Love and Housework

Jessica Valenti reads USA Today's writeup of a study concluding that married women do more housework than do cohabiting women, and concludes that she may have to stay single.

I'm not so sure that the study is really showing a causal connection here. It seems very plausible that the cohabiting sample going to contain people who are less tradition-minded than does the married sample. Married people are also probably more likely to have children than are are cohabiters and one can much more easily understand why the presence or absence of children might cause a shift in the housework burden (which isn't to say that one should endorse this dynamic) than why marriage, as such, should cause a shift.

Photo by Flickr user Rick Takagi used under a Creative Commons license

Comments

When men and women cohabit, the more common scenario is her moving into "his" place. But married couples tend to buy a place together, giving them each a theoretically equal stake. It's unsurprising that guys tend to do a greater share of the work when it's "their" residence at issue. I'd imagine this accounts for a large part of the discrepancy.

The distinction breaks down, of course, once you start talking about long-term cohabitation, but the article says the study didn't collect any data on the length of the relationships. Many couples buy a house together at the time they get married or shortly thereafter; very few cohabiting couples rush right out to buy a house.

Posted by Steve | August 30, 2007 11:25 AM

the study didn't collect any data on the length of the relationships

Wow, what a horrible study. Journal of Family Issues, thank you for diluting the pool of academic knowledge, jerks.

Posted by Aaron S. Veenstra | August 30, 2007 11:27 AM

I think that the cohort of married people is probably older, on average, than those who are shacking up. I'd imagine older folks are more likely to adopt traditional gender roles regarding housework than the younger set.

Posted by Jeff | August 30, 2007 11:29 AM

I'd imagine older folks are more likely to adopt traditional gender roles regarding housework than the younger set.

Yeah, my wife imagines that, too...

Posted by Steve | August 30, 2007 11:30 AM

I guess Valenti was half-joking, but that's still some impressive misunderstanding of statistics. Married women do more housework than unmarried women -- so therefore, if she gets married, she'll start doing more housework? That's not how it works.

Posted by too many steves | August 30, 2007 11:36 AM

Some other clever person ("other, clever person") gave a simple explanation for this phenomenon. I've forgotten where or when, but here's the gist.

Men and women tend to have different tolerance thresholds for clutter and mess. This means women tend to do more housework when single. When they cohabitate, they both make mess but the woman sooner reaches her threshold and starts cleaning up. The net result is that the man now does still less housework because the woman keeps picking up after him.

Posted by David Houghton | August 30, 2007 11:37 AM

You can't tell for sure from USAToday, but it seems that the study didn't control for age, children, length of relationship, or anything else for that matter.

Posted by Rob | August 30, 2007 11:41 AM

But, David Houghton, isn't the "different clutter threshold" theory inherently unfair? Presumably, a proper feminist household would harmonize the "clutter thresholds" between the two people, and then evenly divide the housework.

All of this ignores the question of what is the proper division of work when one member of the couple is employed outside the home and the other isn't (as, for example, in my household). It isn't even clear that the cited study adjusts for this.

Posted by Al | August 30, 2007 11:43 AM

BTW, I don't have time to find it, but there's a good Yglesias thread out there somewhere on this very topic already.

Posted by Al | August 30, 2007 11:44 AM

I really wish people would look at the RESEARCH, and not the news reports of the research.

The author, shannon davis, has the article up on her website at George Mason. I suggest you take a look. For example, the study most certainly DID control for age. Controling for age and length of relationship would not be trivial, as they are going to be intercorrelated to a high degree (no 20 year olds will be in a 20 year old relationship, to state the obvious case).

In any case, read the article people. Or do you think the press only misreports and misleads readers on political activities?

Posted by hater of media articles like this | August 30, 2007 11:49 AM

Never thought I'd say this in a non-NBA thread, but I think Al has it exactly right.

Presumably some percentage of the married households have stay at home moms. I'd imagine very few if any of the co-habiting women aren't working. That is probably the real factor, if both people work the housework is more evenly distributed, if one is a stay at home they do more of the housework.

But then USA Today and meaningfull survey data in the same sentence is generally absurd anyway.

Posted by Eric K | August 30, 2007 11:50 AM

"Presumably, a proper feminist household would harmonize the "clutter thresholds" between the two people, and then evenly divide the housework."

If "harmonizing" means "we're going to go with her standard," then yes, that is correct.

"All of this ignores the question of what is the proper division of work when one member of the couple is employed outside the home and the other isn't (as, for example, in my household). It isn't even clear that the cited study adjusts for this."

You mean there are households where the fact that one spouse is working 50-60 hours a week and the other doesn't work is an excuse for that spouse to do less than 50% of the housework? Wow, I wish I was in one of those.

Posted by Joe | August 30, 2007 12:17 PM

She has regression controls for whether the male works full time, whether the female works full time, and which one of the two earns more. Along with total family income. Most of the obvious criticisms of the study discussed in this thread are at least partially addressed in the paper.

However, the study tells you little (nothing?) about the situation in the United States. The overall sample draws from 28 countries, and the U.S. part of the sample appears to be less than 10% of the total. The largest single-country sample size comes from Spain (??). She doesn't report any single-country results.

