As you may have heard, recently Miss Piggy was awarded a monstrous mouthful of a thing called “The Brooklyn Museum’s Elizabeth A. Sackler Center for Feminist Art First Award” for being a woman who has spent “more than forty years blazing feminist trails with determination and humor,” or some shit like that. The truth about the famously pretentious thespian is, of course, much darker, and recently I met with the one man who knows more than any other what Miss Piggy truly is, for he is the man who has seen the ugliness behind the glamour, the monster behind the pig.
We meet deep in the Louisiana Everglades, where my interviewee lives in a modest albeit high security wooden cabin surrounded by a twenty foot high electric fence topped with razor wire, a yard full of savage guinea pigs, and minefields on all sides. Indeed, so wary is my host of outsiders that I have to be lowered into his yard by helicopter, and then only after the guinea pigs have been safely locked up. My host is a small man, green and friendly, though one can’t help notice that there is a certain haunted look in his eyes and that he isn’t actually wearing any pants. Or anything else for that matter. Yes, my host is the Green Prince of Comedy, the entertainment world’s most famous amphibian — the one, the only, Kermit The Frog! And today he is going to spill the beans on feminism’s latest poster girl. Yes, today Kermit is going to tell us about Piggy – all about Piggy.
“Trailblazer? Sure she’s a trailblazer, a trailblazer in the abuse of frogs! She was totally psycho, like the chick from Basic Instinct except 100 pounds heavier and slightly prettier. And she didn’t even hide her abuse! She used to beat me up on television, when the cameras were rolling! The karate chops and flying kicks were all over the place! She once threw me threw a plate glass window, there was blood everywhere. And everybody just laughed! Why didn’t they call an ambulance instead!?!?! I was in pain!
And you know all those jokes about the frog in the blender? That was me, you bastards! The bitch shoved me in a fucking blender! It took weeks for the vets to put me back together! And I wasn’t the only victim, either, She was just insanely jealous. She once beat up my mother for saying “Hi” to me! She broke Fozzie’s legs after some tabloid claimed that he and I were involved in a secret gay relationship. She also harassed a lot of the male guests we had on the show! For example, she once told Stallone, “Hey, muscles, how about some bacon on your sausage?” And she refused to let me appear on stage with Alice Cooper because she couldn’t understand that he was actually a man. And don’t get me started on that time she took advantage of a falling-down drunk John Denver! The poor bastard had no idea what he was doing. I mean, he kept passing out, for fuck’s sake! Oh, no, wait, that was Amy Schumer…”
After pausing to down half a bottle of Valium, Mr. Frog continues his tale of woe…
“But I’ll get her. Oh, yes. This is one frog who’s had enough of running. Next month, that’s when it will all come to an end. See, that’s when she’s going to be receiving another feminist award, this time the “Lena Dunham Award for Excellence in the Field of Child Molestation.” It’s being held at Rockefeller Center, and I’m going to sneak in disguised as Joss Whedon –- so everyone will think I’m just another hydrocephalic moron –- and loaded for pig. I’ll blast the abusive little cow to pieces, then decapitate her and bring the head back to my cabin where I will spend a few days throwing darts at it. Then, before it gets too ripe, I’ll boil it down and make me some good, old fashioned head cheese! Oh,yeah! And the rest of her carcass will be turned into ham and pork sausages! How’s that for trailblazing? First Hollywood star to end up on the wrong side of a sandwich — how’s that for a first, hey? When it’s ready you can come on over and have some head cheese for free Pigman, it’s great on bagels!” It is at this point that I notice there is a suspiciously large number of M16s and grenade launchers lying around the cabin, and start to wonder if years of abuse have finally driven the world’s most beloved frog over the edge of sanity and if maybe I should call Bellevue. Still, someone who blew the head off Dick Cheney and turned several Wall Street types into haggis is in no position to be getting all uppity at one man’s plans for revenge, so I keep my counsel to myself.
A few minutes later, as the helicopter hoists me out of the yard, the guinea pigs barking furiously below me, I wonder to myself if Kermit will really go ahead with his threats. Will Miss Piggy end up as head cheese and pork sausages? Will Joss Whedon get the blame and be devoured by Twitter feminists? Only time will tell and I, for one, am looking forward to that day, though for obvious reasons I won’t be partaking of the ensuing feast – I will, however, be quite happy to bring the beer.
