Skip to content

Sex-isms and The Working Mother

Beatdown, things are getting dire. The country is crumbling all around us, test scores are falling, the unemployment rate is rising off of the graph, and everywhere people are waiting for a miracle. And do you want to know what I blame? The feminism. I blame it for everything. Destruction of the nuclear family? Feminism. Rampant crime in the streets? Feminism. Disrespect to elders, shortening attention spans, women zipping around in motorcars without their husbands walking ahead with a lantern, warning others a lady motorist is terrorizing the countryside?


Luckily, there is one man on the Internet with whom your no-bra-wearing, “Our Bodies, Ourselves” Women’s Lib crap holds no water. His name is Joe. He is the Dad-isms guy.

Earlier this month a woman named Georgina went back to work after having a baby, and she wrote a blog post about it. In it, she confessed to being slightly reticent to leave her newborn:

I was in floods of tears last week because I absolutely did not want to go back to work.  I was completely distraught.  When I also found out that I had to go on a business trip to Kansas City during my second week, the floodgates opened.  I sat in a pool of tears wailing ‘I CAN’T LEAVE MY BABY!’

But she went back, and she made a list of all the things she enjoyed about going to work, shoring herself for the next week. She’s even working part-time to spend more time with the baby.

The monster.

Our hero Joe saw this and took action. He didn’t use Tumblr’s handy reblog function, he simply copied and pasted her entire post. Fair use is for quitters! Joe’s a winner! And he went on a line by line dissection of everything that is wrong with working mothers, and how they have completely wrecked this country:

People my age were really the first ‘day care’ generation of the 20th century.  In times past, men were looked down on as not being good providers if they had children AND their wives worked.  After the women’s lib movement of the 1970’s, all of that changed, in my (implied) Neanderthal opinion/judgement, for the worse.

What is troubling to me is the ‘fruit’ that bares out of this “we have to have two incomes (Mr. Cleaver)” mentality when you look back at the cost of things and the tax structure of say…the 1950’s (which was hugely penal), which in turn is usually cited as the reason for knowingly having a child and pre-planning months in advance to go back to work anyway.

I certainly hope she shared this story not to give support to other working mothers, but so a creepy guy on the Internet could lambast her for not caring about her child. Because that’s what she got! If you haven’t had the pleasure of meting out any of your remaining life span on Dad-isms, it is the blog that time forgot. Joe delivers advice drained of all nuance and tact, mixed in with boilerplate motivational slogans and creepily specific advice to a daughter just off-stage. You can almost see him as he sits at the head of the table in front of a steaming pile of flapjacks, finely calibrating his daughter’s sexuality: “Now Samantha, when he kisses you, tilt your head at a 45º angle and moan like you just saw a dress you want to buy with your sewing money. Then slap his hand away, pout for a bit, and come back and tell me all about it.” Like, DUDE. Back the fuck off.

In this acute case of unsolicited advise he blathers on about the pride of motherhood, the evils of employing a nanny, and tells an anecdote about his own wife eschewing work to raise their daughter. He makes it quite clear that his wife was a learned woman with an advanced degree, able to easily command a six figure income, but that it was important to them that they be her sole caregivers. Fair enough. But why didn’t he quit his job? He makes the case that she could have made enough money to support them, and then veers off into a fantasy land in which she was the only one who could have stayed with the child.

He goes on to make a lot of assertions he doesn’t back up:

“I am not going to cite articles for you, because you know in your guts how critical the first few years are to a child…”

Ah yes, the guts! That’s where I do all my science. And then, he crosses a line. He starts picking apart the list of nice things she enjoyed about her week, and uses each one to try to manipulate a woman he’s never met into letting him make her decisions for her. He does this when she is in a period of transition, trying to turn her own words against her. And that’s when you understand that for Joe, this is about control. Has in fact ALWAYS been about control. Why would he write all these things down for strangers, if his own daughters actually listened to him? If they hadn’t grown tired of his craven mind games disguised as folksy paternal wisdom?

