racist: impartial, unbiased, unprejudiced.
This argument is a non-starter. There is an opposite word (more than one), and the antonyms in no way point to a collection of movements and ideologies to promote women’s rights or to advocate for the advancement of women’s interests.
There’s only one way that you could have made such an error: you have yet to escape Radical Feminism’s pernicious bubble of presuppositions because you have yet to apply your skeptical talents to the subject.
Full Definition of SEXISM1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex
The argument in question is a really bad one. It is an illustration of identity politics distorting our very language. You have not reconsidered norms, you have merely repeated the shallowest of Feminist notions.
Now, either one is a sexist or not, or better yet, either one holds sexist ideas and attitudes and act upon them or not. If one is truly impartial and unbiased about sex-based issues, then there is no need to specify terms such as “against women”, and there is no good reason to single out women as being victims. A true reconsidering of norms would include the fact that men have advantages and disadvantages, and that women have advantages and disadvantages, and that these interplay in dynamic ways based on individuals, contexts, times and places.
I’m sorry, brother, but I have not heard or read you make any argument for Feminism whose quality is superior to the above mentioned argument.
[Later] You said “If you are not a feminist, you are a sexist.” My answer: unless you aren’t. Thanks for the false dichotomy. I do not believe for a moment that you would allow a theist to get away with such poor logic, it is a shame that you don’t look at your own arguments more attentively.
I welcome your thoughtful counter-arguments.
Lately I’ve heard the argument for men’s value by long lists of what men have done for society as a rebuttal to the general message that we are violent misogynist monsters.
I feel annoyed, not because the argument is inaccurate, but that we have reached a point where we consider that such an argument is necessary. The argument is “We aren’t worthless, here’s a list of what we’ve done for everyone.”
It’s gotten to the point where our arguments are about justifying our every value and existence to a group of bigoted fanatics that have poisoned society against half of the world’s population.
“We keep you alive,” it seems, has become an apology.
I can come up with no witty repartee to “You are fucking scum!”, the unleashed dam of poisonous hatred and contempt that has flooded and is drowning the fields from which our society’s future must spring.
Egalitarianism consists of not limiting one’s thought to “What is wrong”, and to include “What is right”, then extending a critical and compassionate eye to all parties involved, ourselves included, and being as fair, just, discriminating and honest in self-evaluation as one is of the other.
Feminism’s fundamental flaw is that it is gynocentric, a response, from the gynocentric view-point that “not me”, The Other, is “What is wrong”, and concluding that androcentrism is the cause of all ills.
It is doubly pernicious when this Othering is little more than a matter of psychological projection as illustrated by Germaine Greer’s oft-repeated “Women have no idea how much men hate them.”
It is far more likely that the cause is neither androcentrism nor gynocentrism, but the narcissism that tempts us to the path of least resistance: mental laziness. Injustice, I contend, is generally a matter of valuing one’s own causes and interests above that of the other because of a lack of empathy, that is, to “walk a mile in another’s shoes.”
The problem is not some Illuminati-like notion of “Patriarchy”, nor generalizations about women, but a politicized victim-centred mindset. This phenomenon is a by-product of our genetic heritage, an infantilism that is a carried-over to the young childhood of our species, one which we are struggling to mature out of and into a more accurate and comprehensive maturity.
Psychological projection is the act or technique of defending yourself against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in yourself, while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is rude may accuse other people of being rude.
Although rooted in early developmental stages, and classed by George Eman Vaillant as an immature defence, the projection of one’s negative qualities onto others on a small scale is nevertheless a common process in everyday life.
Gender Neutral Language expressed the counter-argument to “Patriarchy” and “Male Privilege” as succinctly as I’ve ever heard it said:
“The historical backdrop isn’t “Male Privilege” it is interconnected interdependent divisions of labor that place burdens on both men and women and grants the rights needed to fulfill these duties.”
This argument is an adult, realistic, nuanced and intelligent response to the Radical Feminist argument of “male privilege” and “Patriarchy”.
And this, in one sentence.
A tip of the hat to you.