Categories
antifeminism bad science crackpottery entitled babies gender policing misogyny return of kings

Watch out, gals, or feminism will give you a man-jaw, dude who hates feminists explains

They started with the unisex pants,. Then moved on to fingers. Next stop, UNISEX JAWLINES?

Ladies! Have you felt your jaw lately? Does it seem a bit … square to you? Maybe a little bit too square?

This could be the result of TOO MUCH FEMINISM, according to some dude who writes for the ongoing internet dumpster fire known as Return of Kings.

In a recent post looking at the allegedly dire results of fifty years of feminism, “Relampago Furioso” warns that one of the most dire “end results of feminism” is the proliferation of “man-jawed women” who look sorta like dudes.

Mr. Furioso quotes, without linking to it, a recent study that looked to see if feminist activist lady women are more “masculinized” than your standard issue lady women.

The study-conductors gave feminist activists a test to see how bossy they are, and measured the length of their ring and index fingers, because apparently fetuses exposed to a more masculine mix of sex hormones at a critical stage of their stay in the womb end up with ring fingers longer than their index fingers.

Turned out the feminist activist lady women were pretty bossy, and they also had “significantly more masculine 2D:4D” finger ratios!

And so, despite the fact that the only physically “masculine” trait discussed in the research is this finger thing — which is determined by sex hormones in the womb, not by anything one does as an adult — Mr. Furioso seems to think that feminist “indoctrination” will cause ladies to develop unsightly “man-jaws.”

If you think women are becoming manlier—they are. In fact, it’s becoming clearer sexual dimorphism (distinct male and female appearance and behavior) is an enemy of social engineers who want to see the sexes blend into one androgynous human pod in the coming generations.

An androgynous human pod? OH NO IT’S ALREADY HAPPENING!

Mr. Furioso quotes from the bossy lady finger study, and then offers this “translation.”

Feminists have a ton of testosterone coursing through their veins, and as more women are taught to act like men instead of being nurturing mothers even more man-jaws will emerge in the years ahead.

Lady from esurance ad, your rebuttal?

Mr. Furioso, your final statement?

It seems social engineers are catering to already existing instincts in women by encouraging them to be copies of men rather than copies of their grandmothers, bringing out the worst in women rather than the best.

Wait, this dude writing for a website run by a pickup artist who fetishizes very young women wants women to be copies of their grandmothers?

Honestly, dudes, do you actually think any of this through before posting it?

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

115 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
4 years ago

@Rhuu

… such as last week’s paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS).

Seriously?

CPphazor
CPphazor
4 years ago

I’ve dipped into the study a tad, and while they have found a statistically significant mean difference one has to bear in mind the relatively poor sample size, for example (around 25 female respondents out of 100 attendees were included in the analysis if I’m reading this right).

They have mentioned 3 previous studies which use finger ratio measures in this context to their credit, but as with the field of psychology and also how the pubkic consume science in general people tend to like false positives and explanations hinging on nature.

I, of course, am no statistical genius. Where are all the science people here when you need ’em?

Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko, Regicidal Beast-of-Burden
Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko, Regicidal Beast-of-Burden
4 years ago

@Pol

I guess I was unclear then. I didn’t say anything about “your science”, I said your “science”. By which I meant your bullshit that you wanna pass as science. So, to be absolutely clear, what I actually meant was that no one really wants to hear your thoughts about gender not being a scientific fact or whatever.

Victorious Parasol
Victorious Parasol
4 years ago

Imitate a grandmother….

Well, the grandmother I was named for grew up squirrel-hunting because that’s how they could eat on a regular basis. She was so good at it, she was nicknamed “One-Shot [firstname].” From humble beginnings she managed to go to college (where she lettered in basketball) and got married, accumulating property as they could.

She had her flaws, which I won’t get into here, but she had gumption. I’m proud to be her namesake.

Pol
Pol
4 years ago

What “bullshit” that I want to pass as science? It is a scientific fact that men and women don’t really exist. They are just figments of our imagination.

