Having a blog is, in many ways, the opposite of real life. If a stranger began following you in real life, like on the street, you might end up in the dungeon of a Jeffrey Dahmer-esque sex cannibal. In Blog World, it’s very exciting to get a new follower. It’s especially exciting if that person isn’t someone I already know and badgered into giving up their email address, which I then typed into the “Follow My Blog Via Email” box. For me it’s only happened like twice, but that means I’m two people closer to becoming the voice of my generation.
I have long been mentally prepared for the various and sundry characters that might be attracted to my withering prose: sex traffickers; former Jehovah’s witnesses; all the 22 y/o frat guys who will grow up to be investment bankers, but only the ones who won’t be very good at it; low level Scientologists; people who write letters to the editors of Cat Fancy magazine; prisoners in medium-security women’s prison; people who want to watch the Real Housewives of Beverly Hills, but always forget when its on; men who bring a newspaper with them into the bathroom at work; people who wonder why Bob Newhart never won an Emmy; and single white women who don’t like jokes about sex trafficking.
My policy on blog followers is not unlike my policy on making out with strangers; it’s pretty open door.
With that in mind, you can imagine my delight when I discovered that my post on the sexist teddy bears sold on airlines that operate in central Anatolia (https://lordofthefails.com/2013/10/29/a-tale-of-two-airlines/) yielded a new follower. That warm-glowy feeling was pretty short-lived. My new follower had a blog of his own, and as I read through it I tried to imagine the series of events in which a person with his views would find my blog and think “here’s a guy that’s got it all figured out. I will definitely follow him.”
He writes on such enlightened topics such as:
I was really glad to learn that he put “PLENTY of thought and research” into this matter before he came to this conclusion. Guys, we’re obviously dealing with a highly regarded social scientist who, before writing his blog post, performed extensive fieldwork, which included conducting studies with statistically significant sample sizes. His research methods are unimpeachable. We know this because his findings were peer reviewed and published in internationally recognized scientific journals.
Before you get all bent of of shape you should note that the headline is in the form of a question. So maybe he doesn’t think feminism is “destroying dating life” (whatever that means), he’s just wondering if you do.
Ok, so maybe he’s pretty sure about how he feels about women. Women+military/police = cross dressing? What exactly about women’s uniforms constitutes cross dressing? Is it that they include pants? Does this writer think pants are purely (to use the parlance of Rolf from the Sound of Music) of the World of Men? I think he might think that. This is where I should send him a gently worded email about gender being a social construct, and gendered clothing is just one of many societal tools used by the power majority to reinforce those constructs — to the detriment of women. I could site many historical examples of how gendered perceptions of clothing shifted over time and vary widely geographically. I could talk about Scottish Men in kilts, the saffron robes of Buddhist monks, or ask “Why is it that Adam and Eve can both wear fig leaves, but only one gets trousers?” But you guys know all about that already, and I’m starting to find poorly written misogyny boring. “Let the mouths of the foolish be shut” indeed.
Part 2? How can their be more than one thing to say about the beauty of submission in marriage? How was there even a part 1?
I’m pretty sure this isn’t true. Even if it were true, is it really so bad? Somebody call the Sheryl Sandberg Hotline. This man is trying to dissuade women from leaning in!
He seems to be super focused on how children, both boys and girls, who witness a, dare I say, successful women will, like moths to a flame, emulate that woman later in life. Children should never emulate successful women because women shouldn’t ever be successful to begin with. Emulating such a thing shouldn’t even be possible.
Does God use spell check? Ok, that’s probably not fair. Spell check-wise I shouldn’t judge. In that regard, I should focus on removing the mote from mine own eye.
But seriously, why is this man following me? I’m just hoping its the spell check thing. He stumbled on my blog and said “Finally! At long last I’ve found someone whose posts are as sloppily proof-read as my very own! In that (and nothing else) we are peers.”