Will Feminist Innovation Never Cease?
Lifted from the comments:
A feminist educator in the United Kingdom is making a point not to step aside when men walk in her direction, playing what she refers to as “patriarchy chicken.” […] “A few days ago, I was having a bad morning: my train tickets were expensive, my train was delayed, and my coffee was cold,” [Dr Charlotte] Riley wrote. “But I cheered myself up by playing a game on my commute. The game is called Patriarchy Chicken, and the rules are simple: do not move out of the way for men.” If that sounds like something that would be ungentlemanly conduct if perpetrated by a man, you would be correct in your assessment.
Dr Riley, you’ll note, is a grown woman.
Our feminist lecturer’s New Statesman article, in which she elaborates on Patriarchy Chicken and its allegedly empowering effects, can be found here. We’re told, somewhat implausibly, “It’s important to note that Patriarchy Chicken isn’t about anger.” When not applauding herself for repeatedly and deliberately colliding with male commuters, Dr Riley informs us that “war and peace can only be understood through gender.”
Also, open thread.
Note that Dr Riley invokes unspecified “angry men” who dare to comment on her delight in needlessly colliding with people. Note, too, her insinuation that the People’s Ledger piece, which largely quotes her own writing, was probably written “angrily.” Our feminist lecturer’s own behaviour, however, couldn’t possibly be informed by anything so low. High-minded piety being the sole explanation.
Our feminist lecturer’s own behaviour, however, couldn’t possibly be informed by anything so low.
Lefties project.
If these creatures were doing something useful – such as raising children or making sandwiches for a husband – they wouldn’t have time for this ‘intellection’ and would be a lot happier.
Dr Riley informs us that “war and peace can only be understood through gender.”
Rather an interesting notion, especially when they are generally clueless about the whole notion of sex and gender (link may not be totally SFW or your eyes).
For those disinclined to click, we find the woeful tale of a woman surgically and chemically altered to make a cartoon man who, as this simulacrum, is evidently engaged to a biological man, and became pregnant. This, of course, means she still has her female naughty bits and was using them for their intended purpose. IOW, she apparently wants to be a man to be gay, and if her fiance is also so oriented, they both seem to have inserted (NPI) a couple extra steps, and are going about it all wrong.
Now there is a mystery for the ages, unlike how having normal human sexual intercourse with female bits isn’t.
Although we are now expected to be shocked and offended because we are to take “pregnant men” as totes normal, I would imagine this is yet another Thing That Didn’t Happen™ as she would look just like like a guy with a beer gut to any random passerby (absent wearing a sign that said “I am a pregnant man”). Any abuse would more likely be because of the bad tattoos, gauges, and other bits of “progressive” uniform.
Regardless, it is still moderately amazing how hard the media are pushing this sort of “trans” bafflegab.
I must have been poorly brought up. I generally step aside for women – and men – when our paths collide. As do they. We exchange a brief smile and say “Sorry!” Something about social niceties.
It rarely happens, though, because people who are not obsessed with gender war and themselves keep a lookout and avoid when possible.
Dr Riley informs us that “war and peace can only be understood through gender.”
Hillary Clinton did it first.
I make a point never to move out of the way of arrogant entitled academics.
Adam: I fear that if I asked Academician Riley about your behaviour (the “Principle of Pedestrian Politeness” for want of a better phrase) she would see it as submissiveness or else she’d glory in having cowed you without even having to encounter you on the street. Speculation on my part, I concede, but in character for the aggressively aggrieved.
Julia M: Speculation once again, but might Riled* take credit for sparking your assertiveness?
* That started as a typo (I’m using a touchscreen) but it was so serendipitous I gave it a “stet”.
the rules are simple: do not move out of the way for men
How stupid and ignorant. In this day and age, what gives her the right to presume someone’s gender?
… arrogant entitled academics.
Unfortunately there is no transcript for this, but you can listen and multitask, or if you have an hour watch the whole thing, Janice Fiamengo does a nice dissection of them, along with indigenous science, “gender” issues, feminism in general, and other topics.
(link may not be totally SFW or your eyes).
Your link appears to be up-buggered.
Your link appears to be up-buggered.
Well that is weird, I even checked it. Take 2. Again works in preview…
I even checked it.
And as you know, I hate to find fault.
I remember girls behaving like this at the age of 9 or 10-ish, at the “boys are icky” stage.