Why does no one want to hear this? Is it because it is common knowledge and passé? Well OK then.

Although, I do find your hubris in attempting to speak for everyone else to be a bit disappointing. Perhaps you would like to walk back on your comment a little bit now, Sinkable?

CPphazor
CPphazor
4 years ago

To add, there is also a 1000-respondent study into finger ratio and dominant behaviour in female participants from 1983. Albeit, using a newspaper survey conducted with the help of the Daily Express… in 1983.

It’s interesting stuff but definitely to take with a grain of salt if trying to build an understanding of human behaviour.

Hippielady
Hippielady
4 years ago

I’d be proud to be like my Nana (mom’s mom). She left home when she was 21 to pursue a nursing career even after her father told she was “supposed” to stay home for the rest of her life to take care of her parents (a grand old Irish tradition, apparently). She went on to have a great career in which she was well loved and respected, wrapping up her career as a floor supervisor in a major hospital in Staten Island.

Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
Scented Fucking Hard Chairs
4 years ago

I still can’t tell whether Pol’s idiocy is a failed gotcha attempt or a painfully unfunny “Parody,” but either way, can we ban them for transphobia and just generally being a leaky bag of decomposing wildebeest anuses yet?

Pol
Pol
4 years ago

I am pro trans, SFHC. Just because I think that gender is a construct, and even more than that, that biological sex is on shaky ground too, does not mean that I am somehow anti-transexual. And I most certainly am not that.

Viscaria, product of 20,000 evolution
Viscaria, product of 20,000 evolution
4 years ago

@Pol, I don’t want to hear your views on the science surrounding gender because 1) you’ve been trolling here for about a zillion years, so I’m not really interested in what you have to say about anything and 2) your depiction of social constructs as “not real” is reductive in the extreme.

I don’t at all mind Sinkable John speaking for me.

Pol
Pol
4 years ago

OK Viscaria. You can go with “reductive” as a flawed approach. And I don’t disagree that it can be so actually… But I will say one thing: I am not a troll. And I have not been commenting here for a zillion years. I like David’s post and I like the commentators here, as have been doing since long before I started posting to this fine blog.

Alan Robertshaw
Alan Robertshaw
4 years ago

The finger ratio thing is supposedly a good predictor of how well you’ll do in the 100 metre sprint.

Now if only scientists could come up with a similar indicator for racehorses.

Pol
Pol
4 years ago

And also, it is well late for me to be still awake, even though I am on my holidays.

Goodnight, good people.

Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko, Regicidal Beast-of-Burden
Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko, Regicidal Beast-of-Burden
4 years ago

Although, I do find your hubris in attempting to speak for everyone else to be a bit disappointing. Perhaps you would like to walk back on your comment a little bit now, Sinkable?

Actually, nah. I felt pretty comfortable “speaking for everyone” since I was, like, y’know, just echoing things that have been said countless times by everyone else already. Just ’cause you try very hard not to notice how everyone’s been calling you out on your bullshit, doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened.

So nah, not walking back.

By the way, “Sinkable” is an adjective. Using it as a short-hand makes no sense at all. For the extra exposition, here goes : Sinkable John is an anagram of my real name, which is super convenient since “John” is also the english equivalent to my first name. Long story short, don’t call me that.

dreemr
dreemr
4 years ago

Ha, these guys! My grandmother was a smokin’, hard-drinkin’, workin’, divorcin’ and marryin’ much-younger-men “harlot”.

These guys aren’t happy with me and certainly wouldn’t be happy with my grandmother, either.

Simon
Simon
4 years ago

Not strictly relevant but under my administration peapod headwear for babies would be mandatory.

LindsayIrene
4 years ago

My grandmothers (three of them, since my mom was adopted) all died quite young. One died from complications of pregnancy. I guess this doofus would approve of that?

Hambeast (fan of diversity)
Hambeast (fan of diversity)
4 years ago

wwth said

My index and ring fingers are about the same length. What does that mean?

