Sorry, guys. I need to get you to stop watching football for a moment. Really. It’s important.
It’s about an interview I saw on the state funded, national broadcaster; the ABC here in Australia. That the interview did no harm to the feminist movement shows how indestructible the feminist cause is. Indeed, had any other movement whether political, religious or social in nature offered up anything like this logic it would have been treated with ridicule and contempt.
However, because we are dealing with feminism, the babble becomes sacred babble and must never be criticised. Like religion in the middle ages, feminism is the one true word. The meanings should not be questioned, but simply one should be in awe of its all encompassing correctness. Even when it is wrong, it is correctly wrong. In fact, it is wrong to point out any wrongness, in case that wrongness is seen as evidence that feminism isn’t completely correct. And that, of course, would be wrong.
What’s that got to do with football? Please, read on and all will be revealed. It could be the end of violence.
Eve Ensler wrote a play called the Vagina Monologues and, following this, helped begin the V-Day Movement to end violence against women and girls. She came to Australia last month to deliver the annual Australian Human Rights Centre lecture in Sydney.
The ABC interviewed Ensler on its news analysis program, Lateline (Ensler, We don’t own our bodies: Ensler, 2012). The ABC describes this program as “…a provocative, challenging and intelligent window on today’s world.” They continue to say, “Lateline engages the foremost experts or commentators… to bring you penetrating insights from a range of perspectives (ABC, 2012).”
The foremost expert or commentator who interviewed Ensler was Emma Alberici, who has some twenty years experience in journalism.
This, dear reader, is what passes for “an intelligent window” in Australia today.
The Play
The word “vagina”
Alberici begins the interview with a general question about her play. Ensler opens up with how “everyone” was scandalised with the word “vagina” in the 1990s. She claims that “you could say ‘Scud Missile’ on the front pages…” but, apparently “if you said vagina the whole world went crazy. “
The next part is worth quoting verbatim:
“And I think part of the reason of doing the play was that so many women I had interviewed had not only, not said the word vagina, they never saw their vaginas, they didn’t know what they looked like, they didn’t know how their vaginas functioned, they didn’t know what gave them pleasure. They didn’t even know their vaginas were their own.”
In the 1970s I attended college in Scotland. In my class, a Computer Science course, the gender mix was 50/50. Every single woman on that course knew the word vagina, and a whole lot of other words for the vagina. Twenty years later, when Ensler wrote her play, and the word vagina has mysteriously vanished from the western woman’s vocabulary?
I’m glad that Ensler points out that they had never seen their vaginas. I immediately became aware that I have never seen my own anus.
The real question, of course, is: so fucking what?
To what level should a woman understand how her vagina functions? For example, should she be able to discuss in detail what part Bartholin’s glands play?
And why? Does Ensler know how her thyroid glands work? Does she understand how wax gets in the outer ear? As long as she knows which end to stick over the toilet, where to put the tampon, etc. does it really matter?
Ensler’s final statement, that women “…didn’t even know their vaginas were their own,” is feminism at its finest. Alberici doesn’t ask “Who did they think their vaginas belonged to?” Or, “Were they just renting them?” Or “If I kicked them in the vagina, who did they think would feel it?”
Ensler tries to paint herself as the radical who is not afraid to break taboos. And to do this she will use any word she chooses, no matter how upset the establishment gets. The fact is that when the play was written and first performed in the nineties, the word “vagina” was seen as a proper and polite term to describe female genitalia. You could have “The Vagina Monologues” on a bill board and in neon lights. It may have been titillating, perhaps, even risqué, but certainly short of scandalous in Western society in the nineties.
The use of scandalous words
Ensler informs us that in China the play was banned because the Chinese only had vulgar and derogatory words for vagina.
Speaking of scandalous and vulgar words, the Vagina Monologues uses the word “cunt” 30 times. Now that word, all by itself, ensures an “Adults Only” rating in Australia. You can say it in a play with that rating, but you won’t be having “The Cunt Monologues” in neon on Main Street.
But Alberici doesn’t ask if it was the translation of “vagina” or “cunt” that caused the Chinese such problems.
In fact, the Shanghai Drama Centre was told by the Chinese authorities who banned the play that “…it does not fit with China’s national situation (USA Today, 2004).” Did Alberici ask Ensler if she was surprised that a Western play written by a “Human Rights Activist” was banned in China in 2004? No, she just lets Ensler give us the sacred babble.
The rape and domination of women by women
There are two serious aspects about her play that Alberici should have raised with Ensler, particularly given the “Human Rights Activist” tag.
The first is a section of the play which deals with the seduction of a girl by woman, which involves the woman giving the child alcohol as part of the seduction. In one version of the script I found the girl is sixteen (Ensler, Vagina Monolgues Script – The Dialogue, 1996). However, there have been reports of other versions of the script where the child was aged as young as thirteen (Swope, 2006).
In January this year a 29 year old female teacher was found guilty of the crime of having sex with a sixteen year old female student in Melbourne, Australia (Lowe, 2012). Also, note that the legal age for drinking alcohol in Australia is eighteen. In other words, Ensler’s play is describing an act that is illegal in Australia, as well as immoral anywhere.
Ensler’s monologue describes the seduction from the point of view of the child. It concludes:
“You know, I realized later, she was my surprising, unexpected, politically incorrect salvation. She transformed my sorry-ass coochie snorcher [vagina] and raised it up into a kind of heaven.”
In other words, this manipulation into a sexual act was good for the child.
This blasé attitude is also seen in another monologue in the play, where Ensler’s heroine dominates women during sex. The dialogue explains:
“Sometimes I used force, but not violent, oppressing force, no. More like dominating, ‘I’m gonna take you someplace, why don’t you lay back, enjoy the ride’ kind of force.”
So clearly, according to Ensler, domination and child sex abuse are alright when done in a feminist context. When men rape its rape, when women rape it’s “salvation,” so “lie back and enjoy the ride”.
Alberici does not ask one thing about this. How’s that for “a range of perspectives”? That’s the “let’s ignore it completely” perspective.
