Footnote to “teeth-pulling bitch” story: much like the concept of ‘misandry’ itself, the story is false

Revealing what appears to have been an example of global journalistic malpractice — and misogyny — involving some of the world’s most esteemed mainstream news outlets, reported Tuesday that its own basic investigation into the “teeth-pulling ex-girlfriend” story has revealed the story was a hoax.

Apparently, Britain’s Daily Male first printed the story without bothering to perform even cursory fact-checking; regardless, the story was picked up and circulated by Fox News, the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, Huffington Post, Yahoo! News, MSN, the New York Post, and The New York Daily News and Australia’s Herald Sun and New Zealand Herald among others. reports,

when contacted police in Wroclaw, Poland, about the supposed criminal case, a spokesman said they had no record of such an incident.

“Lower Silesia Police Department has not been notified about such an event and is not investigating such a case,” Pawel Petrykowski of the Provincial Police Headquarters in Wroclaw said in an email that was translated into English.

A legal adviser for Poland’s Chamber of Physicians and Dentists, which handles disciplinary matters, said the organization is not investigating and has never investigated any such case, and added that there is no dental practitioner named Anna Maćkowiak listed in Poland’s central register of dentists.

“No information about this kind of misconduct has been provided to the Supreme Chamber,” the legal advisor, Marek Szewczyński, said in an email. “The Supreme Chamber is also not aware of any actions of this kind being taken by the Regional Chamber of Physicians and Dentists in Wroclaw, which would be the competent authority in case of a possible professional misconduct committed by a dental practitioner from Wroclaw.”


The American Dental Association’s national spokesperson, David Johnson Jr., said the story of Maćkowiak’s revenge was highly improbable — not just as an unprecedented abuse of the doctor-patient relationship but because most dentists are equipped to administer drugs only for conscious sedation dentistry. That would mean the ex-boyfriend would know his teeth were being extracted as it was happening, rather than realizing it after he arrived home.

Why wasn’t this most cursory of fact checking and referencing performed before the story was printed?  Well, when asked that very question, the Daily Male staff writer under whose byline the story was originally written, Simon Tomlinson, said

he does not know where the story came from and distanced himself from it when questioned about its origins.  “I’ve drawn a bit of a blank,” he said in an email. “The (Daily) Mail Foreign Service, which did the piece for the paper, is really just an umbrella term for copy put together from agencies. My news desk isn’t sure where exactly it came from.”

This, after the story was shared more than 75,000 times on Facebook since it was first published on April 27, and after having spawned thousands of misogynistic comments on online news sites none of which have been removed, although most of the online news sources who reported this story have since issued retractions.  Gee, how civil of them.

Interestingly enough, the link to the original story at the Daily Male is now a dead link: they have removed the article entirely rather than print a retraction in the header and leaving the article — and comments — intact, like the other outlets did.  Comments like this from Huff Po:

Women + MAN = LOVE
Women + MAN – Love = Heartache and Pain for you Buddy , because we all know women are some unstable CREATURES .

More-so if I was the judge I would make it a condition of her parole or probation that she must have all of her teeth removed. As well as consficate (sic) ever last thing she owned to pay his multimillion lawsuit and her license removed.

The tone of this article is massively inappropriate. To imply sympathy with this kind of behavior strikes me as incredibly misandric and offensive as a man.  If a male dentist had done this you would be rightfully indignant. Have some class Huffington Post.

That last part made me laugh and laugh.  The tone of the article wasn’t sympathetic enough to the man: the fake, hypothetical man to whom this never happened wasn’t treated kindly enough by Huff Po, demonstrating misandry.  And if the sexes were reversed, the result would have been different.

Indeed, the result probably would have been different: in reality, if a male dentist had allegedly abused a woman this way, it might not have been reported at all.  What news outlet has either the space or a single crap to give to reporting on every egregious abuse, breach of professional ethics, act of sexual violence or human rights violation men perpetrate on women every day?  It never would’ve been reported at all, and would never have had the chance to be picked up and circulated globally.

Even if it were true, it never even would have been reported, let alone circulated globally.  Because there is too much male violence against women to even report.  See how that works?

And of course, if the sexes were reversed, it would have been assumed from the beginning to be a hoax.  If after being fact-checked thoroughly the story checked out and it wasn’t technically a hoax of the journalistic kind, it would’ve still been scrutinized and assumed to be a hoax of the lying-bitch kind, perpetrated by the woman herself, who would have been assumed to have been lying about all of it, including who had done that to her, under what circumstances, and why.