Mine are, too. Maybe it means we’re juuuust about there in terms of being masculinized feminists? I’m gonna do ring finger workouts just to be extra sure!

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
4 years ago

I’m pretty confident that anything Pol might have to say is not worth hearing, so, yeah, John can speak for me there, too. Under other circumstances I might be interested in a good discussion about sex/gender, but I don’t think Pol is going to provide it.

But I will say one thing: I am not a troll.

Trolling is as trolling does. You don’t troll 100% of the time, but you troll often enough that I am comfortable characterizing you as a troll.

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
4 years ago

sexual dimorphism (distinct male and female appearance and behavior) is an enemy of social engineers who want to see the sexes blend into one androgynous human pod

And the only way to fight the social engineers is by social engineering!

Sweet fancy moses these people make my head hurt.

Paging Scildfreja! Would Scildfreja please come to the thread? Your science skills are needed!

🚓 🚑 🚒beeee-boooo beeee-boooo🚓 🚑 🚒
🚓 🚑 🚒Science Emergency! Coming through!🚓 🚑 🚒

Oh man. Evolutionary Psychology. Well, this’ll be fun.

First of all – apologies to any actual evolutionary psychologists in the audience. Please speak up and correct me if you’re reading! I’m not in EP at all, I’m just familiar with reading the white paper train and critiquing papers, and am familiar with the loosey-goosey state of new fields of research.

EP is interesting, but it’s a field without a central theory. They have some lovely concepts and ideas and thoughts, but they aren’t concrete and they aren’t – well, they aren’t really science yet. I say that as someone who works in educational analytics, which is a field that is also sorta loosey-goosey in a similar way.

Problem with EP is that it isn’t science. Sorry, @epronovost. It’s phrenology. Like, in one of the papers I discuss below, there’s actually a discussion of modern skull shapes. EP finds correlations, hypothesizes that those correlations are present due to evolutionary pressures, and then … that’s it. There’s no actual evidence. The hypothesis is in the discussion. Methodology is about discovering the correlation, and that’s it. Exactly like phrenology – methodology is about measuring the skull, hypothesis is the discussion.

EP needs to harden up its central premise, that psychological traits are evolved. It’s going to need a lot of molecular biology and a lot of neuroscience to even approach that. Until then it’s sky-castles built by assholes.

Now for the fun. I dug into the paper that David linked, the subject of the article. It’s fucking evocative.

Four authors on this paper. Guy Madison, Ulrika Aasa, John Wallert, and Michael A. Woodley. The first two, Madison and Aasa, are medical researchers with 45 and 20 papers, respectively. Their papers are about muscle fatigue, exercise, and musical rhythm – an eclectic mix, but there’s a theme of motor neurons and movement going on here. These two are the head and assistant head of the lab, almost certainly.

Wallert has two publications, both 2014. This one and one on the effect of rhythmic sound on aerobic activity recovery rates. Wallert is the undergraduate lab assistant. Probably did the grunt work. No publications since 2014, so likely just worked for a summer and then moved on. Sorry that you had to work on such a shitty paper, Wallert. You deserved better.

Woodley, though. Interesting. Woodley has 10 publications, spanning back to 1990. Works at a different university than the other three – visiting researcher? Where the others don’t really have a theme of evopsych, Woodley does. First paper, in 1990? Functional analysis of cryopreserved veins. I.e. if we supercool this vein, then warm it back up, is it still useful? I.e. i.e. immortality through cryo-preservation guyse its really real the singularity is coming! (Okay, that’s a bit of snark, but still. Weird thing for the first paper!)

Then a long gap until 2007, at which point he’s publishing things about “human taxonomic diversity,” with articles like:

Is Homo sapiens polytypic? Human taxonomic diversity and its implications

Quite literally, he’s saying that there are five distinct human sub-species. He points to the fact that the genetic differences between a sub-Saharan African and a Caucasian are greater than the differences between two recognized subspecies of gorilla. (Here’s where a discussion of skulls comes in, too. He says “skull shakes isn’t adequate for determining subspecies”, but only because it disproves his thesis.)