Here's the link to the paper, as someone said above, best to spend five minutes looking at it before commenting:

http://mason.gmu.edu/~sdaviso/Davis,%20Greenstein,%20and%20Marks%202007.pdf

Posted by mq | August 30, 2007 12:29 PM

Lifelong feminist who would also like to see figures adjusted for time worked outside the home (even allowing that many of us see men working less than women at the office, too). Going way back to my earliest online interactions, I occasionally pissed some stay-at-home moms off by saying they actually should be primarily responsible for housework-- some liked to claim "I'm at the home For the Kids™, not to clean house!" My position was, and is, that it's in a family's best interest for time with kids to be shared as equally as possible regardless of how they choose to divide the other major responsibilities (i.e., earning & household), so it's pretty ungenerous to expect one's spouse/SO to spend non-working hours cleaning instead of with the children. Personally, I'd rather strive for 50-50 splits in all three areas, partly out of principle, but more because I get bored & irritated with asymmetrical responsibilties. But for those who prefer a more traditional economic arrangement, it still makes more sense to share the kids than the housework.

Posted by latts | August 30, 2007 12:35 PM

I think this story is way too cute to be taken seriously. But somehow, I can't turn away.

Posted by BP | August 30, 2007 1:47 PM

mq,

The subsample for the USA is 614. Not huge, not tiny. It oversamples women a bit. I'd like to see more like 2000, but the purpose of the research in question WAS international comparisons. You try to get researchers in that many countries to ask questions, that's a big project! Very hard to pull off.

BTW, when you say "the U.S. part of the sample appears to be less than 10% of the total." you are are showing a bit of innumeracy. Subsamples are meaningful in terms of absolute levels, not levels relative to the total sample (or the population for that matter). It is the sample size that relates to the margin of error in polling.

Posted by hater of media articles like this | August 30, 2007 1:52 PM

It would seem to me pretty obvious why the disparity in housework exists. People with modern views of gender roles and housework are also more likely to have modern views about non-marital sex and childrearing, which means they are going to be overrepresented among cohabitants and underrepresented among married people.

Posted by Dilan Esper | August 30, 2007 1:54 PM

Dilan,

Let me post some of the abstract from the article:

The findings provide support for the time-availability, relative-resources, and gender-ideology perspectives. The effects of time availability and relative resources on the division of household labor are substantially the same for both union types, but gender ideology is more influential on the division of labor reported by cohabiting than by married respondents. Implications and suggestions for future research are discussed.

In other words, they say gender ideology (close to what you might mean by 'modern views about non-marital sex and childrearing') matters, but it matters LESS in a significant way for married couples. The significant effects of time availability and relative resources do NOT vary between marital status.

I should probably read the "future research" section of this one, it seems some interesting questions will develop from this project.

Posted by hater of media articles like this | August 30, 2007 2:06 PM

Jesus frscking christ. Yet another one.

Look Jessica. Do as much housework as you damn well like and shut the fsck up about it.
Women do more housework than men for one single reason --- they obsess about what their friends and neighbors are going to say about what the house looks like. This is not a political issue. It's not even a feminist issue. It is an issue of getting your psychology together and moving beyond caring what other people think.

Posted by Maynard Handley | August 30, 2007 2:06 PM

I'm not clear on whether the MAN in the household does more or less housework when married. After all, if the single woman is doing 15 hours of housework a week (and what is housework? does that include cooking), and the married woman is doing 16, that doesn't say if the men in these households are doing more, less, or the same single or married.

And it's entirely possible household work increases once you're married just because you're more likely to 1) buy a home, and 2) have children. If the total amount of housework increases just because the family structure is different at some point after marriage, then even if wife and husband divide the increased hours equally, the wife will end up doing more. I do suspect wives still do more inside-housework than men, but I'm sure my husband would counter by saying he does all the yardwork (which of course is weekly, rather than daily, but heck, who's counting...)

My children have grown and moved out, and it's amazing how little cooking and cleaning we have to do now. Kids are little mess-makers, no doubt about it.

Posted by petra | August 30, 2007 2:06 PM

Once one has kids in the house, the work load (clothes, dishes, clutter, etc.) goes up say 50% for the house.

Wife or female SO with two kids in the house will have more work than wife or such SO in the child-free house.

If kids are more frequently around when the house has a wife (as opposed to a female SO), the results seem unremarkable.

Rather than "avoid marriage" they suggest "avoid kids (unless you can train them to do their share of the housework)."

Posted by cfw | August 30, 2007 2:11 PM

I eat lots of ice cream and they haven't given me a Ph.D yet, neither have I ever been attacked my a shark.

(I suspect Jessica doesn't need to worry about marriage, with analyses like this one, she may need to worry more about where the US is located on a map.)

Posted by ice cream you scream | August 30, 2007 2:57 PM

they suggest "avoid kids (unless you can train them to do their share of the housework)."

I'm working on that one, but my damned kids are working on "train dad that it is easier for him to do the work than to clean up our intentional, and hilarious, screw ups"

(I love my kids, too bad that wimmin like Jessica don't think single fathers should be able to parent their children and how that line of thinking is never remarked on by Yglesias.)

Posted by foo | August 30, 2007 3:03 PM

Look Jessica. Do as much housework as you damn well like and shut the fsck up about it.

Boy, you put that little woman in her place. I bet that felt good.

Posted by Steve | August 30, 2007 3:31 PM

BTW, I don't have time to find it, but there's a good Yglesias thread out there somewhere on this very topic already.