In reality, Huff Po — and the entire global mainstream news industry — demonstrates egregious misogyny here, not misandry, not to mention revealing for the entire world to see that its journalistic ethics are of the bankrupt kind: without demonstrating even the most basic care regarding whether this story was even true, it printed it anyway, and let the entire world believe that a woman had terribly abused a man in a way that was sure to draw the most vile woman-hatred imaginable, and condemnation of women as a sexual class.

In fact, one is left with the impression that this was the goal the entire time.  If it wasn’t “intentional-intentional,” the result — a global orgy of misogynistic woman-bashing and condemnation of women as a sexual class — was foreseeable enough that intent can and should be presumed.

This was intentional.  Which is to be expected, of course, considering that mainstream news reporting is, in actuality, the thinnest of covers for a global misogynistic pro-patriarchal propaganda machine.

If the world were a safe and sane place for women, the global news industry would never recover its credibility after this, but of course it’s not, and it will.  Because credible and male are synonyms, you see.  The global, male-centric mainstream news industry’s “credibility” was never lost and it never will be, any more than an apple can lose its appleness, or a tangerine can cease being tangerine-y.  They will recover.  But we mustn’t ever forget what we are dealing with, when it comes to the global media, and its treatment of us.

As if most of us even could.

Also reported at Radfem-ological Images.


Wronged man encounters language barrier: what to call jilted ex-gf who pulled all his teeth?

It seems as if the word “bitch” has become so overused, it has lost virtually all meaning, leaving the occasional legitimately-wronged man with no words to describe women who actually harm them.  Poor men!

Last week, the Daily Male reported that a dentist sedated her ex-boyfriend and then pulled out every single one of his teeth, after he had unceremoniously dumped her for another woman.  The man appeared at her office in need of emergency dental surgery just days after he had broken up with her; when questioned, she admitted what she did, saying that she had been “unable to detach from her emotions” and now faces jail time as well as professional sanctions from her licensing board.

The man explains,

I knew something was wrong because when I woke up I couldn’t feel any teeth and my jaw was strapped up with bandages.  She told me my mouth was numb and I wouldn’t be able to feel anything for a while and that the bandage was there to protect the gums, but that I would need to see a specialist.


But when I got home I looked in the mirror and couldn’t f****** believe it. The b**** had emptied my mouth.

Bitch?  Really?

Apparently, there simply are no words in the English language to differentiate women who actually cause harm from any other woman, or a woman who causes subjective or even made-up harm from one who causes objective, actual harm: the same reactionary, misogynistic slurs are used to describe us all.  What differentiates a bitch from a non-bitch seems to be a man’s pleasure or displeasure with any woman’s behavior, regardless of the reasonableness of his response — the word is never descriptive of the woman, or of anything the woman actually did.

What is revealed by this use of equivalent language (e.g. referring to women as “bitches” regardless of context) is that boys and men think of all girls and women in exactly the same way — essentially, as the scum of the earth, and morally and even criminally deficient, and to the maximum degree — no matter what we do or don’t do.

Another interpretation is that men regard all girls and women and our actions and inactions to be irrelevant in the same way — which, in a political sense, happens to be true.  Because patriarchy.

Including, as in this case, when a woman pulls out every single one of his teeth, bandages his head and jaw, and sends him home, violating several laws and rules of professional ethics in the process.

Here, one is left to wonder what this man would’ve called this woman if she would have, in addition to assaulting him, also lied about it, or worse?  Or what words he had been using to describe her before that, when he was simply no longer interested in the relationship because he had found someone else? If he had ever called her a “bitch” previously, that would indicate that he had held her in exactly the same regard before — before she had even done anything objectively harmful or wrong.

But clearly, while it is frequently the case that men think a particular woman — or all women — are “bitches” all or much of the time, this equivalent response is objectively unreasonable.  Indeed, if determinations of reasonableness or credibility were objective, men who call women “bitches” would be determined to have neither; if all women are bitches — and we all are — the pronouncement is meaningless.

Of course, since all men are presumed to be credible, the issue of “credibility” itself is a meaningless pronouncement, when applied to men.  Saying that a man is credible is like saying “an apple is an apple” or describing a tangerine as being tangerine-y.  Under patriarchy, the words are synonymous, and synonyms cannot legitimately be used to define or describe one another.  Red flags should be raised, every time anyone tries.

Just like with the words “woman” and “bitch.”