Heterosis doesn’t cause the Flynn effect: a critical examination of Mingroni

The Flynn effect is the fact that IQ scores have been rising over time. Author is saying that inbreeding isn’t the cause.

Ability differentials between nations are unlikely to disappear.

This paper is a comment on another paper which claimed that the Flynn effect would eventually wipe out the educational gap between poor and rich nations. Author is arguing against this, saying that other factors are at work which will prevent this.

So, someone trying to justify his racism with science. In the first article he literally talks about the “social constructionists” that are trying to challenge his pure science with their dirty, dirty, SJW ethics.

Those papers are poorly cited – the second one is the only one that has more than a couple citations, and even then they’re mostly from authors who were just talking about the Flynn effect in general, it seems. So he’s a racist, shouting into the wind. Same as all the other HBD nonsense, really.

Then there’s a gap of related papers until 2016, when he’s writing for a new university in Germany instead of at Oxford, talking about the paradox saying that there’s a genetic pressure in the US to have less education (poorer education == more children) but yet people are spending longer periods of their lives in education. He claims to have a solution to that paradox, but I unfortunately don’t have access to that paper – I don’t get PNAS.

(This isn’t a paradox, of course, because human beings are not driven by genetic concerns on such an abstract topic as whether you go to university or not)

That paper’s cited by one other paper – also written by Woodley. Nothing too notable there, just fun, really.

Then there’s the paper that David and the Manosphere cites:

Feminist activist women are masculinized in terms of digit-ratio and social dominance: a possible explanation for the feminist paradox.

His definition of the “Feminist Paradox” (no one else calls it that) is “The feminist paradox, or the dissociation between feminist self-identification and belief in equality.” He supports this with a study where:

“major contributing factors to feminist self-labeling were (1) positive evaluation of feminists and (2) previous exposure to feminist thought. However, (3) recognition of discrimination and (4) support of feminist goals (which included items about equality) did not make any unique contributions to the probability of identifying as a feminist”

That study seems okay, and is pretty much what one would expect – people are tribal. Notably, though, only 8% of his cohort were people who identified as feminist while not supporting all major feminist concepts (e.g. the wage gap).

From this he basically runs off with the assumption that feminists are purely tribal, and calls people who are not feminist but believe in the concepts of feminism “egalitarians”. Cue eye roll.

It gets more annoying when, later, he says:

“One explanation that has been suggested for why women resent the feminist label is “the overwhelmingly negative portrayal of feminists and feminism by the popular media,” which has depicted “feminists as deviant, man-hating, unrepresentative radicals who were a threat to society” (Zucker, 2004, p. 425)”

And then goes on to provide evidence for this – and then just leaves it on the table to talk about finger length and bossiness! A fun quote is “It has for example been reported that there are self-identified feminists who argue for the abolition of the nuclear family, that all men are potential rapists, and so forth” – a stellar example of trying to use an existential to argue a universal! Also, cue discussions of Gender Feminists vs Equity Feminists. Another eye roll.

His main reason for saying “That stuff up there doesn’t matter, what matters is they’re a bunch of testosterone-fueled man-jaws” is:

“The feminist paradox, or the dissociation between feminist self-identification and belief in equality, and the alleged misrepresentation in the media all suggest an underlying inconsistency or conflict, to which we will now turn our attention”

Elide, elide, elide. He gives a fairly good list of the feminist platform positions (gender as a social construct, power imbalances, etc), and then says “But instead of that, evopsych – women evolved to their role, so they should stay there. (note: hyperbole present)” I.e. here comes the unsubstantiated hypothesis.

Frankly, this is what bad science looks like – loads of citations, sophisticated argument, and enough reality to look convincing to an editor who is working outside of their experience. But this paper’s bullshit and I would have turned it on its ass for being so inadequate on its self-critique. Author has a history of trying to justify racism, and now he’s trying to justify sexism. That sort of directed thinking can’t result in real science.