Utopia
A world without violence against females
Now, Ensler got together with a group of friends, presumably in what became the V-Day movement, to end what she called an epidemic of violence. Specifically, she states “not manage it, not contain it, but end it.”
Given that this Utopia has never been achieved in all of human history for any group of people, including royalty, you’d think that Alberici would have one penetrating question at least about how all this would be achieved. Nope. None seemingly sprung to our expert reporter’s mind.
Ensler goes on to expound explicitly on her Utopia:
You know, see a world where women were safe and free and could wear what they wanted to wear and walk where they wanted to be and be who they wanted to be and live the lives they wanted to be without fear of attack, or harassment, or rape or innuendo or whatever it is that makes you feel less than you want to be as a woman.
Does Alberici ask Ensler why men are missing from her Utopia? Does she ask if Ensler thinks the other half of the world’s population simply does not experience violence? Does she ask Ensler about the statistics that show that men are three times more likely to be killed in a homicide (World Health Organisation, 2002)?
Does she ask Ensler why she deems innuendo as significant as rape? In an interview that discusses “rape and torture survivors”, are we now going to have “double entendre survivors”?
The suppressed girl cell
Alberici, whose interviewing technique could be called leading the cheer squad, provided another feed for another Ensler monologue.
“You talk about something you call the ‘girl cell’ and you talk about the fact that has been suppressed over time not only in women but in men. What do you mean by that? And you also say that that’s parts of the reason we see so much conflict and disaster in the world?”
There is a girl cell? One that exists in women and men? How can an educated journalist say that out loud?
Doesn’t that make it a human cell? Or is that just me questioning the sacred babble?
It’s been suppressed? Really? Not only are women in the big world being oppressed, but at the cellular level there is gender specific oppression!
Now, I’m guessing here that it is the oppression, and not the girl cell itself, that is responsible for conflict and disaster. But really, the earthquakes, tsunamis, floods, hurricanes and twisters were all caused by the suppression of the girl cell?
And conflict, too? Wars are not, as previously thought, manifestations of a desire for power or resources, or defence against marauders. No, just suppressed girl cells.
Now, if you’re waiting to know what the girl cell actually is, I’m here to tell you that I have no fucking idea. The transcript goes on for pages, and Alberici asks her twice, but Ensler talks about everything and anything else without so much as a hint of what a girl cell might be. As for the subject of suppressing them, Ensler is equally busy explaining something else.
Maybe this is why Alberici doesn’t ask Ensler any hard questions. Maybe Ensler simply doesn’t do hard questions.
Why do men commit violence?
Ensler herself does tyr to ask some hard questions: “How did a man end up in a gang rape of a five year old girl?” She continues to emote, “How did a man…cut out a woman’s baby out of her belly…and destroy it? What was going on in that man that allowed that to happen?”
And the Great Ensler’s theory:
And it has to be that through the processes of patriarchy and colonialism and enslavement and poverty, impoverishment, that people end up getting further and further and further removed from their hearts and from their empathetic selves.
Where is the penetrative journalism we are promised by Lateline?
In December 2011, Heather Glendinning killed her two children and then herself in what was described as the most gory scene the Western Australian police had ever seen (WA Today, 2011).”
Earlier last year, Sidonie Thompson, a fourteen year old girl, was killed by her mother, Kim Patterson, with an axe. Kim Patterson then took her son to the Brisbane Storey Bridge where she jumped to her death (The Telegraph, 2011). How terrible would that have been for her son to witness?
Where does patriarchy, colonialism, etc. fit in here? These are atrocities in every sense. Except, and this obviously makes a difference to Alberici and Ensler, these are atrocities committed by women. Presumably, therefore, these acts simply didn’t happen.
Women in Politics
Gillard’s plight
Although Ensler is not generally held as an expert on Australian politics, Alberici obviously decided to elicit some thoughts from this feminist icon on local current events. In particular, she asks Ensler about the recent treatment of the Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard by the press.
Alberici asks Ensler about the “…lot of discussion… the tone in which the coverage of her policies and politics has taken a very kind of sexist or misogynist tone. Is that something quite particular to female leaders around the world?”
Now, this “discussion” was had by none other than the likes of Greens Senator Bob Brown (The Sydney Morning Herald, 2012). Brown is not an independent observer of Gillard’s government. His party has joined with Gillard’s Labor Party to allow her minority government to stay in office.
“The government would be defeated if an election was held now, according to the latest Nielsen Poll, (Nielsen, 2012)” was the poll that Brown was discussing when claiming that the treatment of Prime Minister was sexist.
Moreover, the sexism in question essentially boils down to one interview with Mike Willisee. In this interview Willisee asks Gillard “You say you’re a woman – would it be easier if you were a man?” (Prime Minister’s Office, 2012)
Apparently, it is fine for Alberici to reference Gillard’s gender to distinguish her from other politicians; it’s not OK for Willisee to ask what difference it makes to be a woman.
Alberici tries to further the misogyny discussion by referring to a certain point in Willisee’s interview, where he asks the Prime Minister if she cries much. Again, Alberici fails to show the context of the question.
In his interview, Willesee asks this question first. “Prime Minister, people talk about your lack of emotions and they’re only talking about seeing you in public. Are you a very emotional person when you go home?”
It is after she answers this question with a response that discusses emotions of love and joy, but not sadness, that Willesee asks about her crying.
It would be fair to accuse Willesee, in my opinion, of mining for sensationalist dirt on the Prime Minister, but not misogyny.
Alberici’s efforts to embroil the playwright in local controversies are in vain, however, as Ensler instead talks about powerful women in general, Hilary Clinton in particular, and Gillard not once.
Ensler’s theory on what stops women in power
Ensler expounds on a theory as to why the media, and in fact the world, takes a different microscope to female politicians, by referring to criticism of Hilary Clinton during her presidential campaign. Ensler, it seems, is not short on theories:
And I think what happens to women a lot, I think particularly when they’re powerful, is the way the media, the way the world reduces them is to focus on these very shallow, these very superficial, these very insignificant aspects, as opposed to the brilliant and wise and visionary things that they’re saying.