Ah, here's the last thread on some study that women were getting the short end of the stick re housework. What's up with people doing studies to show that women do housework?

Posted by Al | August 30, 2007 3:53 PM

"Boy, you put that little women in her place. I bet that felt good."

Boy, you stood up for that poor, defenseless woman. I bet that felt good.

Posted by Outis | August 30, 2007 4:41 PM

BTW, when you say "the U.S. part of the sample appears to be less than 10% of the total." you are are showing a bit of innumeracy.

Trust me, I'm ultra-numerate. I said that because the published results are for the entire sample, and it's quite possible that a regression run on the U.S. sample alone would show no significant result or even the opposite one for cohabitation. I don't know if she ran the U.S. sample alone for the press, but it didn't appear to be in the paper.

The subsample for the USA is 614. Not huge, not tiny.

You are showing a bit of innumeracy here, since what matters is not the absolute sample size but the number of cohabiting couples. Few cohabiting couples could give standard error too big to detect the relatively small effect she found. But yeah, 614 is generally not considered too small.

Posted by mq | August 30, 2007 4:46 PM

Studies in Britain showed that women who were cohabitating did more hours of housework, more hours than when they were single and men did fewer hours when they cohabitated, fewer hours than they put in when single.

It is not their cleanliness threshold that is the issue it is their housework threshold because it seems to go down when they have a woman around.

Posted by ellenbrenna | August 30, 2007 5:10 PM

When J-Val was on Stephen Colbert, she was definitely orienting her seating position so that her legs were not under the table but in a more visible to the tv viewer. Short skirt too!

Sure, Ann Althouse is a crazy bitch. But J-Valenti's hot and flaunting it and dammit I'm not complaining.

Posted by fugnastay | August 31, 2007 9:41 AM

Hey Matt, you have some real charmers on this thread!

Posted by Jessica Valenti | August 31, 2007 11:04 AM

Is that supposed to be parody or something fugnastay?

Posted by Matthew Yglesias | August 31, 2007 11:17 AM

Aw, check out Matt: not just a feminist but chivalrous, as he steps in to defend Ms. Valenti. Next think you know, he'll be laying his trench coat down over puddles for her to walk over, like John Cusack in "Say Anything".

BTW, fugnastay, from the one photo I've seen of Valenti (the semi-controversial Clinton photo), I'd say she's more "attractive for D.C." than "hot". But maybe that was not her best photo, so who knows...

Posted by Juan | August 31, 2007 11:30 AM

If by "chivalrous" you mean not being a douche bag like the rest of the winners in this thread, Juan, then yeah, I guess Matt is exhibiting "chivalry".

Oh look, a comment about her looks (instead of, you know, a viable critique of her argument). How completely predictable.

Posted by Gabriella | August 31, 2007 3:31 PM

To be fair, Gabriella, mine was a comment about a comment about her looks. Neither her looks nor her argument interest me per se. My role in this thread has been strictly meta.

Posted by Juan | August 31, 2007 3:35 PM

Believe it or not, Juan, some men believe women to be actual human beings - not because said men are hoping to get laid, but because they're not total and complete fucktards.

Shocking, I know, but don't you fret. There are plenty of knuckle-draggers out there with whom you can pound tables, grunt, and reduce a woman's entire worth down to the content of their bras and whether or not you'd fuck them (oh, if only I was so lucky!). You're not alone.

Posted by TheSoyMilkConspiracy | August 31, 2007 3:38 PM

fyi, english is not my first language.

There is one thing I don't understand about feminists... if they are complaining about men who didn't clean or didn't take the share of responsibilities, and then why do they STILL in relationship with them? or keep picking the jerks and assholes over nice guys? I'm going to mimic their tones toward men in general, they practically ask for it. they get what they look for, am I right?

I'm married to my wife and we shared our responsibilities without any problem. Actually the question I asked above is that what my wife told me. I asked her about the article and she simply replied, "these women married to or kept dating jerks and assholes so they asked for it". Harsh but she's right.

If miss Valenti wants to stay single for that ... um, reason, and then so what? If she wants that, and then that's totally fine with me. There's plenty of fish in the sea, Matt. If she wants to be a bitter woman, that's up to her to be like that.

Posted by Kev | August 31, 2007 4:08 PM

Does anyone else hate it as much as I do when the what-about-the-menz crowd keep using the "But I know a woman who" strawperson?

Give it a rest, already.

Posted by moon_grrl | August 31, 2007 4:47 PM

Kev: The issue for feminists isn't the people they're in relationships with--most feminists consciously choose feminist partners. The issue is how other women are treated by their partners. Feminism is not solely a "what happens to me" philosophy, but a "what happens to all women" one.

Women who are either unaware of feminist issues or who have been led to believe that feminism = man-hating separatists often don't realize how much they're really being exploited and in what ways.

It can take some women a long time and a lot of patient education to truly understand this. It's even harder when these women have been raised in sexist cultures or subcultures that have trained them to believe that being exploited is either perfectly normal or the ideal state of things. In conservative religious communities, for instance, getting a woman to understand that it's in her best interests to have economic independence can be next to impossible.

For what it's worth, I do believe that if one partner works outside the home and the other doesn't, then the non-working partner should do the most housekeeping. The gender of the people in the relationship shouldn't matter--this should go for same-sex relationships as well.