I am really sick of seeing people use the term “Straw Man” to mean a situation in which someone pretends that their opponent is something they are not. Screaming that your opponent is a misogynist because they are against quotas is not “Straw manning,” it’s just making an irrational and unsupported claim. I suppose it’s a type of ad hominem, an attempt to vilify the messenger in order to have the message dismissed, but it is not a “Straw man.” I suspect the problem here is the very term straw man. The last word implies that it is an attack on the man, not the ball – then, quite literally, an “ad hominem.” But that is not what the straw man fallacy actually is.
The real meaning of the straw man fallacy is the replacing of the opponent’s actual argument with a fabricated one which is easier to beat. Once the fabricated argument has been beaten, the dishonest fucker claims victory. Since us amateur logicians don’t get taken very seriously, here is a quote, verbatim, from a US university text entitled “A Concise Introduction to Logic,” by Patrick J. Hurley, a professor emeritus at the University of San Diego…
“The straw man fallacy is committed when an arguer distorts an opponent’s argument for the purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the distorted argument, and then concludes that the opponent’s real argument has been demolished.”
For example. An MRA says, “Western women have it better than Western men.” Since nobody except a total pinhead could honestly dispute this, the MRA’s feminist opponent gnashes her teeth, rends her garments, and screams hysterically, “OMG! He said women have it better than men! What about all those women in Afghanistan, you misogynist bastard!?!?!” and then proceeds to give all sorts of admittedly valid evidence as to why women in Afghanistan have it worse than men. Problem is, the MRA’s statement was about Western women, not Afghan women. His argument has been distorted, misrepresented – it has been “straw manned.”
Figuratively speaking, what the straw man fallacy adds up to is that you can’t beat Mike Tyson, so you simply put together a dummy that looks somewhat like a big, black guy with no neck, then you beat the shit out of the dummy and prance around shouting “I beat Mike Tyson!” No, you just beat something you claim is Mike Tyson.
I hope this clarifies the true meaning of the Straw Man Fallacy and prevents future confusion. And just remember, you don’t need to trust me — you just need to trust Professor Hurley.
As anyone who frequents the digital pages of the UK’s world famous “left wing” newsrag will have noticed over the last few years, the Guardian has become increasingly feminist and anti-male, if you’ll pardon the redundancy. This, after all, is the rag that employs Jessica Valenti, a shit-stain on the frilled panties of “journalism” who un-ironically complains about women wrapping most of the Christmas presents in one article then turns around and pens another in which she, equally un-ironically, calls for men to be paid less than women.
This male-bashing spree seems to have started under the stewardship of some white knighting male pussy, a pussy who is about to step down and leave the bowl of cream in the hands of some woman called Katharine Viner, who will officially take over on the first of June, a day that may well mark the Jezebel-ing of The Guardian. Given the age of misandry that we live in, we can probably make the safe assumption that any woman taking over a “left wing” publication is probably some sort of feminist dirtbag, but since I have nothing better to do today I decided I would seek out evidence to either support or demolish said assumption.
Most of what is available on this woman and her views on feminism is more than a decade old and may or may not be valid evidence for what she thinks nowadays, but you work with what you have. Some of this old work includes this piece from 2002 in which, while making some valid points about W’s use of feminist cant as an excuse to kill as many A-rabs as he possibly can, she wrote this…
“Where next? China because of its anti-girl one-child policy? India because of widow-burning outrages? Britain because of its criminally low rape conviction rate?”
See what she did there? First two are the kind of thing any reasonable person would find disgusting, but the third is a typical Western feminist complaint – one about due process and such inconveniences. Let’s just take the alleged victim’s word for it, shall we? She also finishes off the article with…
“No wonder it’s being used as a reason for bombing women and children too.”
Apparently, no men are being bombed in the name of this faux-feminism. Disposable and invisible, as usual.
Also, in 2005, she bemoaned the death of Andrea Dworkin, one of the most rabid of modern feminists, a woman whose work would have been at home in Mein Kampf if only she had gone on about Jews instead of men. But instead of focusing on the real reason Dworkin was so reviled she focuses on the fact that Dworkin looked like a fatter, uglier, less humpy version of the Charles Laughton Quasimodo! Yes, that’s why we make fun of her hideousness, because it’s her external ugliness that we actually hate about her. It certainly can’t be that the attacks on her looks are motivated by a hatred of her inner vileness. No, of course not. She also takes at face value Dworkin’s claims she was raped in 1999. Never mind that Dworkin was at the peak of hideousness at the time, that she did not file charges, that she never provided any actual evidence. What matters is a woman’s word – no matter how suspect that woman is.
