Tag Archives: boys

7 Types of Feminists That Make Me Cringe

5 Feb



There are several definitions of feminism out here:

  1. The advocacy of women’s rights based on the equality of the sexes (Google.com)
  2. A range of political movements, ideologies, and social movements that share a common goal: to define, establish, and achieve political, economic, personal, and social rights for women. (Wikipedia.org)
  3. The belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities. (Merriam-Webster Dictionary)
  4. Refers to any ideology that seeks total equality in rights for women and people who self-identify as women, usually through improving the status of females. (RationalWiki.org)
  5. The doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men. (Dictionary.com)

With the above definitions in clear view, we can conclude that overall the feminist movement is calling for equal rights for women, for anyone who identifies as women to be seen as equals to men, and for women’s “roles” in society to be respected. Some feminists even define feminism as something that helps both sexes achieve equal rights.

I feel that all women can and have benefited from feminism in their own ways. We can’t deny that. Feminism has been a movement that has existed since the 1800s (when the first suffragists rounded up and organized their movement to push for the right to vote). And these movements have shaped the “feminine” identity to this very day.

All women who work, go to school, have sexual relations freely, chose their partners, wear short skirts, pants, and shorts, speak their minds on the internet, and vote should thank the efforts of both peaceful and radical feminists. Women today can’t help but be feminists. As Oprah Winfrey put it, “I don’t think you can really be a woman in this world and not be.” I completely agree with this statement.

I myself, as an African American woman, continue to benefit from the movement. I work, I’ve graduated from college, I have assumed a leadership role, I write this blog to speak my mind publicly, I’m single and love it, I adore androgynous clothing, and I have interests not assumed by most women (such as loving to play video games).

However, I believe it is possible to benefit from feminism, to support equal rights, without agreeing with what every feminist says or thinks. Not all feminists have the same intentions regarding feminism, and it is safe to say that “Third-wave” feminism (modern feminism), the feminism that exists today, has taken a completely different turn.

Julienne Davis, a feminist writer, spoke out about the “third-wave” of feminists in her article “How Did Feminism Get Hijacked By Man-Haters”. Her article inspired me to write this one.

Many feminists are very effective when it comes to pushing women towards a more “inclusive” future. This article is not for those women who really and truly want to help all women.

I want to assume that most feminists have good intentions, but based on some articles and comments I’ve read on the internet, in books, and in essays written by those who were associated or identified as feminists, I can definitely see why some people are no longer taking the feminist movement as seriously and why some women don’t even want to be associated with the movement.

After searching around, I’ve discovered 7 Types of feminists that not only irritate me, and others, but make us all literally sick. In no particular order, I will discuss what is so irritating about them.

The Slut Shamers

The Body Shamers

Ms. Double Standards

Lady Feminine and Lady Masculine

The User and Abuser


Transfeminist Dictators

1. The “Slut-Shamers” (SWERFS)


I felt this was important to talk about first because it has increasingly been affecting movies, music, music videos, video games, and even TOYS.

There are two reasons why the “slut-shamers” make me sick:

  1. They fail to understand the historical sexual restriction placed on women and how that continues to impact women.
  2. Their nit-picking to producers has been effective in limiting female artistic expression and creative female representation in media and other entertainment avenues.

Many feminists are against the exploitation, objectification, and over-sexualization of women, particularly when done by men. I can understand this well. Obviously, women don’t want to be looked at as “objects”, as tools of men, and want to be respected beyond their appearances. Mutual consent is an important topic as well as how sexuality in media influences young girls, who normally aren’t ready to handle the consequences that come with a sexual identity and sexual experience. Of course, mothers don’t want to encourage their daughters to sexually exploit themselves and they want to get a hold of teen pregnancies (which is said to claim over 700,000 teen girls a year). Teen pregnancy affects a female’s body and socioeconomic conditions severely. I get this.

But I can see why the “Feminist Sex Wars” ensued. There has to be some sort of balance, where women are both in control of their sexuality as well as free to express it.

These Feminists Set Us Back to the 19th Century

For centuries before the 1920s, sexuality was considered strictly for men. In fact, doctors in the 19th century believed that women felt “little or no sexual desire, and that only abnormal or ‘pathological’ women felt strong sexual desire” (“Women in Literature”, Kimberly M. Radek-Hall, 2001).

However, once women began to openly speak about their own sexualities, their right to choose their own sexual partners, and their right to express their sexuality “creatively” or in entertainment, men apparently seemed too “on-board” with this transition, to the point women became looked at as sexual objects by some men. That’s when the new wave of feminists began to debate whether women should be “sex-positive” or “anti-pornographic”.

I personally feel that the feminist movement should support all women. With that being said, I believe that women should have the right to express themselves in any way they like IF they are at a responsible age to handle the consequences. Each woman should be in charge of her “image” towards men or anyone else. If she wants to be looked at as an “object” by men or admired for her body, who are we to tell her she can’t? Or if she just wants to wear less clothing because she lives in a warm climate or because she wants to show off the latest fashion artistically, who are we to tell her she’s wrong? If we are at a point where we believe women should be on the same social plane as men, we should extend those rights we give to men that we give to women.

In fact, I feel we slut-shame women more than we do men, when statistics show that there are more teen dads out here than teen moms, and with more than one child! So much more so, in fact, that they can’t even keep a consistent count! And men are not shamed or protected by their families. I feel it would be more useful to try to get control of these young men because apparently they have the issue here! But if we are not going to say or do anything about our sons, why even try with our daughters? We can’t limit one side of the spectrum without limiting the other.

I especially find it to be super judgmental and contradictory to try to control what a female wears by shaming her into fitting another woman’s standards of beauty and decency. For many slut-shaming feminists, acting sexually isn’t the worst part. Dressing “sexually” is condemned by these feminists as well.

I can understand if someone wants to restrict a child from wearing revealing, see-through clothing and walking around as if she wants male attention. Obviously, a child is not mature enough to advertise herself in that manner. But a grown woman, with her own job, house, and car is old enough to do what she wants with herself. She’s fully prepared to handle the consequences, and no one should stop her from doing what she wants.

And some of these feminists define “sexualized fashion” as a tank top and shorts. These are the feminists that won’t let up on females even if it was 100 degrees outside!

They fail to understand that what one person finds “modest” and “beautiful” is not going to be the same for another person. They fail to understand that climate and weather impacts the way a woman dresses. And they fail to understand that styles always change. Before the 1920s, a one-piece bathing suit was considered indecent. Now, these slut-shaming feminists have suddenly become accepting of it. Why? Women show more skin in a bathing suit than they do in shorts and a tank top! But a mini skirt is worse than a one-piece bathing suit?

There are women in warm climates around the world who live and work in villages and move about their day-to-day life topless. And only western feminists will garble about how these women are “objectifying us all”.

Then, there’s the issue with their “attack” on makeup. I can understand that in our culture, women have too many expectations on them to look beautiful. I understand that feminists should push for women to be more natural. And for those women who want to be all-natural, I think it’s a great stand.

However, we shouldn’t condemn a woman who likes to wear makeup, and we especially shouldn’t assume they want male attention and that they are “sluts”.

Makeup has been worn by people (not just women) for centuries, even in the Egyptian empire. Men and women in Korea wear makeup. It is an art form. Makeup can express many different feelings at one time. People who enjoy art enjoy makeup. But slut-shaming feminists often lack an appreciation for art. Makeup is just associated with “sexualization” and “the search for male attention”.

It’s worse when these women are guilty of the same things they condemn other women for.

Instead of focusing on how women are dressing or how much makeup they’re wearing, maybe we should be focusing on the men who only see these women as sex objects and work on getting them some mental help instead.

Next, I want to talk about pole dancing, prostitution, and erotic dancing.. I do understand that coerced or forced prostitution (prostitution for money as a result of poverty, rape, pimp rings, etc) and sex trafficking are both dangerous and horrible ways for women to live. These issues should be addressed. But if a woman decides she wants to become a prostitute, and use her tricks to create a business, why shouldn’t she? I don’t think this should be illegal and I don’t think we should judge these women or men. They aren’t harming anyone, they’re just trying to make money using the only resource they can at the moment (even if that “resource” is their body). I mean, it’s their body and no one else’s.

The SWERFS believe that prostitution came from an “oppressive patriarchal” society. They believe it emerged at a time when women couldn’t make enough money to feed themselves and so resulted to giving up their bodies and being sex objects to get paid. But if we really think about it, just about everything a modern woman does and wants to do came out of a “patriarchal” society. Jobs like being a secretary, homemaker (stay-at-home moms), and maids came out of an oppressive patriarchal society, and yet we don’t suddenly condemn them or exclude them, even though those jobs put women in submissive roles. So why condemn porn stars or prostitutes just because they have jobs that came out of an oppressive patriarchal society? And if the women enjoy doing it, why comment at all?

Slut-Shaming Feminists Have Destroyed Artistic Expression

Though both sides are in the war, the “anti-pornographic” feminists have mostly dominated in the 21st century, influencing movies, tv shows (like the Powerpuff Girls), music videos (like Ariana Grande, Nicki Minaj), video games (like Tomb Raider), and even toys (like Bratz, Barbie, Betty Spaghetty, and even Monster High).

In most cases, too, these kinds of feminists take their criticisms too far. As a major toy and animation fan, I have personally witnessed how slut-shaming feminists have destroyed amazing, creative, and empowering doll lines, fun video games with iconic characters, and lovable cartoons with their nit-picking.

While I admit that Tomb Raider‘s Lara Croft gives an above-average body portrayal (more on this later), she’s also pretty daring and edgy, really showing that women are capable of anything. It’s no different from the body portrayals of Captain America, Superman, or Thor (which women ironically support and “eat” up). Yet, the feminists picked at Tomb Raider video game so long and so hard, the producers had to alter this iconic character. Many people claim that it had nothing to do with feminists, but we all know feminists have been complaining about that game (and many others) for years now. I don’t understand. What’s wrong with a woman who has a big chest? Some women have it, some don’t. So what? She’s not meant to look real, just like Superman and Thor.


While the Bratz dolls have been known to wear some of the most outrageous fashions and makeup, they have broken many fashion molds for a doll line. While most girls are expected to look “cute” and “modest”, the Bratz dolls have proven that a passion for fashion and breaking molds can be just as empowering. They were targeted for a tween to teen audience, and didn’t mind dressing like rock stars, jungle queens, Tokyo tourists, you name it. Makeup was used as an art form on the dolls. The Bratz never cared about the social rules. They never let these restrictive “standards” define them. Until the slut-shaming feminists got a hold of them.

Ironically, Bratz dolls have been one of few that have been respected by a male audience. While most of the males did focus on the “fashion” that the Bratz wore, most never looked at them as “sex icons”. They had big heads and big feet; they looked too much like cartoon characters to have been taken as the same sexual models we see in Playboy or Sports Illustrated magazines. Many males have stated that they liked the Bratz dolls because “they [were] unique and appealing”, “unique, cute, adorable, and wonderful”, “the look, the fashion, and the movies and episodes”, and the “high-quality clothes”. To most males, the Bratz are “unique”, well-dressed, with good movies and shows, not overtly “feminine” and “girl-centered” like other doll lines. None of the guys think these dolls are “hot” or “sexy”, but rather bold and original. So, the only ones seeing the “sexualization” of these dolls are feminists. The rest of us are seeing the sass, the boldness, and their girl power.


From what angle do these feminists draw their conclusion? I grew up with Bratz. Am I a prostitute? No. Was I a teen mom? No. And my vision of the Bratz as a tween was that they were strong, bold, and passionate young teens, ready to take the world by storm (similar to how I saw the Spice Girls). It would’ve been different if they were designed as sexy, attractive girlfriends for a line of male dolls. But the Bratz never portrayed themselves nor never have been portrayed as sex icons, not by males, not by fans, not by anybody. I see more sexual innuendos out there for My Little Pony than I do the Bratz. And what is wrong with having a passion for fashion? Didn’t anyone get the memo that the fashion industry is dominated by male designers? We need to encourage our ladies to think outside of the box, to be the inventors, the designers, the inspiration behind everything. We should be encouraging girls to push the envelope, to explore their passions.

Even young ladies today (the ladies who haven’t been brainwashed by these feminists’ propaganda) can clearly understand that the Bratz are an example of “self-expression” through fashion, and these dolls boldly announce that women can show skin (artistically) without necessarily trying to be attractive to a MAN. I have yet to speak with any tweens or teens that referred to the Bratz as “sexy”. You can see this from some of the comments on Youtube and other SNS websites dedicated to the Bratz. The only people who don’t seem to understand that are the slut-shaming feminists. They want to believe there’s some deep-seated misogynistic feelings these young ladies are “inheriting”… I hardly call the Bratz a form of “male hate” or “male supremacy”, but imagine whatever unicorns you want, my dear.