ETA:  On May 8, 2012, reported that the original story reported by the Daily Male has been revealed to be a hoax.  See here for additional information and links. — Eds.

Science geeks invent pill to get women to have sex with Beta-males

And this pill has been known colloquially for decades as “the Pill.”  CNN’s resident PIV-positive mansplainer Ian Kerner reports that the results of a recent study published in Scientific American reveal that many women who were on the hormonal birth control pill while choosing their mate, and then went off the Pill after getting married, woke up one day to realize they were sleeping next to a giant dork.  And the women weren’t happy about it.

From the article:

[…] women with lower testosterone levels – typically caused by the use of hormone-based oral contraceptives like the pill – are more attracted to men who also have low testosterone levels.

Previous studies have shown that the less testosterone a man has, the less likely he is to cheat, the more supportive he is, and the better he is at providing for his family. Sounds good, right?

Not quite. Previous studies have also shown that most women are historically more sexually attracted to higher testosterone levels. And the mothers in the study who eventually went off birth control post-wedding reported less sexual contentment than other women; they found their husbands less attractive and less sexually exciting once they went off the pill.

Dr. Craig Roberts of Stirling University questioned more than 2,500 women from around the world for his research. Did their taste in men shift? Or did their birth control have a “love-potion” type of effect?

By “love potion” do you actually mean a pharmaceutically-induced altered reality that makes women willing to fuck men they normally wouldn’t?  Sounds like rape to me, Mr. Kerner.  But apparently since so many women are being raped this way, it’s become completely normalized and doesn’t count as rape, even though it is.  Just like every other instance of PIV on the planet that happens under dubious or coercive circumstances, which are also rape, but are alternatively known as “just regular normal everyday sex, nope nothing to see here, move along.”

Dr. Roberts, who performed the study, even advises that

women who met their partner while taking hormonal birth control should consider switching to another method several months in advance of tying the knot in order to assess whether their feelings for their partner will change or stay the same.

Women’s perception is so drastically altered by the Pill that they are in danger of marrying a man to whom they would not ordinarily even give the time of day, if they hadn’t been drugged for years by a reality-altering pharmaceutical that makes women fuck and — unsurprisingly, considering the potential for and reality of trauma-bonding from all instances of PIV — fall “in love” with Beta-males.

Mr. Kerner’s favorite handmaiden of the patriarchy, Dr. Madeleine Castellanos who wrote a book about “all things penis” even adds regarding the Pill and hormonal contraceptives that “some of these side effects are so serious that I now urge young women to consider just using condoms and leaving the birth control pills behind.”   That’s coming from a woman who is about as dick-pleasing and male-centered as one can possibly get.  If you aren’t extremely concerned yet, you should be.

Problematically, Mansplainer Kerner concludes in the face of these findings that

for those women who do choose to stay on the pill, the study offers a silver lining: the women on the pill were happier overall in their relationships and more likely to stay together than their non-pill-taking counterparts. The benefits of the non-sexual aspects of the relationship outweighed any sexual downsides.

So perhaps it’s better to be evenly matched at the low-testosterone end of the spectrum (with a man who is more likely to be faithful) than potentially mismatched.

Yes that’s a silver lining alright: there’s a pill women can take to make partnering with men more tolerable.  And women taking a pill to make partnering with men more tolerable, even if it’s a dangerous drug with known side-effects that can kill you, is better than the alternative; in Kerner’s mind, the “alternative” obviously being “partnering with an Alpha male who might have better genes but who will treat you even worse, being more prone to violence and more likely to infect you with disease.” It’s a lesser of two evils: men and male violence and male abuse/neglect within the context of the het partnership being the “evil” of course, but Kerner never says it.

Unsurprisingly, CNN’s resident mansplainer does not conclude that women partnering with any man, whether Alpha or Beta, is neither necessary nor advisable, and that there are alternatives.  It’s a false choice, and the one that includes women taking drugs to cope is presented as the better of the two.  The scary thing is that it just might be, if you believe those are the only options.  The truth, of course, is that they aren’t the only options.  And women having to be medicated to survive in (men’s) reality is pretty solid evidence that this thing we know as “reality” is really men’s reality, and male-centric social engineering, no more and no less.

Suggest for one second that men be medicated to make them easier to control, however, and more than a few people get their panties in a bunch: social engineering — including medical interventions — is how we control women under patriarchy, not men.  And not a single allegedly “rational” or egalitarian-minded person seems to have much of a problem with that, at all.