The lack of self-awareness is something to behold.
As so often with feminist rumblings, the premise is unsupported and somewhat questionable, yet asserted as if self-evident. In my experience of busy stations, and crowded environments generally, most people, male and female, attempt to avoid collisions, insofar as one can. A small, rude minority will barge about, seemingly indifferent to other people’s personal space, but I haven’t registered a preponderance of one sex over another, whether among those doing the barging or those being bumped into.
And as you know, I hate to find fault.
True, true, the gentle teaching, coaching, and mentoring are a shining beacon for the entire innarwebs.
A small, rude minority will barge about, seemingly indifferent to other people’s personal space, but I haven’t registered a preponderance of one sex over another, whether among those doing the barging or those being bumped into.
Exactly.
The politically obsessed feminist interprets every unpleasant experience, every disappointment, as a manifestation of sexism–just as the black racist interprets everything as a manifestation of white racism and every leftist interprets everything as a manifestation of the evils of capitalism and the class hierarchy. Stupid people and malevolent people need extremely simplistic ideas to explain the world, because anything more complex confuses them or fails to give the paranoid explanations they desire.
…most people, male and female, attempt to avoid collisions…
Indeed, but you can bet the farm that our brave and empowered professor would never step in front of an “Asian” male, or a Male of Color, but in true fashion would only confront those who she knows are too polite to knock her on her tuchas.
you can bet the farm that our brave and empowered professor would never step in front of an “Asian” male, or a Male of Color,
Assuming that Dr Riley’s boasts – which is what they are – have any basis in truth at all, I think we can also assume that her targets are carefully selected.
Someone explain to this jeenyus that women already generally walk like they drive: A substantial cohort have scant peripheral awareness and even less aim to be civil about it all. See also: women piloting grocery carts – if shopping were war there would be Amazons of blood.
In other words, their running into members of the regular world as a matter of course is no new thing, babe.
Something I said? None of this overlooks men of the opposite sex driving or acting like assholes. But if the veritable jeenyus Riley thinks this cultural acting-out of hers is edgy or laden with veritable oceans of prescient, neo-cultural subtext, nope. It’s common as dirt and even more boring.
Total BS,I live in London and its my experience that men will generally try avoid collisions(perhaps because deliberately barging another man is often the precursor to a punch up) and women will just walk straight at you no doubt expecting you to live up to your chivalric programming and move out of their way and if you don’t you`ll get a catty remark or dirty look,perhaps to try and shame you back into the old way of thinking.
Oh dear, I’ve just poured my first cup of coffee of the morning and find this.
The point is that men have been socialised, for their entire lives, to take up space. Men who would never express these thoughts out loud have nevertheless been brought up to believe that their right to occupy space takes precedent over anyone else’s right to be there.
I specifically remember being a child and my mother admonishing me for not taking up enough space and refusing to get under foot. Wasn’t everyone raised that way? /sarc
Oh dear, I’ve just poured my first cup of coffee of the morning and find this.
It’s Andrew Murray. You’ll need something stronger.
[ Starts boiling pan of ‘shrooms. ]
I have a question.
A whole lot of female knowledge has been lost over the past 60 years or so, everything from the point system of getting dressed to how to housebreak a dog (no, the correct answer is not “Shove the poor critter into his cell—oops, his crate—for 14 hours a day while you are working and commuting back and forth thence”). Mine’s the last generation that remembers any of this lost female knowledge—we’re getting to the point where our mothers, certainly our grandmothers, have died off—and I was thinking about compiling what I can remember into a book. Such a book would be published through Amazon or by a small press; for obvious reasons it’d be a waste of time to pitch it to a dinosaur publisher.
My question is: do you think you might buy such a book to give to your daughter or granddaughter? (They won’t buy it for themselves because they don’t know what they don’t know). Please be honest. If you think this is the second-dumbest idea you have ever read, the first being deliberately bumping into people a lot bigger than you are, please say so.
Notice how cleverly I segued into the actual topic.
“The game is called Patriarchy Chicken, and the rules are simple: do not move out of the way for men.”
That will probably work with the legacy population (white men); might not get the results she wants with the diversity.
do you think you might buy such a book to give to your daughter or granddaughter?
I would … as back up to what I’ve been passing down to them from my mom & grandma.