Moving along…

I want to talk about the new re-vamped Powerpuff Girls cartoon and the controversy regarding Ms. Bellum. I understand that Ms. Bellum’s design was just a body in a sexy suit without a face. But she actually had more of a role than these feminists think. She was the power behind the mayor’s incompetence, she was a confidante for the kindergarten superheroes and a female figure in these girls’ lives, and she was a single, hard-working lady, strong, sexy, and beautiful. Her role had many other messages and undertones. Without her in the series, something is missing.

But apparently, slut-shaming feminists don’t want to leave room for a diverse range of female representations. They would rather all women be the same dry, covered up, stiff women they’ve been since the 1800’s.

I don’t hear these feminists attacking Twilight for having an above-average, full-figured teen male in the story (Jacob Black). I don’t hear the feminists come with the pitchforks against Shoujo anime with these “cardboard box”, super tall, crazy athletic males. Whenever a woman objectifies a male in a written story or movie production, I don’t hear a peep from the slut-shamers.

This extends beyond the realm of toys and cartoons, and even affects famous movie stars and music artists. While many artists want to be respected as artists regardless of what they wear or how sexual they are, many have found a way to balance both an appealing look with a powerful message (like Beyonce).

But the slut-shaming feminists have fired at artists like Ariana Grande, Nicki Minaj, Beyonce, Rihanna, Britney Spears, Salt N’ Pepa, you name it. If they aren’t covered up like old grannies, like Adele, they are a “bad influence”.

Ironically, these same feminists don’t go after male artists like Nick Jonas, Jason Derulo, and others who actually DO the objectifying and talk more about sex than any other artists.

I seldom find young women who get interested in sex because their favorite female artists are into it, and I’ve been working with kids and teens for five years now. Honestly, how many teens can say they did it because Nicki Minaj said it was okay? But when teen girls’ favorite MALE artists are into it, teen girls seem more influenced to explore sex and sexuality. Or better yet, when some guy at their high school tells them how special they are, they are more than likely to do it no matter who is on a movie or music video screen.

I doubt Nicki Minaj got girls more interested in sex than One Direction did or Justin Bieber or Nick Jonas. So, should we shut down all the “heartthrobs” that come onto the music scene just because they express their sexuality and turn teen girls on? We are so quick to attack a female, we hardly think to look at the male stars that influence young girls way more than female stars, who have actually done the opposite!

If you don’t want your kids to be exposed to certain things, fine. As a parent, you have that right. But I don’t agree with taking someone else’s right to expression as the solution to raising individual children. Censor what you expose your kids to in your own homes, and give the rest of us a choice to enjoy what we enjoy.

This is not to say that I feel women should always be about their bodies and their appearances. I’m not that into mine. I do feel that it’s best for me to be natural and I would like my kind to be seen as beautiful, too. But to me, it’s perfectly fine if other women feel that their expression and confidence comes from a different avenue than mine. I feel that is what makes us all amazing; our diversity is what make us great.

Therefore, I can’t hang with the slut-shaming feminists. They make me sick.


Back to top

2. The Body-shamers


These types of feminists make me feel sicker than the first one I mentioned.

Feminists all around have been advocating the #loveyourself campaign. Feminists have been speaking out about the media and how it pressures women into thinking they have to fit a “mold” to be beautiful, to feel feminine, or to be looked at as a “real” woman. This goes hand-in-hand with the women’s “strike” against makeup and plastic surgery.

Even music artists like Alessia Cara have been singing out about the entertainment industry and how women have been trying to fit this ideal to feel worth.

Of course, the world-wide standard has always been “the skinnier, the better”, which has caused millions of girls to basically starve themselves or get plastic surgery in order to reach this ideal. So, feminists have mostly been encouraging women to enjoy having a little “weight”. And there is nothing wrong with that.

I’m on-board with this. My whole life I was sized up by people based on my physical appearance. In the African American community I grew up in, looks mattered a lot as regards to femininity and womanhood, so I understand this campaign as a whole.

However, I feel that some feminists have transferred the shame from those who are thicker to those who are thin, and that isn’t right either.

Again, feminists should support all women, thick or thin, and it isn’t right to go against a thin female just because she is thin. As a thin female myself, this always triggered me.

Growing up, being skinny hasn’t been a good experience for me. In the black community, being thicker is prized. A woman like Nicki Minaj is more than likely to be considered “sexy” than a woman with a tiny butt, tiny waist, and small breasts. Constantly, I was told I looked sick and that I was ugly. Aside from the fact that I enjoyed baggy t-shirts and jeans, which probably made me look “ugly” to certain people, I never really cared about my weight that much either. I stayed as active as I always have been. Still, the comments hurt at times, especially when I was a teenager.


As a young woman, I once looked to the feminist movement for support. I wanted to love my body and the way I am, just like all the other ladies. But I often ran into feminists like “Ms. Body-Shame”.

I have spoken out on my blog about being skinny and how other people considered me unattractive. And what did I get as a comment? “Backhanded compliments are not attractive, dear.” Like my experience, my life, isn’t worth fighting for or worth acknowledging because I fit a perceived “standard”. This was the beginning of my disconnection with the modern woman and the feminists that shame bodies like mine.

I read the comments (from men and women) on Ariana Grande’s and Miley Cyrus’s videos about their bodies being skinny and ugly, about how they look like 10 year olds, and how only thick women can look sexy twerking. While some “anti-porno” feminists may feel that is an insult to thicker women, because it may sound as if men are objectifying thicker women, it’s an insult to the skinny girls as well, the girls who aren’t truly considered sexy without some “Hollywood” magic.

I had one person tell me that my physique was considered attractive in the 1920s, but is no longer what men are looking for. I was fine with the comment, because I am not looking for a mate. Still, this just proves my point. Feminists need to understand that body-shaming takes a broader form in today’s society. You can’t support one group of women but ignore other women, and then call yourself a feminist.

If most body-shaming feminists actually stopped and researched what men actually wanted from women, they would come to find that the ideal is NOT skinny or thick. Men want that “girl in the middle” with fat in “all the right places”. And the media ideal is dependent on the male’s opinion (if sex does indeed sell). Check these out:

Men Prefer Curves, Not Skinny

Perceptions Of Perfection: What The ‘Ideal’ Female Body Looks Like Across 18 Countries

What the Ideal Woman’s Body Looks Like in 18 Countries


Maybe I fit the women’s ideal, but men most definitely wouldn’t find me to be the ideal. So why hate on me for being skinny?



“Feminist” comedian Julie Klausner is one of the “feminists” that make me doubly sick. If I wasn’t skinny before, she’s gonna make my skinnier because reading her comments make me vomit. That’s how I know her acts towards “feminism” are not helping and she is definitely harmful to my very nature. Her biggest attack was on Disney Channel star Zendaya. She made some nasty comments, those same bullying comments that made me want to literally hurt somebody at one time, and then she gets called a “feminist”?

Comments like, “And thinspo model for your impressionable tweens”, “Zendaya’s ultimate retort to Giuliana Rancic is starving herself down to the size of one of her elbowz”, “You don’t have to have an eating disorder to attend the Kids’ Choice Awards….but it helps!”, did more than just irk me.

Ironically, where was her behind when Adele was winning Grammy’s? An unhealthy body weight can exist in both extremes, and if you don’t think a skinny girl can be a good “role model”, I don’t understand how staying silent about obese musicians/actors and discouraging exercising does the job any better.

It’s as if she feels all skinny girls are skinny because they starved themselves…She doesn’t realize that some of us eat only three meals a day, have a fast metabolism, and EXERCISE.

If we’re trying to get women to be seen differently in an “image-conscious” world, shouldn’t the woman’s merits matter more than her appearance, thick or thin, to women? If “body-shaming” feminists are so concerned with a woman’s image, they aren’t any better than society as a whole. In fact, they are a part of the problem and will produce an opposite extreme.

Pharrell Williams is a skinny man. But nobody makes a peep about him when he wins awards. That just shows the double standards (which I will discuss more about later). These feminists make it more and more difficult for women to be seen as equal to men. You might as well not call them feminists.


I also want to talk about Lynn Cloud and her petition to remove Eugenia Cooney from Youtube. Clearly, the body-shaming feminists have gotten to this young lady, too. I understand that Eugenia looks sick (she’s skinnier than normal), but I have seen several men on Youtube that look just as sick. So why are we so focused on Eugenia’s image? Because she’s a girl? This never happens with men.

If you are sick, or have a sickness like Cancer or Sickle-cell Anemia, and you happen to be skinny, are you not allowed to make Youtube videos? Last I heard, anybody is allowed to post videos, no matter their appearance. She could be a spokesperson for all the other people who are sick and can’t gain weight. Is that a crime? We don’t know her personal circumstances or why she’s skinny. But who are we to silence her? Is she supposed to stay miserable her whole life and never try to adorn her body? She might have a disease that eats away at her flesh. So, she can’t post a video about herself? You people must think teen girls are so stupidly impressionable that they can’t obviously recognize that she’s sick. If anything, I’m sure her fans feel sorry for her.

Instead of trying to get this girl removed from Youtube, maybe she should be helped by people. The petition should say, “Petition to Help Eugenia Cooney”. Women should be trying to get to the root of her body weight issues and should try to get this girl some help. But banning her from Youtube will just result in her starving herself more and making her feel unwanted. The outcome could be even worse. It also limits this individual’s right to free speech. This petition will definitely create adverse effects.

And why hasn’t Ms.Cloud attacked the number of obese people on Youtube? They may not influence girls to starve themselves to look like them, but they do discourage girls who are already obese from getting active, exercising, and staying fit. Both images are damaging, but these body-shaming feminists are obviously walking contradictions.

And what about the skinny girls who have to watch a curvy woman with big boobs get all the attention from the males in the comments’ section on Youtube or everywhere else on the internet?


I don’t see a petition to ban these women. You don’t think curvy women are influencing these girls to eat more and more fatty foods and get plastic surgery? No one gets plastic surgery on their breasts and butt to be skinny, do they?  As a teenager, watching other teens with curves get all the attention made me want to stuff my face with all kinds of foods, get plastic surgery, and wear pads to make myself look thicker. I can imagine it has the same effect on other skinny girls. But if no one is out there to make them feel beautiful, if we have body-shaming feminists influencing the average feminist, who is supporting them?

And I’m not hating on a curvy, bodacious woman. That’s her body. The point is we should love all body types and stop the concealed jealousy.

That’s why I don’t have time; there is no room in my life for the body-shaming feminists. Good thing I learned to love myself without the help of these feminists.

Back to top

3. Ms. Double Standards


If you thought the first two were bad, just wait until you hear about Ms. Double Standards.

There is nothing that irks me more than a woman who calls herself a feminist or benefits from feminism but places “masculine” standards on men. Nothing irks me more than a woman who believes she’s free to do whatever she wants but a man is not allowed those same freedoms. I don’t like when men have double standards either, but feminists with double standards irk me more because they put on the “face” of equality when really their own self-interests are a priority.

I could go so far as to call these women “misandrists”, but not all of them hate men. Some of them just want the perks of living and working in a “man’s” world while maintaining certain traditional boundaries. I’m here to tell you ladies, that’s almost impossible in this world.

There are several double standards that have come up and out of women’s mouths, from both feminists and those benefitting from feminism, that irk me:

His Role is Provider?

There are many women who consider a father without a job a “bum”. In my personal life, most women never consider a stay-at-home father as a hard-working man or the one “taking care of his family”. He is simply referred to as the “bum” by most women, including some so-called feminists.

Did it ever occur to some of these women that he may be the one cooking and cleaning for his family while his wife works? But oh no, that makes him a moocher. That means he’s not fulfilling his role as a “man”.

But who are women to decide what a man’s role is? You are not a man! And women would be up in arms if a man decided her role in life!

Why do these feminists believe that a man should be the one to work, but they have the option to work and/or stay-at-home? If a man is a bum for being a stay-at-home dad, guess what that makes a stay-at-home mom? A BUM. And don’t come and tell me that all stay-at-home moms always have a 24 hour job cooking and cleaning. Some of these “homemakers” are reading a book and watching daytime television all day…And dinner is from a fast-food restaurant.

I can’t stand a woman who gets upset when someone attacks her contribution to society, but has all of these expectations of men. If you’re going to question a man’s role in life, you’d best be contributing something too, instead of waiting on someone else to take care of you. Especially if you call yourself a feminist, the one who is supposed to be fighting for the same “social rights” as men.

And don’t come to me with the “men are supposed to take the lead” crap. If you’re the boss of your own company, ladies, you aren’t letting the man take the lead, now are you? If you are running for president, ladies, you aren’t letting the man take the lead, are you? If you are the superintendent of your schools, manager of your store, General in your army, you aren’t letting the man take the lead, are you? If women feel they can do all that, without a man’s leadership, women shouldn’t be whining and complaining about who takes the lead in their own households.

How about this…You and your spouse both be the adults and WORK TOGETHER. There’s no sense in preaching that women should have equal rights if you aren’t a practicer of what you preach.

Who Proposes to Who?

I can’t stand a woman who calls herself a feminist, but waits around for a man to make the first move in her relationship.

