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, msnbc.com 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.


Transgender contestant to compete in Miss Universe pageant afterall

A transgender woman who has has been fighting for her right to internalize misogyny by competing in a beauty pageant has gotten what she wanted, reports CNN.  While she was initially disqualified by the organizers of Miss Universe Canada because she was not a “natural born woman” and because she had lied about having had sex-reassignment surgery, pageant organizers Monday reversed their decision and will now allow male-to-female transgender model Jenna Talackova to compete.

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, or GLAAD, commended the pageant organizer’s decision.

The 61st annual Miss Universe Canada Pageant will be held in Toronto on May 19.

From the article:

Speaking to CNN Tuesday, [owner Donald] Trump said that according to the laws of Canada and the United States, Talackova should be allowed to enter the pageant.

‘So she will be entering the Miss Canada pageant, but we went strictly by the laws,’ he said.


Talackova was one of the 65 finalists selected to contend for the title of Miss Universe Canada and the honor of representing her country in the Miss Universe competition.

But organizers told her last month she could not compete because she lied about having undergone sexual reassignment surgery and did not meet requirements for the pageant.

At the time, the Miss Universe Organization said current rules state that all contestants must be a “naturally born female.”

In a 2010 interview in Thailand, where she was competing for Miss International Queen, a competition for transgender women, Talackova said she knew she was a girl at age 4. She said she started hormone therapy at age 14 and underwent sexual reassignment surgery at 19.

After Talackova’s disqualification, social media users flooded the Facebook page of Miss Universe Canada with comments criticizing the decision.

A petition started on the social change website Change.org garnered more than 41,000 signatures calling for organizers to reverse their ruling.

So let us take inventory here shall we?  41,000 people have been motivated to action, supporting a male-to-female transgender who wants to compete with real women over who is the most male-pleasing; said male-to-female transgender gets feminist attorney Gloria Allred to help him fight for his right to internalize misogyny and be the bestest male-pleaser; and GLAAD — an organization that supposedly represents lesbians’ interests but lately doesn’t even return lesbians’ phone calls  — commends the organizers’ decision to allow a male-to-female transgender to internalize misogyny because justice, just weeks after GLAAD also “worked closely with” and published the work of male-to-female transgender Monica Roberts, who heralded progressive political transgender “trailblazers” on GLAAD’s website even though Monica Roberts himself has threatened to “pimp slap” women; refers to women as “fish” and has made public, graphic death threats against a lesbian activist.

Does that sound about right?  I think so, except for one thing:

Men cannot internalize misogyny, any more than a white man can internalize racism.  Men externalize misogyny and use it to oppress women.  Men externalizing misogyny is the context we are working within here and everywhere.  And transwomen are not women, they are men.

So what we have here are a bunch of allegedly woman, lesbian and feminist-friendly activists getting their panties in a bunch over whether a man will be allowed to exercise his alleged right to externalize misogyny by competing in a beauty pageant; and conservative gender religionist pageant organizers who apparently believe very strongly that competing for the title of Bestest Man-Pleaser is a privilege reserved for natural-born women (and non-lying-liars) but who caved under global political pressure and social networking campaigning from other conservative gender-religionists, deciding to ignore their own rules and letting a man do his best imitation of a male-pleasing woman, afterall.

And as if that weren’t enough, the transgender contestant also appears to be competing in pageants — and is eligible to compete — as both a woman (in Miss Universe) and as a transgender woman (in Miss International Queen) when an actual woman would never be able to compete in both.  And yet he claims that he doesn’t want special treatment.  And that he just wants to compete [in ALL TEH PAJUNTS!!1!!1]

The punchline: this is all apparently supposed to be both progressive, and feminist.  Thanks for nothing everyone!  Love, actual feminists.

Kim Kardashian attacked by animal rights extremist after ‘asking nicely’ didn’t work

Animal rights extremists call it “flour bombing” and gender extremists call it “glitter bombing” but really it’s all the same thing: violent misogynists attacking women who refuse to do what they’re told when first asked nicely by violent misogynists.  Just in case there was ever any question that there are violence and threats of violence backing up the pretend “niceness” of violent misogynists, well, now there’s not.