Sorry for the teal deer! That was longer than I thought it would be. Interesting jaunt down the rabbit hole, though. This author really seems like he’s been trying to prove his racism and sexism with science and is getting slapped for it as he goes. Quite a fall from Oxford to where he is now. Hopefully he ends up self-publishing on a crank website soon.

Kelly L.
Kelly L.
4 years ago

What is it with all the idealized grandmothers? I hear it in fat shaming too. “Eat like your grandmother!” They obviously never saw either of my grandmas’ fridges, which were filled with teh ebil processed foodz. Because that was in fashion during their heyday.

I swear, every Gen X fedora thinks he personally grew up down on the farm during the Depression, even the ones I know grew up playing Nintendo in the burbs like everybody else.

So, my grandmothers: One landed a glamorous man in her post-wall years and stayed together with him till death did them part. The other ditched an alcoholic husband and lived a contented single life in her later years. Both were fat.

Policy of Madness
Policy of Madness
4 years ago

Your teal deer was fantastic, Scildfreja. Very teal but an appealing shade of teal.

Paradoxical Intention - Resident Cheeseburger Slut

Pol | January 3, 2017 at 9:24 am
I am pro trans, SFHC.

[…] does not mean that I am somehow anti-transexual.

http://www.okdani.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/nene-eye-roll-really.gif

> Says they are “pro trans”, insists they’re not a troll.
> Uses a word that many trans folks have said is not okay to use.

Okay Becky. The word you’re looking for is “transgender”, not “transexual”. I dgaf what you think of gender or sex as a concept (mostly because I think your theories are bullshit), but you will use the right words when referring to other people or groups of people.

You don’t get to dictate what you call other people. They get to tell YOU what to call them.

As many a cat owner will tell you, there’s a vast difference between putting a cat in a box, and having the cat get into the box of their own free will. Same shit applies here.

PeeVee the (Noice) Sarcastic
PeeVee the (Noice) Sarcastic
4 years ago

Pol, are you taking a poll? Since you thought to chastise Sinkable John for speaking for a group you are always actively trolling.

My vote is you knock off your passive-aggressive disingenuous bullshit and gtfo.

Is that clear enough?

dlouwe
dlouwe
4 years ago

Jesus, this is clear Not Even Wrong territory. Not only is he implying causation from (alleged) correlation, but if there is some sort of causation then he’s got it backwards.

It’s far more plausible – ignoring whether or not any of this is true – to suggest that women who produce more testosterone (thus having more “masculine” developmental markers) are more likely to be Feminists because reasons; there’s at least a vague causal chain to follow. But instead he’s spouting some back asswards bullshit that suggests feminism causes women to retroactively develop strong jaws (skeletal structure stops changing mid-20’s IIRC) because acting they are acting too much like men. Like, what?

But I guess that’s what happens when you know your conclusion (Feminism bad!) before you even look at the data.

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
4 years ago

@PoM, thanks! It wasn’t gonna be that long, honest – I just wanted to take a peek at what the authors’ histories were before making a quick comment. But it just sort of sucked me in. I mean, I review white papers, but I almost never see something like that.

I went in thinking that this paper was from Wallert, and that we were looking at an undergrad who had been told to write a paper – anything, just get a publication so that we can keep funding – and went off into their pet bigotries. Instead I found this upper-crust Oxford dorkus, peddling his bigotries through a procession of largely-ignored almost-science. It was almost like watching a mini-series! I can practically taste his anger at the rejection of his peers. His most successful paper is one where he’s cited because people need to cite sources opposing theirs, and each of those is going to be a refutation. No one’s continued his work but him. Oh, the burn, it has to sting!

@Pol, observation. Take it as you like. You’re being classified as a troll despite saying something relatively agreeable – saying it clumsily, perhaps, but okay.

Your classification isn’t about what you say, or even how you say it. It’s about how you react to confrontation. Your reactions are generally anger and sassy doubling-down instead of cooperation and explanation. That’s what gets you the cold shoulder and the bared teeth.

