Posts Tagged men
Apparently some asshat asked another jackass by the name of V.S. Naipaul about which women writers
could beat him at arm-wrestling were equal to him, and the jackass took the opportunity to say he was better than all women writers including Jane Austen. Wow, V.S., you propped yourself up against a woman who’s been dead for decades! So courageous!
Over at She Writes, Kamy Wicoff is about as impressed with this display of cock-measuring as I am:
To be sure, I believe that literature can be judged. Like porn, good writing is one of those things that is difficult to define, but relatively easy to distinguish from the other kind (writing that is bad). The range of writing that people like, however, is as broad as humanity, and once certain things have been established — good sentence structure, good story-telling, good fact-checking, and so on — what appeals to one reader or another is anybody’s guess, and everybody’s right to decide for themselves. Informed decisions are preferable, and to that end I am grateful for the critics and scholars who devote themselves to the study of the craft; but only so long as education, not declaration, is their aim. Writing is not a contest, and by definition can never be. There are too many variables, far too much subjectivity, and the work itself defies definable metrics or binary judgments. It is this defiance of clearcut “answers” that makes writing, and reading, such deeply pleasurable activities and such individual joys; our tastes are something each of us can own and define.
I’m all like, look, fuckhead, I am not going to stress myself out trying to come up with a list of women writers that I can “prove” are at least as good as you. To do that, I would first have to read a novel or two of yours, and I’m a mite busy with writing my own, and besides, after that display of dumbassery, I just can’t be bothered.
Instead, I merely remarked on Twitter,
Neil Bowdler at BBC tells us of penile spines that Homo sapiens lost in the shuffle of evolution:
The researchers then focused on two deletions, linking one to penile spines and another to the growth of specific areas of the brain.
They then tested the effects of the deleted sequences in human skin and neural tissue, and found further evidence to support their claims.
So now they’re trying to figure out a theory for why the human penis no longer has spines.
Penile spines are barb-like structures found in many mammals. Their role remains under debate, and they may play different roles in different species.
They may increase stimulation for the male during mating. They might also play a part in inducing female ovulation in a small number of species, but there is evidence that they can cause damage to the female too.
Then there is the suggestion that they might have evolved to remove “mating plugs” – material that some male species deposit in the female genital tract to block other males’ attempts to fertilise the same female.
I am not a biologist, but I would like to suggest that “they can cause damage to the female too” may have been motivator enough for our species to shed this feature. Having enormous brains also means the babies present with especially large heads, which (along with our relatively small hips due to upright posture) means that childbirth for humans is difficult, painful and dangerous in ways that it isn’t for most other mammals. Ergo, could it be possible that giving birth to increasingly large-headed infants made human females predisposed to copulate with males with more pleasure-inducing and less injury-inflicting genitalia? Since the commitment of pregnancy makes females the “bottleneck” of reproduction, we don’t need all men—just a small fraction of them, really—to be available for copulation. I can just picture primitive hominid females looking at their options and saying, “If it’s gonna hurt that much coming out, then dammit, I want it to feel good going in.”
Thank you, Tracey Egan Morrissey at Jezebel, for pointing out the lameness of Rich Santos at Marie Claire!
Because men don’t like overly confident women—apparently the characteristic of a bad girl—and men “don’t necessarily want to be in bed with a girl who knows more than they do.” Here’s the thing, though: I think he’s sort of right here. He should stay away from women who are confident and experienced—mostly because they wouldn’t want him to touch them with a ten-inch pole, even if said pole was his peen. Chicks like that don’t like insecure pussies who don’t know how to properly go down on a woman.
I will do my best to encapsulate why Santos’s theory is so obnoxious to women: he is asking them to hold up their end of a bargain while simultaneously admitting that he cannot reasonably expect to hold up his end.
At the Daily Dish, Chris Bodenner asks this about Ladies’ Nights at bars:
I’m not especially animated by this double standard, but on the face of it, the disparate cost of drinks based on gender seems pretty damn discriminatory. What if a club owner wanted to attract more white patrons by offering them a special discount?
I would like to point out to Mr. Bodenner that Amanda Marcotte has already answered his question:
It’s not like feminists are for ladies night. Most feminists I’ve seen who’ve bothered to register an opinion on this point out truthfully that ladies night is about getting more women to the bar in order to get more men to the bar, and is just generally insulting to everyone.
There we have it. Bodenner assumes that Ladies’ Night pricing is about creating a privilege for women, that simply getting more women into the bar is supposed to be an end unto itself. It’s not really about women, though. It’s not about saying women deserve to get drunk for a lower price than men. Women are simply the mid-point. It is about bringing more women into the bar, so that more men will come in to buy them drinks and hit on them. So it’s really not comparable to a club owner who decides he wants more white customers. I suppose there might be a scenario in which a club owner would try to get more white patrons in as a mid-point in bringing in even more customers of other demographics, but whatever it is, it doesn’t happen frequently enough to be a recognized marketing tactic.
Both Scott Clevenger and Amanda Marcotte have awesome posts up riffing on the Fatherhood Forever Foundation’s warbling over the men who aren’t getting Father’s Day cards because of those wicked women who had the gall to terminate pregnancies.
“I didn’t want to marry your mother, or help her raise a child, but I did want to force her to carry one to term in order to increase my annual greeting card yield.”
A dumbassed sympathy card from FFF after the jump:
Read the rest of this entry »
In case you’re wondering, I find the craze for manscaping only marginally less obnoxious than the trend of Vajazzling, but that’s only because guys haven’t yet started gluing rhinestones onto their freshly waxed chests.
but he is “really good at growing it everywhere else,” particularly on his back, said his wife, Anna, a publicist for Amway. “My husband is blond, so he doesn’t look like a big hairy ape, but he does look like a golden retriever,” she said.
Right. We should totally be accepting personal grooming advice from Amway publicists. Just like the guys on Jersey Shore are role models for today’s men.