And I also agree that there is a "standard of cleanliness" issue, too. Women have been led to believe that their self-worth lies in their personal appearance and the appearance of their homes. This panic leads women to be far more vigilant about these things--sometimes to the detriment of their physical and mental health. Likewise, men have been led to believe that having a spotless house will make people question his masculinity.

So, because of how their cultures have trained them, most men are slobs and most women are neatniks. This isn't biology, understand, just conditioning.

The solution, therefore, to this inequity in housekeeping, has to come from multiple angles. Women need to stop freaking out about cleaning, men need to stop deliberately being slobs, and both need to understand that women have value beyond the front door of their houses.

Posted by Tal | August 31, 2007 5:53 PM

"Believe it or not, Juan, some men believe women to be actual human beings - not because said men are hoping to get laid, but because they're not total and complete fucktards."

Believe it or not, TheSoyMilkConspiracy, some people read posts like this, roll their eyes, and thank god that they don't know men or women who talk this way.

Posted by Maynard Handley | August 31, 2007 7:34 PM

Maynard, what exactly was wrong with TSMC's comment? Juan ignores Jessica's point and instead talks shit about her appearance.

Posted by Jennifer | August 31, 2007 7:47 PM

Nothing says "I've never seen a woman naked in real life" like making every comment thread about a woman's writing about her tits and ass.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte | August 31, 2007 9:07 PM

The majority men posting here make me glad to be a lesbian! You woman-hating, woman-fearing losers need to work out your mommy issues. A real man has respect for women.

Posted by Laurie Anne | September 1, 2007 12:19 AM

A real man has respect for women.

Says the man-bashing lesbian.

Nothing says "I've never seen a woman naked in real life" like making every comment thread about a woman's writing about her tits and ass.

Apparently equality means an equal right to be as puerile as an 8-year old boy.

"Believe it or not, Juan, some men believe women to be actual human beings - not because said men are hoping to get laid, but because they're not total and complete fucktards."

Believe it or not, some actual human beings like to get laid. Also, some women like men who want to have sex with women.

So, because of how their cultures have trained them, most men are slobs and most women are neatniks. This isn't biology, understand, just conditioning.

The irony here is that the above sounds like the parroting of one who has just been released from a reeducation camp.

When J-Val was on Stephen Colbert, she was definitely orienting her seating position so that her legs were not under the table but in a more visible to the tv viewer. Short skirt too!

To be honest, I watched that segment. Not only was Valenti wearing a short skirt (that's a sartorial comment, not a sexual one), but she focused on sex during most of the interview, which Colbert pointed out and mocked her for (it was actually a substantive point about the shallowness of her philosophy and her use of sex to sell herself as a liberal celebrity rather than champion actual causes that matter to women). Calling Juan a misogynist for repeating the substance of Colbert's criticism is rather pathetic.

As for Ms. Valenti's actual argument, the first few posts ripped it apart. That her band of harpies from the feministing comments thread had to flap over here to defend her is rather representative of how shitty her reasoning and analysis was.

Posted by I'm just saying... | September 1, 2007 2:27 AM

WHO CARES about the length of her skirt? If a woman decides to wear a short skirt, she gets ripped apart for being "too sexy", and if she wears a burlap sack instead, it's "unbecoming". Would you be more comfortable if Jessica was "ugly" and unfashionable? God forbid a woman chooses to dress up and wear make up.

I don't see where Colbert "mocks" her, aside from the comments about the cover of the book (which is a good choice considering the book is used to reach out to younger women who don't necessarily identify as feminists). Not to mention if Colbert really didn't agree with her he would've REALLY ripped into her. His comments are more like teasing than actual criticisms. Did you REALLY watch the episode at all?

Posted by Gabriella | September 1, 2007 3:32 AM

Amanda, if all women looked like you, I'd rather they all kept their clothes on.

Posted by Mike | September 1, 2007 3:47 AM

Would you be more comfortable if Jessica was "ugly" and unfashionable?

Colbert was not teasing her. He mocked her for bringing that silly ass-kissing tee-shirt (really, it seemed like just being on his show made her wet). She talked about sex basically the whole time. The audience laughed at her -- not with her -- at Cobert's repeated meme that she couldn't be taken seriously as a feminist. And to top it all off, he suggested she was a male-to-female transsexual. Which the audience roared at.

As an aside, I think she is ugly and unfashionable. But, obviously, that isn't her own opinion of herself, and she makes quite an effort to persuade others that her view is correct. Hence the short skirts on national T.V. and talking about sex, sex, sex instead of issues that matter.

Posted by Gabriella's favorite feminist film is Barbarella | September 1, 2007 11:46 AM

"The irony here is that the above sounds like the parroting of one who has just been released from a reeducation camp."

If by reeducation camp, you mean "six years of a damned good liberal arts education," then yes.

For what it's worth, I also think women who dress in revealing clothes are being ignorant if they expect men to not look at them. There's never any excuse for sexual assault, of course, but if you wear a short skirt, expect at least ogling, if not commentary.

Personally, the "sexy feminist" stuff is nonsense. The girls (and they call themselves this) who do this don't really believe in true gender equality. They've just been brainwashed into believing that they're sitting on their biggest power. This is not to say that feminism is necessarily anti-sex. On the contrary: true feminism is about celebrating healthy sexuality for everyone, rather than encouraging both men and women to degrade themselves in the desperate pursuit of furtive groping in a cheap bar.