And it’s the fact that you aren’t interested in cooperation or explanation is what gets you labeled a troll – makes you look like you’re just here to irritate and stir the pot. You want to change that? Change your behaviour. Otherwise your behaviour is trolling, even if your intentions aren’t.

@dlouwe, the authors of the paper aren’t saying that – they’re saying what you suggest, that feminism is due to more testosterone. It’s still just causal and poorly supported at that, but at least they have it the right away around. It’s the RoK crowd that’s got their underpants on their head. Not big surprise!

dlouwe
dlouwe
4 years ago

@Scildfreja

Whoops, I forgot to specify – I was talking about the RoK pants-on-headery, not the paper itself; I didn’t look too closely at that. But knowing that makes it even worse, as the RoK author read the “less bogus” version given by the paper and managed to fumble with it until it wasn’t even pointing in the right direction.

PeeVee the (Noice) Sarcastic
PeeVee the (Noice) Sarcastic
4 years ago

If testosterone causes feminism, why aren’t there more feminists that are men, exactly?

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
4 years ago

‘cuz women are a different species donchakno?

Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko, Regicidal Beast-of-Burden
Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko, Regicidal Beast-of-Burden
4 years ago

Or ‘cuz testosterone is what makes you stand for your own rights ?

Oh hey, broscience is fun.

epitome of incomprehensibility

“Copies of their grandmothers” – adding to this theme, I don’t think this Furioso guy would approve of my father’s mother. When she was 20 and unmarried, she had her first kid, and had to deal with prejudice for it. Nevertheless, she had a long career as a writer and farmer, married my grandfather at around 35 and had two more kids, one of them my dad.

It seems social engineers are catering to already existing instincts in women by encouraging them to be copies of men rather than copies of their grandmothers…

Also, good grief. Education isn’t cloning! Women don’t automatically become copies of their grandmothers, or of men, just because people teach them to do things that Furioso considers either feminine or masculine. People are a lot more interesting and complicated than that.

Lea
Lea
4 years ago

My grandmother would frighten these poor dudebros. She inspires me. I wish I were more like her.
She says her grandmother was “as independent as a pig on ice”.

Mary Contrary
Mary Contrary
4 years ago

One of my grandmothers bore nine children, was a complete and utter autocrat over her family, and died in her mid-fifties from complications from overeating. The other was a notorious nag who insisted on being waited on hand and foot whenever her children’s families visited, because she had done her bit of drudgery for others. I doubt those dudebros spent long enough with their grans to realise what glorious witches most of them are.

Ooglyboggles
4 years ago

My grandmothers lived in 1950’s China and Vietnam respectively. I would LOVE to see them try to last a day in those conditions.

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
4 years ago
Hambeast (fan of diversity)
Hambeast (fan of diversity)
4 years ago

Adding to the thanks to Scildfreya! Paradoxy got her money’s worth on that request and I did, too. It was like a scholarly expose.

Also, for Pol – Sinkable John can speak for me, too.

Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
Axecalibur: Middle Name Danger
4 years ago

@Johann Silbek
I mean
@Jean Blonkish
I mean
@Sinkable John
I also don’t care for a recurrence of Pol’s reductionist, simplicstic, phobic ‘science’. You may speak for me as well

Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko, Regicidal Beast-of-Burden
Sinkable John : Pansy Ass Pinko, Regicidal Beast-of-Burden
4 years ago

By the way my grandma’s pretty boring. I’m glad most of her descendants regardless of gender aren’t trying to emulate her.

@Axe

Pretty close on the second one, heh. There’s a trick with that h.

mechazawa
mechazawa
4 years ago

speaking of crap science, are any of you as excited for this year’s BAHfest as I am?

Jason Eichhorn
4 years ago

Wow, an ad with a seven-digit phone number. From ancient times when all Chicagoland telephony fit under the 312 umbrella.