And I think that’s very clever because it gets women then to focus on these very insignificant things about themselves. Like their body and being skinny and worrying about ageing and worrying about fat and worrying about … so then women end up spending their days fixing this little country [themselves] as opposed to fixing the world.
These powerful, brilliant, wise and visionary women are undone because someone says her arse looks big in those pants?
No need for political skulduggery; for difficult questions in parliament; for leaked reports; for damaging emails; or for getting the numbers for a particular piece of legislation. Just ask her how she could possibly think those earrings would match anything else in her wardrobe.
And more: It’s clever. Really?
Even more: Undo Clinton and women everywhere start worrying about their wrinkles, their clothes, their fashion. Every single one of them driven to distraction by one master stroke of sexism. Did ageing cream sales increase when Clinton dropped out of the presidential race?
The real important thing to not miss is that women are too busy fixing their make up to fix the world. What does this say about these women or feminism?
It is these kinds of statements that one expects of misogynists. Is Ensler really implying that female politicians are just empty headed bimbos?
Would Alberici have been justified in asking “If women are as easily diverted from their political goals as you say, what good would they be in a leadership role?” Or “What if Clinton had been elected and, say, China or Russia decided to criticise her latest hairdo a few days before launching a nuclear strike?” Or “If deciding what to wear with a particular jacket is too hard, how hard is the Greek financial crisis?”
Moreover, implied here is that while these women are busy attending their manicures, men are just running about fucking things up. Apparently that’s all they can do. Just when a woman sees the problem and decides to fix it, the bastards just say “Didn’t you wear that last week?” and she’s undone. A vicious cycle!
Alberici accepts this theory like most people accept the theory of gravity. It goes up, it comes down; the bigger the mass, the more attraction – got that. Men are useless, world’s a mess, women can fix it, men criticise women’s appearances, world stays in a mess. You’re so right.
Ensler’s theory of power
Alberici asked Ensler a convoluted question about women in power acting the same as men. In other words, have we really seen a woman in power yet? Or, to put it another way, have we only seen, with the likes of Thatcher, Ghandi, Meyer, Merkel and others, women acting like a man so that they can get into power? This drivel allows another monologue on the meaning of power.
Dear reader, you’ll be relieved to know that the power of men, that is “the power to dominate; the power to control,” is not the kind of power Ensler is interested in. Instead, she is “…interested in the power that includes, the power that feeds, the power that sees all the people at the table, the power that is moved by the heart…”
Is that the same power that is easily undermined by questions of how much cleavage should a dress reveal? Alberici doesn’t ask, so we’ll never know.
Ensler’s definition of feminism
Alberici, for no apparent reason, asks “Do you think the word “feminism” has become a dirty word?”
You’ll be glad you got this far, dear reader, because Ensler defines feminism for us:
Feminism means that women have the right to equality. That women have a right to voice, a right to equal pay, a right to be present, a right not to be harassed and raped, a right to thrive rather than just survive, a right to have children or not have children, to have desire, to have a lot of sex or have a little sex, whatever their bodies want.
Now, equality by definition requires two comparable entities. Ensler doesn’t explicitly state it, but it is implied that the equality is with men. Right? You might think this is obvious, but look closer at the statements she makes.
The right to a voice is not a world-wide “right.” How many men have that in China, North Korea, or Syria? Who wants equal pay with any man from a third world country? Who is safe in Afghanistan or Iraq? Who is thriving instead of surviving in Somalia, or the Sudan?
And as for the sex! Is Ensler discussing masturbation or is someone else going to be involved? When the women decided how much sex their bodies want, are they just going to snap their fingers and get it?
No, Ensler does not want women to be equal with men. She wants them to be equal with some super-privileged group.
“Who are they?” you might ask. Well, typical feminist dogma would have it as the men who dominate patriarchy. This is alluded to by Ensler when she talks about impoverishment and colonializing. Most often this is reduced to “white men”, or “rich men” or sometimes, “rich white men”. It’s certainly not “men in dangerous jobs” or “men who die early.”
Given her attitude of sex on demand for women, she doesn’t want to be equal to the men who must understand that ‘no’ means ‘no’.
No, given her earlier statements about living in Utopia, Ensler wants to be equal to the one percent of rich that the Occupy movement complain about. That is, Ensler wants the 1% to become the 51%. Or would she be happy if the 1% became 2% with just Ensler and her friends cashing in because they understand “power that feeds”?
And the men? The men in China, North Korea, Sudan, etc? Are they nominated for equality? Even a little bit of equality? Well, we’ll never know because Alberici doesn’t ask.
The End of Violence
And so, dear reader, we now come to point of the interview where it all becomes clear. And this is where football comes into it. It all begins with another magnificent theory:
How is it capable [I think she meant ‘possible’] that we’re witnessing the amount of rapes and massacres and genocides and atrocities that we’re seeing in the world without people responding to that? Part of it I think is that we bring up boys to be bifurcated, to cut off their hearts and their heads, so that they’re capable once they come into power of doing very terrible things without feeling.
First of all, when she says “part of it”, she doesn’t explain what the other parts of it are. We can only assume that she means that the part she is talking about is the biggest part; that there is no other part of it that is in any way significant. In other words, this is the whole reason.
Secondly, I see governments and NGO’s asking for money or making announcements about going here and there to do this and that in response to wars and natural disasters every other day. Does Ensler mean that Oxfam, Medicins sans Frontiers, USAID, World Vision, etc., are not run by people?
Third, notice the gender difference between the first two sentences. In the first “people” are not responding. In the second, not only are the males not responding, they are the ones in power committing the atrocities.
The females, presumably, are still too consumed with trying to get their eyelashes both full and separated to either commit violence or respond to it.
Fourth, the males, she goes on to explain, can’t respond because they are bifurcated. In men, according to Ensler, the head is separate from the heart. If they were bifurcated, that would mean that one part of them could respond. She, however, is implying that their heart is not simply separate from the brain. It is, in fact, dead.
Given that they keep fucking things up, maybe their brains are dead, too!
Ensler then quotes another statistic. “One out of three women on the planet will experience rape or violence in her lifetime. That’s a billion women, a billion women.”
