<![CDATA[Jezebel: save the males]]> http://tags.gawker.com/assets/base/img/thumbs140x140/jezebel.com.png <![CDATA[Jezebel: save the males]]> http://jezebel.com/tag/savethemales http://jezebel.com/tag/savethemales <![CDATA[Would Someone Send This Woman To Thailand Already?]]> Kathleen Parker has already pissed us off by being all like, keep your proto-slutty toddler away from my perfect little boys! But, oh God, her book Save the Males gets so much worse that. And then there's her interview and her sycophants and her deep love of Real Men. (What the hell is a Real Man, pray tell? He's what us lesbian bonerkilling Feminazis have killed off with our love of equality, our recognition that men aren't, like, super-fantastic all the time and our desire to have men do housework rather than be the Beav's Dad. Oh, and once we realize how just truly fucked gender relations are in this country, we'll all want to move some place where men aren't nearly as oppressed as in America! Riiiiight.)

So: Parker's "thesis," such as it is, is that, as the mother of sons, she's finally realized how much feminism has made everyone — including men — hate men. They're either all abusers or bumbling fools or feminized emo hipsters. The fact that women have had and raised children without fathers around is totally evidence of how we hate men and not how men have in many cases decided not to take responsibility for their half of the parenting equation but WHATEVER, that ruins her thesis about how it's all our fault.

At the same time that men have been ridiculed in the public sphere, the importance of fatherhood has been diminished, along with other traditionally male roles of father, protector and provider, which are incredibly viewed as regressive manifestations of an outmoded patriarchy.

Also, according to Parker, we're always trying to fix so-called "masculine traits": traits she identifies as "honour, courage, valour and loyalty" that are completely lacking in women even after feminism because women are dishonorable, cowardly and disloyal and they tend to use two words that mean the same thing right in a row.

Although most people thought Parker was crazy to write a book about saving men, she says:

Once people actually read the book, they're surprised to see all the dots; once they connect them, they want to move Thailand.

Because, really, Thailand is a super-great role model for appropriate gender relations!

Unsurprisingly, Parker doesn't believe women should ever serve in a combat capacity and that we should all recognize innate differences between men and women (and she's not talking about the ability to pee standing up or bear children, but certain "special gifts".) Speaking of special, she has some really charming ideas about transgendered people that need to be shared and understood:

Factually, however, the pregnant "man" was really a pregnant woman who mutilated herself and grew a beard. She kept her reproductive organs, had her breasts removed and took male hormones.

She also thinks all our gender problems would be solved if we kept people sex-segregated until the age of 30. I'd say we could start with her, but then I'd have to listen to her some more. Maybe isolation is the key. Can we isolate her?

Q & A With Kathleen Parker [Time]
Save The Males [Real Clear Politics]
Save The Males! A New Book Says Society Is Biased AGAINST Men. Ridiculous? Hardly, Says Amanda Platell [Daily Mail]

]]>
http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5029178&view=rss&microfeed=true
<![CDATA[Writer: Little Girls Are A Threat To HuManity]]> Men are simple creatures, and yet it is they who by necessity run the world and so we must stop distracting them with our dirty pillows (when we eventually get them) and bare midriffs and — horrors! — back tattoos lest we taunt them into such a state of perpetual arousal that they utterly fuck up the world (though some might argue it's too late). Or so says Kathleen Parker, whose new book Save the Males is out to save the poor, battered men of the world by forcing us libidinous sluts of all ages from taunting them with the possibility of sex. We'd rip her so-called logic to shreds some more, but were saved the trouble by our new blog crush, Jeff Fecke, who responded:

The fact is that when I see a woman who is attractive (or dressed attractively, which is not necessarily the same thing), I know that she isn't being attractive for my enjoyment. She is not a thing for me to use. She's a human being, doing her own thing.

Feminism is damn sexy on a man.

Save Boys From Tween Tramps! [Salon]
Begone Wanton Trollops! [Shakesville]

]]>
http://jezebel.com/index.php?op=postcommentfeed&postId=5021614&view=rss&microfeed=true