~H. Westchop

I am a firm believer in Aristotelian notions of moderation, and so, after my long (but meaningful!) tirade on the reprehensible state of the male-male relationship, I find it only fair to reapply my critical lens to the inane hypocrisy of the second sex, a simplistic target that (unfortunately) must be dealt with.  Believe me, dear reader, I despise the feminist tradition, and would much rather not sully the pages of this chaste blog with the girlish fears of a Woolf (a woman who would have greatly benefited from an able-bodied sexual experience with an able-bodied man (I am furtively convinced her wondrous husband had an…inability (so to speak))), a De Beauvoir (who reviles her own sex with more hatred and venom than even I could possibly muster) or, god forbid, a Laura Mulvey (although I do find her attempts to create a new “feminist avant-garde film” (haha! how cute!) charming and unduly hilarious), but one must balance the scales and attack all groups with equal opportunity. After all, I would never forgive myself if a feminist image was allowed to cultivate (perhaps fester is the better word) within this webpage’s fragile confines.

“Oh, get to the point you damnable rambler” yells Tomfool, and he’s right (for once), one must get to the point quickly when writing a blog (I’m trying, dear reader, I’m trying!).  The point, oh Tomfool, is that I advocate the abject beating of women, and I have the venerable Marilyn Frye to thank for my formulation of this peculiarly and distinctly feminist position.  

In her essay simply titled “Oppression,” Miss Frye (or is it Mrs? How does one deal with a lesbianic in this regard?) comments on the “gallant gestures” of men, saying

“Their meaning is symbolic. The door-opening and similar services provided are services which really are needed by people who are for one reason or another incapacitated – unwell, burdened with parcels, etc. So the message is that women are incapable.…Finally, these gestures imitate the behavior of servants toward masters and thus mock women, who are in most respects the servants and caretakers of men. The message of the false helpfulness of male gallantry is female dependence, the invisibility or insignificance of women, and contempt for women.

I will merely point towards a phrase, and Comrade Frye can take it as she will: “I do not hit girls.” Have you, you inconsiderate dolt, ever uttered such a phrase? “I do not hit girls.” Of course you don’t, you putrid putrescence, because you are a radical anti-feminist! You “mock women,” the kind and acquiescent “servants” of men. Every anti-pugilistic thought in your sex-addled brain is an accusation! An accusation that women are infirm, unwell, incapable, invisible, insignificant, dependent, contemptible! Can’t you read the symbolism inherent in your refusal to beat a woman to a pulp?! To do anything less would be to treat her unequally!

I for one will do my part. I don’t see women as secondary objects (barely restrained laughter). I vow to viciously attack any woman that particularly earns my ire, just as I would a man. Similarly, I encourage you, dear (male) reader, to batter, pummel and bloody a woman at every available opportunity.  And you, dear (female) reader…take it like a man!