November 30, 2017

"We’re in the midst of a reckoning. It’s what toxic masculinity’s own medicine tastes like."

"And people should allow the consequences to unfold, regardless of how it affects those they consider to be friends. The only way to enforce seismic, cultural change in the way men relate to women is to draw a line deep in the sand and say: This is what we will no longer tolerate. You’re either with our bodies or against our bodies. The punishment for harassment is you disappear. The punishment for rape is you disappear. The punishment for masturbation in front of us is you disappear. The punishment for coercion is you disappear."

Writes Amber Tamblyn in a NYT op-ed... before going on to clarify that "no one is saying a disappearance from the public eye has to be forever." She's "not talking about banishment," just "about ceding the floor." These men just have to "disappear for the time being so that all women see and believe that consequences do exist." Harvey Weinstein can never come back, but Louis C.K. can:
When he goes back out on that standup tour someday, I’ll role [sic] my eyes and say, ‘All right, get on with it, then.’ But for now, his old power is over. He’s going to have to find a new power if he ever wants to come back.

161 comments:

Michael K said...

Too bad for her point that the worst offenders seem to be all on the left.

brylun said...

Army veteran fifth woman to accuse Al Franken of sexual misconduct

virgil xenophon said...

All on the left? I'm absolutely gobsmacked, I tells ya..

virgil xenophon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
MPH said...

It takes a poisoned brain to see this as a political gotcha game.

Achilles said...

She is trying to figure out how we can go back to using sexual harassment as a selective weapon against her political enemies. The "good" sexual predators get to come back.

Objective standards are the real enemy for the left.

wwww said...


No more tolerance for this shit. Via John Podhoretz on twitter a few minutes ago:

News: Congressman Jim Clyburn is now calling on Conyers to resign. Clyburn is the highest ranking African-American Member of Congress...Conyers is finished.

Inga said...

“And people should allow the consequences to unfold, regardless of how it affects those they consider to be friends. The only way to enforce seismic, cultural change in the way men relate to women is to draw a line deep in the sand and say: This is what we will no longer tolerate. You’re either with our bodies or against our bodies. The punishment for harassment is you disappear. The punishment for rape is you disappear. The punishment for masturbation in front of us is you disappear. The punishment for coercion is you disappear."”

Yes indeed!

Ignorance is Bliss said...

You’re either with our bodies or against our bodies.

...quick google for a picture of Amber Tamblyn...

Okay, I'll choose being against your body.


*disappears*

AlbertAnonymous said...

Maybe Amber Tamblyn should disappear (again). Toxic Masculinity? Really?

Hey Amber, why don't 'you do you' and leave me the F alone, mmmkay pumpkin?

Why do these people think they can dictate the parameters of relationships between all men and all women? If she doesn't like guys, I don't care. If she doesn't like guys she sees as "masculine", fine, whatever. Don't date them. Don't allow them to touch you, or come on to you, or masturbate in front of you. Cool.

But don't lecture me on "men" as a group. You don't know Shit about me.

Achilles said...

Michael K said...
Too bad for her point that the worst offenders seem to be all on the left.

This is the affect of running a selective filter. For decades leftists and rightists were treated differently by the system. The left forced out Bob Packwood while they defended Bill Clinton. Every Republican who had issues with women was excoriated for political purposes. Every lead was followed. There are many examples where things were flat out made up by the media. On the other hand every democrat incident was covered up as much as possible. They refused to cover Clinton until Drudge had several million hit days forcing them to.

Again in the pursuit of power over other people.

It is only natural that when the correction comes there will be more leftists hit. They have been hiding in plain sight because their voters don't really care about the women type little people.

n.n said...

The sexual revolution, and the feminist Pro-Choice, has progressive, predictable consequences. Both the female chauvinists and male chauvinists colluders should be criticized for their role in debasing human life and devaluing individual dignity.

mockturtle said...

One way or another, women have always wielded sex as power.

Achilles said...

Inga said...

Yes indeed!

Prime example. She voted for Clintons three times.

She does not care about the victims or the truth.

GRW3 said...

It's not 'masculine guys' who are being swept up in this stupidity, these days. Now its ostensibly the pro feminist brigade.

traditionalguy said...

That will teach those bad men and all who look like them. Next comes financial reparations and affirmative action for all societal rewards. Men are soon going to wish they were never born.

Achilles said...

wwww said...

No more tolerance for this shit. Via John Podhoretz on twitter a few minutes ago:

News: Congressman Jim Clyburn is now calling on Conyers to resign. Clyburn is the highest ranking African-American Member of Congress...Conyers is finished.


You mean he isn't an ICON anymore?

What does Bill the rapist have to say?

History starts this morning anew on the left!

n.n said...

there will be more leftists hit. They have been hiding in plain sight

That's likely the case. The liberal ideology is permissive and divergence is progressive. But, hiding in plain sight... as much as hiding under a cloak of privacy, denying civil and human rights. The dysfunctional convergence was not only predictable but inevitable.

NorthOfTheOneOhOne said...

Nope, nope, nope. We're not in the middle, we're just starting! And it's not about 'Toxic Masculinity', it's about one tribe on the Left doing an Alinksy on another tribe. Expect more tribal strife now that Jim Clyburn has played the race card defending John Conyers.

n.n said...

One way or another, women have always wielded sex as power.

So, as a practical matter, that's where the discussion would begin: eyes down here. Fortunately, I think, most people are still prudish about normalizing prostitution in its diverse forms. Or, maybe it would be better to tear down the walls, and acknowledge deviant behaviors and sexual favors on the record. It happens anyway, which requires a different mechanism to address disparate outcomes. I see where this is going, including an elevated risk of exploiting the equivalence principle to rationalize means and methods.

Yancey Ward said...

John Conyers may just save his supporters the trouble and die.

Sal said...

If you want to feel a strange woman's breasts on your chest, rub thighs, and wrap your arm around her waist, take up Argentine Tango.

n.n said...

feel a strange woman's breasts on your chest, ... take up Argentine Tango

Or use mass public transportation during rush hour.

Rick Turley said...

"You’re either with our bodies or against our bodies."

Unless I'm reading that wrong, I'm inclined to vote "against." Bellamy Brothers for the win:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tj8giihiuc

PS - They still put on an epic live show in smaller venues.

buwaya said...

Its just a purge of their "faces".

These are hirelings, they don't really matter.

Sal said...

I recall some fad to demasculinize men back in the 70s. Most women didn't like the result.

Bob Loblaw said...

This is less about toxic masculinity and more about a corrupt press corps.

Bill Peschel said...

It's been a fun moral spasm, but I would rather see talk about how to deal with this going forward.

After all, we've seen malfeasance at the highest levels with absolutely no charges brought against anyone (insert your favorite crook here). Why should anyone believe, once the hurricane passes, that anything will be different?

Oso Negro said...

"No more marriage! No more court! No more fucking child support!" Just practicing for the counter-reckoning.

Drago said...

Bill Peschel: "It's been a fun moral spasm, but I would rather see talk about how to deal with this going forward."

I don't think the lefties are in a 'lets all get together and reason this one out' mood.

AReasonableMan said...

uwaya said...
Its just a purge of their "faces".

