You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Feminsim’ tag.
Greetings nature lovers, today we get to observe in the wild an all to common animal – the delusional oppressed male. Deep in the basement man-cave, writing furious man-words about how terrible men have it, and why women bitches have it so darn good. I think dissertations like the one about to follow are reason enough to be wary of the hermetic bubbles that can form in internet land, where critical thought is extinguished and replaced by the toxic group-think that masquerades as reasonable thought.
Our featured whinger extraordinaire is Red Shambhala and his very… umm… nuanced view of feminism and the female role in society.
““I’m a feminist who loves rough sex“, “I’m a queer little“, “How I reconciled feminism with my first step into the dark side of BDSM”, “Why I’m Both Sexually Submissive AND A Feminist” – put feminism and BDSM into a search engine and you will quickly be greeted by numerous articles about stronk feminist womyn who have stopped worrying and loved to learn the whip.”
Fascinating premise. BDSM, or the replication of male violence and female submission for fun?!? isn’t a particularly feminist act, nor like much of the rest of liberal feminism, worth examining past the idea that any ideological stance that centres men and their feelings can not rightly be called feminist. So Red Shitolya is already off to a bad start.
“Meanwhile, Return of Kings et al. are more than eager to similarly praise BDSM as something women “secretly” want (but just do not want to admit) and men should therefore do
towithfor them.”
Unsurprising, as BDSM reinforces patriarchal ideals, why wouldn’t misogynists be all over such propositions?
“What these seemingly disparate groups have in common is that they are primarily concerned about what women want.”
Doubtful. RoK and liberal feminists may both support the current status quo, but exhibit markedly different levels of clueless foolishness that detract from the work of feminism proper (e.g. the emancipation of females from the strictures of patriarchy).
“Obviously, liberals and conservatives, left-wingers and right-wingers cannot exactly agree on what precisely it is the fair sex allegedly wants, but they do share the same gynocentric framework, namely in posing the question, “What do women want?”, and then attempting to answer said question.”
To be treated as fully human in society is a great place to start. And what exactly the fuck is a gynocentric framework. Referring to a topic isn’t “centric” anything. Biologists talking about their work are not being bio-centric. Of the many tells Male Rights Activists give, this is one of the most obvious – the inversion of the power structure in society. Somehow females, the class that holds less power, is taken less seriously, and is abused more in society has all the power and is always up to “no good” and wants to enslave all men to their dastardly agenda. By “no good” I mean opposing the current patriarchal status quo of course. But the very notion that dudes exist in a society that they made and directly benefits them in a myriad of ways is quite past the event horizon of most MRA’s; as appreciating tangible facts is quite outside their wheelhouse.
“Antifeminism, however, should not be about giving a different answer to the frustrated query “What do women want?” but, rather, about asking alternative questions: “What do men actually want? And why the hell do we only care about what women want?”“
What we have today in society is what men want, you feckless douche nozzle. Losing your place privileged place in society and actually have to treat everyone with respect is not the shit-your-pants apocalyptic nightmare you envision. Not even close.
“The current omnipresence of gynocentric thought, however, should not leave one with the impression that focusing exclusively on the desires of females has always been unchallenged.”
The level of unhinged quickly goes past 11. Back here in reality, the world is still dominated by male thought, male writers, captains of industry, academia, art, and literature. We are drowning in the dudeish perspective and it fucking sucks. The half of the world that isn’t represented by said male view needs to see itself portrayed in literature, culture, and business. The few inroads into male dominated fields represent a clear and present danger to MRA’s like the Red Shitola, and as always their fears are based on the dark nightmare fuel that is regurgitated through the manosphere.
“There are both secular as well as religious alternatives to subordinating everything to the vapid whims and wills of women. Christianity, for instance, teaches that “man is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man.” (1 Corinthians 11:7). “
This book that says its a sin to wear clothing of mixed fibres is now an authority on how a modern society should work. *shaking head*
“Likewise, the book of Genesis tells us that Satan, the great deceiver who attempts to leads humanity astray, tempted Eve by talking her into believing that she could be like God. Meanwhile, Adam was similarly tempted and convinced that he should follow the proud female’s advice.”
And the burning bush is full of wisdom of the ages. Citing the bible to back your claims is a risible practice at best, and to be honest boring as heck.
“Even from a non-Christian perspective one has to admit that both men and women are indeed often tempted to put women in the place that is traditionally reserved for the only God in Abrahamic religions.”
Our heroic dude-bro, cites two examples the exact opposite of what he states in the following paragraph. Consistency, what the fuck is it?
“Consider, for instance, how many pagan religions worship motherhood goddesses and how the evil US Empire is able to justify its imperialist wars by claiming that they only murder in order to “liberate” women.”
What are you talking about, you’re not making any sense. Does anyone else here think that our beloved Red Shitola is a avid follower of Alex Jones? He’s making about that level of sense …
“Be that as it may, according to the holy texts of Christianity, the punishment for sin was not only death but also that the women’s desire is now “contrary to her husband.” Before the fall, the female gladly fulfilled her roles as the submissive helper she was created for by the Christian’s God – after the fall, she is now boisterous and unsubmissive, her desire is now “contrary” to her husband. Hence, a female refusing to submit is both sin and the result of sin.”