If you dress and act like Paris Hilton, don't be surprised that troglodytes will treat you like the brainless idiot she is.

Posted by Tal | September 1, 2007 1:02 PM

Matthew. Dude. You really need to start IP banning some of these people. As somebody noted over on Jessica's site, if you put up with this shit, you'll just attract more of these douchebags.

Posted by Daniel Burk | September 1, 2007 1:56 PM

Nice "progressive" and "liberal" comments you got on here Matt. Strange enough, they sound exactly like bullshit a right-winger would say.

Posted by Jennifer | September 1, 2007 2:49 PM

FrenchKiss, if you decide to check this first before feministing, be sure to read my response to you -- given that they would approve mine which I doubt they will. Even though my post (at feministing site) is much more mannerly than yours.

If the staffs didn't approve my comment within a few hours, I'll post mine here for you to read.

Posted by Kev | September 1, 2007 2:59 PM

I've never seen Barbarella and you should really watch the Colbert video again. He's being snarky because THAT'S HIS JOB AND THAT'S WHAT THE SHOW IS ABOUT. I don't think you really get it. If you noticed at the end of the video, he endorses her book. Plus, Jessica's a smart woman. She's not socially retarded. She can tell if someone's REALLY making fun of her, and if Colbert actually meant all of the things he said, she wouldn't still be a fan of his. I don't think Jessica is the kind of woman who takes shit from assholes.

BTW, that skirt is knee length (again, HOW DARE SHE?!?!?!??!). It's not like she's on the show dressed in nothing but her underwear.

She talks about sex because those are the questions Colbert asks about. And believe it or not, sex IS an important issue in feminism because SEX and "sexphobia" are the reasons why women are oppressed.

Posted by Gabriella | September 1, 2007 4:31 PM

Look, go easy on Jessica. Her pals are getting married off to PC feminist type dudes (they celebrated one's wedding not too long ago, pictures, the whole schmear)and she's still single. Not much cash, no savings to speak of, and living in a shoe box in Manhattan. Not a nice place to be when you are pushing 30 hard.

It's on her mind a bunch and she's starting to think a lot more about how much housework she's willing to put up with, whether it is worth waiting for some investment-banker type Master of the Universe with a nice place in Connecticut or a condo on the upper east side or some snug little brownstone in Brooklyn Heights, or whether she will talk herself into settling for some hip counterculture bicycle mechanic type dude making $25,000.

These are not easy considerations for a late-twenties-something hip gal with a nesting urge who is realizing that she will never make enough to live in more than a small rental closet on her own and is starting to see glimmers of herself down the road in 30 years in some old lady's SRO.

And her window of opportunity is shrinking. She only has a handful of years left to play the Hip, Sexy, Street Hustlin' Sex-Positive NYC Feminist Get-Back-Jack Feminist Party Girl before the next generation of college girl feminists showing up at work start to look at her as something a little old and creepy.

If she had to describe it to herself, she saw herself rising to some apogee arching high into the sky reaching some peak on NPR and then right at the very crest getting some editorship at a hot women's rag, and being snatched up by some Master of the Universe with a summer place on Nantucket and a private jet, being invited to do summer seminars at Smith or Wellesley, perhaps work on a screenplay of someone just like her. But it hasn't happened, won't happen, and she is starting to look down, toward the ground, and the Rest of Her Life.

She is already compromising in her heart. She knows she has to. Read what she said about the housework article. You don't see her ranting about how her next boytoy will have to do at least fifty percent housework on his knees or she will make him beg for sex, do you?

No, friends, the old Jessica is gone. Correction: the young Jessica is gone, and the old Jessica is reconsidering a lot of things.

She's chillin' now, losing her sharp edges and compromising in her heart. Not so flip, callous and indifferent. What goes around comes around. She's starting to realize that at her age, cocky and in-your-face starts sounding more and more like late Dorothy Parker. In just a few years, with too much young-Jessica attitude, the only guy she can score for more than a date-and-a-quickie will be some loyal 40 something balding old fart from New Jersey. Picture Robert Benchley.

Don't laugh, guys. If you aren't a single dude with a bald spot and spare tire yet, then you can't understand where she's at. Better hope you get married before you get there. She's coming around. It's always harder for high-concept feminists.

Posted by Big Bill | September 1, 2007 7:59 PM

To Maynard.
Don't judge the entire Feminist community on TheSoyMilkConspiracy's mean spirited tone and unnecessary combative nature. She says/writes ugly, hateful, and odd things, but she does not speak for the entire Feminist community. Most Feminists I have encountered are very intelligent, thoughtful, and eager to debate you constructively. TSMC is the lunatic fringe, not the norm for feminism. And she is the reason why I no longer post comments at feministing.com.

Posted by itazura | September 1, 2007 9:23 PM

You seem to be speaking from experience, Bill.

Posted by Gabriella | September 1, 2007 9:37 PM

"Big" Bill,
your comments are a fine example of a rude, insensitive and hurtful ad hominem attack. you should feel ashamed.

Posted by invisible_hand | September 1, 2007 9:43 PM

Itazura, what's wrong with her comments? And she is firmly inside the "mainstream" (like that's some great thing to be?) of feminists and withing Feministing.com

Posted by Jennifer | September 1, 2007 9:55 PM

Itazura... If you think Feministing represents some kind of lunatic fringe of feminism, you're pretty out of touch with the subject.