These are hirelings, they don't really matter.


For once I am in agreement with buwaya. The billionaire oligarchs, like Trump, will endure.

rhhardin said...

Mob entertainment for women. They're the MSM news audience today.

Plays well with women in therapy, I bet. Like Princess Di.

David said...

"Too bad for her point that the worst offenders seem to be all on the left."

So far. You can bet there is some serious digging going on.

rhhardin said...

I recall, at work around 1980, a color graphical terminal showed up, and within a day there was a nude woman picture on it. Men do technology.

I assume sexbots will fill today's friendly woman gap as quickly.

Qwinn said...

Just checking... if a beautiful woman uses her body to deliberately seduce a powerful man and extracts favoritism from him in the workplace in return for continued sexual favors...

...and then, years later, #metoos him and claims she was the victim in it all...

...is the man permitted any defense at all? Even if he could prove that she seduced him somehow, would that help or hurt him? Or is the woman the victim no matter what the circumstances?

Michael K said...

"News: Congressman Jim Clyburn is now calling on Conyers to resign. Clyburn is the highest ranking African-American Member of Congress...Conyers is finished."

For Chrissakes ! Conyers is 87 years old !

Let's hear it for 87 year old guys whose dicks still work !

All those Hollywood perverts who jerk off in front of women are the face of the left. At least Conyers liked women. The old stud.

Of course he is corrupt but his wife was in prison for a time so he didn't even have it at home.

Just hilarious.

Inga said...

“Too bad for her point that the worst offenders seem to be all on the left."

So far. You can bet there is some serious digging going on.”

No digging necessary. Just look under your own nose and you’ll find your President.

Yancey Ward said...

Achilles wrote:

"This is the affect of running a selective filter."(in response to the observation that the Left is being inundated with these new revelations- Y.W.)

Yes, this, and entirely predictable. It took Ronan Farrow to breach the dam, but when breached, it could not be closed up again very easily.

At some point, the journalists are going to get together and try to agree to stop reporting on these things because it isn't cutting the way they expected it to a month ago. I don't know that it can be done. It has been amusing the last week to watch the flailing of people like Inga trying to ignore that filter that has been in place for decades now. I am not even sure if she realizes that the Right is taking revenge by simply sitting back and eating popcorn while the Left immolates itself over this. Having been lectured for decades, more lecturing is just about the funniest thing I have seen this Fall.

Michael K said...

" You can bet there is some serious digging going on."

Oh yes but the Democrats fired all their ammo at Moore and it seems to be missing.

AIlies and O'Reilly were Pyrrhic victories. It all rebounded on the left who had been enjoying their feminist credentials too much.

Dickin'Bimbos@Home said...

cool.

Bill Clinton disappears first. His wife goes with him.

buwaya said...

"So far. You can bet there is some serious digging going on.'

No doubt. But the liberal hegemony guarantees there are few conservative targets in the news media or entertainment.

The ones at Fox are done, everyone else is online and faceless, near anonymous.
Maybe a few radio guys like Limbaugh, but he has been done and done many times already and no-one else really is a recognizable "face", or "voice".

They could try for some F500 executives I suppose, but there are few real outspoken or identifiable conservatives among them (they keep their heads down) and they are also anonymous as far as the public is concerned.

Matthew Sablan said...

We've got plenty of talent in the world that CK Louis doesn't need to be let back in.

Michael K said...

" Just look under your own nose and you’ll find your President. "

Hope springs eternal in the Inga heart. You lost. Get over it.

Of course, you can continue with your lamentations. Conan enjoyed it and Trump has taken many Conan bits of advice.

Matthew Sablan said...

As the Reckoning continues, it becomes more and more clear Ronan Farrow is the man of the year, or at least, the last few months.

LincolnTf said...

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, if you ever voted for Bill Clinton, all the way back to 1992, when everything about his character and perversions were public knowledge, you endorsed the behavior of Franken, Rose, Weinstein, etc. and helped make it acceptable.

Lewis Wetzel said...

So the reciprocal of this is that "men" may decide when any particular woman is allowed a public career, based on their own arbitrary judgment.
Sorry, sister, men do not exist to please you.

David said...

Let's hear it for consenting adults. Of course to get consent you have to ask.

Probably best to ask only when you have substantial reason to think a "yes" is possible.

(That's where the deluded thinking starts to come in.)

Accept the turn downs with good grace. Thank her for being clear with you.

If she is deliberately not being clear, take it as a no. She has her reasons, and they may not be in your best interest.

Be polite. You may get another shot some day. Plus it's the nice thing to do.

Try to do all this while you both are sober. You can get drunk together after you agreeing you want to fuck.



Ignorance is Bliss said...

Yancey Ward said...

It took Ronan Farrow to breach the dam, but when breached, it could not be closed up again very easily.

Well, you couldn't very well suggest putting a finger in the dike around a group of feminists, could you?

Achilles said...

buwaya said...
Its just a purge of their "faces".

These are hirelings, they don't really matter.


This is true. But they need the institutions they own to remain influential. The media is being gutted not only in the face department but in credibility. Ditto the Democrat party. They have lost control of the republican party as of Nov 8 2016.

In the end their real power lies with the tools like Inga and ARM who will dutifully soldier through and support the cause no matter what information comes forth. For example Inga still believes the Nelson and Corfman accusations against Moore after their stories have been utterly destroyed.

The power to create these tools resides in the educational system. That is going to be the real fight.

Inga said...

"Just look under your own nose and you’ll find your President. "

“Hope springs eternal in the Inga heart.”

I don’t need to post all fifteen allegations against Trump, which includes the 13 year old, again do I? Nor do I have to re-post the allegations of child molestation against Moore again. That you Trumpists and sexual molester apologists continue to think that this phenomenon is on the Left only, or more severe, just proves that your morals aren’t as great as was lauded during the Family Values era. The Family Values on the Right appears to be in as much in question on the Right as on the Left.

Yancey Ward said...

I am sure there is digging going on, but that is the problem for the Democrats- this digging into the peccadilloes of Republicans has been going on ever since, really, Bob Packwood- how much more intense could it really get?

I think conservatives are just as likely to be harassers and worse, but it is harder for a conservative to survive politically to reach D.C pretty much anywhere in the US while behaving this way. Even in deep red Tennessee, the newspapers and their reporters are almost exclusively Democratic in their political biases.

Trump is particularly striking in this regard- pretty much any other Republican would have resigned from the race last October. Trump, pretty much alone, figured out that the Republican base had basically decided that they were done with being lectured by people no better than they are. This is why I predicted 3 weeks ago that Moore would win in Alabama handily. This refusal to play the game by the rules laid down by the Left has to be infuriating to the Left, and it shows.

MayBee said...

Women would go crazy if we tried to popularize the idea of "toxic femininity". Seriously, I fear this is what has come of all the Girl Power! clubs, t-shirts, and notebooks that started sweeping the country in the 1990s. Girls have grown to women on the mistaken idea that women are superior and it's ok to denigrate males.

Bay Area Guy said...

This is why Leftwing women are so irritating.