Lesbian group issues press release condemning Toronto Planned Parenthood

Today, the Ad Hoc Coalition Against the Cotton Ceiling (the “Coalition”) issued a press release condemning Planned Parenthood, Toronto for its support of what the Coalition describes as a misogynistic, anti-woman, anti-lesbian sex workshop organized by transgender activists.  The workshop, called “Overcoming the Cotton Ceiling: Breaking Down Sexual Barriers for Queer Trans Women” is part of a larger “Pleasure and Possibilities” conference scheduled to take place on March 31, 2012 at the Toronto Sherbourne Health Centre.

The “Cotton Ceiling” workshop is open to men and male-to-female transgenders only, and will facilitate discussion regarding “the experiences queer trans women have with simultaneous social inclusion and sexual exclusion within the broader queer women’s communities. Basically, […] that cis queer women will be friends with us and talk day and night about trans rights and ending transmisogyny, but will still not consider us viable sexual partners.”

According to the program’s organizer, male-to-female transgender activist Morgan Page, the term “cotton ceiling” was first coined by male-to-female transgender porn star Drew Deveaux, and “is a reference to the ‘glass ceiling’ that second wave feminist identified in the workforce, wherein women could only advance so high in the workforce but could not break through into positions of power and authority. The cotton represents underwear, signifying sex.”

From the Coalition’s press release:

The Ad Hoc Coalition Against the Cotton Ceiling objects to any analogy between sex and the ‘glass ceiling’ as both politically and sexually inappropriate. Unlike women’s right to equal employment and professional credibility in the workplace, trans women are not entitled—individually or as a class— to have sex with ‘cis’ lesbians, as they call us.

‘Trans women’s access to lesbians as viable sexual partners should never be framed as a barrier to trans women’s sexual pleasure or to trans women’s equal participation in “queer women’s communities”,’ said Elizabeth Hungerford, a spokeswoman for the Coalition.


The Ad Hoc Coalition Against the Cotton Ceiling represents the 282 signers of the Petition asking PPT to reconsider the Cotton Ceiling workshop.  The Coalition rejects the notion put forth by PPT that the sexual orientation of lesbians towards other lesbians with female-born bodies harms queer trans women’s sexual health or well-being. We also reject the suggestion that some lesbians’ sexual boundaries exclude queer trans women from engaging as full members of LGBTQ communities. Sexual access is not an in-group entitlement; it is not required for community membership.

All branches of Planned Parenthood can serve their equality mandate without reinforcing the unreasonable expectation of some trans women that their community inclusion requires full sexual access to other community members—specifically singling out ‘cis’ lesbians to provide sexual validation. The idea that trans women are politically entitled to overcome a ‘Cotton Ceiling’ barrier maintained by ‘cis’ lesbians becomes particularly threatening when supported by the authority of an internationally renowned organization whose mission is to protect all women’s sexual and reproductive health.  Reference to any women’s cotton underwear as representative of a sexual or political barrier to be broken is sexually inappropriate and politically indefensible in this context.

The petition was started earlier this week, and appears to be still accepting signatures as of this printing.

Image from here.

Violence makes sense if you look closely enough at the perpetrator, says expert

Accused mass-murderer Sgt. Robert Bales’s lawyer says the U.S. soldier may have been suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder or a traumatic brain injury when he killed 16 civilians, including 9 children and 3 women, in Kandahar while they slept, but CNN’s mental health expert says that’s unlikely.  Apparently, in reality, there is rarely a medical or psychiatric explanation for bad behavior, including male violence and extreme male violence, and indeed, when the perpetrator in the current case is examined closely, things start to fall into place.

From the article:

In the case of Bales, if he is guilty of the massacre, his actions may eventually be found to be related to a clearly causative organic factor. But my clinical experience tells me not to bet on this. It happens, but pretty rarely.

When people behave in unexpected ways for no good reason, it often turns out that when the full story of their lives is understood, the behavior no longer appears as unexpected. That which is neither clearly linked to either a medical or psychiatric illness is very likely intertwined in a person’s longstanding personality.

So, I suspect that if 100 psychiatrists were told that a previously normal service person massacred 16 civilians and was neither medically impaired nor psychotic, the majority of them would immediately suspect that the person in question might not have been as normal across his life as initial reports suggested.