Now Ensler doesn’t say where she gets this fact from, and Alberici doesn’t question her on it either.
In general, this “one in three” figure gets attributed to the WHO Report of 2002 (World Health Organisation, 2002). This same report shows that when it comes to death by violence, in other words, the sharp end of the problem, men outnumber women as victims by more than two to one.
Ensler and Alberici also ignore the fact that the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ Personal Safety Study of 2005 showed that men in Australia were twice as likely to experience violence of any kind (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2005).
So, that’s two billion men who will experience violence in their lifetimes To take Ensler’s lead, let me say it again. That is two billion men. That’s double. Two.
Sorry. I can’t help myself. That’s twice as much. Two billion. Men.
They also both ignore the fact that, as Murray Strauss has pointed out, the feminists in academia have been cooking the books on domestic violence for years. (Murray Straus, 2012)
Last, but not least, Ensler brings up her solution to ending violence against women:
And I really just want to say to all the good men if they were busy standing up and speaking to the men who were committing the violence and asking them why and making violence against women their central issue, and as important, for example, as football is, I bet you violence against women would end very, very, very rapidly (laughs).
There you have it, Gentlemen. Get rid of your Tigers scarves, your Victory shirts and your Storm season memberships and get your white ribbon on. Don’t go to the game on Saturday. Instead, get yourself down to the nearest war zone. Find a bunch of drug fuelled, undisciplined youths armed to the teeth and ask them why.
Tell them that Ensler and Alberici would have come themselves to ask why, but some rotten male asked if that blouse was still in fashion.
Let me summarise Ensler’s logic:
There are three distinct types of human beings. They are Good Men, Men in Power, and Women.
The Men in Power are interested in “the power that controls,” but are just making a mess of things. It seems this is because they are stupid, heartless and bifurcated. But, whatever the reason, clearly they shouldn’t be in charge.
It would be much better if Women were in charge, because they want the “power that sees all at the table”. It is so obvious that this power is a better kind of power that Ensler doesn’t have to explain it. Unfortunately, Women are so easily distracted by criticisms about their appearance that they get lost in a confusion of neurosis and narcissism.
This just makes the world a bad place of rape, torture and violence. Oops! And, I almost forgot, derogatory comments.
And so we need the Good Men. These are the men who don’t want “the power that controls”, but instead see the wisdom of allowing “the power that feeds” to be administered by Women. This is presumably so they can go back to watching the game.
And so, if the Good Men make violence against women as important as football, then they’ll go and talk to the Men in Power. As we all know, what thwarts a man with “the power to control,” is being asked why by a Good Man standing up.
And no, Alberici doesn’t ask the question “Why don’t the women make politics as important as fashion? There’s no “But what if the man with “the power to control” just shoots the Good Man who asks why? Like Hitler, Stalin or Mao?”
Or maybe, just maybe, in a single master stroke, the men with “the power to control” will ask “Who should play alongside Rooney for Manchester United and what should his girlfriend wear to the after-game party?” Two birds. One stone. All done.
Final score: Patriarchy 2, The Rest of the World 0.
Distraction over. Back to the football, guys. Thanks for your time.
Bibliography
ABC. (2012, February 10). About. Retrieved February 19, 2012, from Lateline: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/about.htm
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2005). Personal Safety Survey 2005 (Reissue 2006). Retrieved February 20, 2012, from Australian Bureau of Statistics: http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/056A404DAA576AE6CA2571D00080E985/$File/49060_2005%20(reissue).pdf
Ensler, E. (1996). Vagina Monolgues Script – The Dialogue. Retrieved February 17, 2012, from Drew’s Script-O-Rama: http://www.script-o-rama.com/movie_scripts/v/vagina-monologues-script-eve-ensler.html
Ensler, E. (2012, 02 10). We don’t own our bodies: Ensler. http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3428343.htm. (E. Alberici, Interviewer)
Lowe, A. (2012, January 19). Teacher’s remorse over same-sex abuse. Retrieved March 3, 2012, from The Age: http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/teachers-remorse-over-samesex-abuse-20120119-1q7jj.html
Murray Straus. (2012, February 4). Retrieved February 20, 2012, from A Voice for Men: http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/how-feminists-corrupt-dv-research/
Nielsen. (2012, February 6). Coalition Ahead 53% to 47%. Retrieved February 20, 2012, from Nielsen: http://au.nielsen.com/news/200512.shtml
Prime Minister’s Office. (2012, February 05). Transcript of Interview with Mike Willisee, Sunday Night. Retrieved February 19, 2012, from Prime Minister’s Office, Press Office: http://www.pm.gov.au/press-office/transcript-interview-mike-willesee
Swope, R. (2006, July 16). Applauding Rape at Georgetown. Retrieved February 21, 2012, from Accuracy in Academia: http://web.archive.org/web/20060716122336/http://www.academia.org/campus_reports/2000/may_2000_4.html
The Sydney Morning Herald. (2012, February 6). Media Attacks on PM ‘Sexist’, says Greens Leader. Retrieved February 19, 2012, from The Sydney Morning Herald: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/media-attacks-on-pm-sexist-says-greens-leader-20120206-1r0oh.html
The Telegraph. (2011, September 8). Axe murder of teenager Sidonie Thompson who had big dreams. Retrieved February 19, 2012, from The Telegraph: http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/axe-murder-of-teenager-sidonie-thompson-who-had-big-dreams/story-e6freuzr-1226131785651
USA Today. (2004, September 02). Vagina Monologues Banned in China. Retrieved February 19, 2012, from USA Today: http://www.usatoday.com/life/theater/news/2004-02-09-vagina-banned_x.htm
WA Today. (2011, December 8). Mother Kills Daughters in Murder-Suicide. Retrieved February 19, 2012, from WA Today: http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/mother-kills-daughters-in-murdersuicide-20111208-1okw4.html
World Health Organisation. (2002). Report on Violence and Health. Retrieved February 19, 2012, from WHO: http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2002/9241545615_chap1_eng.pdf
1 Posts in Total 
donations either one-time or on a monthly subscription basis.If you don't have paypal, check out the other options. If you want to get some merchandise and sponsor us at the same time, consider the AVfM store. 