1. They get sexually harassed/assaulted by powerful leftwing Men in Hollywood, DC and the media.

2. They blame all men -- even the nice guys who never harassed anyone.

3. They channel their anger at Anti-Trump rallies wearing pussy hats or in vacuous NYTimes editorial pages.

To all young men: Avoid leftwing women, even the ones that are pretty enough to fuck. Ashley Judd may look nice, but stay away from her and all the troubles that will befall you.

james james said...

Amber Tamblyn believes racist claim against husband David Cross

-james james

Farmer said...

"The punishment for harassment is you disappear. The punishment for rape is you disappear. The punishment for masturbation in front of us is you disappear. The punishment for coercion is you disappear."

She forgot the most important part: The punishment will be decided by an angry mob.

MayBee said...

Is that "role" in the NYT op-ed?

Ralph L said...

Someone postulated years ago that the Left owning the mainstream meant that their arguing & reasoning skills would become flabby in time. He didn't think about their self-control doing the same. It seems other parts are compensating.

Yancey Ward said...

Democrats and progressives will have to walk the the talk for a good long time before I bother to pay attention to their moral preening and preaching. As of this moment, it is still all talk and no action on their part.

Drago said...

Inga: "That you Trumpists and sexual molester apologists continue to think that this phenomenon is on the Left only,..."

This is where we ask Inga to post the link to republicans giving convicted pedophiles standing ovations, like her beloved dems.

And perhaps now I should mention, for the second time today, that the dems themselves, gave Gerry Studds a standing ovation.

That's 2 standing ovation by a Who's Who of democrat politics in Hollywood/media and democrat politicians in DC.

I think all we have to do is show those on a loop, over and over again, over-layed with what Polanski was convicted of doing and Studds was proven to have done. With the democrats smiling and clapping and chirping (like Inga) in the background.

Remember Inga, Our Children Are Watching.......dems give standing ovations to pedophiles. Almost as if they approve of them or something!

MayBee said...

If the punishment for masturbation is you disappear, will women who flash their breasts at rock starts and Mardi Gras be made to disappear?
Are we just going to assume we want to see women naked, but naked men must be punished?

Matthew Sablan said...

"I am sure there is digging going on, but that is the problem for the Democrats- this digging into the peccadilloes of Republicans has been going on ever since, really, Bob Packwood- how much more intense could it really get?"

-- After the National Enquirer pulled the John Edward's story kicking and screaming into the light, while the NYT totally shot themselves in the foot over Vicki Iseman, the fact simply is: The NYT/media have preferred arcs. I'm fine with the purge going on, but, given what we're seeing, makes you wonder if Republicans are just better at keeping secrets, or better at purging at regular intervals.

Inga said...

“Women would go crazy if we tried to popularize the idea of "toxic femininity".”

Have you been living under a rock? This happens almost daily here on these Althouse threads. The feminism bashing is more pronounced than any talk of toxic masculinity here on Althouse.

MayBee said...

OH james james. Thank you for that article about Tamblyn.

I spoke to @charlyne_yi and her feelings/safety are all that matter to me. We’re good. I owe you nothing, Twitter. You’re lucky to have me.

-----
Her "safety" matters, because this woman accused someone of saying something vaguely racist 10 years ago. Her safety. Wow. Amber Tamblyn is a world-class care-er. We are lucky to have her.

Big Mike said...

@Qwinn, good question.l about when men will be allowed to defend themselves. On campus the answer to when a man may defend himself is “never,” but successful lawsuits on behalf of the men expelled may be slowly changing things. “May be” being the operative disclaimer. In Judge Moore’s case, the yearbook signature that allegedly corroborates one accuser appears to be in two different inks, and is “Roy Moore,” when he normally signs “Roy S. Moore, with the ‘S’ attached to the end of the ‘Y.’ The woman who claims that Judge Moore molested her as a 14 year old in 1979 also claimed to have spoken to him using the phone in her room — but her mother says she didn’t have a phone in her room in 1979.

Achilles said...

Inga said...
"Just look under your own nose and you’ll find your President. "

“Hope springs eternal in the Inga heart.”

I don’t need to post all fifteen allegations against Trump, which includes the 13 year old, again do I? Nor do I have to re-post the allegations of child molestation against Moore again.

At this point we are used to you clinging to lies pedaled by your masters. It is boring. There is information readily available to you but you choose to ignore it.

What would be more intriguing is to learn exactly what you get out of being a tool for these people. What was it like to vote for a known rapist and then attack political opponents over allegations of sexual abuse? What is the point? What do you get out of it?

mpeirce said...

> The punishment for rape is you disappear.

I thought the punishment for rape was jail time.

Inga said...

“Seriously, I fear this is what has come of all the Girl Power! clubs, t-shirts, and notebooks that started sweeping the country in the 1990s. Girls have grown to women on the mistaken idea that women are superior and it's ok to denigrate males.”

What? Are you saying that it’s womens’ fault than some men have been pigs from time immemorial into modern times? Are you saying that less empowered women would cause the sexual assaults to decrease? What do you mean by “this”?

MayBee said...

Have you been living under a rock? This happens almost daily here on these Althouse threads. The feminism bashing is more pronounced than any talk of toxic masculinity here on Althouse

I love Althouse, but:
1- I'd hardly compare the comments made here to what is going on in society at large.
2- Society right now is trying to sell the idea of "toxic masculinity". That is, masculinity itself is toxic.
3_ "Feminism" is another thing altogether. It's a school of political thought.

Society at large- and the NYT and its enlightened readers- aren't on board with the idea of women being women = toxic.

exiledonmainstreet said...

What is the point? What do you get out of it?

11/30/17, 2:14 PM

That's a great question. I understand why the elites act as they do. They want power and money and control over our lives. But the little people who defend the Establishment and the status quo so passionately? Do they really imagine they are among the elite themselves, just because they vote Dem?

LOL, as Drago would say.

MayBee said...

What do you mean by “this”?

The idea that masculinity is toxic.

Inga said...

“Society at large- and the NYT and its enlightened readers- aren't on board with the idea of women being women = toxic.”

Undoubtedly, thank goodness.

Real American said...

women better start dressing like nuns or it's all bullshit

Michael K said...

"The power to create these tools resides in the educational system. That is going to be the real fight."

That is going to be the existential contest. Whether the domination of academia by the left can be reversed.

I don't know that it can be. It may be necessary to burn it down and start over.

The elite colleges are living on endowments by wealthy alumni who, out of a combination of liberal guilt and virtue signaling, are funding affirmative action and student loans are funding the rest.

The coming repudiation of student loans is going to make 2008 and the real estate bubble look benign.

The state colleges are recruiting out of state students in preference to residents because the out of staters pay higher tuition but that, except for Chinese students in California, is mostly funded with student loans again.

Law schools are already signaling the stress. The "Studies" majors must exist on the jobs in HR departments since I cannot think of any other useful purpose (not that HR is useful) for those degrees.

The Vietnam War filled universities with leftist graduate students hiding from the draft. They became the "Boomer" generation leftist academics. They have reproduced themselves with a new generation of leftists but the teaching has deteriorated to the point that college graduates know no history and high school graduates cannot read cursive writing.

It can't last.

