Friday, June 28, 2013
The Wussification of American Men. Eric Bolling of Fox News May Just Be the Last Non-Wuss Standing, Possibly With His Foot On Someone's Neck.
The official mouthpiece of wingnuts, Fox News, had a chat about a girl who was banned from playing football with the boys at her private school, because, among other reasons, the boys might have impure thoughts.
The whole conversation from here, is such fun*:
Four out of five people in that chat, including all three men, are adamantly opposed to the idea of mixed football teams (one is neutral) even in childhood. The most commonly argued reason is that the girl could get hurt! She looks to me like a pretty strong and big sixth grader, and at that age boys can, in fact, be smaller than girls. But because she could get hurt at some future and unspecified date, she must stop playing immediately.
Eric Bolling somehow draws the conclusion from this case that it's all about the wussification of American men. I don't get the connection, probably because I have a brain, but the only interpretation that makes any sense is that Bolling thinks men should put their foot down firmly, preferably on women's necks, on all this equality bullshit.
As an aside, I've been astonished by the number of times I read from anti-feminists about the enormous value of getting doors opened for nothing. On some MRA sites it's a tremendous service which today's women, in their demands for equality, have relinquished. Now they can only blame themselves when nobody opens that H-E-A-V-Y door for them or, as the case may be, punches them in the face.
These folks seem to think that we once had an implicit gender contract which gave women the advantages of receiving (wholly voluntary and optional) chivalry from men and which presumably kept women from ever being molested in any way whatsoever. What women relinquished in return to these benefits is rarely spelled out in that scenario but it looks like that would be all legal equality and the right not to have a custodian.
That bargain looks to me one that no woman would have voluntarily entered, but it must appeal to MRA types because their sites are full of stuff about the tremendous value of getting doors opened for you. It's worth almost anything!
Bolling mentions those doors which he probably now slams in the face of all uppity bitches. He also mentions how he can no longer complement a woman on her dress, in case people experience that as sexual harassment.
But real men can't tell a dress from a tarpaulin, Eric! If you can assess the artistry of a dress you are a wuss. Unless the dress consists of a piece of string between her buttocks and two one-inch discs over her nipples.
Enough about Bolling. Others at Fox News chime in with agreement, stating that often-used but ultimately meaningless argument that men and women are equal but different. This means that sixth grade girls are not allowed to play in a boys' team.
The equal-but-different, as it is used by anti-feminists, is as meaningless as the old racial argument about separate-but-equal, because the assumed differences, whether real or not, are used to stop actual equality from taking place where it could.
As a nasty example, Fox News' female and male commentators are equal but different in the sense that all the women are beautiful in the Barbie-doll style, whereas the men often look like potatoes which have just been dug up from the field. Because more of us people look like potatoes than Barbie dolls (or Ken dolls), the desired difference (women are eye-candy and should be content with getting their dress praised and doors opened for them) causes inequality in the selection of men and women into this job at Fox. It's easier for men to get in (those doors are HEAVY) and they probably get paid more, what with having to open doors to the chicks, too.
Then the argument from one of the other guys, about the logical extension to this equality rubbish: Let the boys play on all girls' teams where they will then dominate everything! How do you feminists like them apples, eh?
But that's an inane argument, because this girl was on the football team solely for the reason that there wasn't a football team for girls. If a boy wanted to play a sport only available to girls at a school, he should be allowed to play with the girls. So I think.
In general, the whole conversation degenerates into pure sexism of the type where all-men-are-that-way and all-women-are-this-way and the amount of thinking behind the various blurts is close to zero. But that's not unexpected from the political party which wages a war on women on several different fronts.
*Note, also, that the text at the bottom of the screen is incorrect. The girl didn't say that boys might have impure thoughts, the school argued that. If that's the reason the school used, by the way, the girl was excluded to protect the boys against their own thoughts. Which demonstrates an interesting value judgement.