Readers, I listen to a lot of early morning radio shows before I go to work. Most of the people calling in are women. One particular woman called herself a strong, empowering feminist who intimidated men. She claimed her biggest dilemma was getting her boyfriend, who she had been dating for 10 years, to marry her. She believed he felt intimidated by her because she made a lot of money and had a leadership position in life.

And all of the radio djs were just like, “Ugh, what’s taking him so long? Tell him how you feel and get him to propose!” No, woman. You propose! Maybe he’s not proposing because you can’t make up your mind as to whether you’re a strong, empowering woman or a wannabe timid mouse.

Yes, I believe that if YOU, the female, are the one who is ready to get married, YOU, the female, should be the one doing the proposing. You’re a grown woman, right? You call yourself a feminist, right? Well, if you want the same equal rights, to speak your mind, to choose your own partners, speak up! YOU go out and buy a ring. You plan the date and pay for the dinner. Why have we settled with the submissive role when it comes to relationships, when we women feel we can march on Washington for equal rights, become the bosses of our own companies, and fight hard to be president of the USA? But you’re not “equal” enough to actually do the proposing? Why not? That would be the perfect way to get the answer out of him; you’d finally figure out whether he’s ready or not, instead of twiddling your thumbs while you wait for him to make a move. Passively-aggressively whining and complaining isn’t going to get the results you want. It never works.

Some of these women cry “equal rights” when it benefits them. But when they actually have to take on a “leadership role”, they suddenly succumb to the submissive role. I’ll talk more about this later.

I also have heard on the radio about some so-called feminists who have asked a man out to dinner, but then expected him to pay the bill. That tradition has phased out. It worked back in the past, when women didn’t ask men out and didn’t really have decent jobs. In this modern world, women are making a pretty penny. In this modern world, women are taking more of the initiative. And if YOU are the one asking him out, don’t choose the most expensive place and expect HIM to pay. YOU asked HIM! You should be trying to impress him in that instance. He didn’t even have to say “yes” to you. That’s like asking your parents out to dinner, but then leaving them to pay the bill. That’s like asking your colleagues out to dinner, but then leaving them to pay the bill. It’s shady.

A woman who is like that is showing she is self-entitled. And when the feminist title is placed behind her, it just makes her seem more about “herself”.

A Boy’s Not Allowed to Like…

It sickens me how some women, who claim to be feminists, attack a man for liking something directed to “girls”. I ran into such a feminist on Youtube. She attacked a teen male for liking My Little Pony the tv series.

And yet, she praised a teen woman for being interested in Spiderman, Power Rangers, Clarence, and Naruto… So, again, why is it okay for a woman to like Power Rangers, but not for a man to like My Little Pony? In this “patriarchal” world, it’s alright for a woman to be interested in male-directed tv shows/cartoons/anime, but men are not allowed to enjoy or respect female-directed tv shows/cartoons/anime? He will be called a pedo, but she…is empowering? He has “Peter Pan syndrome” and is a “loser”, but she’s…empowering?…. He’s gay, but she’s…empowering?

It sickens me when women, who claim to be feminists or benefit from feminism, allow their daughters to buy video games, trucks, and footballs, but won’t buy their sons a doll…

I Like My Men Masculine/I Believe A Man Should Be a Man (or Masculine)


As I said before, I listen to public radio early in the morning before work, and I hear a lot of crap from these wannabe feminists. There is one popular segment of most radio shows that allows someone to try to reach another person after a date that supposedly went “well”, but fell off. The radio dj will try to reach out to the partner that went “silent” and try to reunite the two, hopefully paying for a second date.

What normally happens is that we, the djs and the listeners, discover that the date was awful from the other person’s perspective.

Keeping that in mind, one guy was trying to reach a woman he’d been on a date with. He said he had a blast with her. When the djs reach her, she says she cut him off because his side job was “embarrassing”. His side job was to be an elf for Christmas and hand out presents to little children. I thought this was the sweetest thing.

But so many women called in, women who said they were lawyers, mechanics, CEOs, saying they would be embarrassed by him and said it just wasn’t a “masculine” job. Fine, you are welcome to expect all of this masculinity from him, because women should have the right to their standards, right? But don’t get angry when a man becomes “intimidated” by you and doesn’t want to marry you because you’re in a “not-so-feminine” role.

What made this segment so sickening was that the female radio dj host was the MAIN ONE saying his job wasn’t masculine enough. Honey, you’re in a male-dominated field! And this dj has preached, and preached, and preached about how she is the only one in her field and how males don’t respect her in the industry. She is often the main one saying that a woman can be a radio dj and still be feminine. She is often THE MAIN ONE saying that a man can’t define her femininity. But suddenly, he’s not man enough because he defies the gender stereotype?

So I ask you, ladies, who are you to define a man’s masculinity? Who are you to judge a man who is trying to spread happiness and cheer during the holidays? Women preach that they want a nice, sensitive man who cares about the family and children. But then reject that man. I can’t stand it.

I can’t stand when a woman goes around saying, “I believe a man should be a man”, but she works a 9-to-5 job, is speaking her mind on the internet or radio, and votes. Don’t these ignorant women realize that at one time, these things were considered masculine? If you aren’t willing to fit your feminine role in society, why can’t we start to see masculinity and manhood differently? It’s as if these women want the best of both worlds, and see men as a threat in BOTH roles. It’s only fair to let men define their own masculinity just as you expect to define yours.

And if you’re going to have these double standards, don’t go around calling yourself a “strong empowering” feminist. Really, you’re not one.

Want to Read a Really Ridiculous article written by a “wannabe” feminist? 10 Things Women (Still) Expect Men to Know How to Do

I can’t wait to see how triggered she’ll be when the “female” equivalent of this article comes out…

Men Shouldn’t Care About A Woman’s Appearance or Occupation

This is the subject feminists preach high and low. I understand why feminists believe we should be beyond appearances, especially when it comes to the workforce. Not everyone was born beautiful, but good people can always do good things. I do believe people should let their merits shine.

Still, in relationships, people have the right to decide what they like, both man and woman.

Feminists are not so lenient when it comes to men in this regard. As soon as a man expresses his desire for a bombshell woman who is a stay-at-home mom, these feminists are on the prowl. I can understand…unless this feminist gives the pass to a woman who expects a bombshell man with a well-paying job.

So often, I’ve heard women complaining about the kind of “job” their boyfriends/spouses have, or what their man wears or what they don’t like men wearing (the man bun, socks with sandals, etc). And that’s fine if you have standards. But he’s entitled to standards as well. If you don’t want him judging the way you look or your occupation, why are you doing it?

This is made worse when it’s coming out of the mouth of a so-called feminist or a “perceived” feminist.

These feminists get angry when men are talking about how hot a female celebrity is, but have no qualms with talking about how hot a male celebrity is. Really?

This is especially common in the Kpop industry. There are many articles about the objectification of women in the industry, which is noticeably true, but the industry’s fans are dominated by females…making the male idols ten times more popular. And it’s not because these guys are the most talented guys in the world. It’s mostly because they look good. Thus, the male “idols” are ten times more objectified than their female counterparts. They are literally just pretty “ideals” to most of these teen girls and young women (2030 crowd). It’s gotten to the point the Kpop male stars wear makeup and get plastic surgery just to appeal to these fans!

And yet, all anyone wants to talk about are the females wearing makeup and getting plastic surgery…

If we’re going to stop objectification, we need to stop it everywhere. But if you still want some hot guys to look at in the entertainment industry, why not let men have the same pleasure?


Men Can’t Hit a Girl, But a Woman Can hit a boy

I’ve run across many feminists who abhor physical abuse, and I don’t blame them.

However, it’s oddly silent when women are doing the abusing. Most feminists assume that women have good “reasons” for being physically aggressive to their spouses/boyfriends.

In my honest opinion, physical aggression and violence is physical aggression and violence, and it’s never right.

Consider the Chris Brown and Rihanna issue. We don’t know who started that fight, but we know Rihanna was left with bruises and had to be hospitalized. Chris Brown went down for that, and rightfully so.

Solange attacks Jay-Z in an elevator, got caught on camera, with Jay-Z not hitting back, but she gets cheers from feminists…not criticism.

Anna from Frozen punched Hans in the face, when he never touched her once throughout the film, and yet this movie is for feminists? Let’s reverse those roles and see how fast the feminists come marching in front of the cinemas…


So many times while I’m working with my children, the girls will hit, push, and shove the boys, and get away with it, causing the young men to get angry and cry about the injustice. And remember, when boys and girls are children and adolescents, the girls are usually taller and stronger than the boys. Why do we condone physical abuse from women, but pull out the pitchforks exclusively for men?

We need to stop physical aggression across the board. It’s never right.


Back to top

4. Lady Feminine and Lady Masculine


Next, I want to talk about Lady Feminine and Lady Masculine. I will start with Lady Feminine.

This is the kind of feminist that believes a “real” feminist is a woman who honors femininity and doesn’t “act like a boy”. She never truly knows how to define what she means by “boy”, she just knows a girl shouldn’t act like one. Yes, I know, surprising, right? There are self-proclaimed “feminists” out in the world who use these kinds of derogatory statements, statements often used by male chauvinists.

But she calls herself a feminist…

This is the feminist that took on the title because it gives her status in the female community. She never really researched the term, it just makes her look good to call herself that.

I ran into such a feminist once. We were on the subject of Frozen Versus Mulan. I spoke about how Mulan was just as empowering as Anna and Elsa, if not more so, how Mulan saved all of China basically by herself, how she saved her own love interest, how her dreams consisted of bringing her family honor, and how she took initiative in her relationship. I felt that Anna and Elsa did nothing by themselves, I spoke about how Elsa ran away from her responsibilities, how Elsa acted like a victim, how Anna received help to get up a mountain (but Hans and his men found it only having been in the land a short while), how Anna’s dream consisted of dancing at a ball and meeting a prince, and how neither saved the day in any way (without destroying it in the first place). You know, similar to a topic I’ve written on this blog. And you know what she said? “Well, at least they didn’t have to dress like a man to prove how strong they were.”

Dress like a man? I asked her, “What do you define as dressing like a man? Last time I watched, Mulan was wearing armor and her hair up in a bun. Who said that a woman can’t dress like that and still be considered ‘dressing like a woman’?” No reply. Maybe she felt I was trying to strawman her, but the statement still stands. Clearly, she felt that to be a truly empowering, strong, “feminist”, you had to look like a “woman” (i.e. wear a dress) and represent everything girly.

This poster had several supporters, those who felt that womanhood should be honored and that women should stop trying to be more and more like men, and should try convincing men to be more like “women”. And I’m assuming their definition of woman was “wearing skirts and dresses and dreaming of romance”.

I understand their point, but again, how do we define this “womanhood”? Because my “female” experience never consists of dresses, hardly consists of makeup, and is hardly domestic. I truly enjoy being able to speak my mind on the internet, hold leadership positions, and I enjoy being single, without man or children.

And if these women wanted to step away from being more and more like men, maybe we should revert this society and take it all the way back to the 19th century. Perhaps these women should leave the internet and stop speaking their minds. That was once a male role. Maybe they should quit their well-paying jobs and stay at home, waiting for their fathers to take care of them or a good (or bad) husband. Maybe these women should stop wearing pants, shorts, t-shirts, and sneakers…

Oh, but they won’t. Somehow, now these things have become a part of being feminine.

If feminine qualities have evolved and changed over the last century, there is no way femininity is that limited.

Feminism is advocating that women receive the same “social and political rights” as men. I’m sorry, but these women are doing the opposite by claiming that a “woman” can’t wear armor without being labeled as “looking like a man”.

Despite that some cases like the one above exist, however, there are actually far more feminists against the traditional “feminine” values. I don’t think it’s any more progressive to be Ms. Masculine and assume that a woman that upholds traditional feminine values can’t equally want other social and political rights equal to men. These women tend to just want a balance for everybody, and there’s nothing wrong with that. There are things she likes about the patriarchy and things she doesn’t.

If feminism is supposed to allow women to have more choices in the world, why are we trying to limit any woman’s self-expression? And if we want a woman to wear armor and still be labeled as “looking like a woman”, we equally shouldn’t consider “dresses” a “woman” thing, but a human thing, right? We should just look at these things as clothing styles, tastes, and interests. The sooner we start accepting that clothing varies by culture and taste, the sooner we realize that clothing doesn’t define gender or sex, the sooner we all can move along happier in our lives.

The sad part is, though, men aren’t lucky enough to have the same “social rights” as women regarding femininity in today’s society. So I guess that would give women more rights than the ones men have. And thanks to Ms. Double Standards, it enables men to continue to see these roles as separate (since they are stigmatized by these women from entering into the feminine world). Since all they have is what is deemed “masculine”, men will hold onto it, even barring women from it, just as they have been “barred” from what is deemed “femininity”. This means we really need to get pass the gender stereotyping.

Back to top

5. The User and Abuser


The title refers to women who use the feminist title just for gain, perks, to get back at people, or to get out of sticky situations, but have no real interest in issues that affect women. Thus, she ends up abusing the title of “feminist”. This title could also refer to a woman who uses feminism as a title when convenient, but drops it when she has to do physical or laborious work, work actually considered “for men”.