MayBee said...

Undoubtedly, thank goodness.

Are you ok with thinking that about men? Are you ok with the idea that masculinity is toxic?

Inga said...

“What do you mean by “this”?

“The idea that masculinity is toxic.”

Our female forbearers knew this to be true in many cases, but they didn’t have the legal protections women have now. They were victims to toxic men in far greater numbers than today. They were chattel. Toxic masculinity isn’t a new phenomenon.

“Are you ok with thinking that about men? Are you ok with the idea that masculinity is toxic?”

Not all men, but far too many in our modern society. But that is changing now.


Char Char Binks said...

This current moral panic, although it will undoubtedly lead to women displacing men in news reading, film directing, and a few other show biz jobs, is going to result in fewer women getting hired IRL. Who in his, or even her, right mind would bring in a ticking time bomb in to blow everything to bits? If there's a choice between getting sued for not hiring a Person of Protection, and the shit storm that hiring one could bring, the decision is easy.

Michael K said...

" Are you ok with the idea that masculinity is toxic?"

You are assuming that Inga thinks. "Ideas" are not her thing.

Knee jerks are.

Bay Area Guy said...

The punishment for harassment is you disappear. The punishment for rape is you disappear. The punishment for masturbation in front of us is you disappear. The punishment for coercion is you disappear.

Yeah, spare me. The punishment for Bill Clinton was millions of dollars to the Clinton Foundation, airplane rides with Jeffrey Epstein on the Lolita Express, and offers of blow-jobs from eager female reporters.

Time magazine White House correspondent Nina Burleigh told the Washington Post: "I'd be happy to give him [oral sex] just to thank him for keeping abortion legal." Describing what she perceived as the president's flirting with her aboard Air Force One during a game of Hearts, she wrote in Mirabella: "If he had asked me to continue the game of Hearts back in his room at the Jasper Holiday Inn, I would have been happy to go there and see what happened."

Nobody should listen to leftwing women on any important issue. Maybe, Camille Paglia, but very few others.

MayBee said...

Not all men

Not even nearly all men.
The term is toxic. Don't start making it ok to smear all men any more than it is ok to smear all women. That isn't going to be good for us in the long run.
We should be lifting people up. We don't need to tear others down to do that. Women can be powerful without men being labeled toxic. I mean, I thought the liberal people who believe in the politics of kindness would get this.

Big Mike said...

She forgot the most important part: The punishment will be decided by an angry mob.

Well, ARM wants an angry mob to yank James Fields out of Albemarle County Jail and string him up; same logic applies. Liberals don’t need no proof, don’t need no right of due process. Hell, due process is what got those toxic Duke lacrosse players off the hook. Get a rope!

Inga said...

“You are assuming that Inga thinks. "Ideas" are not her thing.”

Good example of a toxic male. Good thing he’s old and can no longer do much more harm.

MayBee said...

Try this: toxic blackness

the murder rate in Chicago is due to toxic blackness.
How does that sound? Ok or not ok?

Darcy said...

@Oso Negro

Brilliant! It's remarkable how far the feminist ideology goes until the law enables them to do exactly what they claim they have no need for: extort help from a man.

exiledonmainstreet said...


"1. They get sexually harassed/assaulted by powerful leftwing Men in Hollywood, DC and the media.

2. They blame all men -- even the nice guys who never harassed anyone.

3. They channel their anger at Anti-Trump rallies wearing pussy hats or in vacuous NYTimes editorial pages."

They're more threatened by the Mike Pences of the world than they are by the Matt Lauers and Harvey Weinsteins.

They've read "The Handmaids Tale!" They know those toxic right wing Christianist men are plotting to put them in long robes and keep 'em barefoot and pregnant!

Oh, and let's let more Muslim refugees in. You know, for the children.

Drago said...

"Are you ok with thinking that about men? Are you ok with the idea that masculinity is toxic?"

Yes she is.

As the lefties are okay with saying that the carbon you exhale is toxic.

See where all this is going? It's going where leftism always takes you: graves.

And now that the left has teamed up fully with the islamists (who are never accused of toxic masculinity, even as they "honor kill" their girls and women), this combined islamo-leftist alliance represents a unique danger to what is left of our republic.

MayBee said...

Inga- what did what he said have to do with being male, or being a toxic male?
What do you think about what you said about his being old...do you think that sounded toxic?

Inga said...

“Not even nearly all men.”
Way tooo many men.

“The term is toxic. Don't start making it ok to smear all men any more than it is ok to smear all women. That isn't going to be good for us in the long run.”

The term is apt and reflects what has been happening. It’s not good for women to be apologists for toxic males.

“We should be lifting people up. We don't need to tear others down to do that. Women can be powerful without men being labeled toxic. I mean, I thought the liberal people who believe in the politics of kindness would get this.”

Look, I don’t know what reality you live in, but I live in the real world and lifting up toxic men won’t cure them of their toxicity. They need to be knocked down and rejected as members of a decent society. Kindness is wonderful when given to the deserving. You can be a missionary to toxic men, don’t expect me or other women to join you.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Inga said...
"Just look under your own nose and you’ll find your President. "

“Hope springs eternal in the Inga heart.”

I don’t need to post all fifteen allegations against Trump, which includes the 13 year old, again do I? Nor do I have to re-post the allegations of child molestation against Moore again. That you Trumpists and sexual molester apologists continue to think that this phenomenon is on the Left only, or more severe, just proves that your morals aren’t as great as was lauded during the Family Values era. The Family Values on the Right appears to be in as much in question on the Right as on the Left.

11/30/17, 2:03 PM


Inga, you're trying to light a used match. You had your chance on all that rot and you blew it. The American people were already fed every drop of your poison, and rejected it - spewed it right out. They knew everything you wanted them to know and what did they do?
They elected him, enough of them. (How may votes do you think he would have got, if none of that had been alleged and promoted and bruited about? 65 million? 70 million? 80 million? Obviously it would be more.)

So you've had your innings. Unless you find something new, and quite bad, Trump is inoculated, washed clean of sin. This whole crusade will not touch him.

MayBee said...

Inga-
What have I said that makes it seem I'm interested in being a missionary to toxic men?
I'm really surprised you are so happy to embrace the idea that men are toxic and anyone fighting against that idea is somehow a
"missionary to toxic men".
Do you have sons? Did you raise them to believe being a man is toxic?

Drago said...

Maybee: "the murder rate in Chicago is due to toxic blackness.
How does that sound? Ok or not ok?"

You are on to something because lefties like Inga, but in academia (not like Inga) are calling White DNA a curse on humanity.

The lefties are already calling for whites to de-toxify themselves.

Personally, I'd like to hear from Inga how she de-toxified her whiteness as an example for de-toxifying our maleness, and, if Inga fails to live up to her own sides standards, well, then she doesn't have a leg to stand on lecturing us, does she?

But who am I kidding? I WANT Inga and her pals to keep pushing this pseudo-science babble. Keep telling women that their little baby boys are horrific creatures that should have been killed in utero and harvested for baby parts (something else Inga's beloveds are good at).

And if your little baby boy happens to be white, well, Inga and her pals have lots of "plans" for him.....