About 10 years ago I was at a management seminar and to hone our skills at impromptu public speaking we had to get up and give a 5 minute speech on a random topic. Mine was “frugality” and among the examples I used was “darning socks”.
The blank stares from the younger people in the room prompted me to pause and ask what was wrong. Honest to God, they didn’t know what “darn” meant in the context of a sock!
When a button pops off the shirt of one of these people, what do they do? Staple the shirt closed?
” If you think this is the second-dumbest idea you have ever read, the first being deliberately bumping into people a lot bigger than you are, please say so.”
It’s not dumb, Pogonip. Are you thinking of something like ‘The Daring Book For Girls’, written for the older set?
Pogonip, I’d be interested in such a book despite being male. I’ve never heard of the point system of getting dressed, so you’ve already piqued my interest. Possibly my neice would derive some benefit from such a book.
Honest to God, they didn’t know what “darn” meant in the context of a sock!
I’m waiting for Darleen’s epic six-volume work, The Thrill of Mending.
When a button pops off the shirt of one of these people, what do they do? Staple the shirt closed?
Take it to the cleaners for repair?
Everyone ought to learn these basic skills. If, later, they can afford to pay others to do them that’s fine. But they should learn.
When I was in grade school (I forget what that is called in the UK) we had a small student-run store which sold all sorts of school supplies. It was supervised by a teacher, but the students ran the cash register, kept inventory, and so on. Good training. I strongly favor the reintroduction of home economics classes, teaching basic cooking, nutrition, cleaning, repair of clothing and housewares, keeping a budget, savings and investment, financial record keeping, and so on.
When my father started his career at the end of WWII, it was commonplace for all employees to start at the bottom–“sweeping floors” it was sometimes called, if my memory is correct. Even the President’s son, who was being groomed to succeed him, would start as an janitor or mail delivery boy, so that he would see the company “from the bottom” and would meet all sorts of people. It was also customary to hire kids fresh out of high school, see how much potential they showed, and train them for all sorts of highly skilled professions. Thus senior engineers and managers would have an intimate knowledge of all aspects of the company in which they worked. Many young punks with MBA degrees would benefit from such policies–as would the companies. (Sadly, the Supreme Court made such policies difficult and dangerous to implement, largely because your typical SCOTUS judge has zero experience of working in the real world and so will make legal rulings that make zero sense.)
the point system of getting dressed
I had to google that. It sounds familiar, but the fact that I’d completely forgotten it suggests that I haven’t heard of it in many decades. Although the web page I read described the system in terms of women’s clothes, the basic principles apply equally to men’s clothing.
Correction: on reading it sounded familiar.
So far we have 3 yes votes.
An exclusive for David Thompson readers: the point system!
Starting at the top:
—allow 1 point for hairdo, unless it’s very unusual—an example might be spraying your hair green for Halloween, that would be 2 points.
—1 point for each piece of jewelry. A watch counts as jewelry. A barrette counts as jewelry. A set of earrings counts as 1 item.
—1 point for each scarf or shawl. (which means Stevie Nicks exceeded her lifetime point allowance sometime in 1982).
—1 point for each garment. A fancy garment like an evening dress would be 2 points.
—1 point for shoes, unless they’re fuck-me shoes, which would be 2 points. (No, we did not call them “fuck-me shoes” back in the day, but I like the new name—it leaves no doubt as to what it’s decribing.)
—1 point for hose or stockings, fishnets 2 points.
Add up your points. If under 11 you are underdressed for most social or office occasions—-add something. If over 14, remove something. I would start with the nose ring.
This works. I have got every job but one for which I got as far as the interview, and when the interviewer was female she always complimented me on my “professional” appearance. (Once you get past the age of 45 or so, men will not even register your appearance—it’ll slide right off their eyeballs, like a fried egg out of a Teflon pan.)
We old gals also know what “professional” actually means, but you gotta buy the book to learn that! I am not talking about the oldest profession. “Profession” has a specific, legal meaning.
It was supervised by a teacher, but the students ran the cash register, kept inventory, and so on.
My son’s school had a similar “Tuck Shop” run by the children. Unfortunately, the priveleged young ladies and gentleman thought that because their parents, in many cases, had sourced the treats that were on sale in the store that they could help themselves to the goodies at any time without paying. The school swept it under the rug and an important teaching moment was lost.
I gave my son the third degree and read him the riot act. Unfortunately, several parents laughed it off. Ironically many of these same parents ran their own businesses which told me the kid’s behaviour had been learned.
Oops! I just noticed I left out makeup, sorry. 1point for day/business makeup, 2 for evening/party makeup. If you look like you are over 25 or so, save the blue eye makeup for social occasions, don’t wear it to an office, unless your boss’s boss wears blue eye makeup. This can happen in places like Texas. (Do any other old broads remember a book titled Blue Eyeshadow Should Be Illegal? 😄)
…unless they’re fuck-me shoes…
The proper terminology is “come fuck me pumps”, a minor, but incredibly important, distinction…
save the blue eye makeup for social occasions, don’t wear it to an office,
I’m learning so much from these threads.
OK, David, but wear the blue eye shadow OR the you-know-what shoes, not both at once. These little niceties are important.
One of the few nice things about the job I will soon be leaving is that promotions are entirely by friendship or mutual backscratching. This means that once you are sure you won’t get in the Old Girls Club, you don’t even have to bother with lipstick. You can wear your play clothes every day.
David, either put that lipstick down immediately or go wash off the blue eye shadow.
I see now I will have to write this book, as our host really needs it.
I actually wore blue eye shadow for a time.
I was in high school. Early 70s. I think I get a pass.
Re the kids running the Tuck Shop: I’m in a carpool with a 50-ish guy whose first job was at McDonald’s. The manager taught each kid how to perform each task, so that, if there was a hurricane or epidemic or whatever, the one kid who made it to work could open and run the store. (Service would be slower, but business COULD be conducted.). Now he goes in and one kid’s taking the order, another kid working the coffee pots, one frying, one mopping, one taking payments, and all of them have to wait for the computer to let them perform the next step. He’s standing there thinking “I can do all of this, I wish I could get back there, ring up my purchase, pay, and leave.”
“Profession” has a specific, legal meaning.
One look at vintage photos from the early to mid 20th Century is to see people as well dressed as they could afford. Baseball games attended by men in suits, ties and hats. Women shopping in smart outfits, sensible pumps (with stockings) and gloves.Even criminals in mug shots better dressed than the midnight shoppers at Walmart.
Nowadays, even fame and money can’t buy class.
Darleen gets a pass (at least from my mom). Blue eye shadow is MADE for kids. I had some too.
Probably the reason blue eye shadow is considered inappropriate for adult office workers in this scolding era is that it shouts “I enjoy being a girl!” In occupations like waitress, where enjoying your feminity is not only okay but likely to be financially rewarding, you still see blue eye shadow on adults.
Er, “femINinity.” Sorry.
Mug shots: the ultimate come-as-you-are party! And so they reveal much about the era in which they were taken.
I have also noticed that for the last 50 years or so, American men’s faces have been getting softer and rounder. Maybe it’s because, unless Mom was a vegetarian, every developing fetus in America received massive doses of female hormones. Maybe it’s because standards of what’s attractive in a man changed, so that the round-faced Leonardo DeCaprio types got to pass on more genes than did the chiseled-feature types. Either way, if you compare pictures of young men in WW Ii and the Korean War to pictures of young men today, the difference is astonishing.
Hey! Where’d everybody go? I have more wisdom to dispense! Come baaaccck!!!
if you compare pictures of young men in WW Ii and the Korean War to pictures of young men today, the difference is astonishing.
IMHO, I think it’s due to diet – we just eat better, and more, and that little chubs goes a long way. Part of that issue was that food was more expensive back then. A whole roasted chicken, for instance, was a prized Sunday dinner. If you lived in a city rather than on a farm, your diet was at the mercy of what could be shipped in at any particular season.
When Robert Heinlein was asked about the predictions about the future he made in his sci-fi stories, he stated he really missed the boat on the Green Revolution. He was sure that technology would soar but that feeding the masses would continue to be the worst struggle.
I have also noticed that for the last 50 years or so, American men’s faces have been getting softer and rounder. Maybe it’s because, unless Mom was a vegetarian, every developing fetus in America received massive doses of female hormones.
They certainly have. It’s interesting, because the fad now is man the industrialized carnist ape becomming a bastion of politically conservative masculinity. With a soy-fear chaser. (How the contradiction reconciles with the current Darwinist fad is unaddressed.) They go down as rightist fails at a bad time in the trajectory.
Headline of note.
https://twitter.com/OrwellNGoode/status/1104790924301950983