Ellesar
Ellesar
4 years ago

According to this theory I should have had terrible trouble conceiving, as I am a square jawed (inherited from mother and grandmother) feminist (not inherited at all) – seeing as how very high testosterone levels in women make conception difficult.

HOWEVER… this being the real world I did 3 inseminations and got 2 kids out of them! For anyone who has gone the direct OR indirect route 2 pregnancies from 3 ‘go’s’ is extremely efficient conception rates. And I was over 30 at the time.

Anyone would think that this ‘theory’ was just a pile of nonsensical anti science, anti woman crap.

Bina
4 years ago

Hmmm…lessee…

My grandmothers were both nice, fairly undistinguished working-to-middle-class German ladies. Both kind of on the chubby side, too, except during World War II, when everything was rationed and everyone was thin as a rag. So telling me to eat like them wouldn’t help, unless there were a war going on, and I say fuck that noise.

Paternal grandmother had four kids and got awarded a Mother’s Cross for it (she never kept the damn thing, and a good thing too; talk about worthless). Fun fact, her husband got called up on the carpet for criticizing Hitler, and the Gestapo man threatened him by reminding him of his four children. That shut up my otherwise exceptionally mouthy grandfather, at least until the 12-Year Reich was finally over. He deserted the Kriegsmarine and walked home, obtaining some civilian clothes from a farmer along the way.

Maternal grandmother lost her youngest daughter (of three) at the age of 11 months when they had to flee Yugoslavia in 1944, due to the Russians invading. Her milk dried up because of stress and poor diet, and there was nothing to give the baby except ersatz coffee, which isn’t exactly conducive to infant survival. Then the baby caught dysentery and that was it. The baby was buried under a swastika flag, as though she were some kind of war hero, which is all kinds of fucked-up. Maternal grandfather didn’t know where to go to be demobilized at war’s end, so he and some comrades turned themselves in to the British. They ended up in a POW camp in Scotland for three years; more crappy rationed food, much skinniness, yippee…and that was when he first started looking old: in his mid-thirties.

Frankly, I would rather not have to go through anything my grandparents did. Fascism was shit, and nobody in my family who lived through it would recommend it.

Also, chalk me up as another woman with index and ring fingers about the same length. If I squint at them really hard, it looks like my right index finger and my left ring finger are each ever so slightly longer (we’re talking millimetres here). What that says about me and my femininity levels, I don’t know, and I don’t suppose it especially matters.

Witch of Endor
Witch of Endor
4 years ago

I mean, when my grandmother was my age she was in a forced labour camp for being an eeeeeevil SJW (astonishingly, not a new thing- although she was protesting the Communist administration, which might make her acceptable to the MGTOWs? What are we allowed to complain about, exactly?)
And I do love Funny Girls:

Christina Nordlander, Emperor's White Knight
Christina Nordlander, Emperor's White Knight
4 years ago

Thank you very much for that write-up, Scildfreja!

Valkyrine
Valkyrine
4 years ago

“It has for example been reported that there are self-identified feminsts who argue (…) that all men are potential rapists” sounds to me like that bloke happened to hear about Schrödinger’s rapist and just didn’t really get it.

Dalillama, Shepherd of Demonic Crocodiles
Dalillama, Shepherd of Demonic Crocodiles
4 years ago

@Valkyrine

sounds to me like that bloke happened to hear about Schrödinger’s rapist and just didn’t really get it.

Seen that a lot, yeah.

PeeVee the (Noice) Sarcastic
PeeVee the (Noice) Sarcastic
4 years ago

@Jason Eichhorn,

I know, right? I remember these stores very well.
Here’s an ad from 1978: (apologies, I don’t know how to embed on my phone)

https://youtu.be/noZeSKNQa8o

PeeVee the (Noice) Sarcastic
PeeVee the (Noice) Sarcastic
4 years ago

… such as last week’s paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS).

Seriously?

So I just caught this, I cannot stop laughing.

:dies:

Scildfreja Unnýðnes
Scildfreja Unnýðnes
4 years ago

Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS)

oh my god i just got it