Qwinn said...

Apparently, saying "toxic blackness" would be okay, as long as you say "not ALL blacks, but waaaaay too many blacks, and you can defend toxic blacks if you want, but don't expect us white people to help you."

Right, Inga?

LincolnTf said...

Meanwhile, the same "feminists" who are pretending to be so outraged about media no-nos continue to regale the Kennedy's and Clinton's as "heroes" for women. Here's a clue, shitwits, when your "hero" is a philandering abuser and harasser, you ain't no Feminist, bitch. Take the vag-hat off your head and replace it with a Donkey Balls one, with the balls bouncing off your chin, more accurately representing your real views on sexual misbehavior. "If a Dem whips it out, what's all the fuss about?"

MayBee said...

I've said this before, but I remember growing up reading women's magazines- the forefront of feminist thought. And those magazines taught me that men don't love- they only use love to have sex. I find that an incredibly damaging thing to teach girls who are growing up. It feeds into the now-current "toxic masculinity" label. It isn't fair to men, who can and do love deeply, to have generations of women believe they cannot love. It isn't fair to women, who will grow up suspicious of men and make it harder to treat their love with respect.
We can't give it a label, and make it even more mainstream, accepted thought. We are not doing boys or girls, men or women any favors if we continue down this path.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Our female forbearers knew this to be true in many cases, but they didn’t have the legal protections women have now. They were victims to toxic men in far greater numbers than today. They were chattel. Toxic masculinity isn’t a new phenomenon."

Whole lotta stupid there, Inga. What about toxic females? What about women who cheat, manipulate, seduce other women's husbands, and use their sexuality to climb up the corporate ladder? Do you think such women are rare?

One of the commenters here linked to a story out of Atlanta that made me want to hurl: a black single woman wanted revenge on the father of her small children. She put the kids - a toddler and a baby - into her oven and baked them and filmed their torture on her phone and sent it to the dad. Yeah, she sure showed that man,alright! She was just sentenced.

Well, she was nuts, you'll say. But imagine if the father had done that. You'd be screaming about "toxic masculinity." And that story would have gone national and made every news program in the country.

Depicting one race, or one sex, as uniquely evil is, in and of itself, evil.

Stop focusing on what men do and don't do. Stop lecturing and hectoring them for the sin of being born with a penis. Worry about your own damn self.

n.n said...

More projection. The result of toxic femininity has objectively caused greater erosion of civil and human rights, as well as a progressive dysfunction and corruption that permeates our society from liberal headwaters.

Inga said...

“Do you have sons? Did you raise them to believe being a man is toxic?”

Yes I have a son. And no of course I didn’t raise him to think all males are toxic, because that isn’t what I’ve been saying. I raised my son to think of a female as a fellow human being and to treat her with the respect that his fellow humans deserve. If the male or female doesn’t act in a decent manner they very well can be considered toxic and I’ve taught my three daughters and my one son to avoid toxic people like the plague. But if necessary to fight for what is right and just and not be enablers or apologists for bad behavior.

Drago said...

Oh, I forgot to add that lefties, like Inga, believe that by voting democrat they essentially accrue indulgences against the very accusations they lob at others.

So Inga will declare Toxic Masculinity a problem, but will avoid addressing her Toxic Whiteness by saying something about voting the right way.

We should airdrop Inga into a New Black Panther Party meeting in Philly and let her explain to those assembled there how she has rid herself of her toxic whiteness!

Don King could put in on Pay per View!

Michael K said...

"“Do you have sons? Did you raise them to believe being a man is toxic?”

Haven't you seen Inga's son ?

He's done some modeling.

MayBee said...

I raised my son to think of a female as a fellow human being and to treat her with the respect that his fellow humans deserve. If the male or female doesn’t act in a decent manner they very well can be considered toxic and I’ve taught my three daughters and my one son to avoid toxic people like the plague. But if necessary to fight for what is right and just and not be enablers or apologists for bad behavior.

Great.
Then you should be against the mainstreaming of the term "toxic masculinity". Individuals may be awful, but neither gender is toxic nor should be described as such. No person should hear their gender (or race) described as such.

Rick said...

She's "not talking about banishment," just "about ceding the floor."

She seems to think women are being ceded this floor. But the only way for that to be true is for men not guilty of these actions to be somehow excluded as if they shared these other men's guilt.

n.n said...

Trump is inoculated, washed clean of sin. This whole crusade will not touch him.

The principle of double jeopardy cuts the witch hunters off at their knees, but any sins not disclosed, discovered, or established will remain outside the human realm. The stuff of baby hunters (i.e. witch hunts carried out in privacy) for unspecified future trimesters until the "baby" is either deemed not viable or reasonable people have come to terms.

It's an adventure in social justice or something.

Inga said...

Here is Michael K Jr. I hear he’s had some electrolysis work since then.

So Maybee, you still think Michael K doesn’t deserve what he gets from me and others? The man is the epitome of a toxic male.

exiledonmainstreet said...

" The man is the epitome of a toxic male."

Because he thinks you're an idiot, an asshole and a harpy?

You don't have to be male to come to that conclusion.

Just reading your comments in this thread will convince anybody with sense of that.

LincolnTf said...

Inga, you know that you rabidly cling to the same political apparatus that produces sexual abusers and harassers on a freakishly regular basis, right? Do you not understand the concept of systemic misogyny? The Democrat Party embodies it. And you embody the Democrat Party.

Inga said...

" The man is the epitome of a toxic male."

Because he thinks you're an idiot, an asshole and a harpy?

You don't have to be male to come to that conclusion.

Just reading your comments in this thread will convince anybody with sense of that.”


Exile is also the epitome of a toxic male.

MayBee said...

I think you and Michael K have a symbiotic relationship. I wouldn't call him a "toxic" male just as I wouldn't call you a "toxic" female.

MrCharlie2 said...

Just going by your extract, there seems to be a complete focus on this as a celebrity disease, with banishment from their pedestal as punishment.

Shouldn't these guys just be seen as the tip of the iceberg, and thought given to power relationships and abuse among normal people. Surely that is the real problem.

MayBee said...

Mr Charlie2- that is a great point.

How does the average Joe get disappeared?

exiledonmainstreet said...

Inga's definition of a "toxic" person: anybody who calls Inga out on her bullshit.

Caligula said...

"Let's hear it for consenting adults. Of course to get consent you have to ask.

BUT, if the answer is "No," then you obviously had no right to ask. You should've just known, OK?

What this is about is Not Letting A Crisis Go to Waste. Even if most of the perps appear to be pro-feminist men, there should be political payoffs. Payoffs for (feminist) women, but especially for women such as Amber Tamblyn who never really did care much for men anyway.

When Tamblyn is Queen, any man who asks shall be banished, forthwith! Unless she approved of the request, of course.

Qwinn said...

We're supposed to encourage women to make accusations of harassment and rape in an environment where false accusations carry absolutely no penalty and potentially massive rewards.

What could possibly go wrong?

Michael K said...

" The man is the epitome of a toxic male."

Can I get a certificate?

My wife would love it.

Howard said...

Toxic masculinity is when guys act out their feminine sense of entitlement that flows from acting as if they live behind a magical force field and can't get punched in the mouth no matter what they do or say.