She’s different from Ms. Double Standards in the fact that she may not actually have double standards. However, she recognizes that feminism gives her a certain power that it doesn’t give men, and she’s willing to fall back on it when she makes a “mistake”. She also knows when to play the “feminism” card and when to play the “traditional” card, making her a walking contradiction.

If you’re not following me, let me start giving examples. I knew of one young lady in college who liked the attention and company of many men. She slept around with most of the guys on her campus. In high school, her parents allowed her to get plastic surgery on her chest and butt. She definitely took advantage of the male attention.

Of course, she ended up pregnant. The moment she ended up pregnant, she claimed the man who impregnated her actually “raped” her and she filed a claim to get him kicked out of college. When the school refused to do this, she gathered some feminists from her school, rallied against the board, claiming they ignored serious issues that affect women.

Now, sure, she may have been raped. We don’t know what happened behind closed doors. But there was no real way of knowing whether she was lying or telling the truth, either. There was no physical evidence that she was raped. And the feminists that supported her only supported her because she was a woman who used the magic words.

The real problem is the fact that the young woman may have felt she had to lie. Our society has made it so a woman feels like a slut when she makes a “consensual” mistake. It is easier to catch a woman who made a mistake than a man (women get pregnant), so she often gets called the “stupid” one. And the physical consequences are more severe for a woman than a man (though a man may experience social/financial consequences), so women often try to find any support they can.

But lying and tearing someone down because of a mistake you made? That’s not only irresponsible, that is anti-feminist. It makes women seem like manipulative and fickle creatures who aren’t capable of making their own responsible decisions. It should not be supported by other feminists. I think more investigations should go into these “rape” outcries.


There are other incidents of the “users and abusers” I’ve encountered when working with children. Yes, it starts as early as five years old. I think I’ve mentioned how girls will often hit and shove the boys without consequence, right? Well, often times, I run across girls who are vicious bullies, but as soon as their parents are called, they turn on the tears and blame the male for “provoking them”. The manipulation works, with the male often being blamed as the bully, even when facts prove otherwise. I don’t blame the girls, who are just children. However, I blame society for enabling this manipulation, the feminists who support this destructive behavior or choose to ignore it, and the parents who just don’t have a clue.

Another example of this kind of feminist is one who has failed at a sport, job, debate, or anything else, provided that the “rules” were just and fair, but complains that she was discriminated against because she “is a woman”. Feminism does promote women receiving the same equal opportunities as men to go for the same jobs, play the same sports, and enter the same mental competitions. However, there is a difference between opportunity and success. Sometimes, some women just can’t do the job. Sometimes, a woman may lose a debate or a chess match. It’s not always the system setting up the women to fail (though it can happen and has happened at times). Many times, some women just can’t do the job as well as another person, and that is okay. We can’t blame the system when it is convenient and march our way into all the colleges we don’t get accepted to or into all the sports teams we’ve been rejected from. Sometimes, we have to be objective and analyze whether we were denied based on gender/sex or based on our actual skills (or lack thereof).

There is another type under this User and Abuser label. She’s the woman who is always strong, powerful, and in control until she really has to do a “man’s” job. What do I mean by that? I mean the one that has to serve in the military.

Luckily, in the USA, many women don’t have to experience being drafted into military service. But in many other countries, the draft is a very real part of life. Often times, women are exempt from military service because they are deemed too “weak” to do the rigorous training the men do.

Most feminists have been offended by this, but I recently ran across a self-proclaimed feminist who said she did feel women were “too weak” to be drafted in the military. In one conversation, she mentioned how women should be allowed in male-dominated fields, how women were strong, and how they were capable of having children and then going back to work. But when the topic of military service came up, she mentioned how her “menstrual” would hold her back and how she wouldn’t be able to take having to exert herself physically because of cramps.

Well, no one said military service was easy. Even men struggle through it. But there are many ways women could serve in the military, offering their intellect, their agility, hands or anything else. I presented this idea to the “feminist”, and her response was “That’s just not for women”. This was coming from a woman who claimed women were “strong” and capable of handling male-dominated fields. But as soon as the idea of mandatory military service came up, she was suddenly the docile mouse. This showed me that she was ready to use feminism when she wanted to use it, but not ready to assume the responsibilities that came with feminism. If we advocate that women be treated equally to men, we should expect the same things of women that we do men. They should have the same responsibilities. They should take responsibility for what they’re advocating.

Apparently, some women just aren’t ready for true feminism-the kind that doesn’t make their life more cushy, that is.

These kinds of feminists confuse the heck out of everybody, which sets the feminist movement back. What do you want? Do you want equal rights or not?

All of these gray/grey areas leave room for anti-feminists to poke holes.

Did I mention that some of these women get paid off of feminist propaganda? It’s more of a business for them, nothing personal.

Back to top

6. Feminazi


Yes, I used it. I used one of the worst insults to describe a feminist. I don’t always like to throw this word around, but if you’re acting like one, you are. Many people throw this word around unjustly, but there are a group of “feminists” that this word applies to.

Before I lay it thick on them, I do want to admit that I respect the feminazis more than all of the above feminists. No great movement is good without radicals, right? A radical movement can be an effective movement. For starters, at least most of them know what they stand for and aren’t full of the major contradictions other feminists are known for (unless they also fall into the other above categories). These women have gone beyond just fighting for equal rights; they are ready to destroy any “male-dominated” society. These are the women that are strictly focusing on the “patriarchy” and nothing else.

While I applaud them for getting down to the gritty business, sometimes these women seem to be trying to create their own little strict feminist regime. They are “puritanical” in a way, insisting that everything caters to women, the female sex, and her issues and needs, whether it be in a movie, music video, song, or book (like Nazi Germany). In fact, she may insist that there not be a male present AT ALL when the story is directed to a female audience. Romance is misogynistic to most of these women.

This is the woman that gets angry if she goes into a movie and sees one or less lead female characters. This is the woman that can analyze and find all the misogynistic undertones of everything, intentional or not. She can see the misogyny of video game characters wearing pink, the misogyny of a female character crying, the misogyny of women talking about their relationships, the misogyny of reality show fights… I have to admit she does her homework.

Despite her “intelligence”, she can be very annoying. I can’t understand how these women can enjoy anything when they are constantly worrying about how men are perceiving them or representing them all the time. If these feminists were really so tired of the misogynistic undertones, wouldn’t they have made their own little collection of cult films, books, and music exclusively for women, by women, with female leads by now? That would work better than trying to boycott or protest every little bit of entertainment because of some “misogynistic undertones” they’ve discovered. And it’s easy for them to find, too. They can read misogyny in the different ways we perceive the color of the sky. That’s how obsessed they are.

These women are also very particular about who should benefit from the movement and who should be supporting the movement. Oh yeah, some of them want to control who supports the movement. I’m sure most of us are aware that men can be feminists, right? Not the feminazi.

These are the women that aren’t just looking at feminism as a movement for equal rights. They include all the issues women face in the world, no matter how crazy or petty, like fights with their families and friends and women-on-women crime, among others.

You will certainly find some man-haters among them somewhere, too. They aren’t too friendly with men. In relationships, they are very particular about the men they like, if they like men at all. But these women are often so sensitive, even lesbian women have a hard time dealing with them (since they like to point out how we are all so conditioned by the patriarchy every 5 minutes).

All cynicism and sarcasm aside, I understand their need to bring “light” on issues that truly affect women. I appreciate the points they bring out regarding the social restrictions, expectations, and labels that have been placed on women. However, the feminazis need to step back and look at the forest sometimes. They are too caught up in these ridiculous, petty, and really unimportant details. After reading their propaganda, it’s hard to enjoy anything anymore.

Most of the feminazis are so caught up in getting rid of the “patriarchy”, which is riddled with some things that limit women and which do encourage women to be more “like men”, they forget that there are also good things that have come out of patriarchy that we can and have benefitted from. GASP. I don’t think the feminazis can handle that sentence. But it’s true. We all enjoy male inventions, like Apple, internet, cars, and much more. Sure, they were created in eras where women were limited, and yes the efforts of women to bring those inventions out there have been ignored, but they are still good inventions. If you don’t want a patriarchal society, move out to a remotely isolated place and create your own town full of women. That’s what a few Kenyan women did. See? Women of action, not talk.

And there are privileges, especially in western societies, that women have enjoyed as a result of this “oppression”. Women have never had to be drafted, they’ve been able to mostly stay at home instead of slaving in the outside world, and men have been expected to show chivalry towards women (even if some didn’t) by opening doors, pulling out chairs, and giving jackets to women when they’re cold.

Some of the women from the good ole’ days would hardly agree that they were actually oppressed. Many agreed with their set “roles”. Of course, some women didn’t, because we’re all individual. But neither did some men. We have had very defined separate roles in society, and much of the “rules” were written by both men and women. These “roles” were always decided by the lifestyle lived by both the men and women. If a woman lived an agricultural life, she wasn’t expected to work in the home. If a woman lived in an urban area, she was expected to do housework. And some women took pride in being homemakers. I hardly call that oppression, considering the term refers to prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control. There may have been more boundaries, but that was for both men and women. Some women in the west were not treated cruelly, unjustly, or controlled at all. Many women decided the roles they wanted and lived comfortable lives.

As long as men exist, patriarchal thinking will exist, and as long as women exist, matriarchal thinking will exist. Each gender thinks about their own self-interests, first and foremost. We can’t get rid of one to uphold another. The only way to live peacefully with one another is to work out our ideas together, to remove the ideas from both systems that just don’t work or don’t lead to a comfortable life, and keep the things that enhance the quality of all of our lives. As an African American, even though White Supremacy exists, it’s not realistic to try to remove white people from positions of power. It’s best to rise in that system and then implement our ideas, causing a blend. I feel the same way about Male Supremacy.

While most women want to be seen as strong and independent heroes, we are also very individual and don’t mind seeing romance here and there. There is nothing wrong with marriage or relationships. It’s how we continue our human race. There’s also nothing wrong with a man saving a woman, as long as we know that the feeling is mutual. Women can’t always do the saving. That’s just not realistic. While we do want to focus on shedding stereotypes, it’s not always bad to enjoy or even fall into some of them every once in a while.

There are women out here who really do need to fight their patriarchal systems. They are in countries that truly oppress women. We should observe how their patriarchy is destroying them, especially if there is nothing good coming out of it. But some of us are actually living in a society where it’s really not fair for either side, men or women.

The feminazis have to ease up a little. That’s all I’m saying.

The following videos are not by a feminist, however, I think she makes some interesting points:

Food for thought…

Back to top

7.  Transfeminist Dictators


For those who are unaware, Trans people are people who are labeled a certain sex at birth, but identify as the opposite gender.  There are many transmen and transwomen who also identify as feminists, and often times stand with other kinds of women against rape, sexism, and misogyny.

Despite this, however, there are some trans feminists who criticize other feminists in an effort to protect their identity.  This is what makes some of them the most cringeworthy feminists of all.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with being a trans feminist, especially if you are a transwoman.  After all, feminism is for them as well, supposedly, right? However, I do have a problem with trans people trying to “censor” certain topics, and I do have a problem with trans people dictating the way other women in the movement address their own anatomy biologically.

I get that trans women want to feel included in the movement, and certainly there are certain aspects of the movement that apply to trans women.  However, not everything in the movement has to apply to trans women and women should not be forced to censor themselves when talking about issues that affect their everyday life. What they fail to understand is that many feminists experience oppression based on their biology and not just because of social gender representation. Trans women must respect this.

Examples of topics that trans people have tried to censor include:  pregnancy, abortion, menstruation, breast cancer, vaginal disrespect, and/or Uterine diseases or conditions, along with other biologically “female” issues.  Many trans women are sensitive about these topics because most of these topics do not concern them and their own biological make up.  As a result some trans women have even said that women should not talk about these issues at all in order to avoid “excluding” trans women.  One example of this involved the latest Women’s March On Washington, when women dressed as vaginas in order to make a political statement.  Transwomen criticized the movement, and it was not because the costumes were ridiculous, not because women were representing genitals in front of thousands of children, but because they felt the march was “transphobic” and “cissexist” and exclusive.  Yes.  They did not like the idea of women wearing what they referred to as “pussy” hats or vagina costumes, making the trans women feel somehow like they are less than women.

Apparently, the trans women did not get why the women were marching with vagina hats and costumes in the first place.  This was a political statement, a statement to a man they felt offended the vagina or “pussy”, a genital that the majority of women have in the world.  So why should they not wear vagina hats and costumes? I understand that some trans women have different genitalia, but that does not mean the feminists should not speak up when they feel vaginal disrespect.  Just because you’re the kind of woman that doesn’t go through this, doesn’t mean majority of other women don’t.  Feminists should be able to address all issues that affect all kinds of women without feeling guilt. A woman should be allowed to talk about her body and her own anatomy. After all, that was one major issue throughout history. The vaginal anatomy has been the root reason why women have always been considered sexually inferior, considered unclean, and receptive, not assertive. Their genitals affect them as women, so these women should be able to speak on it. Walking around with “vagina” hats wasn’t the best way to get the idea across, it was a little extreme, and it doesn’t actually define a woman totally, but regardless of my personal opinions about the costume, they should be allowed to try to get their points across without being labeled “cissexist” or “transphobic”. It is not “cissexist” or “transphobic” if they talk about their biological bodies, especially if it has something to do with the way they are treated in society.