Posted by Daniel Burk | September 1, 2007 10:12 PM

I don't think Jessica is the kind of woman who takes shit from assholes.

I hope not. That would be stealing.

In any event, your shrill "defense" of J-Val is about as convincing as Larry Craig's wide-stance defense. Sexophobia? Please. No one over here fears sex. But using sex to promote yourself as a sex object is different than urbane public discourse on women's issues.

Posted by Never seen Barbarella? What kind of feminist are you? It's Jane Fonda's masterpiece! | September 1, 2007 11:05 PM

Big Bill may have taken the gloves off, but he sounds perceptive.

Posted by Juan | September 1, 2007 11:23 PM

Big Bill -

I pity the women in your life.

Posted by LJ | September 2, 2007 8:47 AM

Poor Big Bill! It's clear from his post that he's jealous of anyone who has an apartment in New York, a cute little dog, and a book on the stands. Poor baby, I'll bet he hasn't had sex in years, unless you count that girl in the gentleman's club who chucked a drink in his face after he ignored the rules about not touching the employees and groped her ass.

I hope he finds a good little woman who'll agree to bear his spawn and clean his house and ignore the lipstick stains on his collar. Someone who spews the way he does really needs to get laid.

Posted by LJ | September 2, 2007 8:51 AM

Any one can buy a dog, and Jessica having a book only goes to show how anyone can get a book deal if there's a market of idiots publishers want to exploit.

Big Bill, great post. Haha.

PS. Jessica Valenti is not attractive. She looks like Ruud Van Nistelrooy. (Google him)

Posted by Mike | September 2, 2007 12:10 PM

Uh did it fail to register to "Gabriella's favorite feminist film is Barbarella", "I'm just saying" and their ilk that Steven Colbert is a satirist and HE IS PRETENDING to be a right-wing chauvinist idiot? Because from the above comments, I don't think that has entered into their tiny little brains. And what's with all the "man hating lesbian" crap? That's so passe. I mean come on guys, wasn't that phrase like "in" in the early eighties? Sounds a bit like "parroting of one who has just been released from a reeducation camp"...I mean, I'm just saying...

Posted by unbelievable | September 2, 2007 1:04 PM

Yay, somebody trotted out the word "ilk"! Hoo-ray!

Posted by Halfmad | September 2, 2007 1:31 PM

Amanda, if all women looked like you, I'd rather they all kept their clothes on.

Posted by Mike | September 1, 2007 3:47 AM

Good news, Mike: I don't think you'll have to worry about any woman taking her clothes off for you. Ever.

Posted by skeptic | September 2, 2007 3:51 PM

Apparently equality means an equal right to be as puerile as an 8-year old boy.

Feeling like your only chance at being funny is being trod upon? Boo-hoo. The world doesn't owe you protection from competition from women.

Amanda, if all women looked like you, I'd rather they all kept their clothes on.

Now, now, we all know the reason that you wished women would keep their clothes on is because when they take them off they want anyone but you in the room. I have nothing to do with it.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte | September 2, 2007 5:01 PM

Plus, Jessica's a smart woman. She's not socially retarded.

Dude, these idiots think the first sentence can't be true and the second is a condition of being female. That said, nothing screams "socially retarded" like broadcasting that you're a misogynist, no doubt due to bitterness over being so incredibly repulsive to anyone you're not paying to pretend to like you.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte | September 2, 2007 5:04 PM

Sorry skeptic, women already have. You fail at the interweb.

Posted by Mike | September 2, 2007 5:59 PM

Hi Amanda, tell that to all the women who like me. Haha, sit down, you ugly rat faced bitch.

Posted by Mike | September 2, 2007 6:02 PM

Yeah, believe it or not, assbag, women don't adjust sitting to show off their legs. You're just a perv.

Posted by Maggie | September 2, 2007 6:16 PM

Mike.

Oh wow.

"Tell that to all the women who like me."

Seriously? You seriously just said "GIRLS LIKE ME!" as a retort?

Well I'm sure they do. I bet they're just lined up outside your house right now to play on the junglegym and eat snowcones.

Posted by Maggie | September 2, 2007 6:28 PM

Yes, I said it as a retort, because it was a stupid comment from the rat face considering I'm well liked by women. The only women who hate me are smelly dirty femcunts.

Sit down, Maggie. You're out of your depth.

Posted by Mike | September 2, 2007 6:56 PM

Bill: Wow, that's some fantasy. Do you jack off to that every night?
PS Dorothy Parker rocks at any age.

Mike: Anyone who uses the phrase "dirty, smelly, femcunts", and starts pulling out "bitch" as soon as an arguement gets heated. . . . what's that word that's the male equivalent of "man-hating feminist"? Oh yeah, "misogynist".

Posted by amused | September 2, 2007 7:50 PM

Yes, I said it as a retort, because it was a stupid comment from the rat face considering I'm well liked by women. The only women who hate me are smelly dirty femcunts.

Yes Mike, some women like you but, to paraphrase Chris Rock, there's no sex with them in the Champagne Room. Try to remember that, lest you get bounced like you did the last time you thought that a $5 lap dance meant you were in a relationship with her, mmkay?

Or were you talking about your Real Doll collection?