Darrell said...

Toxic.

http://cdn2.creativecirclemedia.com/neni/original/20170411-171835-KEILLOR_garrison-1-_12726.jpg

Big Mike said...

Can I get a certificate?

My wife would love it


Me too! Same reason.

Rick said...

Inga said...
[“And people should allow the consequences to unfold, regardless of how it affects those they consider to be friends]

Yes indeed!


It's always amusing when people pat themselves on the back for reaching this conclusion after protecting their own friends for the last 25 years.

MadTownGuy said...

¡No pasarán! has a take on the possible endgame of the current sequence of events: The point is not to report a crime but to create hysteria that can then be used against people far more innocent than Weinstein appears to be. Weinstein will have to plead his own case. But once the flimsy procedures are in place—as a result of hysteria from the same Hollywood and media culture that created the problem in the first place, they can then be used again the innocent.

Fernandistein said...

Michael K pontificated...
Too bad for her point that the worst offenders seem to be all on the left.


Your comment doesn't make any sense - shocking, I know - because the article doesn't mention politics or political parties.

Rick said...

[Women] were chattel.

The historically illiterate are easily manipulated.

stlcdr said...

Got to say it; is Amber Tamblyn a porn actress? Sounds like a porn actress name.

n.n said...

Toxic masculinity is when guys act out their feminine sense of entitlement that flows from acting as if they live behind a magical force field and can't get punched in the mouth no matter what they do or say.

Yes. Traditionally, there was a religious/moral philosophy to engender civilized behavior, and a market economy to moderate and mitigate the risk of men and women who ran amuck. Today, that approach has been replaced by for-profit non-profit businesses and the periodic fundraiser, and vigilantes that prey on the politically incongruent.

Inga said...

Educate yourself.

“The historically illiterate are easily manipulated.”

https://www.library.hbs.edu/hc/wes/collections/women_law/

During most of American history, women’s lives in most states were circumscribed by common law brought to North America by English colonists. These marriage and property laws, or "coverture," stipulated that a married woman did not have a separate legal existence from her husband. A married woman or feme covert was a dependent, like an underage child or a slave, and could not own property in her own name or control her own earnings, except under very specific circumstances. When a husband died, his wife could not be the guardian to their under-age children. Widows did have the right of "dower," a right to property they brought into the marriage as well as to life usage of one-third of their husbands’ estate. Though a married woman was not able to sue or sign contracts on her own, her husband often did have to obtain her consent before he sold any property his wife had inherited.

Apart from such generally applicable laws, many women were in a position of legal dependence as a result of their particular situation, be it youth, poverty, or enslavement. Since coverture, and with it the right to dower, started to erode in the first half of the nineteenth century, wealthy fathers and husbands often left their daughters’ estates in a trust. The assumption was that women would be better off with the fruits of the estate than with power over money or property that could be taken from them through marriage before their sons were old enough to take charge of the estate.

Outside of the legitimizing context of property ownership or family identity, women might effectively be rendered non-persons. Since they had limited means of economic survival outside marriage, some indigent women ended up real or virtual wards of the state or town in which they lived. In British-Colonial America, where institutionalization of the poor was not the norm, a woman’s appearance on town poverty roles probably meant not much more than that the town took financial responsibility, however minimal, for one who could not do so herself. By the nineteenth century, however, poverty came to be seen as a personal flaw, though poor women were less stigmatized than poor men until the late nineteenth century. Nonetheless, women were subject to labor impressment and loss of independence of decision once they crossed the threshold of the poorhouse.

Like marriage, slavery denied women a separate legal existence. Female slaves became part of the legal identity of the men who were in theory responsible for their maintenance and answered for their behavior. This is why eighteenth-century newspapers carried advertisements where a man publicly renounced his responsibility for his estranged wife’s debts and renounced debts for runaway slaves. But whereas married women might have recourse to certain rights and traditions, slave women had none whatsoever. They were owned, traded, and sometimes forced to have children, entirely dependent on the good or bad intentions of their owners.

Implementation of and conflict about these various legal, and perhaps extra-legal but customary, strictures produced a rich source of records for women’s history and for the history of women’s role in economic practice.

Anthony said...

Remember, when Donald Trump supposedly did the things he's accused of, he was a neo-liberal Democrat.

Inga said...

“Sir William Blackstone, in his 1765 authoritative legal text, Commentaries on the Laws of England, said this about coverture and the legal rights of married women:

"By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage, or at least incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband: under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs every thing; and is therefore called ... a feme-covert...."
Blackstone went on to describe the status of a feme covert as "covert-baron" or under the influence and protection of her husband, in a relationship similar to that of a subject to a baron or lord. He also noted that a husband could not grant to his wife anything such as property, and could not make legal agreements with her after marriage, because it would be like gifting something to one's self or making a contract with one's self.

He also stated that contracts made between a future husband and wife were void upon marriage.

United States Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black is quoted saying, in a thought expressed by others before him, that "the old common-law fiction that the husband and wife are one...has worked out in reality to mean...the one is the husband."

https://www.thoughtco.com/coverture-in-english-american-law-3529483

The Toothless Revolutionary said...

What a relief that there's nothing toxic about femininity! Other than blaming everything on men, craving the entitlement of having others cater to your every physical, emotional and - if it were possible - mental need, not being able to invent the technology that keeps us from living in grass huts and defecating in the ground, and not being able to take competition impersonally.

Drago said...

TTR: "What a relief that there's nothing toxic about femininity!"

"I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability."

Inga said...

http://www.historyofwomen.org/wifeselling.html


Wife selling

Throughout the 1800s there was barely a year without a newspaper report of a court case involving the sale of a wife. It seems that some people believed that if a wife were taken to market on market day with a halter (or sometimes a rope) around her neck the transfer was legal. It happened all over the UK; for example, West Lutton 1801; Wrentham 1802; Sheffield 1802; Ireland 1806; Hull 1810; Leominster 1818; Selby 1827; Honiton 1828; Bridlington 1828; Liverpool 1829; Banbury 1831; London 1832; Lancaster 1832; Bath 1833; Portsmouth 1833; West Riding 1837; Bardford 1838; Bridlington 1838; Witney 1839; Bradford 1839; Wisbech 1840; Leeds 1844; Stockport 1851; Bodmin 1853; Bury 1854; Thirsk 1855; Devonport 1856; Stonehouse 1856; Bradford 1858; Dudley 1859; Selby 1862; Newland 1862; Merthyr Tydfil 1863; Armagh 1864; Liverpool 1864; Chester 1864; Wolverhampton 1865; Hull 1868; Blackburn 1868; Bristol 1871, and so on ...
Prices ranged from a shilling to £150. Punishments included a month's hard labour, a £5 fine.
The magistrates and newspaper reporters expressed disgust at the lower classes' behaviour and ignorance, and were particularly shocked to find the wife herself perfectly satisfied at the arrangement.

Rick said...

Inga said...
Look, I don’t know what reality you live in, but I live in the real world and lifting up toxic men won’t cure them of their toxicity. They need to be knocked down and rejected as members of a decent society.