So even though the majority of psychiatrists would automatically suspect that the perpetrator was not sick and would recommend that the details of his life and previous behavior be examined for predictive indicators, we are always confronted with the montage of confused neighbors who say how great a guy he was and how all of this atrocious male violence came as such a shock.  Why does this meme persist in the face of evidence that it is simply not reality-based, and people who study this for a living know this?  Unsurprisingly, this case is no different, although weirdly, the doctor seems to buy into it himself:

It now appears that he was involved in fraudulent business dealings. What makes the case so strange, however, are the multiple contrasting reports of his remarkably caring and selfless behavior on numerous occasions and his status as something of a small town hero.

The confused-neighbors montage is “strange” now?  I thought you just implied that this kind of stuff shouldn’t confuse you because you know better?  What this doctor appears to be saying, when he says that this is “strange” even though it is actually extremely common, is that it doesn’t make any “psychiatric sense” meaning that where the perpetrator is “neither medically impaired nor psychotic,” it is simply out of his area of expertise — as a psychiatrist — to comment on.

In other words, there wasn’t anything wrong with Bales, and it was simply consistent with his history to commit mass murder .  So why all the mealy-mouth in this article?  Why not just come out and say it: that there is nothing that unusual about most men who commit extreme violence, that there is probably nothing unusual about this one either, and in fact it could’ve probably been predicted beforehand, if not just easily explained afterwards, if we only knew (or paid at attention to) how Bales and indeed all men behave every day?

The doctor himself seems apologetic for his mealy-mouthedness, and ends with a pretty revealing question:

I seem to end many of my CNNhealth pieces with some type of comment about how unsatisfying our current level of psychiatric understanding is. This pieces, [sic] alas, is no different in this regard. Frankly, at this point nothing in Bales’ actions makes psychiatric sense. On the other hand, how many highly admired, hard-working, patriotic, caring small-town heroes are embroiled in financial fraud or may have other dark behaviors in their backgrounds?

An observer who was actually invested in preventing male violence might conclude that therefore, men need to be monitored closely and punished severely or deterred by whatever means for all transgressions and “dark behaviors” because they are predictive of future violence, including extreme violence.

But yes, it is an excellent question, however it is phrased: how many allegedly “good men” really aren’t?  Taking it a step further, one might reasonably wonder whether there are any men out there who don’t have “dark behaviors” in their pasts and presents, including behaviors which average people generally regard as “dark” but also including other things that only radical feminists would see as particularly harmful, such as putting girls and women at extreme physical and psychological risk through dangerous male-centric sexuality, or doing this by-proxy by using porn?  In other words, doesn’t all male violence make perfect sense, and particularly men’s known propensity to commit violence as opposed to women’s, if we are going to use previous instances of putting people in harm’s way as a predictive indicator of future violence, where essentially all men put people in harm’s way all the time, particularly through dangerous male sexuality?

And this excellent question is coupled with a revealing point: psychiatry is simply not implicated in very many cases of male violence or extreme male violence because male violence and extreme male violence are not medically or psychiatrically abnormal (for men).  Read: it’s normal, or “typical” if you prefer; medically and psychiatrically healthy men do this.  Even though people clearly wish the reverse were true, and keep asking psychiatrists for psychiatric explanations and excuses when the facts do not warrant it.  Indeed, in reality, it seems like asking a psychiatrist to explain male violence is like getting a plumber to help you hang wallpaper.  They just aren’t that helpful.

Of course, he very obviously does not address whether banking fraud and other “dark behaviors” when women do it, would be predictive of future female violence, especially mass murder.

There is nothing wrong with these men, they just do it, and it’s completely predictable too.  This appears to be what this doctor is saying, albeit hesitantly.  Being a man himself, perhaps he is particularly compromised here to tell the truth about men and what men do and what men are, and CNN itself is a tool of the patriarchy, hence the mealiness.

But the thing is, we can all read, and we can read between the lines too.

No wonder men love their “privacy” and the separate spheres so much: because that’s where they can behave “darkly” and where no one ever knows about it except their wives and children, who very often are economically coerced into not turning their husbands and fathers in on the spot, and where no one would believe them anyway if they told the truth about what a male “upstanding citizen” acts like when he thinks that no one that matters is watching.

But also, how nice it must be for all men that almost everyone regards the most common expression of disdain for girls and women, and an obvious manifestation of men’s “darkness” where they place others in harm’s way — men, sticking their dicks into other people, particularly female-bodied people — as essentially harmless, or even an act of love?  Cue the confused-neighbors montage.  “He was such a great guy, a family man.”  When in reality, the man placed his wife in harm’s way repeatedly, and the numerous ambivalent or unwanted children are the proof.