Historical “science” used to distort all kinds of “facts” about women based on the “uterine” genitals. Therefore, it is not right to repress their voices just because it makes you, as a trans woman, feel “uncomfortable”.

There are issues trans women go through that other women do not experience, and that is okay. Would it be right for other women to try to censor a trans woman’s voice because other women do not experience the same things? No, it would not, because those issues are serious and need to be resolved for the mental, emotional, social, and physical health of society. It is the same thing when it comes down to women with vaginas.

These kinds of trans feminists also try to “censor” other feminist causes, too.  They even try to censor the feminists’ use of words.  They insist that feminists not refer to their own anatomy as “female”, despite the fact that scientifically the definition of female involves a certain kind of anatomy and function.

The hypocritical part about these trans feminists is that they will be the first to tell you that you cannot define them; they insist they can only define themselves. So why is it their job to dictate what another feminist defines as female?

Oh, and by the way, not all feminists like the word cis either, though most trans women insist that women who are not trans refer to themselves as such. A cis woman is a woman that identifies as the gender aligned with her sex. What about the feminists that don’t honestly believe in gender?  This is what I mean; trans women cannot tell other women how and in what manner they should identify themselves and their anatomy.  It would be best if these types of trans women stopped insisting that every issue in the movement be about them. I get the feeling that some of the feminist trans women are just too sensitive to be in any movement.  They are apparently sensitive to almost everything in every movement.

And this is not all transfeminist, mind you. I have run into some very supportive trans feminists, women who talk about their own issues as well as the issues others face. Those women are helping us all move forward. But those women that get whiny over every little thing in the movement? Just have several seats.

Back to top


At this point, I want to wrap this up by re-emphasising my appreciation for most feminists and their efforts to try and push us toward a more inclusive and progressive society. However, I just had to bring this issue out. There are certain feminists that have been evolving out of the movement and I think it’s time someone warned others about them. They are mostly holding women back.

Leave me a comment and let me know what you think about my list. Do you agree with my list, that these feminists are cringe-worthy? Are there any others

you would like to add? I’m open to discussion.


Should American Girl Sell ‘American Boy’ dolls?

15 Jan

american girl logo


Every once in a while, someone will come up with the suggestion that there should be American Boy dolls created by the American Girl, LLC company.

The American Girl brand is well-known for their historical “Beforever” and contemporary “Truly Me” lines of dolls designed as little girls (different from Barbie, Ever After High, Disney Princesses) with inspiring stories. The brand has always focused on girls since 1986 when the concept was first released to the world.

However, recently, there has been a sudden “push” for toy companies to be more “inclusive”. This means that people are tired of the generic, standard dolls that have always been included among toy options. If the toy companies or some of their lines are directed to boys, people want them to include “girl” toys. If a company has primarily targeted their toys to girls, people want “boy” toys. If the collection only includes white characters, people want characters of other races. If the collection focuses on one country, people want other nationalities and cultures included. People want to diminish prejudice this way. They want to bridge the gap between differences and make things more equal and fair.

American Girl fans, since the 1990s really, have all been wondering if American Girl would include “American Boys”. Back then, that would’ve been considered a bad marketing move. But with the recent popularity of Frozen and My Little Pony toys among males, people are starting to consider it.

Along with that, with so many feminists pushing for “boy” toys, like the “Nerf” toys, to include girls in the target demographic, “girl” toys are now being questioned as well. Should we exclude anyone from enjoying these toys?

Although there’s nothing wrong with girls wanting nerf water guns or boys wanting an American Girl doll, regardless of the gender direction (after all, American Girl doesn’t have to include American BOY dolls in order for boys to buy from the same brand and nerf toys never had to turn into Nerf Rebelle in order for girls to like Nerf products), some children want toys that represent them more personally.

Many of you might ask: ARE any boys interested in products like American Girl? Would American Boys sell to male audiences?

Though polls and surveys can answer this question more conclusively, from my experience, there are boys who like the American Girl dolls. Several readers on my blog, who are male, enjoy dolls such as Bratz and American Girl. These kinds of dolls appeal to males. While Bratz is edgier, American Girl has history involved with it, which relates to humans the world over. Many boys have walked into American Girl Place with their families in awe at the remarkable array of clothing and accessories, especially the ones that go with the historical dolls. American Girl’s Beforever line also comes with books that make history more exciting for kids.

There are many different reasons why many people want “boy” dolls.

  • People want “positive role models” for their sons

There are toys out there for boys (though many kids are consumed with tablets and video games), but they are all action figures. They all inspire courage and action in boys, but no valuable non-violent qualities like kindness and compassion. There are also hardly any boy toys where “little boys” are the main characters. So when little boys, at an impressionable age, walk into the American Girl stores, yes, they see dolls designed like girls, but they also see dolls that are designed to look like kids their OWN AGE.

  • Girls (and toy collectors) want “boy dolls”, too.

Barbie has Ken. Bratz have Bratz Boyz. Monster High and Ever After High have boy dolls. Frozen dolls have Kristoff (and Olaf). There are girls who have brothers or male friends in their lives and want to play out scenarios with their boy toys involved. People are also interested in how boys dressed in the past. It would make for an interesting buy for adult toy collectors as well, who lately make up nearly half of the toy industry’s consumers.

The only problem is most people like that American Girl dolls are empowering without having “boyfriends” or other male figures to help their line. Some people like that it’s a brand exclusively for girls. Most history books are mainly dominated by male figures. American Girl not only tells about history from the perspective of females, but from the perspective of little girls at that.

Some parents are also not comfortable with their girls playing “boyfriend/girlfriend”.

Still, males influence girls every day. It would still be interesting to have it in the brand for many people.

Okay, so how can the American Girl company accomplish this?

American Girl has always been for girls. That’s what the brand is popular for. How can this company introduce a “boy” line of toys without taking away what the brand stands for? People have had several suggestions:

  • Create “male friends” from some of the already-told Beforever stories.
  • Create a new “Girl of the Year” with a “Boy of the Year” as a best friend/brother doll.
  • Create a whole new line of historical boy characters that match the times already represented, just from a male perspective.
  • Focus on creating contemporary (modern) dolls for boys like Truly Me.
  • An exclusive line with books, like Hopscotch Hill dolls or Girls of Many Lands, with dolls that are slightly smaller than the 18” dolls so that they can be distinct.
  • Customizable dolls, similar to Truly Me, but where you can choose from an array of historical AND modern fashions and accessories as well as different ethnic molds.
  • Release a Limited Edition Boy doll every year or every other year.

Beforever Boys

Using the male characters from the already-written Beforever line can shorten the time it takes to create a male character. Many fans are already familiar with characters like Stirling from the Kit series, TJ from Julie’s series, Davy and Wayne from Maryellen’s series, and Julius from Melody’s series. Though Kaya has Two Hawks, trying to get their fashions correct without being “offensive” would be challenging, considering throughout the summer boys mostly wore breechcloths. And I don’t think those two boys are the best role models. Samantha has Eddie Ryland in her story, but he’s never becomes a friend. Rebecca has Victor, but he seems too old to fit into the “American Boys”, even though he’s Ricky’s age (Molly’s story). If they’d kept Kirsten and Molly, they may have had more options (though I felt Ricky was a horrible little boy).Considering Kirsten and Molly are archived, the boys from their series would not be included either, decreasing the number of options. That presents another problem: If they decide to archive the Beforever girl, the boy is going to go, too. After all, what sense is there to get rid of the main character and keep her male friend doll? Do we really want a short-term thing? With American Girl constantly trying to make room for new dolls, any of the girls are liable to go and then we’ll still be without an inclusive line of boy dolls. We already saw what happened to the Best Friend dolls.

There would not be much diversity with just those boys mentioned above released as all of them are white. Eventually, as they are even doing with the current Beforever and Girl of the Year line, people will be pushing for more diversity. This was also why the Best Friend dolls didn’t go over well. Only some American Girls got best friends, which meant more fashions and accessories from the time period for the white dolls, while others seemed empty in comparison. Most of the best friends were white with just one being an Asian doll. The Best Friend collection lacked diversity.

There are American Girls who don’t have ANY main male characters around their age, like Josefina. We would never really have a Mexican historical male character if we were relying on Josefina’s story for inspiration.

Ben is a favorite among girls, but he’s too old. The target age for historical characters are 9 to 10. Ben is basically considered a “grown man” in his time. The stories, from his perspective, would be far more “advanced” and not as lighthearted as Felicity’s stories (from a child’s perspective). He would be more like the Girls of Many Lands. They would have to make it intermediate or advanced literature, which would mean the words Ben uses would be too difficult for children to pronounce and the content would be…a little more intense.

And if we are going to add Ben, we might as well add Seth (Caroline), Lars (Kirsten), Joseph (Rebecca), and Sam (Addy). This would fit better with an American “Teen” line, though, rather than an American Boy line of dolls. To add, over half of the boys who would fit into an American Teen line are in the stories of characters who are archived.

Even if there were enough boys to go around, there weren’t that many clothing options for boys in the past. Boys were simpler than girls historically and it’s hard enough to get some of the American Girl Beforever characters to look appealing as it is (this is why they still haven’t designed a Pilgrim yet). Appealing to the general demographic would be challenging. A “best friend” male doll would not give girls the same options that a “best friend” girl doll would.

To put it all bluntly, they can’t go far with male characters from the book series, just as they couldn’t go far with the Best Friends.

Boy of the Year

I like the idea of American Girl creating a “Boy of the Year”. But that boy will only last a year. What will happen to the little boys that come into the brand the following year only to discover that the doll has been discontinued? That takes us back to square one. Still, this would be great as a test run. However, considering American Girl only has one year to sell these dolls to meet their financial quota, I doubt they will take that risk. American Girl is taking their time releasing an African American Girl of the Year because they’re too afraid “she won’t sell”.

And if he were a best friend doll…He would still only last a year. The other problem is American Girl would have to try to sell two dolls in one year. They already had that challenge before, which was why they scrapped the “Best Friend” strategy.

The All-New Historical line

This would be an amazing alternative to the American Girl Beforever brand. The real question is, how far would they be willing to take this line?

If they want to take it as far as their current Beforever line, which includes accessories and books, the two lines would end up being competitors for the company’s attention. Dealing with TWO historical lines is a challenge.

They would also have to decide what time periods they could use for the boys, which would take years. It took years to build the original Beforever line. It will take years to build a line like this.

This may also take them away from “what the brand stands for”. By focusing on boys and their adventures in time, this company will no longer be a brand mostly focused on girls. I feel we desperately need history taught from the perspective of normal women and girls (and not just from queens and political leaders).

I feel that it would be best to come out with just five boys from the past. But we know how that’s going to turn out. Eventually, kids will ask for more.

One of the lines will suffer. My bet is on the boys’ line. This might be a great idea when they’ve covered every single time they possibly could with the original Beforever line. For now, it’s complicated.

Modern American Boys

This would be a great idea. They could also have various head and facial types. I see this being more attractive to girls.

Most of the boys seem to like the historical part of American Girl. They don’t care about fashion for fashion’s sake. It has to be purposeful. American Girl Beforever dolls’ purpose is to educate about the time period, even through the fashions.

Still, I think having items, like miniature footballs or cooking sets would appeal to boys just as much as the items appeal to girls. It’s great for playtime. Children of both genders have a wide imagination and want to play out their lives.

Exclusive Boys

An exclusive boy toy line, like Hopscotch Hill dolls or Girls of Many Lands, would be good. They may be shorter than 18 inches and probably less expensive. This would be a great way to introduce male characters into the brand.

The issue is whether or not they should be historical dolls or modern ones.

One without the other would make the line feel like it’s missing something. They may come with books, but I can’t see girls buying dolls that don’t connect with the main American Girl dolls in any way. Most of American Girl’s off-shoot lines failed. They would really have to promote this kind of line if they expect success.

Still, this is the best option.

Customizable Dolls

This is the best option in my opinion. If American Girl is going to step into the “boy doll” field, allowing an array of playtime options would be the smartest move.

I think the boy dolls should start off with five or six customizable molds to represent various races and ethnic groups, similar to the Bitty Baby line.

Customers should be able to pick between fashion packs that include both historical and contemporary (modern) fashion with an array of accessories that match a boy’s life.

I really think this would be the best for playtime. Though books couldn’t be included in this kind of line, which is a shame because it wouldn’t inspire boys to develop a strong character, it would still be a lot of fun.

Limited Edition

This would also be a pretty good idea. This way, the boy dolls won’t take over and change the “direction” the company is trying to go in. Just like “Girl of the Year”, they could have a separate boy toy line with one doll every year. It could sell out in one year, but then that would cut into the Girl of the Year marketing strategy.