This is exactly what decent people think about hateful people like Inga.

Inga said...

Toxic masculinity has been around for a long long time. Eons even.

“Social norms and beliefs

During the 1800s wife beating was extremely common and only caused outrage if it was exceptionally brutal or endangered life. There was a widespread belief among ordinary people, male and female, that it was every man's 'right' to beat his wife so long as it was to 'correct her' if she did anything to annoy or upset him or refused to obey his orders. The editor of the Hull Packet (7 Oct 1853) remarked that wife-beating was 'being accepted as the habit of the nation'. The phrase 'a stick not thicker than his thumb' was often bandied about. Most magistrates disagreed; only a small number upheld that husbands had such a right [see example]. Lord Lovaine 'could not comprehend the distinction between a man who beat his own wife, and a man who beat another man's wife'. Viscount Palmerston said he did not believe that 'a man was more entitled to commit these injuries upon his own wife, than upon another man's wife. On the contrary, he thought that it was a greater offence. His own wife was more entitled to expect protection, and another man's wife had her own husband to guard her from injury.'
The press frequently mentioned the subject of husbands' belief in their right to physically hurt their wives. The editor of The Times (24 Aug 1846) criticised the lenient sentences handed out by magistrates: 'The conjugal tie appears to be considered as conferring on the man a certain degreee of impunity for brutality towards the woman.' The Morning Chronicle wrote on 31 May 1850...”

http://www.historyofwomen.org/wifebeating.html

Inga said...

“This is exactly what decent people think about hateful people like Inga.”


Rick doesn’t like being proven wrong, oh well, too bad.

Darrell said...

Inga would go for a tuppence.

Bill said...

You’re either with our bodies or against our bodies.

Does 'with' include unborn female bodies?

Didn't think so.

Doug said...

To all young men: Avoid leftwing women, even the ones that are pretty enough to fuck. Ashley Judd may look nice, but stay away from her and all the troubles that will befall you.
As I have often told my son about beautiful, sexy women: No matter how pretty she may look, some guy somewhere is tired of her shit.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

As much as I used to hate the "bodies" shit (as in "our bodies" instead of "us") I've really come to appreciate it as a marker.
When people use "bodies" in that way you can reliably conclude they're absolute fucking idiots. You can assume they're hard Left idiots, although that's not 100%...but idiot is a guarantee.

Darrell said...

Joan of Arcadia says behave.
So behave.

Drago said...

Bill: "Does 'with' include unborn female bodies?"

If there's one thing lefty gals like Inga knows about, its the resale value of all those little human body parts.

Rick said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rick said...

Rick doesn’t like being proven wrong,

Apparently we can add chattel to the very long list of words Inga doesn't understand.

Inga said...

chat·tel
ˈCHadl/Submit
noun
(in general use) a personal possession.
LAW
an item of property other than real estate.

Apparently Rick doesn’t understand the meaning of the word chattel. As in selling one’s wife as chattel as described in the excerpt I posted @5:17 PM. Rick just thinks he can throw something out there and he won’t be challenged. Rick is a dunce.

Rick said...

As in selling one’s wife as chattel as described in the excerpt I posted

The news article accompanying the excerpt begins:

"The scandalous and illegal practice of husbands selling their wives..."

But wait a minute. If they were chattel how could selling them be against the law?

How do these loons become so crazed they can't understand their own evidence? I'd suggest thinking but someone who has gone her whole life without probably isn't going to learn at this late date.

Inga said...

“How do these loons become so crazed they can't understand their own evidence? I'd suggest thinking but someone who has gone her whole life without probably isn't going to learn at this late date.”

How can you be so ignorant you don’t understand that men of the time considered their wives their property? It may have been against the law at the time, it probably wasn’t enforced very well. The POINT is (why must I spell it out to you) is the ATTITUDE of males toward females. Toxic. Now keep equivocating, you asshole.

Quaestor said...

Amber Tamblyn: This is what we will no longer tolerate. You’re either with our bodies or against our bodies.

I wonder if any of the NYT editorial staff fell out of his executive chair in a paroxysm of unbridled laughter when he read this line. Somehow I doubt it, much to the further woe of the Left.

Tamblyn is either a dunce, Abby Someone's Word of the Day (her current list are all monosyllables, btw), or a subversive genius.

Like all Jacobins, leftists have a penchant for guillotining each other, clearing the way for what is destined to come. Vive l'empereur!

Inga said...

Quester liked his own comment so much he posted it twice.

buwaya said...

It was indeed an old English country custom to 'sell' a wife.

Famously in "The Mayor of Casterbridge", Thomas Hardy.
This was more of a folk divorce, extralegal but customary.

Likewise its always been common to "buy" a wife, in some cultures. There is still a "bride purchase" thing in Muslim culture, basically the grooms family pays the bride (I guess formerly in ancient times it went to her father).

Its still done to a degree (or until recently before China became relatively rich) in Chinese culture. Men bought wives and concubines outright, for real, from their parents or guardians.

In others, Europe very much included, daddy had to provide a dowry, so some suitable fellow would take her off his hands.

Interesting how that fell out - in some places women were an asset, others a liability.

In other paces, such as Central Asia, the couple has to go through a ritual kidnap (with a symbolic rape). The groom has to prove himself a bold fellow I guess.

Its a weird and wonderful world.

Quaestor said...

Quaestor mistyped much. An error he did not notice until the comment posted, which he corrected, afterward deleting the offending post.

Correcting errors is evidently an abstraction beyond the ken of Miss Inga, the contemporaneous pseudonym of the risible Unknown, aka Abby Someone, as are many concepts visited here

D said...

"You are either for us or against us"

Hey, wait! I remember that line!
It caused quite a kerfuffle, or was it more a to-do? Certainly a tsk-tsk. A lot of people interviewed on the radio said a lot of words about it. Probably I'm too old now, to see what difference it makes. The old who,whom. I am sure many people better at words than me will say why it is so, just so, on the radio.
(Not saying it was plagarism - maybe Ms T. admires the dude who said it..)

Although that leads to another thought:
If the wheels of justice grind slowly, and what 2017 is, is the wheels catching up to grind what SHOULD have been ground away in the 1990s - but wasnt, for, er, something.....
What will the wheels grind away at in 5/10/20 years?
I imagine it depends on what you want to see ground, but IMHO, there are a lot of pipers waiting to be paid on the outskirts of town....

Rick said...

It may have been against the law at the time, it probably wasn’t enforced very well.

Sure, that's why they had newspaper reports almost every year. I'm not sure which of these last three words makes this funnier.

How can you be so ignorant you don’t understand that men of the time considered their wives their property?

Because it isn't true. You were told this because it gives righteous anger to the naive fools who believe it.

Drago said...

And, of course, all of Inga's good lefty pals at Disney knew all along about Lefty Lasseters "issues" with gals and kept it hushed up:

http://deadline.com/2017/11/john-lasseter-behavior-pixar-disney-1202213821/

"There’s evidence Disney may well have been aware of troubling behavior on the part of the digital animation pioneer. Indeed the Pixar co-founder attended some wrap parties with a handler to ensure he would not engage in inappropriate conduct with women, say two people with direct knowledge of the situation."