Posted by Donna | September 2, 2007 10:11 PM

*sigh*

It's sad it comes to this, but I feel it's kind of necessary to prove a common theory wrong:

I am a feminist. I have been since I can remember. The concept of women being treated as human rather than subhuman has always seemed very rational and elementary to me.

I am also what you would call conventionally attractive. I am thin, have naturally big boobs, am blond, and have an attractive face. Really. In fact, I guarantee if Mike or Big Bill saw me on the street and didn't know I was a "stinky femcunt," they'd be staring at my tits and eventually harassing, oops, I mean "complementing" me. Honestly, I'd put money on it. In fact, patriarchy would probably work out rather well for me if I embraced it. I don't, because it's oppressing everybody on this planet (um, some more than others, obviously), and unlike certain commenters on this blog, I can see beyond what's just best for ME.

Also, I, like many, many feminists, like having sex with men. A lot. In fact, I like men so much I am in a relationship with one. He is also conventionally attractive (in case you were going with the "the hairy dirty feminist takes what she can get" defense). He too is a feminist, meaning that he believes that women are human beings deserving of the same civil rights as men - and we love each other a lot.

Neither of these facts, make me a better person or more deserving of respect - in fact, if people like Mike or Bill actually did respect me, I'd be seriously worried. My only objective was to yank that stupid "you're just a feminist because a strapping stud like me doesn't want to fuck you!" rug out from under these creeps (which I'm sure was a waste of time because they probably left two paragraphs ago to go find some porno). Like ALL women, some feminists are conventionally attractive, some are not. Some feminists are heterosexual, some are not. Some feminists like having lots of sex with men, some don't. But NO woman is a feminist simply BECAUSE she is or isn't any of these things. Women are feminists because they're tired of watching women get the short end of the stick for absolutely no valid reason.

So, you see Bill, Mike, Juan, et al...feminists aren't feminists because they're ugly, sex-hating, bitter, resentful, single, lonely, in need of a good fuck, or any other misogynist excuse you can think of. We're feminists because we're tried of the never-ending stream of bullshit that claims that we're somehow less than simply because we were born with the wrong set of genitals. We don't hate men - we hate men like you. It's really very simple.

P.S. Itazura, you're a tool. I have a hard time believing that I was the sole reason you stopped posting at Feministing (though I still think I should get some kind of reward for at least contributing to that). Remember that NOBODY there liked you and the threads you posted on were completely derailed because 20 other people were trying to get you to go away. Apparently, we still are. I'm flattered, though, that you care enough about what I say to follow me from blog to blog. Thanks!

Posted by TheSoyMilkConspiracy | September 3, 2007 2:33 AM

For those mildly curious about what SoyMilk looks like but too lazy to visit her tedious blog looking for a photo, I'll save you sometime: the beautiful blond abortion advocate

Posted by Rice Milk Furry | September 3, 2007 2:39 AM

Thanks man. I was too lazy to post the link myself. I look forward to a myriad of comments letting me know that I am, in fact, an "ugly rat face." I won't believe them, but it will be entertaining nonetheless.

Posted by TheSoyMilkConspiracy | September 3, 2007 2:59 AM

Donna, I'm far too handsome to pay anyone to show me their goods.

Amused keep screeching baseless misogyny accusations all you want, only goes to show how thick you are.

TheSoyMilk, lol, you are not ugly by any means, infact, you are worth a fuck, but you are not the type of chick I'd go out of my way for.

Posted by Mike | September 3, 2007 3:36 AM

Be still my beating heart! I have earned this handsome Renaissance man's half-approval! Oh, happy day! I am the luckiest girl in the world.

Oh, Mike. I'd rather have invasive dental work done than entertain the thought that I possibly might be "worth a fuck" to you. Shudder.

Why am I not surprised that these people missed the point?

Posted by TheSoyMilkConspiracy | September 3, 2007 3:53 AM

Soy Milk:

It must suck for you that things aren't horrible: abortion is cheap, legal, and readily available; you have the same rights as men (along with some extra privileges); you aren't ugly (though the Suicide Girl look is a little lame and unoriginal); your family has money; etc. In other words: there's very little in your every day experience to stoke warm feelings of righteous indignation in your heart. So you have to stoop to considering any casual glance by a man at one of your secondary sex characteristics as some sort of misogynist abuse.

As if you'll be happier when the day comes that no one looks.

Posted by Rice Milk Furry | September 3, 2007 4:09 AM

Actually, RMF, as another highly attractive slim blonde feminist (though more of a CA girl then Suicide girl look), I will be thrilled when random jackasses stop looking. My self-esteem comes from the love I have from family and friends and the type of work I do (pro-environmental, six-figure).

Posted by iolight | September 3, 2007 4:50 AM

Holy fucking hell this is hilarious!! The feminists are pretending to be morally superior about stereotypes and comments regarding JV appearance while their only defense seems to be these guys are "losers that don't get laid" JV's only complaint that they're not charming enough. Well, they don't seem to think your very lady like jess. Stupid hypocrites. Its so awesome to see feminists outside of their sheltered, censored, sycophant filled forums. They got nothing

Posted by Joey jojo | September 3, 2007 11:43 AM

only defense seems to be these guys are "losers that don't get laid" JV's only complaint that they're not charming enough.

Sweetie, no one needs to "defend" against comments about Valenti's appearance, just like no one needs to "defend" against monkeys flinging their shit around.

Matt, seriously, you let these folks comment here? Why?