So I say to Joe, and to all the Joes out there: if you have a plan to restructure society for the betterment of the next generation that hinges on one gender shelving their dreams and aspirations, putting their own lives on hold to cater to you, it isn’t actually a plan. It’s just, you know, sexism.


  1. Emily wrote:

    I think you’ve found the model for Colbert’s on-screen persona. “I’ve never been a fan of books. They’re too full of ‘facts’. I don’t trust facts. I trust my gut!”

    Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 11:12 am | Permalink
  2. RMJ wrote:

    Fuck this dude, for real. After that creepy list where he dictated what the state of my fingernails meant? I want to Tumblr-punch him.

    Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 11:16 am | Permalink
  3. scrumby wrote:

    she got a master at 20 1/2… I don’t think I’ve ever seen another adult refer to another adult’s age in halves…

    Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 11:53 am | Permalink
  4. bluebears wrote:

    It’s telling how angry he is at the choice of a total stranger to NOT be a stay at home mom. I think you nailed it when you said he had some serious problems with control.

    Dude, just read some FRANK Waldo Emerson and relax.

    Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 12:04 pm | Permalink
  5. Farore wrote:

    Flipping through the rest of his blog, ugh, what a creep. The “OMG GOD!” posts bother me the most… many of them are completely bizarre. “The Bible won’t keep your nightstand from wobbling”? Dude, I think if someone has reached a point of using the Bible as something to slide under the leg of a nightstand (and that must be one heckuva wobbly nightstand, considering how thick most Bibles are), I’m pretty sure that telling them not to do it is not going to bring them ‘back to God’. ಠ_ಠ

    Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 1:37 pm | Permalink
  6. Steph wrote:

    Here’s another fighter from the front lines of the “get back in the kitchen, bitch” brigade.

    Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 1:51 pm | Permalink
  7. Samantha B. wrote:

    Dude never considered that the postwar generation was pretty much the only one where women widely dedicated themselves to being “stay at pre-fab box moms” because they had the gadgets, etc. to do the bizillion and 1 things with which the women of previous generations busied themselves? I’m not one to dwell on what’s “natural,” but, dude, have a look at There’s really nothing organic about moms doing nothing but gazing into a small child’s eyes all day long. I believe childhood is fundamentally about preparation for adulthood, no? So modeling one’s self after a parent who does nothing but said dreamy gazing all damn day long wouldn’t logically be all that helpful. Of course, stay at home moms can do a fuckload more than that, but he sure as hell doesn’t seem to be acknowledging that possibility/probability. What he’s asking for is a future generation of spoiled rotten narcissists. Unless of course they’re girls, in which case it’s a wash, rinse, repeat cycle.

    His bullshit irritates the fuck out of me on a very personal level because my mom was a pretty crap mom when she stayed at home. She was depressed and withdrawn, and she only came alive again when she went back to work. I hope that there are a lot of children out there that value their mom’s happiness over their mom’s omnipresence, because otherwise we’re breeding assholes by the boatload. And those assholes grow up to re-blog!

    Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 2:00 pm | Permalink
  8. Quoting the dude:

    “What is troubling to me is the ‘fruit’ that bares out of this “we have to have two incomes (Mr. Cleaver)” mentality when you look back at the cost of things and the tax structure of say…the 1950’s (which was hugely penal) …”

    Could someone tell me what this means? How does fruit ‘bare’ out? Perhaps he means ‘bear out,’ which is not a turn of phrase typically applied to fruit? What’s with the Mr. Cleaver comment – didn’t June stay at home to raise the Beav? And while the marginal tax rates in the 50s were a little harsher than today, I don’t know what it means to call them “penal.” Was a middle-class lifestyle literally like prison?

    I mean, what is being said by this guy? What’s going on other than incoherent anger?

    Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 2:39 pm | Permalink
  9. tree wrote:

    Ah yes, the guts! That’s where I do all my science.

    this is my new favourite thing!

    @Professor Coldheart — the fruit is naked, see? because when a woman goes out to work she doesn’t care about her child and therefore leaves it without clothes, clothes that are a symbol of her love. and no one else can provide love clothes for the child because that’s the mother’s job, damn it!

    Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 3:07 pm | Permalink
  10. Samantha B. wrote:

    @Professor Coldheart, there was *much* greater taxation on the very wealthiest in the 1950 than now, meaning their was less economic inequality when measured alongside educational attainment. So the douchebag has negated his own arguments entirely if he is, as he suggests, talking about your average middle class American family. If he’s talking about fucking Daddy Warbucks’ wife and kids, then, sure, he’s dead on. Otherwise, he’s just full of right wing dishonesty.

    Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 3:25 pm | Permalink
  11. Garland Grey wrote:

    I was just struck by a sudden urge to start a parody Tumblr called Dadaisms – “Girls, to make your man love you, you must wrestle a salmon into the abyss of your own concupiscence” that sort of stuff – but the name is already taken. [SAD TRUMPET]

    Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 3:55 pm | Permalink
  12. (( Okay, apparently this is Mags Fails The Internet Month, because I simply cannot find the ‘hey, contact TBD’ link/button/info. I know it was there, and I know I’ve seen it, but hell if I know where it is. Anyway, I saw this commercial and simply had to see what Team Tiger Beatdown would make of it.

    … now back to your regular scheduled awesome.))

    Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 4:21 pm | Permalink
  13. Alice wrote:

    First of all. I. Love. This. Blog. I only ran across it about a week ago, and have since been obsessively reading the archives. So, kudos. (Also, Sady: you are fucking hilarious. Your posts on Titanic and Avatar was some of the funniest shit I’ve seen in a long time. And you made some excellent points too.)

    Garland: I actually want to comment on something you did a while back – the August 12 post “I HATE I Love The Way You Lie.” Specifically, on this tidbit here:
    “(Yes, that is the same Dominic Monaghan who admitted he tried to taunt Fox into getting violent with him during the filming of this video! Why? He wanted a more realistic response! He wanted rage! This guy is method. He is the Stanislavski of douchebags.)”
    I did a little poking around, and found this article,, wherein the director of the video talks about how both actors, Fox and Monaghan, were taunting each other in order to work up the emotions they were portraying. I know this little parenthetical is only a small part of a larger article, most of which I agree with, but I wanted to point this out because: it’s the kind of thing that could make non-feminists more convinced that we’re all a bunch of illogical hysterics just taking everything out of context and making it a bigger deal than it is. Tiger Beatdown is way too awesome to be THAT blog.

    OK that’s all, and thanks for listening.

    Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 4:40 pm | Permalink
  14. of making many books wrote:


    Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 5:03 pm | Permalink
  15. Chai Latte wrote:

    Wow, dude, epic fail on an epic scale. His unasked-for and totally useless advice served no purpose whatsover. I hope she didn’t dignify this sexist fossil with a response.

    Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 5:05 pm | Permalink
  16. AngryPunkPixie wrote:

    i only have one thing to say……..AAAAAARRRRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

    Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 5:56 pm | Permalink
  17. I made the mistake of visiting Joe’s mansplanation tumblr. What an irritating douchenoozle.

    Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 5:56 pm | Permalink
  18. Roving Thundercloud wrote:

    “craven mind games disguised as folksy paternal wisdom”

    Garland wins the Internets today!

    Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 6:35 pm | Permalink
  19. Professor Coldheart – I think his attempted point is that people say that we need two incomes now, when families could get by one on in the fifties, but that this isn’t true, because taxes were higher in the fifties. So, it’s a standard right wing mistake that taxes are what make life expensive instead of, oh, housing, health care, education, etc. It’s also telling that the taxes that were higher in the ’50s were on top rates and corporations. In other words, life is economically harder on most of us now than in the 50s, but back then there was still some sense that the ones at the top had an obligation to the society. Now the rich can do whatever the fuck they want, so no one is allowed to use economic necessity as an ‘excuse’ for those uppity bitches to work.

    Or something like that.

    Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 7:40 pm | Permalink
  20. Victoria wrote:

    I teach freshman comp. This is exactly the kind of stuff the well-meaning but clueless nice young men who’ve never had sex write about in their first essays. After they’ve been out of their parents’ houses for a few weeks, most of them wise up.

    Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 8:10 pm | Permalink
  21. alexandra wrote:

    WAIT. can we discuss

    Re: Attracting/Getting a guy to notice

    on this blog?
    I only read the first few paragraphs and was shocked and appalled! It is a list of things that girls should do to make them suck less?

    “10. Hit the gym – (Boo Dad…Boo!!!) Good guys (read that again) don’t expect a size 2. They have the same battle as women, but its with the size of their wallets, so don’t think it is one sided. Good guys (remember what we are going striving for) know down the road that things like a good conversationalist, good mothering traits, and an interesting mate make for a great life-long partner, but guys are visually wired (sorry). You’ll look better, feel better, and appear more vibrant to guys when you work out. Good guys don’t expect a barbie doll…just your personal best.”

    guh guh guh

    Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 10:21 pm | Permalink
  22. tinfoil hattie wrote:

    I have yet to meet a mother … that has chosen to stay at home with their child say, “God, I wish I would have went back to work instead of stayed at home with my child”.

    I have to agree with him here. Not one woman I know who stays/ed home with her kid would ever say “… I wish I would have went back to work …”

    Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 10:29 pm | Permalink
  23. tinfoil hattie wrote:

    Also – this loser is only 38! Still plenty of time to bloviate and mansplain about how we wimmen are doin’ it wrong! Wrong, I tells ya!

    Wednesday, October 13, 2010 at 10:38 pm | Permalink
  24. savorydish wrote:

    Steph @,
    unless you can explain to me how I’m part of the “back in the kitchen, bitch” brigade. I’m going to have to assume you’re losing your grip on reality again. When are you going to stop playing the victim?

    Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 12:59 am | Permalink
  25. speedbudget wrote:

    Professor, the other thing he neglects to mention is that wages have been stagnant since the 50s. So in actual dollars, your income was much higher in the 50s as compared to today. Inflation has gone up, and we’ve added costs like health insurance that we didn’t have before and wages have not gone up very much if at all since.

    That’s what all these right wingers refuse to see: Living wages would be the only way to make it so you don’t have to have two incomes in order to survive. And they never consider that one of those people might be working solely for the insurance benefits their company provides. Or maybe they do see it, but it makes their corporate overlords upset, so they just ignore it.

    Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 8:08 am | Permalink
  26. Travis wrote:


    Pops has taught me a few things (about what women should be doing for me):
    *If I call a girl and ask for a date, and she’s not interested, she has a responsibility to let me down easy and ensure my ego isn’t bruised
    *If she wants us to have a romantic evening together watching Seinfeld, and I just wanna play Xbox because I had a long day at work, it’s because she hasn’t earned my respect yet
    *(Direct freaking quote)”Men are like over-grown 3rd graders. Every time we color a picture, we do it for you. Guys want, no, need you to make a big deal out of what they do. Brag about him whenever you can. Tell your friends (in a loud voice over the phone) how lucky you are, because in the heart of every good guy resides a pleasing nature”

    It really is amazing the amount of infantilization the old man expects from ladies–nothing works unless they regulate every aspect of their behavior. All a guy really has to do is be “nice” or “romantic” or “of high character”. But like GG and other have said, it goes back to control, and the best way to control someone is to give them lots of specific instructions but only the most vague of goals, so they can always try and never succeed.

    I only went in about three pages, but does Dad ever weigh in on rape or sexual assault? I can see it now:

    (Black and white picture of a single lily lying in a rain gutter)
    If you let your flower bloom too soon, men are going to pluck it. Men are pluckers, that’s all. Try wrapping your entire body in black cloth, so you can focus on improving your conversation skills and overall morality”

    Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 11:53 am | Permalink
  27. Garland Grey wrote:

    @Savorydish Just because Tila Tequila is open about her sexuality does not mean she loses control over her body or her image, and doesn’t give a rancid douche like you license to launch into amateur speculation about her mental state or personal history. If you can’t understand that GET THE FUCK OFF MY COMMENT THREAD.

    Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 12:11 pm | Permalink
  28. Brennan wrote:

    Am I the only one who finds it incredibly creepy that he apparently signs some of his “advice” columns as “Dad”? It’s a helluva insult to my father, that’s for sure. Sorry, dude, *my* Dad is not a total douchebag and also has some grasp of basic grammar.

    Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 1:41 pm | Permalink
  29. Ali wrote:

    I mean seriously, does he actually have a real human daughter to whom he is giving this “advice” (emphasis on the quote marks) all the time? In real life and not on the internet where she could just roll her eyes and shut down the page? We need to mobilise some kind of Tiger Beatdown special ops task force to go in and save the poor girl, STAT.

    Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 3:13 pm | Permalink
  30. the rejectionist wrote:

    @Garland: “Shit my Dada says” is available, FYI.You say concupiscence, I say fungible!

    Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 4:11 pm | Permalink
  31. savorydish wrote:

    @Garland Grey
    I’m sorry that all the mean kids in school picked on you, but that’s no reason to continue indulging in your victim complex.
    Expressing your sexuality doesn’t make you crazy. Being crazy makes you crazy. If you did some research you would find that Tila’s mental illness is well-documented, including Tila’s own threats of suicide on Twitter. By dismissing her illness you are endangering her life as well as the lives of others. Perhaps you should do some more research before you open your big mouth.

    Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 4:54 pm | Permalink
  32. Lilith wrote:


    You do not know what a victim complex is, please stop using the term. That’s two people now you’ve claimed are ‘playing the victim’ and yet I’ve not seen any behavior from them that would justify this, nor have you precisely pointed out how they are ‘playing the victim’ other than disagreeing with you. One can only come to the conclusion that you think /anyone/ who disagrees with you or criticizes you has victim issues and so somehow couldn’t have anything legitimate to say. You’re just using it as some catch-all silencing tactic. Bad form.

    Telling people to do research about for /your/ unsubstantiated claim you yourself cannot provide direct links or any back-up to seems.. kind of odd. I do believe the burden of proof is on you, especially with such a serious claim as that. Otherwise you just come across as a slut-shaming (to you, ‘promiscuous’ = mentally ill… yeah, okay) troll.

    Lastly, I read through your blog a little bit. You’ll forgive me if I find it hard to believe you’re looking out for Tila Tequila. You even went to that old misogynistic victim-blaming trope that she really /wanted/ sex tapes to get out and that even though, y’know, she’s fighting for it to /stop/ distribution she’s obviously just ‘pretending’ and is just ‘looking for attention’. It’s odd that in your ‘infinite’ wisdom you can just decide that it’s anyone who takes a woman at her word is ‘naive’. Because what does /she/ know, right? She’s a woman who made a sex tape, /clearly/ she was just ‘asking for it’ to get put out and doesn’t have the right to complain.

    You’re engaging in the same virgin/whore dichotomy and slut shaming that is constantly paraded about in these situations. It’s not that no one can take what you’re saying.. they’ve just heard it all before.

    I will say, with full confidence, you are definitely a Joe. You come across as arrogant, patronizing and self-righteous as you go on about Tila Tequila’s life and how she /should/ be running it or how she should be forced to get help. This pseudo-concern has followed women all their lives and has often been used an excuse to justify trying to control them. It’s the idea that people like you know what’s best for them and that they don’t know their own minds but /you/ do so it’s best if you take the wheel. You’re a concern troll, you’re a Joe. If anyone has issues, it’s you.

    Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 7:31 pm | Permalink
  33. Tamina wrote:

    Ah, I see it all now. You write your rancid scribbling because you’re motivated by a DEEP and PERSONAL concern for her safety and well-being. Someone mentioning that that might not be the most consctructive or nicest thing in the world just doesn’t CARE like you do.

    Sorry, try again.

    Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 7:40 pm | Permalink
  34. savorydish wrote:

    I could care less about Tila Tequila. But if her antics help bring light to mental disorders
    then maybe her fame will serve a purpose. I’m not interested in being nice. I’m interested in showing people there is reason why these troubled souls hide behind glitz and glam. I’m interested in seeing these people get help so they stop inflicting their drama on the world. As in the drama you, Steph and Garland are demonstrating. Lashing out at me won’t make the pain of your past go away.

    Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 8:19 pm | Permalink
  35. Garland Grey wrote:

    @Savorydish Wow, that hurt real bad, SD. I am utterly destroyed by your seemingly-clairvoyant insight into my mental state. I’m curious, how much did that secondhand copy of the DSM cost you? Was the Psychology class mail order, or what’s going on here?

    Yes, as a young gay man growing up in Texas I was picked on and harassed. My narcissism imagines you saw my video for the “It Gets Better” Project and imagined you could silence me with it. The problem with that is, your writing is completely transparent. To me and to everyone who reads this comment thread. You wield this analytical tool, poorly, and imagine it gives you some sort of power. What is it about you that needs that sort of power over other people?

    I don’t have a problem with your maladroit psychic fumblings – after a lifetime of dealing with bullies I’ve learned to completely ignore personal attacks and focus on the motivation behind them. But let me ASSURE you of something – you are being allowed to comment on Tiger Beatdown because Steph wanted to know what we thought of you. The minute she or anyone else gets tired of you, the conversation is over. We won’t be carrying it over to your blog because your blog sucks and is boring. We won’t be writing about you because I can’t imagine any of us having all that much to say about you. You’re a bully. You’re not very good at it.

    Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 10:07 pm | Permalink
  36. Kate wrote:

    @ Samantha B No, no. You only model on the REAL parent, the father. The mother is only a vessel for life, not an ACTUAL life. The children can safely ignore her, except as a giver of food and other basic necessities. Everyone knows that the sperm carries the entire soul, and in the same way the father carries the entire behaviour model. I mean, duh!

    First lesson of the internet, dad-splainer. Your childhood issues of being unloved and unfilfilled are NO ONE ELSES PROBLEM. Also, other people are not you. Also, we understand. We just don’t care.

    I feel that the above bears reiterating with an @savorydish. I believe that you were the first one to lash out – the fact that your first sentence in this thread is questioning another person’s mental health is indicative. Maybe you have the best of intentions (to the man with a hammer, everything is a nail?) but either way. This bit of the internet is NOT FOR YOU.

    Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 10:23 pm | Permalink
  37. savorydish wrote:

    Wow Garland you certainly have a flair for high drama. But I wasn’t trying to hurt you. That would be like kicking a wounded animal. And I can tell that you have had more than your fair share of pain.

    Interesting how you and Steph share the same defense-mechanisms. But once again, lashing out at me won’t heal those wounds. Despite your high and mighty sermons, you and Steph are no saints. Just because both of you have been victimized, it doesn’t give you the right to go around acting out like a bunch of raging assholes. The both of you need to stop making the world suffer for your pain.

    If you have issues with my blog, I will gladly discuss it with you like a gentleman. But if you are going to soil your panties like some drama queen. I will leave you to throw tantrums on your own.

    I only showed up because Steph called me out and directed traffic to my site. She did that because when she is feeling vulnerable she seeks the support of other damaged/angry souls. You can thank her for bringing me here. I don’t need your validation or your visits. But if you’re going to call me out, I am going to return the favor. I can see that you’re threatened by me, but it’s a sad state of affairs when someone has to act like King of the Internet Thread to compensate for childhood insecurities. I won’t invade your safe haven, if you and your angry friends keep your big mouths shut. With that I sincerely hope you and all the other troubled souls here find peace some day.

    Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 11:07 pm | Permalink
  38. savorydish wrote:

    Better yet, if you don’t like my blog.If it really upsets you that much. Don’t read it. Don’t lash out. Don’t make absurd accusations. Show me that you are well-adjusted adults. No need for a lengthy declaration. My feelings won’t be hurt.

    Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 11:33 pm | Permalink
  39. Lilith wrote:


    I give that flounce an 8, 8.5. It was a little wobbly there but you managed to stick to it. Though, really, no points for originality. You managed to parade some of the most tired of stock replies. “You overreacting!”, “Omg stop being angry, I’m just being an condescending asshole!”, “Implying you’re the objective and rational one in the conversation” (Because calling anyone who doesn’t agree with you mentally ill or damaged is /so/ rational you guys!)

    Also, good job with the continuing passive-aggressiveness, pretentious faux-psychology and paternalistic behavior. At least take a class before you try. Also, ‘the whole world’, are you implying that anyone calling out your bullying crap is ‘making the whole world suffer’? How full of yourself are you really? XD

    Thursday, October 14, 2010 at 11:48 pm | Permalink
  40. Elise wrote:

    Great article, Garland. “Dad” reminds me of so many of my middle and elementary school teachers who told me my mother was going to Hell (with a big “H”) because she worked instead of staying home to raise me. All without considering whether or not my family could keep afloat without two incomes, much less keep me going to their fancy-pants school without my mom working her rear end off every day.

    And, of course, The Guts is the best source of science ever – the generous application of Gut Sense can prove ANYTHING (provided you don’t mind a lack of actual data or theories to support your hypotheses).

    Friday, October 15, 2010 at 12:31 am | Permalink
  41. Garland Grey wrote:

    @SavoryDish Wow, reading that was really pleasurable for me. Like, I stopped in the middle to get some Pepper Jack Cheez-Its because I wanted to take the time to really enjoy your comment. And I did.

    By the time I got to “wounded animal” I knew that a) I had gotten under your skin b) you really thought you could hurt me with this Fisher Price “Baby’s First Flame War” nonsense you’re spouting and c) I really don’t need to do anything else. I mean, you’re a mean, nasty person. You probably don’t form deep, lasting relationships, and you’ll probably end up one of those boxes of ashes no one comes to pick up at the crematory. HOWEVER, that’s twice you’ve told me to keep my big mouth shut. You need to check your need to silence everyone that doesn’t agree with you, because you are only going to drive yourself into an early ashbox that way.

    Having said all that, you are starting to bore the ever-loving shit out of me so I’m going to just start deleting any comment from you that isn’t substantive. With the understanding that if I don’t like something on your little web site, and want to write about it, I will.

    See you in the funny pages.

    Friday, October 15, 2010 at 1:15 am | Permalink
  42. Sooz wrote:

    “I’m interested in seeing these people get help so they stop inflicting their drama on the world.”

    SavoryDish, did you MEAN for this to sound like “I don’t really care about them I just want to not know about them” because that is really how that sounds.

    Which, um, kind of makes you sound like you are not the most empathetic and trustworthy person ever.

    Friday, October 15, 2010 at 5:17 pm | Permalink
  43. savorydish wrote:

    I care about people I know.
    It would be disingenuous for me to say I care about people I don’t know. You don’t really know me, so I guess you’ll never know if I’m trustworthy or not. If certain individuals want to stay angry that’s their prerogative. I just ask they keep it to themselves. When someone brings his/her hostility and drama to my front doorstep, then it becomes my business. But if they want to implode in the privacy of their own home, I could care less.

    Friday, October 15, 2010 at 6:24 pm | Permalink
  44. Turing wrote:

    Holy shit, how did this turn into a bitchfest about Tila Tequila?

    Seriously, I really want to know, this seems like an interesting bitchfest and I am just wondering how some rando who made a blog post (and then apparently deleted it when someone pointed out it was hideously embarrassing) suddenly became all about Garland Grey’s opinion on Tila Tequila.

    Also, I am totally interested in Garland Grey’s opinion on Tila Tequila! And in abusing! Exclamation! Points! Because! This! Is! TBD!

    Friday, October 15, 2010 at 6:45 pm | Permalink
  45. Ellie wrote:

    I know this little parenthetical is only a small part of a larger article, most of which I agree with, but I wanted to point this out because: it’s the kind of thing that could make non-feminists more convinced that we’re all a bunch of illogical hysterics just taking everything out of context and making it a bigger deal than it is. Tiger Beatdown is way too awesome to be THAT blog.