It could be one new historical boy every year, choosing a new time zone every time. He may come with one already-written book or a tell-it-yourself sort of thing. That would go over better and it wouldn’t be modern like Girl of the Year. They would be the most unique boy dolls on the market.

They would still take over the Girl of the Year marketing strategy, but at least they would be different.

Still, a modern boy would probably sell better to the main demographic, just the like the modern girls do. To create a historical boy takes three years of research as well as tons of money. It would be difficult to release one every year.

Either way, though, they would interfere with Girl of the Year marketing. One is going to have to go.

The boys could be limited to two or three years, but that means it would take forever to get the next boy doll. There wouldn’t be many options in the meantime.

Beforever Transformed Into Boys

Reader Yousef, who is a boy, made the suggestion that the company could transform the Beforever collection into boys. For example, instead of Samantha, she could be Samuel, and her books could be told from a boy’s perspective. Perhaps all the genders could be switched in the story. This would change things significantly. For instance, Aunt Cornelia was a female suffragist. As a man, she more than likely wouldn’t have been too interested. But perhaps Uncle Gard as a female would be more interested!

I really love this idea. What makes it better is that a boy from the target age group would be interested, too! Male fans are already familiar with the characters. This is actually something I would buy! Honestly, knowing the kind of fan I am, I wouldn’t consider the above options quite as interesting as this one!

However, reader Raygirl also makes some good points. While this would be a wildly popular idea, the time it takes to create these boys would greatly interfere with making new Beforever characters. Though they have already researched the times, they would have to learn a little more about boys in these time periods. It may not take three years, but it may take some time. They would have to hire writers to recreate the two volumes. Then the time and money it takes to manufacture these dolls! It took American Girl a little over 20 years to build the brand to where it is today.

Unfortunately, male dolls will only be made for the current Beforever characters, and not the archived ones like Molly, Felicity, Kirsten, Marie-Grace, and Cecile. 😦 That makes me dislike this idea more. And this would prevent archival as they try to sell the boys in enough time. This means it would stop them from creating new Beforever characters.

Reader Ashley Allegretti also mentioned that hearing the stories over again would be a little “dry”.

Still, this is the only idea I would actually support. Maybe when they’ve run out of ideas for the main Beforever line, they could start designing for a male version. Or they can make the boy dolls look like the current Beforever girls, but give them all-new stories. Still, we’re running into the issues we discussed above with American Boys in an all-new line…

To wrap this up, what do readers think? Do you think an American Boy doll is a good idea? If so, which option above sounds like the best one? If you don’t like the idea, share why you don’t!

Search up ideas for American Boy dolls!


Is Frozen a Feminist Movie or a Sexist Movie?

12 Jun


I know. It has been, what, six months since Frozen arrived in theaters? And yes, people are still talking about this movie. I recently just heard “Let it go” on the radio.

Frozen has received surprisingly positive reception and has walked away with an Academy, Golden Globe, and Oscar Award, despite the severe plot holes, unintelligent lyrics, and half-done character development. What’s going on with today’s critics? Did Disney promise them a piece of the pie? Or did the beautiful animation blind them to the fact that this was a poorly written story? It’s no wonder we put little faith in any of these award shows anymore…


That aside…

Frozen is also getting all kinds of attention for being a modern iconic movie that promotes feminism. This movie is getting all kinds of attention for doing something “different for women and Disney” when it is just that: different…as in, the first sexist movie ever to come out for female children. And different isn’t always good.

Here were some of the reasons some people have claimed this movie to be a symbol of “feminism” in comparison to Disney’s former movies:

1) There are two strong female characters in the movie who have goals and dreams, unlike Disney’s other characters.

2) Anna bravely searches for her sister instead of sitting back letting a man save her sister.

3) Elsa becomes queen without having to marry a man.

4) Anna decides who she truly wants to marry instead of being betrothed.

5) Frozen teaches girls not to fall in love with the first idiot (usually in the form of man) that comes along.

6) Frozen shows the world that women don’t need a lover (usually a man) to provide their icky kisses in order to save the day. The “day” can be saved by someone else who loves her (preferably a woman, and preferably a family member).

While many of these ideas are good in theory, and encourage girls to be smarter in choosing boyfriends in the future, or rather, not to date so soon at all, this movie doesn’t exactly push REAL feminist values.

Though I do think it’s important for all children to be a little more realistic when choosing mates…That also includes boys.

To add, many of these points just aren’t valid. Disney has only had two, yes TWO, Disney heroines who relied on a kiss to wake them up. The other heroines worked hard. In fact, Cinderella worked harder than Anna and Elsa ever could. She wasn’t born into nobility. Sure, she seemed to rely on a man to get out of her poor situation, but Anna relied on Kristoff to get up an ice mountain…

The other heroines like Belle, Princess Jasmine, Esmeralda, Kida, and even Meg were all feisty, brave, and intelligent. All of them were independent. Esmeralda saved Quasimodo. Meg was a bit of an anti-heroine, which Elsa failed to be…Belle read books (which Anna seemed to do little of). Princess Jasmine was much more cautious in love than Anna was. And Esmeralda, Meg, and Jasmine both conveyed as much sex appeal as Elsa did when she decided to “slit” up her dress…

Tiana worked hard and helped her Prince out of financial debt. In exchange, he helped her get her restaurant. It was a fair exchange. Mulan was never saved by anyone! Neither was Ariel! Ariel was bright, intelligent, and curious. To add, she also saved her prince. So what are people talking about?

I think it’s because Elsa is the first “emo” character. Maybe that’s what it is.

What is feminism?

Feminism has been misconstrued in today’s society. Many people today think feminism is the idea that women can do any and everything better than men. People think feminists carry the idea that women don’t need men at all. Many people think feminists HATE men. This is because many women who are bitter or angry with men have come to hate men (especially if they were in a poor relationship with a man). Many of them thus end up forming SEXIST generalizations about men, and then end up hiding behind the label “feminist”. But it makes it bad for the real feminists.

Here’s an example of someone who has misconstrued what feminism means:

Time magazine (and other magazines) asked Shailene Woodley (Felicity: An American Girl Adventure, Divergent, and The Fault in Our Stars) if she was a feminist. She stated,

I don’t consider myself a feminist because I love men. I think the idea of ‘raise women to power, take the men away from the power’ is never going to work out because you need balance. With myself, I’m very in touch with my masculine side. And I’m 50 per cent feminine and 50 per cent masculine, same as I think a lot of us are. And I think that’s important to note.

Yahoo article on Shailene’s objection to feminism

See how confused Shailene is? And based on the comments, other people are confused, too. Many aren’t, but understand why she wouldn’t WANT to be one. I can understand, too. Feminism has come to mean something totally different from what it used to mean. It’s no wonder people step away from the word as if even the word is a monster.

Dictionary definition-Feminism-the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men.

So feminism is not believing that women can do everything better or without men. It’s the belief that women should be given the exact same opportunities to do the same things as men (whether they try and succeed or try and fail, as long as they are given a fair shot). It is the belief that the two genders are EQUAL. And as one Yahoo writer points out, it also benefits men. In a feminist situation, men will not think they have to have the jobs all the time. It introduces the idea that a man can stay at home, cook, and clean for a change. Or places can open up on dance teams and cheer-leading teams for boys…Though boys started cheer-leading in the first place…


So, if we look at feminism as being equal to men, would we really say Frozen is advocating equality to men, or is it promoting female chauvinism? Chauvinism: The idea that one gender is superior to another.

A Lack of Male Character Development

It’s alright to say women don’t always need men, because yes, women are capable of taking care of themselves if they choose to be single. But Frozen takes this concept to a different level. We do need each other to a certain degree. We both live in this world. Ideas that promote the uselessness of a man is just as damaging as making men out to be Gods…

If a man went around saying, “I don’t need no woman”, he would be labeled a misogynist…But back to Frozen.

There are only three supposedly “important” male characters in the whole movie, and a couple of male trolls. Not one of them are important to the story. All of them are useless.

Kristoff is simply in the story to serve as a lover and to be the chauffeur for Anna (which she could’ve taken herself on her own journey up the mountain, if she was so “strong”). He was a card-board box character that didn’t need to exist. Doesn’t that sound exactly like how women “of the old days” were portrayed? Oh, but then, we complained that it was sexist. Is making Kristoff a useless lover in a traditional male role (ice lifter, because men are so “strong”…) ANY different? He has no family, no interesting back-story or dreams, and when he could have served a purpose, he failed to do so (knowing about the Anna incident but doing nothing about it…).

Then the other male character is an evil, selfish, douche who’s only goal was to improve trade relations. He was the weakest villain ever, and he only served to teach Anna that men are pigs and only care about themselves. Even if, from a woman’s perspective, this is true, it doesn’t make it any less sexist. Sexist movies in the past, despite everyone’s beliefs, took three turns: women would either be useless, objectified, or absolutely evil.

Look at the 1930’s, 1940’s, 1950’s , and even 1960’s movies. They Drive By Night, DetourThe Ten Commandments, and Gone with the Wind all portrayed women as absolutely evil and no good. Most movies had a “vamp-like” character in them. It made men respect women even less. It made men think of women as conniving, wooing snakes, only bent on power. Isn’t that the EXACT same message Frozen gives to women about MEN? Is the movie not also portraying a man as a snake only focused on power? Come to think of it, so did Maleficent. So what do you think it’s doing to the young female mind?

But then, it was called “sexist”. Now that the roles have switched, we want to call them “feminist”.

And that dumb snowman, Olaf, was it? He served absolutely no purpose but to provide cheesy comic relief, as did the male trolls and the horse. Similar to the female friend in Thor.

If you want to send a message that women don’t need men, why don’t you just OMIT the men altogether? In fact, this story would’ve been way better without them. Kristoff was such a distraction, the true bond between Anna and Elsa barely evolved. The villain was thrown in at the last minute because, oh darn, Disney changed Christian Andersen’s story so badly, they lost their only villain: The actual SNOW QUEEN.

So no, this movie isn’t a feminist movie, it is sexist.

And while we’re at it, let us have Anna punch Hans in the face. Imagine if that scene was replaced with a man. We would’ve thought this movie was misogynist, even if the woman was a psycho. How is punching a man, when he’s never touched her, making her equal to a man? It just makes her abusive and volatile. Tell me, if a lady “played” a guy for his money (similar to what Hans tried to do to Anna), do you think he should punch her? No? Why not? It seemed to go over well when Anna did it.


How else can you tell the movie is sexist? Because both men and women can’t enjoy this film. It is NOT equal in direction or presentation. This film is bent on making men feel bad about who they are, and making women feel vindicated. Feminism’s goal is to help women earn a man’s respect, and vice versa. How can a man respect this film when it’s girlish at the core, but puffs out sexist views while it’s at it?

For example:

1) Elsa proves how free she is by (obviously) doing what she always wanted to do: Put on a pretty, sparkly, sexy dress, and decorate her home, like the average traditional woman would do. This same “freedom” also causes her to leave her kingdom and her sister destitute. Instead of setting things right and taking responsibility for her actions (like Disney’s male characters would’ve done), she is forced to go back to the kingdom in chains. No, she didn’t go off on an adventure to explore the world or try to figure out if there were others like her. Oh no. She decorated a home and wore a new dress.


2) Anna dreams of romance, dancing at a ball, and dressing in fancy clothes…which is traditionally feminine, too.

Thanks for representing Venus, the epitome of traditional femininity...

Thanks for representing Venus, the epitome of traditional femininity…

3) Anna is still basically saved by Kristoff because apparently she couldn’t find the ice mountain by herself…without a man’s help.

4) Anna and Elsa have pretty dolls on the shelves, while Kristoff’s toys look just as boring as ever. And how many outfits do you think he comes with? Oh, I forgot. They made him the “stereotypical male” who doesn’t care about his appearance AT ALL. So Equal.


5) Most of this story is spent on Anna and Kristoff’s relationship. Only 29 minutes and 43 seconds were spent focusing on Elsa, out of 106 minutes! Anna and Elsa had very little interaction with one another, and yet, we were supposed to believe this was a sister story? This is still a movie focusing on the traditional feminine genre of romance. Despite his romantic role, Kristoff is still a pointless figure. If only this story had a clear goal…

6) While the movie was trying to push a message meant to encourage girls not to fall in love “at first sight”, the movie’s message was contradictory. It was ridiculous that Anna only knew Hans for a couple of hours, thought she was in love, and entrusted her whole kingdom to him. We knew that was going to end badly. But crap, she only knew Kristoff for a day, and also claimed to be “in love”. What’s the very difference?

7) Having a woman or man save the girl is no better if the damsel-in-distress is STILL A FEMALE.

There are some other points mentioned here: Frozen Review

I know feminism isn’t the idea of breaking all traditional rules or anything (though lately people seem to think that’s what it represents). It’s the idea that men and women are created equally, which may break some rules, but not all.

