// Feb 10, 2012 at 10:23 am
Probably because there are much cheaper alternatives
// Feb 10, 2012 at 10:55 am
I liked the article. It made me laugh. Four decades of a relentless campaign against men, and Feminists still can’f figure out why they’re hated.
// Feb 10, 2012 at 11:12 am
Yeah, the whole situation went tits up.
Sorrrrry, could resist it.
// Feb 10, 2012 at 11:44 am
Ian B: So here are some men who are so upset at the thought of having to go to a restaurant where the waiting staff have got clothes on that they are unable to control their rage. And they are expressing this by threatening a feminist with violence. And you think that’s funny, and blame the feminist for it.
Shame on you.
// Feb 10, 2012 at 12:15 pm
Shame on me? Not at all. The language used by Feminists is more “polite” (though their hardcore have said some pretty severe stuff over the years). But the intention behind those carefully chosen words is incredibly vile, and thus incites fury in return. As a result, some of the less wise and cautious among men come out with what they really think, on internet comment sections.
“Kick you in the vagina” isn’t actually much of a threat. Turn it round to a misandrist “kick you in the balls” and it’s a mild jibe. It only sounds extreme because we live in a Puritan matrist society where any insult to a woman is held to be a crime of great intensity.
The stated intent of Feminism is the complete suppresion of male sexuality (amongst other things). The desire is to enforce that suppression by State violence. Given the option, Feminists like this one would use any degree of that State violence- which is a lot nastier than saying you want to kick someone in the crotch- to stop men doing the most natural thing in the world, which is finding attractive women attractive.
So, it’s funny in a sad sort of way, that we have come to this. The Feminists are at war with nature, and haters of humanity itself, and then they get upset when somebody gets angry at them for that. Unfortunately Feminism is implicitly designed around the idea that no Feminist should ever examine her own prejudices for a second, never doubt her own superiority and moral duty to fight against maleness wherever she finds it. Thus, they can never understand where the anger comes from, except an imaginary patriarchal conspiracy. It is no different to whites in the Southern States thinking any black who objected was being uppity and needs harshly slapping back into his rightful lower place.
Feminism is an upper class movement; its spokespersons are generally well educated with a polished vocabulary. Its opponents are frequently lower class, disenfranchised, voiceless, not so well educated and increasingly sick of giving up their damned seats on the bus.
A good swift kick in the vagina is not a politic thing to say, but probably fair.
// Feb 10, 2012 at 2:50 pm
What angers me is that they tried to use the power of the state to stop it opening in the first place, and successfully with the strip club. Why should you need a license from the local busybodies to open a business? I can understand the restaurant needs licensing (for food safety) but the decor should have nothing to do with the result.
// Feb 10, 2012 at 2:51 pm
By the way, Ian, your view of feminism is about 50 years out of date, and full of enough misconceptions and unwitting stupidity to make a Guardian columnist blush.
// Feb 10, 2012 at 3:30 pm
Hooters was always out of context in the UK. I remember going to one in Nottingham and thinking the girls there wore a lot more clothes than ‘regular’ girls in Nottingham’s clubs.
// Feb 10, 2012 at 3:57 pm
Ian’s view is out of date Matthew?
Have you had a look at mainstream feminism in the UK? Not the lunatic fringe, but the largest and most politically influential groups that make up the majority of the organised movement?
From what I can see there’s near consensus when it comes to ideas like “objectification” or “sexualisation” and the view of men that goes with them. The Fawcett Society, various local feminist networks, UK Feminista and many others are all firmly behind authoritarian pro-censorship groups like Object.
There’s pretty much universal celebration amongst them when somewhere like Hooters closes down, regardless of the fact that it’s mainly women losing their jobs. The belief that the women working there are victims of patriarchy who can’t make a real choice, while the male customers are misogynistic pigs enjoying the dehumanisation of women, doesn’t even seem to be up for debate.
The only thing I’d disagree with Ian about is that feminists are more polite. For every 4chan fan sending badly spelled hate mail to feminists on Facebook, you’ll find a feminist YouTuber posting videos about castrating men. As Ian pointed out, the violent comments from men are simply taken more seriously and subsequently receive more attention. When a woman does it it’s a joke, when a man does it it’s a violent threat.
// Feb 10, 2012 at 7:31 pm
There is a Hooters in Interlaken, believe it or not. It’s not really what I was led to believe Hooters is like from a friend who visited an establishment in Texas…
// Feb 10, 2012 at 8:03 pm
So Hooters went tits up…
OK, I’ll get my coat…
// Feb 10, 2012 at 11:16 pm
#11, see #3.
Report to the headmistress from remedial plagiarism training.
// Feb 11, 2012 at 10:49 am
“I remember going to one in Nottingham and thinking the girls there wore a lot more clothes than ‘regular’ girls in Nottingham’s clubs.”
Exactly: if they were really serious about bringing the full force of the law down on British businesses that aid in the objectification of wymin, then they should start with most of the high street clothing shops.
If anything, Hooters and strip clubs just go to show how easily manipulated men’s urges are that they can be brought into a look-but-don’t-touch environment and get fleeced of all their cash. Which party is being exploited here?
© 2006–2007 Tim Worstall — Sitemap — Cutline by Chris Pearson