But it can, and no doubt will, be argued that a decade is a long time and she may have changed her ways since then. Given how rarely people change – really, deep down change – I think it more likely that she still holds the same views and that if she didn’t she would probably have been fired, not promoted, by something as feminist as The Guardian. Unfortunately, it seems she has been too busy working behind the scenes to do much writing, but there are a few clues as to whether or not she has become less rabid. The first of these is her Candidate’s Statement in which she goes on about how…
“Themed roles would help us tell a coherent international story: correspondents for water, fossil fuels, women’s rights…”
Looks to me like feminist code for “Let’s give even more attention to women’s issues than we already do.” She also states that the Guardian should “build a fulfilled, diverse team,” again the kind of thing that is often code for “more women.”
But what really makes this little piggy think we are in for an even more feminist version of the rag isn’t the defense of Dworkin or the little hints here and there. It seems that Viner is quite keen on Twitter, which is not only an indication that she may be an idiot, but which also provides us with good evidence that she is still an A Grade feminist asshole – who else would refer to Jessica Valenti as “fabulous”?
Well, that’s pretty much all I need to know. Coming soon to a pseudo leftist website near you, an Editor In Chief who thinks Jessica “I Bathe In Male Tears” Valenti is “fabulous.” Brace yourselves, boys, for what will almost certainly be an even more feminist, gynocentric, anti-male Guardian.
Can this one really be real? Has the sexual assault hysteria gotten this bad? Hey, that story about Ms Piggy being given a feminist award turned out to be true, so stranger things have happened.
A British woman holidaying in Gibraltar has apparently tried to have a monkey charged with sexually assaulting her after the lascivious bastard felt her up and pulled off her bikini!
Seems the poor creature ( the woman, not the monkey ) was busy throwing peanuts when two monkeys, no doubt drunk on their patriarchal power and sense of entitlement, started pulling at her clothing and hair…
“I felt totally helpless as these two monkeys grabbed and pawed me in my most intimate areas… Then, with a yank, one of them pulled my bikini top straight off… I was being sexually assaulted and these people all thought it was a great joke,” she screeched hysterically, before launching into a rambling discourse on the possibility that the monkeys may, in fact, be shape-shifting lizard people.
The woman, whose name is Melissa Hart ( yeah, rather like the actress who played Sabrina, The Teenage Witch, which is one reason I suspect this story may contain more bull than it does monkey ) then insisted on calling the police. On their arrival the police, with typical patriarchal callousness towards victims of sexual assault, refused to charge the offending monkeys, citing the ludicrous idea that animals can’t be held responsible for any crime. But, as we all know, that’s just patriarchal code for “Women don’t matter!”
No news on whether the woman, having failed in seeking a criminal prosecution, will try to gain redress by suing the monkey in question.
Degenerate simian here
The internet is celebrating today after having found its latest feminist role model, some knuckleheaded, moose-humping lesbian who decided to turn her high school yearbook into a lame piece of propaganda with this ludicrous claim…
“I need feminism because I intend on marrying rich and I can’t do that if my wife and I are making .75 cent for every dollar a man makes.”
… blithered microcephalic sapphist Caitlyn Cannon to the delight of other pinheads on Twitter, a site which is now seen as some sort of legitimate news source. Sooner or later the NYTimes will do an article on the lizard people claiming as its source the pea-brained denizens of Twitter, it’s just a matter of time now.
But back to the matter at hand. Take a close look at that quote. Not only does the young fool parrot the long-discredited idea that the wiminz get paid less than the men but she does it in a way suggesting she went to a US school rather than a Canadian one. Now, I am no mathematician but I am pretty sure that the dot just before the 75 means something along the lines of “three quarters of a cent”! I mean, unlike Caitlyn I haven’t just left high school, but that’s how I remember it. Maybe math has been changed to suit feminist tastes since the eighties — god knows everything else has.
And check out the fawning at the CBC article. “Powerful”? Since when does the word denote a prosaic idea, unimaginatively expressed? Since feminism, of course. Any feminist statement, no matter how hackneyed or untrue, is “powerful” because it gets out the “right” message and makes the troglodytes who dominate the movement feel good about themselves.
As for the statement’s primary claim, assuming the semi-literate woman-child really meant 75 cents per dollar, it all boils down to women not doing equal work. Want equal pay? Work the same hours as the men, in the same dirty, physically hard, physically dangerous jobs as the men do. Problem solved.
Feminist math here.