But if that’s the case, what’s so wrong with having the loving man in your life kiss you to save the day, especially if he has done nothing else in the whole film? That does nothing different than a girl using superficial pretty dresses and home decorations to represent her freedom, neither does it do anything different when it comes to a woman wishing and dreaming to dance at a ball. It also doesn’t make a difference whether a male or a female saves the girl. The female is still acting “in distress”. She’s still being saved by someone.

There is no way a little boy can learn about feminism from this film. This movie won’t help men understand women or respect them. Rather it sends the sort of message that makes men hate them, fear them, be bored, or confused by them. This is why most of the people who hate this movie are male. Again, how is this movie feminist? How does this movie prove that women are indeed equal to men, and not above them? Is this movie showing men that women are just like them, or is this movie placing distinct differences between the genders? Sounds more sexist to me. This movie is the epitome of female chauvinism.

10 Reasons Frozen Can Never Equal a Man’s Movie

While this movie thinks it’s doing something by trying to equal men, the only thing equal about this movie is the success of the movie. Sure, it has the same box office success as most animated films where males are the main characters, but that’s where the equality ends.

Most movies geared to men have several factors that Frozen is missing:

1) Long adventures with many obstacles, and then a huge fight with a villain

Does Frozen have that? No. They barely even have a villain. And then, the “villain” is so weak, it’s almost as if he could be broken in two by Elsa. I guess women only deserve a villain that can’t do much harm. After all, they are women. A huge action-fighting scene can’t POSSIBLY be in a girl’s movie…

Really, Hans isn’t even the villain. He is a weak antagonist. A minor adversary. There is a difference.

Definition of villain: a character in a play, novel, or the like, who constitutes an important evil agency in the plot.

Hans was not the important evil agency in this plot because he was not the main obstacle throughout the whole movie. Elsa was.

Definition of antagonist: a person who is opposed to, struggles against, or competes with another; opponent; adversary.

Really, Elsa is the deuteragonist of the story, and she acted as both villain AND heroine. She is the person who froze the land, ran away as if she didn’t care to fix it, and sent an ice monster to attack her sister, Anna, the true main character of the story.

2) Male movie “anti-heroes” don’t play the victim

The “half” antagonist in this movie, who we usually call the “anti-hero”, Elsa, proved to be a victim. Elsa’s “evil powers” did little damage beyond bringing snowmen to life and prettifying her new castle. Whoopy, she “accidentally” almost kills her sister, though all the love in the world could’ve broken that spell a long time ago. And who cares if the land was covered in ice in the summer? Their main export is ice! Another sappy character, playing the victim. Doesn’t happen to males.

3) Men always have ladies as prizes in the end of their movies

While women may not like this point, equalizing a man’s movie would mean having a man as the prize for once. Does Frozen have a man as the prize for once? No. Men never portray themselves as having total and complete independence, like they don’t need a woman at all, but rather portray women as a goal or a prize to be won. How many female movies do that? I can think of one, but I’ll save it for last…

Frozen has copped out on the idea, “I’m so helpless when a man is around, that I’ll have to make a man completely unimportant to feel more important”. Have women fallen to the idea that they only have two options: I’m either saved by a man and useless, or I’ll do everything myself without any man at all? There are other options, you know: You can save the man…

Or maybe Disney was too busy focusing on rising above the reputation they’ve been stamped with. They have the reputation of presenting the idea that women need men in order to “get things done”. Though, how Frozen proves otherwise, with Kristoff leading the way for Anna, is beyond me.

4) Men usually risk their lives for a damsel, often putting themselves in harm’s way

Did any Frozen female characters do this? No, they mostly risked their lives for each other. But the man was just…there…for whatever reason. How did Anna show Kristoff that he was special to her? What sacrifices did she make for him? She did nothing. Why was he there again?

And again, the female was the one in distress. Not surprising.

5) Men usually do fall in love at first sight of a beautiful figure

While women may not like this point, to equal a man’s story, and make it truly a little different, why not have a woman fall head over heels over a man’s beauty…and him still be a great guy? Again, only one movie equalizes this point…

6) Male characters are usually losers who prove themselves to the world through courageous acts

In movies where males are the main characters, the males are usually looked at as losers who show the world that they are brave, courageous, and can protect others.

While Elsa could’ve done this, all she did was prove to herself that her powers were helpful, but she wasn’t courageous or brave about it. She only fixed the mess she made. What feat did she conquer other than her own inner demons? Elsa isn’t even considered the main character. Anna is, and she was never looked at as a loser, and so never had to prove herself.

7) Male movies are starting to portray better female role models

The Matrix, Harry Potter, How to Train Your Dragon, it doesn’t matter. They all have good, strong women in their movies, and most of the villains are male. They don’t make women seem like evil arse-wholes.

But Frozen, quite frankly, does that to men.

8) A Male’s goal is usually to gain honor, fame, or respect

Frozen follows the same old female tradition of setting love and a good social status as a goal. Another “social status” flick, like any other catered to women.

9) Male characters focus less on the fashion or their charm, and more on their worth as human beings

Females focus too much on trying to charm a crowd and look “prettiful”. Yes, I know it’s not a word. Anna’s greatest quality is her charm. Anything beyond that…pointless to discuss. Elsa obviously loves to charm us in pretty gowns.

10) Male protagonists usually make mistakes and suffer consequences

In male movies, even the protagonists make mistakes, and have to suffer consequences. Example: Hercules wouldn’t listen to Phil when he was trying to tell him about Meg.

Anna and Elsa are just victims. Elsa never apologizes for anything she does, though she froze her whole kingdom and didn’t even care what happened to her sister.

Disney’s Breakout

With all of the above mentioned, it makes you wonder why people really look at Disney as breaking from their traditional ways of doing things, when they really haven’t. Their female characters still wear pretty dresses meant to sell merchandise. That will be the day when their female main character looks plain, drab, ordinary, or ugly…

And why is Frozen looked at as the first movie to break from social norms out of all of Disney’s movies? The only truly feminist movie I’ve seen is Mulan. Oh, but maybe she’s too Chinese to be considered an actual feminist…Or maybe these kids today are too young to remember her…

No, I know what it is. She wasn’t wearing a dress like a normal girl, and didn’t act like a normal girl. Wait, isn’t what we consider “normal” similar to what is traditional?

Maybe it’s because it didn’t pass the Bechdel test

Or maybe it’s because she finds a nice guy in the end…

But her movie fits all of the above standards for being just like a boy’s movie!

Mulan equals the boys in every way. 


1) She starts off as a loser, and earns her honor, fame, and respect, much like the boys usually do.

2) She wants to bring honor to her father, not her mother, and follow in his footsteps.

3) She also chose her own romantic partner, and got to know him much more than Anna did Kristoff (which was still love at first sight because Anna only knew Kristoff for one day). And yes, Shang was a physical hunk. He was very much objectified and loved for his beauty.

4) She saved a whole country, much like most men do, rather than just one single person.

5) Her villain was a fearsome war leader. And though, yes, he was an evil male, he didn’t suddenly become the villain because he broke her heart. He was generally the enemy of the whole freaking clan, including the men of the land. As the saying goes, a good story is as good as the villain…

6) She defeated a whole army, all by herself!

7) She actually sacrificed for and saved a man, not another weak female character, getting a battle wound in the process.

8) Mulan made some serious mistakes. She lied about her identity, stole her father’s armor, and ran away from home. But she recognized her mistakes and made up for them.

9) Very little merchandising can come from this movie, much like in male movies. Unless girls want to buy her armor…

She honestly has one pretty dress. Most of Mulan’s playsets consist of war materials and a tent.

10) In the end, she wins her prize: Her man, much like male movies…

11) All of the males had personalities, not just Mulan, and all of the main characters helped Mulan defeat the villain. They were all useful in some way.

12) Mulan never dreamed of love, romance, freedom, lots of fancy clothes, none of the traditional female hopes and dreams. She dreamed of finally knowing where she belonged and honoring her father (much like Hercules).

So, Mulan equals the movies usually geared toward males. And guess what? Mulan earns the respect of males. It is a gender-neutral story that people of both genders can enjoy. There are more males who consider Mulan a better movie than Frozen. And I’m talking about adult men. They can enjoy this movie and still respect women. When they see Mulan, they see that a woman’s feelings, ideas, desires, hopes, and dreams are no different from theirs. They realize that women are capable of taking down a whole army, surviving a brutal military camp, making their fathers proud, and taking a pursuant role in a relationship by impressing a man with her strength, instead of using her particular charms or her beauty.

Frozen does none of that. While Frozen shows men that women are brave because they can go on adventures to save their sisters, they fail to show that they can find directions on their own and survive a deadly forest without the assistance of a male to escort them. While these women have goals, hopes, and dreams, they don’t seem to mirror the same hopes and dreams as males. They are indeed traditionally feminine in nature. And of course they can’t make their fathers proud, they are orphans…

But does that mean they can’t impress men with their strength instead of their beauty? Anna is simply a pretty figure with a charming personality at the ball when she falls for Hans, even if she was a little quirky. Though Elsa doesn’t have a love interest, she never fails to dazzle the audience with her elegant gown in the solo “Let it Go”, possibly to appeal to the eyes of future toy consumers. Why else would she change her clothes?…Yet, she didn’t use that freedom to go explore the world…Or find others like herself…Or read some books…

So, that’s my spin on this feminist issue.

Women, don’t use feminism as a means to gain power, it’s not right, even if you feel vindicated.

Leave me a comment and let me know what you think!

In “Mr. Rodger’s” Neighborhood, We Slaughter People When We Can’t Get Our Way (Save Our Men Part II)

24 May

Mass killings seem to be popular trend among young men between the ages of 12 and 25. For the past decade, I have heard nothing positive about young men. It seems to be the agenda for young men to resort to violence to solve their problems.

Mr. Rodger

The latest attention-seeker is a young man assumed to be Elliot Rodger, who sprayed people with bullets simply because he was a “sexually frustrated virgin”. Basically, he killed six people because some girls on his college campus rejected him. NOTE: He never claimed the lives of the girls inside Sorority house he was targeting. He banged on the door twice, but the girls had sense enough not to open it for his crazy behind. So, he decides to take it out on innocent people outside. It has come out that everyone he targeted were Sorority girls, blondes, and male jocks. Tragic.

His whole idea of college was unrealistic. Several sources show him saying, “College is the time where you have sex, and enjoy your pleasures”. Last I heard, college was to get an education so you can find a decent job. Some people are focused and don’t want to DATE in college. I know I didn’t. I guess he’d been watching too many college movies…

A lot of these kids have unrealistic views of college (and life in general), thinking, “Oh, I’m going to go to a party school and party like on tv”. Then they get there, and realize it’s like LIVING AT SCHOOL. Working all the time, studying all the time, and always tiresome. The parties are only fun if you know someone well enough to get invited. Most Freshmen are lonely. Some Universities won’t even let you drive a car your first year. You have a curfew. The people you stay with may get on your nerves, as well as classmates. It’s no different than a high school you may attend…only some people are stuck there.

Now, I really understand that rejection can be hard. I’ve been rejected several times, as a woman! It’s not easy to take. For some, it’s like a break-up. But men, don’t limit your options, either. This guy was obsessed with supposed “beautiful, blond” girls. There are many other beauties without blond hair. There are red heads, brunettes, black women, Asian women, Hispanic women, many kinds in the world! If you’re that desperate to lose your virginity, explore! Don’t limit yourself to women who don’t notice you, or women who are already taken, or women who don’t want to date or have sex before marriage. And there are some average-looking women who are just as desperate to lose their virginity as you are. Then again, this guy was so racist (according to his book), he probably wouldn’t even give other nationalities a play…

Rodger called himself a “nice guy finishing last” but I don’t believe in “nice guys” because no one is that “nice”. Calling yourself a nice guy is as misguided as a girl looking for “Mr. Right”. There are no “Mr. Rights”. A bit of who you are attracted to is a bit of who you are. He was attracted to spoiled, stuck up women because HE HIMSELF was a spoiled, stuck-up, narcissist that wanted his way. So people, keep that in mind when you choose. If you have a bad temper, more than likely your significant other will, too. If you are selfish, your choices will be selfish. And Mr. Rodger was very superficial. So, he was attracted to superficial people, girls who ignored him because he wasn’t “superficially perfect”. I know I’m not superficial, so when I see any sign of a guy who is, I run the other way. Might be why I’m single…

Imagine how many “nice girls” he might have passed up simply because he wanted a hot, blond slut, instead of an African American or Asian woman?

He was attracted to girls who were dating guys that “bullied” him, supposedly. He was teased for being “scared of girls”. To cope, he would retreat into “violent video games.” WOW. Ironic.

His parents were divorced, and he hated his step-mother. Same old, same old excuses.