    All feminist blogs are THAT BLOG to hysterical anti-feminists. There’s no point in pandering to them.

    In other words (to quote a great feminist), BONERS.

    Friday, October 15, 2010 at 8:30 pm | Permalink
  46. Ellie wrote:

    How annoying. That whole thing wasn’t meant to be italicized. Just the first (quoted) paragraph.

    Friday, October 15, 2010 at 8:35 pm | Permalink
  47. savorydish wrote:


    Friday, October 15, 2010 at 9:07 pm | Permalink
  48. Turing wrote:

    Not all vague but condemning fingers pointed at people you would like to silence are dumb. But the vast majority that are give you enough reason before pointing said finger. I implore you to save yourself before you leave another horribad comment.

    Saturday, October 16, 2010 at 12:02 am | Permalink
  49. Sooz wrote:

    Why are you even still here, SD? Are you expecting someone here to go, “No wait guys, ey’s totally right! We are all poor, pathetic mentally ill people with no business saying things where people can read them! We should shut the blog and comments down and go quietly slip into despair until we are compelled to suicide, because internet user Savory Dish does not like what we have to say!”

    I mean seriously, what on Earth do you expect to happen from this discourse on a blog that is full of people who disagree with you?

    Saturday, October 16, 2010 at 11:56 am | Permalink
  50. savorydish wrote:


    Saturday, October 16, 2010 at 4:07 pm | Permalink
  51. Sooz wrote:

    I love this blog so much. <3

    Saturday, October 16, 2010 at 5:47 pm | Permalink
  52. Elise wrote:

    Also [BONERS]

    Saturday, October 16, 2010 at 6:29 pm | Permalink
  53. savorydish wrote:


    Saturday, October 16, 2010 at 6:52 pm | Permalink
  54. Amazon wrote:

    Just a brief comment seeing as I randomly found my way here ;)

    I’m not a fan of feminism when its used to attack other people, but here, its used to try and bring awareness to all…I believe we should all be treated with respect irregardless of what sex or orientation we are :)

    But…I have to love Savorydish’s comments – he has failed to realise its his life he’s wasting by commenting here…admittidly not much of a life so maybe its all good really…saving the rest of the world from him for a bit… ;)

    Ok, I’m off, keep up the good work and enjoy life!

    Saturday, October 16, 2010 at 6:53 pm | Permalink
  55. Sooz wrote:

    In all seriousness, SD: You remind me a lot of myself pre-medicated. If you are feeling like you cannot possibly tear yourself away from the comments here- even after it’s quite clear that you are being mocked at worst and just not paid attention to at best- possibly you should talk to a headshrinker?

    I mean, that’s just from one dystymic with an obsessive compulsive personality. Maybe you do not have a similar problem. I mean, I guess maybe your browser is stuck on this page on something.

    Saturday, October 16, 2010 at 7:31 pm | Permalink
  56. Sooz wrote:

    But anyway, on topic!

    I have a big problem with someone saying that eir way is THE BEST AND ONLY POSSIBLE WAY!!! I mean, it can kind of be the case in a major abstract, like “It is not really possible to raise a well-functioning human being without love, care, and caloric intake,” but I am p. sure that these ladies who came out of his idyllic Fantasy 50s who said, “You know that staying at home and raising kids thing? FUCK THAT SHIT, YO,” were not doing it because they were… I dunno, possessed by Rita Repulsa or something. Amazingly, some people do not work well with the Majority Way of Life! Some people do better as stay-at-home dads! Some people work best in a two-income setting! And they manage to produce humans who are not more fucked-up than is the norm!

    Perhaps the feller in question ought to get to know some folks raised by working moms or something before he decides they are all fucked up. I mean, I think I’m fairly good, other than a God-given chemical imbalance in the brainmeats.

    Saturday, October 16, 2010 at 7:42 pm | Permalink