Jay:
jatkoroikka:
Turbo:
Emerald:
TPH:
The feminist view of a “utopia” is a world where no woman ever has to lift a finger unless she chooses to. In such a world, women can do absolutely anything they want, and only men ever have to work and suffer problems. The fact that they defined “a world without violence against females” as a utopia with no mention about violence against men (even though men are much more likely to suffer physical violence) is an example how men aren’t viewed as human beings.
…and here are some more feminist definitions:
“Gender Equality”:
How pleasant something is for women and girls, whereas how men are effected has absolutely no effect on how gender “equal” it is considered.
“Gender Discrimination”:
1. Anything a female is not satisfied with.
2. Any problem a female faces, even if a male would suffer the exact same problem in her position, or a worse problem for that matter. One feminist source even cited women in poverty as gender discrimination, despite the fact that men make up the majority of poverty.
Blueface, this is a work of art. Applause.
Ensler, go clusterfuck your fellow Klanswomen, ya privileged aristocrat spinner of deceit and hate. Puke.
Look around you and see that females are comparably violent, malicious, vindictive bitches, IN THE ABSENCE OF MALES. Meditate on that, ye who gives prostitutes a bad name. Females generally conduct their violence by proxy, through naive and weak males. Do not fail to remember your own bedrock dogma, that behind every great man, there is a great woman. It follows immediately that such orchestrating females have played instrumental roles in all of the wars and violence marring our history. OWN THAT SHIT, you lying bitch.
Show me the soccer mom’s who are the saints as you say, who are opening their pristinely furnished suburban homes and tables to the hungry, homeless and the needy. HA! Yeah fucking right! That all would cut into her pretentious status driven soirees and shoe shopping budget !! Fuck you, ensler, for demonizing the very flesh and blood that allows you to live the life of privilege and comfort that you do. Fuck you to hell for your racist hate and deceit promulgated against men and boys. You fake. You disgusting fraud.
Very interesting read. I must apologize to my Australian brothers in arms, but the truth is that the more I hear about Australia, the more I am glad not to live there. I begin to wonder if there can ever be a future for Australia. Possibly it is condemned to the fate of Sweden.
To quote Aragorn, “What can men do against such reckless hate?” It may be time for all Australian men to get passports, get visas, and get out.
Great article. I think they would find it abusive since you did not simply agree with them. Not agreeing with them is almost as bad as making negative comments about their clothing…. LOL
A comic strip on the post-feminist future that someone posted on the MensRights subreddit:
http://imgur.com/81uAh
“Girl cell” ?
If there’s a “Bloke cell” I’ll happily go there with a good book and a hot meal and sit this insanity out.
Real issues of real importance need to be delivered to the television sets for discussion, but no. We have some chainsaw in a dress espousing her thoughts on… well you know.. things.
I’m tempted to post some silly satire at this moment but I won’t. This ball of buffoonery is doing a great job all on her own.
Blueface great first article. Great anything article for that matter, and I have a question for you.
“Does Eve Ensler’s muff know how much of a twat her owner really is ?”
“Does Eve Ensler’s muff know how much of a twat her owner really is ?”
Hard to know with all the echoing going on.
Scatters.
I walked in there once and saw a bloke walking the other way holding a broken aeroplane propeller.
As we passed he said, “Don’t ask mate. Don’t ask.”
Strange. I never did work that mystery out.
If I hadn’t settled for the name that came on the boat, “Bloke Cell” might just be a top contender for the transom.
The Dalai Lama – “The World Will Be Saved By the Western Woman”
…words fail me…
Indeed. Here as well. Wow.
I think Mr Lama needs some protein. Someone get him a rib eye. Fast.
Although, he probably doesn’t get Jersey Shore and The Real House Wives of . . . in McLeodganj or wherever he lives.
She’ll drive Western man to secede, disappear, go Zen, reach Enlightenment and split for Nirvana. (And I most certainly am NOT talking about anything even remotely including Kurt Cobain.)
I will attest that Nirvana (in the Buddhist sense) is even nicer than an orgasm. And more sustainable.
Wait – It’s a Snark! No, wait, Bosun Higgs says it’s a quark!
No – It’s a booj . . .
From PlanetGreen.com (least offensive link I could find):
“At the Vancouver Peace Summit in September 2009, the Dalai Lama declared at “The world will be saved by the Western woman.” [...] According to his Holiness, The Dalai Lama, “Some people may call me a feminist….But we need more effort to promote basic human values — human compassion, human affection.”
What is there to say?
Buddhism, Mahayana Buddhism most of all, is Compassion Writ Large.
I haven’t “studied Buddhism” (in a scholastic, authoritarian sense) for several hundred years. Not in this life, in other words. But I am going to strain your willingness-to-suspend-judgment, now, by declaring that I’ve spent a few lives going in that direction … some in the truly-ancient Rig-Vedic-Hindu tradition, at least one in Zen, and I recall one in Tibet …
The most popular form of Buddhism in the world is the one labeled “Mahayana”, or The Great Raft. It holds Compassion, and on its heels altruism, as the greatest good and the most-to-be-revered virtue. To balance the Buddha, the Mahayana brought forth the “female grace” as Kwan Yin, the Goddess of Compassion.
What is the Dalai Lama’s most urgently-sought grace? Compassion. In fact, what is the most-revered state of the spirit in Mahayana Buddhism? Not the knowledge and wisdom that made it possible to reach Nirvana … but the compassion to turn aside, stay “with” this Universe, and help others to reach Nirvana “until even the grass is enlightened!”
They call such a one a Bodhisattva. And I can tell you it’s rough duty.
Well, I have to conditionally agree with His Radiance. If Western women can do as good a job in saving the whole gosh darn world as they have in maintaining and promoting the basic keystone to civilized Western society: The Nuclear Family then we don’t have anything to worry about in our future! Nothing succeeds like success.
I’m sure he said “destroyed” but the feminists botched the translation on purpose
Very well written and a captivating read.