The Washington Post reports:

Kardashian was celebrating the launch of her new perfume True Reflection at an event to benefit the charity Dress for Success.

As video from E! News shows, a woman walked up to Kardashian, yelled what sounded like “Lousy fur hag” and “flour bombed” the reality star.

Kardashian has been photographed wearing fur at public events many times, most recently at Kanye West’s Paris fashion show. In November, PETA placed a billboard in West Hollywood showing Kardashian in a fur vest next to a picture of live foxes with the words, “The babies miss their mother. Is she on your back?”

There is always, always violence backing up misogynist extremists’ — and their handmaidens’ — demands on women, and women know this.  “Asking nicely” is just a thin cover for abusers who, in reality, are coercing and intimidating women to bend to the abusers’ wills, and when they don’t do what they are told, violence ensues.  This happens all the damn time.  And in the wake of the violence, the abusers get to frame the issues and call it whatever they like, including minimizing it and justifying it — they are abusers afterall, and this is straight out of the abusers’ handbook.  It’s even more of a spectacle when organizations don’t formally orchestrate the violence, but then roll around in it afterwards like pigs rolling — gleefully — in shit:

A rep for PETA told [news outlet] TMZ the organization was not involved in the flour attack: “We were given the video by an anti-fur activist on the scene.”

The rep continued, “PETA has tried everything from polite letters to public protests, but Kim Kardashian has not been moved by the news that animals are beaten, electrocuted, and even skinned alive for real fur garments. Whoever threw that flour may reach her when our polite appeals did not.”

Yes, you attempted to merely intimidate and coerce her, whilst maintaining your false image as nonviolent non-abusers, and when the intimidation and coercion didn’t work, out comes the violence.  And piggish shit-rolling!  We get it.

What would the world look like if women stopped bending to abusers’ wills in fear of the ever-present threats of violence that back these assholes up?  One shudders to think, but it would be a lot more honest than what we have now, if also a lot more bloody.  Interestingly, unlike now, the blood would run in both directions — self-defense anyone?

But one thing’s for certain: if women consistently stood their ground in the face of pretend “niceness” from violent thugs, some things that are currently lurking just below the surface, in the realm of lies, obfuscations, denial, and half-truths would quickly become very clear.  And men and misogynist extremists would (perhaps?) end up looking like the shit they are, to everyone, when right now they just look, sound, smell, taste, and feel like shit to everyone who is both paying attention, and cares.

Violent gender extremists attack feminist Germaine Greer, call it ‘glitterbombing’

GayExpress reports that the violent vigilantes known as “The Queer Avengers” have physically attacked feminist elder Germaine Greer in real life by “glitterboming” her, allegedly in retaliation for Greer speaking and writing about the effect of transpolitics on women and feminists.  Hmm, in real life violence in retaliation for lawful and non-violent speaking and writing.  That sounds about right!

According to GayExpress, “glitterbombing”

has gained prominence internationally as a way to highlight transphobia and queerphobia. A glitter bomb is a lightning fast protest where activists will approach a famous person and cover them in a shower of glitter. Republican politicians at rallies are a regular target.

Republican politicians may indeed be a regular target, but as we can see here, being targeted for glitterbomb attacks is not just for delusional homophobes and conservative gender religionists anymore!  (If it were, the Queer Avengers would have to seriously consider glitterbombing themselves).

No, it seems as though any disagreement with transpolitics whatsoever, for any reason, will make you a target for in real life violence by trans activist gender-extremists.  Even where you are a non-conservative non-Republican, speaking about feminism and advocating for the legal rights and full recognition of the humanity of girls and women around the world.

Now I ask you: why might that agenda in particular be at odds with the trans or “gender queer” agenda?

And what group of people seem almost (ALMOST!) genetically predisposed to committing violence against women, and perpetrating violence generally, including violent retaliation against people they don’t agree with, historically, cross-culturally, and around the world?

I’m waiting.

Image from here.