Literally ARMIES of leftists harassing and enabling the harassers.

ARMIES of them.

And these were the same people lecturing the Deplorables.

Just like Inga.

Inga said...

“Because it isn't true. You were told this because it gives righteous anger to the naive fools who believe it.”

Despite what Buwaya wrote, you still make this assertion? You are not nearly as intelligent as you want to think.
———————————-
“It was indeed an old English country custom to 'sell' a wife.

Famously in "The Mayor of Casterbridge", Thomas Hardy.
This was more of a folk divorce, extralegal but customary.

Likewise its always been common to "buy" a wife, in some cultures. There is still a "bride purchase" thing in Muslim culture, basically the grooms family pays the bride (I guess formerly in ancient times it went to her father).

Its still done to a degree (or until recently before China became relatively rich) in Chinese culture. Men bought wives and concubines outright, for real, from their parents or guardians.

In others, Europe very much included, daddy had to provide a dowry, so some suitable fellow would take her off his hands.

Interesting how that fell out - in some places women were an asset, others a liability.

In other paces, such as Central Asia, the couple has to go through a ritual kidnap (with a symbolic rape). The groom has to prove himself a bold fellow I guess.

Its a weird and wonderful world.“

Inga said...

http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/omalley/120f02/america/marriage/

“Equality, Property and Marriage

Most American treated married women according to the concept of coverture, a concept inherited from English common law. Under the doctrine of coverture, a woman was legally considered the chattel of her husband, his possession. Any property she might hold before her marriage became her husband's on her wedding day, and she had no legal right to appear in court, to sign contracts or to do business. Although these formal provisions of the law were sometimes ignored—the wives of tradesmen, for example, might assist in runing the family business—married women technically had almost no legal identity.

The rapid market transformation of the Jacksonian era, however, demanded greater flexibility for women. Because men sometimes could be away from home for months or years at a time, a married woman's ability to maintain a household pivoted upon her freedom to execute contracts. Real estate speculation played a huge role in the pre Civil War economy, particularly in the old southwest. Real estate speculators demanded greater flexibility in assigning ownership. Beginning in 1840s, states began to overturn the traditions of coverture. Over the next two decades, women would begin to develop a legal status within marriage, gaining the right to make contracts, to retain personal property, to be parties to law suits and contracts, and to execute wills on their own behalf. Most property rights for women emerged in piecemeal fashion, and because judges frequently interpreted the statutes narrowly, women often had to agitate repeatedly for more expansive and detailed legislation. Here are two examples

Women's Rights Petition to New York State Legislature, 1854
The Legislature's Response, 1854

Measures like this deeply upset tradition: they suggested that women were equal to men ad did not naturally desire subordination. This cartoon, published in Harper's Weekly, June 11, 1859, mocks the sight of women insisting on their rights. If women are equal, it suggests, men are diminished and marginalized.“

Drago said...

Is this the part of the evening where we pretend stuff that existed hundreds of years ago in the west is all the fault of Trump supporters now but we studiously avoid discussing where those things are absolutely still going on in the lands that the lefties defend?

I just wanted to be sure.

walter said...

Good thing there aren't every day/ordinary women teachers fucking students.
Wait...whaaaaaat? "Toxic femininity"? Nahhhh.

walter said...

Do Inga's cited historical bits shed light on contemporary lefty entertainment figures wanking into plants, remote-locking fuckees into offices, legislating in pajamas etc etc?

Jason said...

If the punishment for masturbation is you disappear, will women who flash their breasts at rock starts and Mardi Gras be made to disappear?

Dammit MayBee, don't fuck this up for us.

TheThinMan said...

How can a man absolve himself of his “toxic masculinity”? He just has to become an illegal alien. Then he can do anything you wants to a woman — rape, murder — and our enlightened overlords such as this “Amber” will actually defend him.

MayBee said...

hahahahaha, Jason!

Quaestor said...

Lets's compare Inga's source, a minor academic whose expertise is the history of clocks and other timekeepers, to the opinion Sir William Blackstone, the universally acknowledged authority on Common Law, on the subject of husbands and wives, not a word of which lends support to the Inga's bullshit.

Bad Lieutenant said...

One of the commenters here linked to a story out of Atlanta that made me want to hurl: a black single woman wanted revenge on the father of her small children. She put the kids - a toddler and a baby - into her oven and baked them and filmed their torture on her phone and sent it to the dad. Yeah, she sure showed that man,alright! She was just sentenced.



Hey exiledonmainstreet,

Tell me that's not true, that you made it up, OK? Whatever the facts are, please just say that, because I need to be able to sleep tonight.

Sentenced? What could you do to such a person that wouldn't be a waste of time?

FIDO said...

Ladies and Gentlemen in the blog.

Please leave Inga alone. She is doing us stellar service in displaying and discrediting her entire philosophy and ideology, along with Amber.

Here is their metric: Any heinny groper, even on a single offense, even if it was decades ago, even if one has since spent millions of dollars and lots of face time supporting women...doesn't matter. You are deplorable. There is no forgiveness. You MUST be destroyed, at least long enough to that you can be replaced by a woman (certainly no self interest there...)

So men...stop groping heinnies. Not because it is wrong, or rude. Just out of self protection.

And men (and women who actually like men or are mothers before they are ideologues), understand that while you may have a nuanced regard for women, that you have been 'otherized' and made an 'enemy of the ideology' by Inga and Amber. There is no exceptions.

Vote accordingly. March accordingly (sorry...men are generally too busy maintaining civilization to march...oops) Spend accordingly. Consume media accordingly.

Remember these are the same women trying to teach your daughters.

FIDO said...

And men...take the Pence Policy to heart. Listen to Inga.


Is a new girl pretty? Do NOT help her in the slightest! You are simply objectifying her and opening yourself up to accusations of harassment.

Is a woman wearing outfits revealing and unprofessional? Do not make any comment to her. Tell HR immediately! Let them take the necessary steps. Make sure that you have other people join you well in advance and clandestinely so that the issue MUST be taken seriously and to avoid any dismissal by management over 'toxicity'.

Have a career enhancing business trip? Guess whom you absolutely cannot take. That up and comer girl who is bright, eager, hard working and enthusiastic? Sorry 'Ms.' You need to stay home, no matter how much it might improve your learning and career.

See...even if YOU don't write a complaint, that fat jowly harridan cat lady with a Scandinavian name with the bad attitude, SHE might raise some stink or innuendos because that is what she does!

So Eager Beaver can do doc reports while the less competent Brad, who has an unwanted heinny, gets to go. We are calling it 'job training' to justify the choice.

Don't offer 'advice' or as Inga calls it 'mansplaining'.

Don't mentor because Cat Lady may see the relationship and call foul.

Never be alone with her

Never foster a relationship with her

Never spend more than 5 minutes outside of a group setting talking to her.

Do not share an elevator with her.

And hire more men. A lot more men.

This is the results of the world Inga seeks to create. Excuse me...she wants all the good things of Feminism like destroying and villifying men but none of the bad press or consequences which comes from destroying and vilifying men.

She is selfish that way.

FIDO said...
This comment has been removed by the author.