Posted by Matt? WTF? | September 3, 2007 1:45 PM

Yes, muffin, there is definitely a lot of shit flinging monkeys in here, feminists included. I agree there is no need to point out how unattractive Jessica and Amanda are, though, these facts could contribute to their constant man bashing and demonizing of men’s sexuality? Maybe it’s that, unlike feminists that use censorship to defend their flawed and hateful ideologies from dissenting opinions, Matt actually believes in free speech and freedom of expression? Lemme guess, I am not being a good little feminist gentlemen and I only posted this because I cant get laid.

Posted by joey Jojo | September 3, 2007 2:02 PM

So. Many. Trolls.

In retrospect I'd like to thank you for not banning anyone, Matt. It is only the internet after all. And this is the funniest shit I've read in weeks.

Posted by Daniel Burk | September 3, 2007 4:36 PM

TheSoyMilk, despite the fact you are fuckable physically, the fact you are a femcunt brings you down and puts you about on par with a dog turd. Maybe if you kept your mouth shut, I'd fuck you. Nothing worse than a screeching femcunt, not woman, femcunt. My beef is not with women, as much as you'd like it to be.

Joey, on a neutral platform like on here, femcunts can't ban us, so all they can manage is a you can't get laid insults.

Valenti and her little femcunt friends having to moan about house cleaning only goes to show how pointless femcunts are. Well it's not as if they have something legitimate to moan about, like maybe, rape shield laws which only shield the woman for example?

All they can dribble on about is their right to kill unborn children, and the patriarchy. It's pathetic. Haha.

Posted by Mike | September 3, 2007 5:04 PM

Mike-

lol wut

Posted by Daniel Burk | September 3, 2007 5:23 PM

I think feminists are terrible, terrible people. I completely agree with the other men when they express their outrage at these hopelessly whiney, misandric bitches.

I don't meant to be overly harsh, but when these people are roaming OUR streets, poisoning the mids of our daughters and killing OUR babies with their foul abortion factories, I think it's time to take serious action.

If these people want to keep killing America with their disgusting ideology, I think the government ought to be made to do something about it. Remember, even if they're only spewing their man-hating bile in their own homes or on the internet, their disgusting philosophy is still polluting the minds of good God-fearing American women. This can not be allowed.

It's my humble opinion that any feminists who refuse to give up their deplorable belief system be forcibly moved into government-run compounds far, far away from reasonable Christians like ourselves.

In these "re-education camps", so to speak, the feminazis will be forced to undergo a strict regimen in diet, exercise, experimental therapies, and all other aspects of daily life for an indefinite amount of time, coupled with a 24 hour a day gender role reinforcement program.

If they want to be "free thinkers", they can think freely, but only under of the supervision of specially trained government-employed instructors, who will lead the females in proper feminine discourse while being careful to maintain a legitimate level of respect for the Male point of view.

It may seem harsh, but any good non-misandric American will realize that it's the only way to deal the woman problem.

Posted by AnHero | September 3, 2007 6:11 PM

There is a problem with women? They have equal rights, more than equal government support and protection under law? Or do you think feminism is actually just another word for women? I like the idea of removing feminism's dogma from the universities and removing feminists in power, dismantling vawa and title IX and all feminist programs that waste our tax dollars sounds good to me. Then we could work on rounding up the the feminist journalists and authors, lets leave the bloggers alone, they're more useful to anti-feminsm than dangerous or influential.

I don't know about reeducation camp though, it seems like a waste of time. I think i got a better idea. Its obvious feminists hate our man-built society, the schools they learn in, the prisons we put rapists in, the hospitals we heal people in, the computers we type on, the cars we drive, the electricity and water services we use, the farms we get our life sustaining food from, everything!, all of it was invented by smelly oppressive males! If we find them an empty island with no men and no society, then they can make it what they want, build it their way and have only themselves to blame for any problems or corruptions! They can have their fort and hang up a “no boys allowed” sign too! Society will be free of feminism and feminism will be free of society. Everyone wins!

Posted by Joey jojo | September 3, 2007 7:42 PM

AnHero, I am an atheist, don't lump all of us atheists together with those filthy feminists! I am pro life too by the way.

Posted by Mike | September 3, 2007 8:14 PM

It's wishy-washy people like you, Joey, who allow the corruption of our females to continue. By allowing certain feminists to continue to live and operate in our America while relegating others to soft-punishment style containment areas in unmonitored international territories, you are enabling these vaginal terrorists to take on the role of martyrs in exile while allowing the remaining US feminazis to start a grassroots movement in our good Christian country which may very well be even more effective in corrupting the weak minds of our daughters and wives than the current misandry-movement ever has been.

For shame.

The only solution is the one I put forth in my previous post. Although I would be willing to concede to further suggestions from any good Man who thinks that my ideas may not be enough to deal with these troublesome girls.

Posted by Daniel Burk | September 3, 2007 8:24 PM

Mike-

If you're not a Christian, you're just as bad as the "femcunts" which you claim to despise. False ideology is false ideology. You're just as responsible for the decline of our culture as the rest of these scum. Have fun burning in hell, scumbag. Jesus may love you. But I never will.

Posted by AnHero | September 3, 2007 8:35 PM

Oh Daniel you poor over zealous fool. Don't you understand the feminist feel they are so very oppressed by this horrible "patriarchal" society that they will want to go, willi