The most strange and peculiar thing about all of this is, that a very large percentage of the demographic she was adressing with these perfect examples of cognitive dissonance were probably not even paying attention to most of what she were saying. They were very likely way to preoccupied with studying her wrinkles, her fat ass, or trying to figure out if that blouse was last years fashion or not.
They just heard: Men are bad, men rape, men are violent, and then nodded in complete agreement with the rest.
I love it when the crazies go on a rant like this. It becomes completely obvious to anyone else but themselves, how much feminist theories are based in projections of their own emotions, self indulgence, lack of empathy, and not much else of any substance.
Women who think the Vaginal Monologues is a great play are sicko female pedophile worshippers.
Imagine a play where the lead man who was doing these things, or even had those attitudes, was portrayed as anything other than scum of the earth.
She condemns men as violent, raping scumbags and yet writes a bit in her play that glorifies a grown woman committing statutory rape on a 13 (or 16) year old girl who then calls it “a good rape…
Nic Cage after watching the Vagina Monologues. And yes, I enjoyed the movie from which this clip came from. Very much so.
X 1000
Keep up the good work. I liked the article. Very well researched.
I’ll bet the bitch doesn’t have the, ahem, vagina to agree to an unscripted interview with Paul, JTO, or Dr T.
Yeah, Just JTO alone could make her run crying like a little girl within a FRACTION of a second.
Sounds like a typical snapshot of the journalistic baby-talk going on all around the planet. Whilst Blueface has exposed the absurdities of this one discussion, the fact is the same discussion is going on in every corner of the world in every home – utterly commonplace.
Can’t really blame the playwright-dingbat. She doesn’t sound as if she’s been to school. But the journalist-dingbat should know better. A great job of debunking and an absorbing, entertaining read.
Equality:
Where men don’t need to be worried about women lying about birth control and then matriarchy forcing them to pay up for 20 years. Where men don’t get imprisoned for failing to pay child support for children fathered by someone else.
Where women will not go unpunished for hurting men’s feelings and bank accounts by deceiving them into paying for cuckold children. Where prisons will hold equal numbers of men and women.
Where women will go to jail for embezzling child support for their own clothing shopping spree.
Where men don’t need to worry that a woman’s “yes” is void and invalid because he failed to do an alcohol test and a recording proving consent.
Where men can walk on the street at night, with Rolex and wads of cash, without worrying about assaults, robbery, murder.
Where men can walk around in any part of town without fear of robbery, or gang bangers.
Where men can sleep at night without fear of waking up with their penis cut off, or shot in the back, by a woman that is encouraged by matriarchy to commit violence, because she can trust she will not be held responsible for murder or mutilation.
Where men can have sex without worry if it will cost them $ 200 000 (birth control lie, or fertilization with condom from garbage), or sex will cost them 15 year in jail because she claims the consent was not valid, or she withdrew consent 5 seconds before the end.
But this is really the equality bummer:
Where men have the right to have desire, to have a lot of sex or have a little sex, whatever their bodies want.
How can that happen in practice? Make sure there are no 40 year old male virgins, and no frustrated sex-less men with compulsion to watch porn because the can not get the sex they want from real women.
Where women teach other women to have mercy on losers, and give all men the sex they want and need, without discrimination.
Where women hold sluts in high esteem, because they make men happy and help men to have the sex men want. Where women encourage more women to become easily available sluts.
Where woman make sure there are enough high quality and low price sex workers to make men happy and to make sure men get all the sex they want. Especially to make sure there are no 40 year old unhappy involuntary male virgins.
Where women allow other women from third world countries to come in to make sure men can get all the sex they want, be it as mail order brides, or as prostitutes with legal work visas and in clean, safe, legal brothels.
=================
How come men don’t fight for the rights of their fellow men the way women fight for the rights of their fellow women?
Actually, I expect to be downvoted for being unrealistic, sexist, unchaste, sex-obsessed, ……………..
Human-Stupidity, your statement is impossible in practice, for obvious sociological and philosophical reasons relating back to Femmunist ideals.
But I am UP-VOTING YOU because it’s a consummation devoutly to be wished! A consummation for which I devoutly wish. An honest and irrefutable statement of “true equality” that is not only ignored by the Femmunist Manifesto, but loudly decried and actively denied by Team Wyminnzzz.
Please pass the dream-pipe, I want to dream that dream too! But I fear it can never happen. Oh woad, woad is me …
(Blueface, I actually once streaked a meeting of a medievalist organization wearing sword, shield, sandals and blue dye. I’d been teased before that, by my fellow members, but I assure you that nobody Pict on me afterwards. It was, however, tough to explain the remnants on Monday morning …)
There’s this tumblr-blog called “glitter femin1sts. It’s one of the most ignorant places I’ve ever had the displeasure to come across. They make no sense to me. They’re proof of the damage in society caused by feminism. I feel pity for them. They constantly post misandric things and are smug about them. They’re just sad beings really.
Mainstream media must die, and MRA’s must kill it by any means!
When we get pieces like this from Blueface that day cannot be far off.
His article reads better than anything I’ve read in the MSM for decades. It’s incisive, articulate, original, witty and even academic. It’s streets ahead of the garbage produced by the illiterate and undiscerning (though probably credentialed) hacks working the MSM today.
When talented guys like this are working for free for a fringe publication like AVfM, and the MSM has the all the burdens of modern employment law for the mediocrities they must hire, it almost seems like there must be a plot to destroy feminism from the inside. It cannot possibly survive its own hubris.
Mainstream media is already dead for me, and no doubt for the likes of most of us!
Honestly, I have more respect for tarot card readers and crystal ball pilots than journalists (especially female ones like Rosin, Bolick and the new bitch who wrote “The Richer Sex”).
Best way to kill it is with the truth; simple, unadulterated, and to the point.
And judging by the best, gender neutral dictionary definition I could find, there appears to be no form of “good” rape:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rape
There has to be some simplification of legal code that would make these bloody things clear cut.
A bit off topic, but there was a file out there that is a web archive of poking fun at feminists with humor, pictures, and false magazine covers, in html format. Does anyone have that download link? I had it, and somehow it got eaten by my computer or by my cleaning it
Amen KMM..a the fuck..MEN.
The “Girl Cell” bit was enough to fill my brain with enough fuck to last me the next four weeks.
Seriously, Ensler? Fucking Seriously?
I read Esther Vilar’s book.. and keep thinking.. No this cant be, can it? Let me give them the benefit of doubt for now.. Posts like this bring me back to reality.
How much of a degenerate is this woman to say shit like that with a straight face? What is going through the minds of the people in the studio?
As with Paul and OneHundred, I am at a loss for words blueface. Written brilliantly . But also glad I got this information so that I can safely come to THIS conclusion:
My God. Esnler writes like a fucking retard.
She is “a fucking retard”.
Loved the article and this quote you used bowled me over.
“And I really just want to say to all the good men if they were busy standing up and speaking to the men who were committing the violence and asking them why and making violence against women their central issue, and as important, for example, as football is, I bet you violence against women would end very, very, very rapidly (laughs).”
Silly cunt claims women are equal yet doesn’t believe women can do jack squat about violence. Demanding men who already absorb most of societies violence take on more so that not a single women has to really live in a “man’s world” but will benefit of the rewards of doing so.
Un-fricken-real, has anyone ever given Ensler a brain scan to see if all neurons are actually firing?
Actually yes.
A brain scan was done and the neuron was firing perfectly well.
The Vaj Monologues is one big penis envy trip.
It’s says, “Be just as proud of that space down there as we imagine men to be of their dangly man parts.”
“A vagina is not a penis and testicles, it’s actually better in many ways and here’s why I think so.”
Embrace the void, where there might have existed meat and two veg.
Yep-just like Diana Boston who once let it slip that she had more guy friends than girls when she was younger: It is not that she really so much dislikes men and thinks “women are better”. No, in truth she hates.being.female.
Speaking of vaginas, Rush Limbaugh recently got devoured by a giant one named Fluke. From having 40 plus sponsors for his long running radio show to having virtually none after stating the obvious in public got him attacked and consumed by a giant vagina. Like the Blob of 1950′s sci-fi movie fame it will get you where ever you are. It has a voracious appetite.
“It has a voracious appetite.”
Or like a 1950s model car named Christine.
Apparently the whole “sponsors left him in droves” thing was just clever distortion by his enemies.
He debunked that claim on his site:
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/03/07/clearing_up_misinformation_on_our_sponsors
p.s.
I just have to mention this coz I’m jumping for joy… another radio host is coming back on the air
Tom Leykis is back on the air in less than 3 weeks, he’s going global and brethren worldwide will be able to tune in on the internet 24/7 
Don’t drink the kool-aid from the biased media and late night comedians, only to repeat it here.
Rush lost 3 sponsors from the syndicated portion of the show, and several in some local markets. He had new ones lined up at Clear Channel’s front door the next day.
The Liberal Complex has been fantasizing about silencing him for 20 years. It’s never gonna happen. It’s not like he needs the money anymore either. Even if Clear Channel shut him down tomorrow, he’d pop right back up on Blog Talk Radio.
thank you , well done Blueface, I’m not sorry I missed that episode of Lateline, I missed nothing! That the Australian Human Rights Commission could see sponsoring an event by Ensler as an appropriate way to spend their government funding, simply confirms the radical feminist governance of that organisation, who’s agenda is to champion the human rights of one demographic women and ignore totally the opposite demographic men. Yet Ensler still puts word equality in her definition of “feminism” , hypocrisy to the nth degree.
You missed a good laugh.
We are very fortunate indeed to have a media celebrity like Ensler. Moreover, one who is taken seriously by the msm. What more evidence do we need to realize how truly fucked up our cultures have become? And this suggests something about what it means to be “well-adjusted” within such a culture. Namely, ordinary people, ingesting this garbage without questioning it, really can be this stupid. And people this stupid are providing the role models with which to breed and multiply the stupidity. And they are providing the values and standards with which they judge one another and require everyone else to comply. Now, given how ridiculous things have become, does this not provide cause to question everything else, including our religions and our sciences?
Even eastern religions – as per the Dalai Lama’s comment, “the world will be saved by the western woman” lol. Far from being saved, the entire world is being propelled into oblivion at an accelerated rate because of the western woman. So much for the Dalai Lama’s credibility.
“The world will be saved by the western woman”
Allow me to explain. The western woman will drive the western men to go their own way, and give up trying to please them and provide for them, and protect them.
After that, the consumerism that has engulfed the western world, and is expanding to the rest of the world will not be possible. With drastically reduced industrial output and consumption, our fosil fuel use will be cut to a fraction, along with all other resourse use. This in turn will bring about economic collapse and force everyone back to much simpler lives using far less of everything……..thus…….save the world.
See
On a blind date I went with a sweet girl to the Vagina monologues.” After that it went down hill
We went to dinner and she glared at the candle and then me, “Phallus” she said. I cancelled the bread sticks but it was too late already.
When I opened my wallet to pay for the meals she looked at it and scowled, “Opening up a clam are we ? Hhhmmmm, just like you want to open up my clam !”
We went home on a train that went into a tunnel and in the darkness I heard her cry out, “Ah Ha ! Phallus.. in a tunnel ! …Rape !”
I put my transit card in the slot and she shrieked, “Insertion. A slit. More rapes !”
Later on my footsteps with hers, “Oppression of mother earth with your stomping.” and then opening my umbrella, “Shielding the heaven’s gift you bastard!” and later brushing a fly from my brow, “Killer!”, drinking coffee, “Greed.” asking for the bill, “Master/Servant deal!” Buttoning my jacket, “Sly !” then putting on a hat, “Skull hater!”
I swear it brothers, never ever take a sheila on a date to that play. You’ll end up with seeing a rotten play and you end up with a really cross bitch wanting a deep and meaningful night with you about all sorts of boring junk.
Also, you’ll never score a root and you can’t even flog off to the memories of it later.