You young men need to be a little more like women sometimes and find some happiness in being single. Who says you need a woman to be successful? Men are taught that women are the most important thing in a man’s life, when they aren’t. Women don’t define that. If I were a part of the Men’s Rights Movement, I would encourage men to be more cautious in selecting women. There is a lot at stake. Don’t be so quick to jump in the bed with these sluts. They’re carrying all kinds of diseases and motives. Enjoy not having the headache and the arguing and the mounds of children. Those women are about as crazy as Rodger himself. Men who try to glamorize such a life are really hiding the truth. It’s not as great as they make it. Don’t be so weak-minded as to think you’re missing out on something. You aren’t. You don’t have to live the life everyone else is living, be an original thinker. Start valuing women more than yourselves. Learn to value yourself first.

Too bad I’m a woman.

You men need to be proud of being virgins. Actually, stats show that there are more men who are virgins than women. And women, stop being sluts for these men. Show some respect for yourself. It takes two to create a problem like this. I would date a virginal man in a heartbeat because I would love to be his first. Forget these other bed-hopping men. They are not to be trusted and will probably be killed by some psycho girl who got pregnant by them.

Instead of looking it as weird, look at it as RARE and VALUABLE. These men are valuable, someone that is special. Women, hop on it.

Unless he’s a psycho-maniac…though, I think the boy just snapped.

Don’t listen to men who laugh at you. What do they know? Forget the haters and what they have to say. Don’t be weak to them. Stop trying to be like them, make it so they’re trying to be like YOU.


What is also disturbing about this Rodger fellow is his “racist comments”. I feel these comments and him flashing his money was over-compensating for what he lacked. He wrote a book about his sexual issues, and wrote some pretty racist things about Indian American and African American people. Check this out.

But I don’t fault him totally in his book. As an African American, I know the type he is talking about in his book. That African American male makes our people, African American people, look bad. Our young boys are having sex at 13, and no one is doing anything about it. He hardly seems to take responsibility for his actions. That girl could be pregnant, and what is he doing? Exactly what people expect “monkeys” to do…brag about it and ditch the hoe.

Didn’t Rodger end up killing his roommates or some of these men who were successful with girls? Men, be smart next time. Don’t tell people your business and who you slept with. You might just live.

If he hadn’t died, I bet this book might have been a best-seller…if he wasn’t a psycho.


I already thought something was wrong with our young men, but now I want to take more action. I want to bring this problem to the streets.

I wrote an article a while ago about these young men and their “murder” problems. And since people want to draw the “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” card and “video games don’t influence children to kill, they just naturally have a mental disorder”, I decided to start addressing the people responsible, since people want to point to people.

And the people responsible: YOUNG MEN.

So maybe the problem lies with our young men. Read that article below.

Save Our Young Men

This newest young man was a spoiled, well-to-do child, driving a BMW, who was mad because he couldn’t get his way with the ladies like he could with his daddy’s pocketbooks (his father being a director for the Hunger Games). So, he gets a gun and decides to try and kill all the women who rejected him. He didn’t get farther than six people, but he claimed six too many.

This weirdo is a part of a common group of mentally deranged young men who seem to get a kick out of finding weapons, killing someone, and trying to leave an attention-getting message to the public. A self-entitled personality emerges among these men.

Who wants to do the honors of telling me where this trend comes from? If it’s not the video games, what is it? Who’s giving them these ideas? Men of the world, inform me. It seems to me most people who defend guns and video games tend to be, wait for it, YOUNG MEN. Suspicious. But they have nothing to do with the problem?

Maybe the PROBLEM is most young men think of shooting and life as a game. The problem is the way young men view these video games and these guns. They aren’t realistic.

Misogyny Kills

And are we, the people, just going to ignore the REAL issue?

My question is this, for you parents: How are YOU raising your sons? Are you too liberal (not the political side you take, don’t get it twisted) when it comes to how much freedom you give yourself?

How much are you a part of his life? What are you teaching him is important?

The problem I see with young men today is that society is traditional in their expectations of men (he has to have a job, a wife, kids, has to know how to barbecue, fight, and has to have a degree to be successful) while outer circumstances are changing (men can be stay home dads, possibly single without kids, use peaceful tactics to protect his family, can enjoy whatever cooking methods he likes, and make millions without a degree and be successful).

Men get more demands than women do to be the “bread-winner” of a household but jobs are still hard to come by, especially jobs that pay a decent wage.

While women have the option to work or stay home, they don’t necessarily make it easier on men. Women have changed, and they expect the world to open their options. But some women make it impossible for men to change and be open to other options. Just the other day, I was reading a sexist article by a woman called, “What I expect a Man to Know how to do”. She called herself a “feminist” but really, she’s not a feminist, but sexist.

To add, men have pressure from both genders. When a woman says she hates men, women agree, even if men don’t. But when a man says he hates women, guys call him a faggot, and girls get angry and start attacking him. They are not treated equally to women on every occasion, and so the real issues a swept under a rug.

Men suffer from inferiority more than woman do. Women were made to feel inferior by men, but it’s because men themselves have always felt inferior to one another. This inferiority complex comes strictly from their values. They are encouraged to value the same things. Women all have different values, and hardly have anything in common when it comes to values. But men are taught that there is only one way to be successful. Because men have stronger core values and strive to fight to be on the same plain, they are more than likely to murder because of their feelings of inferiority. Women are less likely to kill because they see success as very different from one another. Men have to evolve into the kind of people that recognize that every man can live his own life and choose whatever life he wants.

Then again, people have more to worry about when a male says he hates women. Men are afraid people will laugh at them, women are afraid people will kill them.

On the flip side, some young men honor aggression and sex like it’s their God. They have no control. They think things like this are important. They expect women to give up their bodies, risk having children they aren’t prepared to have, and be happy about it. Or they just don’t care. Perhaps this young man didn’t have a girlfriend because women knew HE WAS A PSYCHO. Guys, if you are in his situation, perhaps you should seek help.

No, pride is the noose that hangs man, so they won’t seek help. Society has to step in and handle these men. These young men WON’T listen, so stop the wasted talk. Action is all they understand. Stop waiting until the next young man murders someone. Let’s get a hold of these crazy kids before it’s too late. We need to be more watchful of these kids.

As a result of all of this pressure in society, along with influences from peers, movies, and video games, we have kids with new-found “mental disorders”. My suggestion is that they all get institutionalized. I suggest their minds be “re-wired” to be a little more “realistic”.

Look at how these men think. Doesn’t this show who the real problems in society are? YOUNG MEN! CODE SERIAL KILLER!

Avoid this man at all costs: https://www.youtube.com/user/SlippaE619/about

He’s a youtube user with the same values as the killer above. He’s racist and sexist. He thinks of women as nothing more than sex tools. Women, stop showing yourselves to him. Boycott your bodies to this filth. I was never against women showing skin until I read his comments. He hates white people and thinks they are inferior to black people. And guess what his age is? Wait for it. 22! Twenty-two! Do we not see a problem here? It’s time to start removing these men from society.

Men who hate themselves end up hating others. Simply put.

Those are just examples. So please, check out your young people, especially our young men. Everyone is right. Guns don’t kill people, young men do. And it’s time for the world to get a hold of them. Stop giving guns to our young men. They are too irresponsible to handle it.

Boys who Play with Dolls-A Father’s Worst Fear

12 Nov

A Boy playing with a barbie doll–Is this wrong?

I work at a school. I have many colorful children every year in my classroom. One particular boy struck my attention the other day. He was so excited because he found a Barbie book in the library. I was very shocked. Not that it’s a bad thing, it’s just very rare coming from boys. He told me he loved Barbie, Skipper, Stacie, and Kelly. He had the Barbie Christmas doll and playsets. He told me his mom bought them for him. His dad, on the other hand, got really angry. He refuses to buy his son Barbie and instead buys him his favorite toys when he was growing up, like Superman and Batman. But the boy doesn’t play with them. He brings his Barbies to school. He is teased by the other boys who don’t play with them. But the other girls think he’s cool. When I met his father, while he was trying to pick up his son, he was annoyed when he saw his son playing in the corner with his Barbie doll. He told me he was afraid his son was going to turn out gay.

I felt really bad because I teased a boy in 5th grade because he was reading my Barbie book…

There’s always that expectation that boys should play “rough and tough” games. Games that make you dirty or tough. Boys are expected to be like heroes from comic books, or shoot and fight well like in video games. The Ken doll is hardly the role model to many fathers. Toads, Snails, and Puppy dog tails are what boys are made of, right?

For many fathers like him, questions arise: Will playing with “girl toys” make my son questionably feminine and will he become a homosexual? Or will he become a transgender and change himself into a female in the future? Is this a sign? Should I purchase dolls for my son?

Lets Say You Don’t Buy the Toy…

I am a female that always grew up being labeled the “tomboy”. My mother used to tell me she was afraid I’d become a “butch” or “lesbian” because I used to wear baggy pants and long t-shirts and I spoke like a boy too. To add, I used to hang out with boys, play basketball, and watch “boy” cartoons. I hated skirts and dresses and getting my nails done. Even today, I hate to waste time with girly fashion. If I do wear clothes, it normally has an edgy leaning. My mom wasn’t happy. She used to yell at me and fuss at me a lot. She refused to buy me Pokemon cards when all my other male friends had them. So I just played with theirs.

From my study of other boys and girls who are amused by transgender entertainment, I have found that the more you deprive a child from what makes them happy, the more they begin to feel strange, depressed, and begin to act upon the fears of the parent that tried to prevent the act in the first place. Not to say that there is anything wrong with choosing a homosexual lifestyle if the child does choose so, but is playing with a toy that is meant for the opposite sex really to blame?

From my experience, many boys and girls who are deprived of their amusements are more than likely to go to extremes to achieve what they were denied. The results could range from stealing the item that makes them happy to even changing their genders when they get older. It could lead to secretive behavior. If fathers refuse to treat the situation as a normal “male” thing, the child is likely to find it strange and likely to feel they are feminine and that they should’ve been born a girl. They will not feel that this is normal.

Many people have said playing with dolls have had more positive effects on a man than a negative one. Many say boys who play with dolls are more than likely to make better husbands to women. They become more understanding and more interested in their wives. They are also likely to have more in common with her. If they are interested in baby dolls, many of the boys turn out to be terrific fathers and supportive in babysitting for newborns instead of looking confused and leaving the wife to tend to the baby.

And have you ever thought of it this way? Maybe if they are attracted to Barbie or Bratz, instead of assuming they will turn out homosexual, it might make them the total opposite: promiscuous with women. Possibly, it’s a sign that they are strongly attracted to women, even at an early age. I mean a little boy removing all of Barbie’s clothes just to see some huger than huge breasts? It could be his next sex toy for all we know…And having her slide into that mini dress so he can stare at her? I mean if you think about it that way, it’s anything but homosexual. I mean, this is why sometimes male designers are the best. They get to make clothes for women; exactly what they want to see them in. They are experts at knowing what’s attractive on women because they might be attracted to them. And they get to stare at hot models for hours. I mean, those men are pretty fortunate if you think about it. It’s like being a male gynecologists. Okay, it makes many wives (and husbands) feel uncomfortable. But hey, if it were life or death, would it matter what gender or who can do the job? My male gyne is awesome! The female one talked too much.

Another reason not to get bent out of shape over toys that seem to be for the opposite sex is because trends change all the time. Way back in 1600, jump rope and the color pink was a boy thing. Now it’s a girl thing. Keeping up with all the gender roles is not only time-consuming, but pointless. It’s as pointless as keeping up with the Jones’ or the trends…you buy an I-phone, a new version comes out…

Father’s Fear

The real question is: why do fathers fear dolls so much? And where did the idea that doll are for girls come from?

Well, if you know your history, dolls were designed to brainwash little girls into becoming adult women. It was not just a fun pastime, but training so that girls could become good housewives and good mothers. They wanted the children to imitate their mother’s behavior by treating the doll the same way their mothers treated them. During the Victorian era, many expensive dolls were expected to be well cared for as if it were a baby. Also, since most dolls were handmade, it taught girls how to sew, a skill that was considered “proper” for them to learn.

Well, we’re in the 21st Century. Girls have no need to sew. Most dolls are just meant for imagination and to display the latest fashion. Some dolls even educate children, like the expensive American Girl dolls. Bild Lilli, the original Barbie, was a sex toy for men, first marketed in a liquor store…So the roles of dolls have changed over time. The roles that girls are expected to play have changed over time. I mean, many dolls today act as positive female role-models, but it can for males as well if we allow it to.

However, because of the doll’s origin, many fathers fear that “dolls” are a sign that many boys want to become like their mothers, and they are in fear of their son changing into a girl or being homosexual because of the stigma that comes with it. The world is cruel, and although we live in modern times where many diverse people and things are accepted, we haven’t yet merged into a world that truly lacks discrimination. While to fathers this may be a sign of caring, because they don’t want their son hurt, it can also be a sign of selfishness because the father expects his son to be what he wants him to be.

I conclude this article by saying, LET BOYS PLAY TOO! Boys deserve to have equal rights to do and enjoy the same things women do. Just like it was a struggle for women to be looked at as strong enough to be wrestlers, and carpenters, and construction workers, it will also be a fight for men to be looked at as good with children, fashion, and cooking.

%d bloggers like this: