The title of my blog refers to an episode of a game show (Pyramid?) in which one player gets another to guess "Birkenstock" with the clue "ugly shoes that lesbians wear." (On a side note, I spelled Birkenstock wrong, and one of the suggestions spell-check gave me was "Bluestocking."). And of course, every anti-feminist idiot will site ugly shoes as a defining, and damning, characteristic of feminists.
You know, if the worst thing they can say about us is that we wear ugly shoes, you've got a pretty flimsy case against us, kids. If the best you can do to argue with people who believe in equality for men and women is that we're ugly, well then, you don't have an ugly shod leg to stand on. I happen to be gorgeous, and I have fantastic shoes.
I wonder, though, exactly where the stereotype even comes from. Is it that women who have the audacity to try to break free from discrimination could only want to do so because they can't find a man? Is it that being pretty is a full time job and doesn't allow any room for having thoughts or careers? How do you contest an argument that is so fundamentally stupid? What logical response could stand a chance against such an alarming lack of logic?
Some other arguments floating around the Interwebs about us man-hating ball busters:
We're all lesbians. Obviously.
Rape isn't real - feminists largely made it up to punish men for having sex.
Women are taking all the men's jobs, and they're not qualified to do them
Nobody holds us accountable for our actions
We won't be happy until men are submissive (OK, well who can argue with that?)
That last argument, though, tells us a lot. If women were once dominated and want to now dominate, and that's a bad thing, than it is correct that men should be the ones who dominate. In making this argument, anti-feminists are explicitly saying that men should dominate women, and then they claim that men do not want to dominate women.
Thanks to Renee for the info on Margaret Fuller.