Maybe taking a first date to the vagina monologues is exactly what a man should do. The effect the monologues would have on her would reveal in short order what kind of human being she is by whether she buys into the “vagina” social fraud or not. Her thoughts and actions would reveal all about her personality a man would need to know.
If she does buy the lie then he could dump her sorry ass in short order without investing too much emotional energy and grief later on.
Yeah thats exactly what to do. Try them out and don’t give the man haters the time of day. Let them sit in the cold alone and then they have nothing to blame men on. Men refuse to be part of their life… Every man should do exactly that. Kick a few mangina’s on the way too with hard facts of course.
Ah, yes, the magical golden vagina. A free pussy pass granted to each fembonist. Entitled little princesses, with a get out of jail free card between their legs.
It must really suck to be a totally worthless, hateful and butt-ugly feminazi.
I mean let’s face it, these backward, primitive creatures have no real place or worth, anywhere within a productive, civilized society.
In a sane and rational world, these types would be removed from the populace, locked up and doped up for everyone’s greater good and the world would be a better, happier place for it!
Seriously ask yourselves:
Would any rational man really want to reproduce with one of these creatures?
Can these creatures and their evil ideology really provide anything positive at all to any civilized society?
Can they effectively and safely wield a weapon?
A tool?
Knowledge?
They know as well as we do, the more than obvious answers to all of these questions.
Feminazism in fact, didn’t build the world nor contribute in any way towards that end and feminazis understand and hate this and this FACT alone!
Hence the viktymhood ideology these creatures so aptly and willingly embrace.
It’s all they have…
They are a drain and an anchor on the world and their abject failure is displayed for all to see and hear, every time they open their collective mouth or make a political move.
“Grow the fuck up!!!” doesn’t even begin to cover it…
The best kind of evidence that Eve Ensler is an idiot: ‘rapey’ porn for females is still going strong after all these years: http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/pageviews/2012/03/its-all-porn-to-me-one-mans-review-of-50-shades-of-grey
Gillard isnt supported not because shes a woman. She’s not supported coz she’s a bigoted hatemonger determined to make men 2nd class citizens. One look at “the plan” which puts men in a position as nothing more than womens disposable possessions and ATM machines will prove that. I generally prefer the labour party and was quite happy to support her until I found out her feminazi man hating social policy was cooked up at a Perth SCuM convention. Doesn’t take much looking into it to see that they were the ONLY ones that had any input in this.
You want mens support Gillard? Treat them as the bloody equals they deserve! Its not rocket science a bloody 8th grader could grasp it. As for politics not being “nice” to her, can anyone seriously remember a political leader who hasn’t been constantly and relentlessly attacked by the opposition? Isnt that WHY theyre called the opposition. Get a f’ing brain Gillard or just kill yourself and do us all a massive favour. The future men AND women will thank you for your suicide. It will be a huge social service. Far greater than anything your bigoted mind will ever serve thats for sure.
As for the ABC well thats the governments little propoganda network so it’s now the feminazi network isn’t it? Rudd could hack people having fun with him, just look at “the chaser” but no-one, repeat no-one must question or mock our exalted goddess leader. Gillard your a nazi and I hate you. It actually upsets me to have to use that word. I don’t like it but you have f’ing earned my hatred fair and square and deserve nothing less. In fact I hate you even more for bringing me to the point where I have to use that word.
Men and women. Do not wear that god awful white ribbon! Do not forget it is now tied to acceptance of her new blatantly sexist “the plan” Tell them exactly where to shove their ribbon and why! Make some noise and wake people up. I do everyday….
Boycott the feminist! Do not date or grace them with your time unless it is in response to their hateful dribble. They are man hate and anything they say to the contrary is merely “pink haze”. Also for petes sakes men stop glorifiying lesbians. They’re the heart of radical feminism. Stop licking the hand that squeezes your balls as hard as it can. Wake the hell up!
Did Gillard actually have anything to do with ‘The Plan’?
Being a mindless PC-spewing twat is actually a pre-requisite for employment at the Australian Broadcasting Commission. No dissenting views are permitted at ‘Auntie’. This nick-name was given to the ABC decades ago because its programming once reflected safe, middle-class Australian values – nothing that would offend your Auntie, you see.
Sometime in the early seventies, Auntie read ‘The Female Eunuch’ and went off the rails. She started running with the wrong crowd (the CBC?), experimented with dope and macrobiotic diets and turned up one Christmas as a full-blown man-hating feminist ratbag – and vegetarian. From that moment on, it was Auntie who, bloated on weed, lentils and bile, started to do all the offending. She is the ultimate welfare queen, by the way, consuming vast amounts of tax revenue – mainly financed by the men she actively despises, of course.
No one is surprised that Auntie received Eve Ensler with the fawning gush of a star-struck enabler. Anyone familiar with the ABC knows that there was greater chance of Ms Ensler’s vagina breaking into song and doing wisecracks than her being confronted with a challenging question. In Auntie’s obsequious embrace, Ms Ensler, and her talkative vagina, was safe from any kind of probing. So, she waffled on about girl cells and fixing the world (as you do), safe in the knowledge that there was no Uncle around to issue the loving smack-upside-the-head we all need when we talk crap. That, in a way, is her tragedy.
Excellent article, Mr Blueface. This is a sharply-drawn account of a typical visit to Auntie’s, whose “sacred babble” over organic tea and vaginas indicates that the old girl might be ready for (to coin an Edna phrase) that maximum security twilight home.
I think hypergamy is tied into feminists’ collective obsession to enjoy the same status as the elite 1% of men. In the dating world they only focus on the men at the very top as if the others don’t even exist, so it seems natural that when they compare themselves to men they only consider the men at the very top.
They seem so blind and stupid to not realize this. Or evil and coldhearted if they do.
Great article Blueface.
Ensler does make one very good point though.
“If not for Feminism, we wouldn’t be having this interview”
Dead Right. If not for Feminism nobody would be listening to that drivel, nor put up with that bigotry.
As for “They didn’t even know their vaginas were their own.”
Mmmmmmm. Got me thinking. Wonder who owns my penis? Is there a play I can see?