Every now and then a feminist engages with one of our articles and effectively nominates herself for our “Whiny Woman of the Month” award. Sadly, by doing so, a woman disqualifies herself by virtue of rule #17 in The Whine Club Rule Book, the rule about self-nominations. Emily Jarman has posted a lengthy comment on one of our associated blogs, The Alternative Sexism Project. Her comment is to be found after a piece we posted titled, “How to train your woman like a dog”, and it’s reproduced in full at the end of this article:
http://thealternativesexismproject.wordpress.com/2013/11/23/how-to-train-your-woman-like-a-dog/
Comments on the Alternative Sexism Project website aren’t moderated – a matter which will evidently come as news to Ms. Jarman, as you’ll see shortly – but we’ve warned visitors to the site that if we get a stream of feminist nonsense in the comment streams, we’ll introduce moderation. Ms Jarman’s comments will appear so manifestly ridiculous to followers of AVfM and our three blogs, that rather than delete it – which would take a matter of seconds – we’re going to leave it visible for all to see.
We’ll point people towards it at every opportunity, to illustrate our points about feminist thinking. What we won’t do is spend more than a little time refuting nonsense we’ve refuted many times before, or sending her information that shows her claims to be absurd. No feminists ever engage with evidence-based rational arguments, and we’re guessing wildly that Ms. Jarman would be no exception. We spend our time engaging with people whose brains are capable of engagement, not brainwashed feminists.
Less than ten minutes after she’d posted her comments, she sent me an email with the same comments, and the rather grandiose subject title, “The importance of my voice”. Hmm… Narcissistic Personality Disorder, possibly? We might nominate her for the next “Entitlement Princess of the Month” award.
Ms Jarman’s comments take up the rest of this post; we have added one or two things in square brackets:
“Firstly the article to which you refer was posted by a man who went on to say that he did not mean to say that men were less complex than women and he was only writing a funny article. Now before I go on, if you think for a minute that I am in line with your views or sick ‘Anti feminist league’ [http://fightingfeminism.wordpress.com] then you are sorely deluded. In some of the entries written on the J4MB website [http://j4mb.org.uk] you claim that women are out of the woods [other than female forestry workers, obviously] and that there is equality for women, or rather even inequality against men. One of these books written by ‘Mike Buchanan’ (leader of the site) was entitled Feminism: The Ugly Truth [thanks for the plug] and by taking one glance at this appalling website I am guessing that this book is hardly talking about the ugly truth when it comes to female discrimination. And yes I understand that this man is named Buchanan after Tom Buchanan in The Great Gatsby, a misogynistic, racist character who is meant to be loathsome and considered to have no intelligence, though you clearly idolise (yes I, a women, am capable of reading books!!! You must be so shocked and appalled) [Emily, you’re becoming ever more detached from reality. I’ve never written a word about The Great Gatsby in my life, and I’m fairly confident my surname comes not from a character in any book, but from my recently deceased father. Do go on…]
To begin my reasoning behind women being anything but ‘out of the woods’ when it comes to gender inequalities, I would like to raise the point that out of 27 MPs in the UK cabinet today, 4 are women and that only 22% of the MPs in the House of Commons are female whereas 52% of the UK population is female, therefore the role of the government in representing the electorate has clearly massively failed here.
[No, Emily, it’s women who have ‘clearly massively failed here’. For decades they’ve failed to apply to become prospective parliamentary candidates (PPCs) in anything remotely approaching the number of men who’ve applied, hence the ‘need’ for anti-meritocratic all-women PPC shortlists, ‘family friendly’ working hours, taxpayer-funded creches… and still quite a few of the 2010 intake of female MPs are leaving politics before the 2015 general election! Far more men than women want to be MPs, far more women than men want other lines of work. So what? Should MPs accurately reflect the proportion of people in the country who have one leg, stammer, who are clinically obese, short, who are hate-driven feminists? The last category, at least, is grossly over-represented in the House of Commons. Let’s start to restore some balance by removing Harriet Harman and Yvette Cooper, shall we?]
I would also like to point out that a woman has a 1 in 5 chance of being raped whereas a man has a 1 in 10, meaning its [sic] doubly as likely that a girl will be raped as opposed to a man [Er, no. It’s not. You need to watch Alison Tieman’s video http://j4mb.wordpress.com/2014/02/11/alison-tieman-on-rape-versus-being-forced-to-penetrate/ ]. Statistics published by the police also conclude that 93.7% of rapists are men. Therefore even you can clearly see that decreasing female sexual assaults needs to be dealt with before male assaults (not that that isn’t important as well) [thank you, that’s very kind] and therefore the claim I saw on your website that male assault is not only more serious [it doesn’t say that] but more common [it doesn’t say that] is totally false.
Men should be equal to women, I could not agree more. However as women are so much more highly discriminated against not only in everyday situations [such as?] but in terms of livelihoods [such as?], jobs [as opposed to ‘livelihoods’?] and general international opinion, [why, curse that ‘general international opinion’! Hopefully Laura Bates and The Everyday Whining Project are working around the clock to change that? If so, the problem should be sorted within a week or two] you should not attempt to persuade people that men are that ones that are not equal with the privileged women as I am sorry to break it to you, but you are so inconceivably wrong I can not quite believe a website like this exists in the 21st century [I can quite believe you can’t quite believe that], these are not in accordance with the progress the rest of the world is making toward viewing women are [sic] increasingly equal to men.
I realise that you will not be publishing this as you are far too cowardly [oops, how did that realisation work out for you, Emily?] however I would like my voice heard, [me too – this is gold dust for us] even if its [sic] only by one person who reads this, then that is my voice made slightly louder and my aim achieved. [The aim of looking absurd? Consider it achieved spectacularly.] By not publishing this comment but many made by men, I can assume that you wish for nothing more than to duck [sic] tape my mouth shut and prevent my voice from ever escaping as I am a women. [On the contrary, I hope you’ll be posting lots more comments. We invite you to spend 24/7/365 doing so.] By prompting men’s voices to be so much louder (not that they shouldn’t have a voice, just that it should be equal) then you are openly declaring your sexist and misogynistic approach to the world. If I don’t see this comment I posted, I will be forced to view you as nothing but sexist pigs.”