When people ask about how religion reinforces patriarchal notions and the patriarchal status quo I should just reference this Joker and his man-boner for the good ole days where you could just straight up kill disobedient women. The notion that we need to combat this fierce imbalance the world over rather than propagate it, must seem like some fanciful feminist dream conspiracy. Of course, the nearer one comes to reality, the more out of touch it seems to delusional dudes such as Red Shitola.
“This is not to say that I support Christianity or believe the teachings of Jesus to have the power to repair Western society, but there might be an occasional diamond to pluck from the dunghill of Abrahamic religions. “
Oh hey, all that stuff I said about religion and stuff, I don’t actually believe it anything. But if a credulous source happens to fit my world-veiw, I’ll endorse it with aplomb. Because fuck critical thinking and analysis, they too must be part of gynocentric thought frameworks…
“If memory serves, it was Fyodor Shcherbatskoy (1866-1942), the great Russian Indologist largely responsible for laying the foundations in the Western world for the scholarly study of Buddhism, who once replied that he did not approve of his contemporaries’ literal attack on the Christian churches, but, rather, considered Torah, Bible, Talmud and Qur’an to be “cultural treasure chambers.” So, maybe the saints and sages of the past do have a thing or two to teach us about women.”
You know how I just said that religion was crap? Just after saying it wasn’t crap to begin with? Yes, well religion once again isn’t crap. I think the feminist overlords broke into this guys computer and changed the dictionary meanings of ‘convoluted’ and ‘nuanced’ because you can feel the all the (erroneous) mental work that has gone into this tepid series of contradictory paragraphs. It’s like he’s occasionally seen good writing but then somehow mistook his rubegoldberg-esque pap for that good writing and declared it a masterpiece. Another solid victory for Dunning-Kruger.
“To return to the main point, BDSM is essentially a faux-surrogate for actual dominance and actual submission. Instead of a sweet, warm and submissive helper whose cheeks blush upon receiving a playful slap on her bum, men now have to deal with ugly, boisterous feminists who want their boyfriends to spit in their faces, whip and abuse them, and simulate rape like conditions.“
Wait, what? You are blaming women for the pornified violent BDSM culture? Of course you are, as women are always to blame for the shitty things men do and say.
“For whatever reason, internet virgins sometimes seem to believe that women being into BDSM is a sign of femininity, but the opposite is true.”
How do you even get here from what you’ve said? This is masterclass in pulling random shit of ones ass and calmly stating it as ‘fact’.
“The more feminist a female is, the more pain and humiliation she needs in order to still feel like a woman in the bedroom. Likewise, the more feminine a woman is, the less she wants you to hurt and to humiliate her.”
What? Feminism takes a dim view of the abusive nature of BDSM and realizes the replication of the patriarchal status quo. This is the notion on display that there is ‘one true nature’ for the women-folk and that those haughty outliers (who dare speak against patriarchy) somehow need to be broken down to enjoy the true awesomeness of being part of the oppressed, submissive, servile class. Fucking disgusting this pornified dudes fantasies on display for the world to read.
“To sum up, the faux “dominance” of consensual sadomasochism is outright pathetic. “
Because we need the real life version because that somehow is ‘better’ for all involved.
So. Much. Misogyny.
“This is not to say that BDSM and fetishes are generally sick, “degenerate”, sinful, wrong and yada yada yada. Men should be aware, though, that women want to reduce men to the status of dogs; dogs that look dark and dangerous and threatening when they bark, and are yet on the leash of the female, who only has to snap her fingers once to make him roleplay as a “master” in the bedroom, and then snap her fingers twice in order to transform him back into her little beta boi. Men deserve better than that. “
Taking a position must be a hard thing to do in the manosphere, because the level of contradiction is off the scale.
You tepid underwear stain of a human being; men are not oppressed in society. Understand that men design, maintain, and propagate this system we live in for their benefit, why would they want to maintain the status-quo if it wasn’t good for them.
Your connection with reality is tenuous at best. Please stop writing and wasting precious electrons your self-abrogating tortured prose. The delusional MRA funhouse framework you exist in is an affront to rationality and clear thinking. In short, you are making the world a worse place to be in and you don’t even realize it.
And that friends is the truly scary part.
Let me assure you though, it has nothing to do with patriarchy, the gender binary or any of those things that feminists seem to talk about all the time.
The fear women live with everyday manifested itself in one of the most horrific ways in New Dehli.
“The woman and a male friend, who have not been identified, were on a bus in New Delhi after watching a film on the evening of Dec. 16 when they were attacked by six men who raped her. The men beat the couple and inserted an iron rod into the woman’s body, resulting in severe organ damage. Both were then stripped and thrown off the bus, according to police.”
Their culture, like our culture, is a rape culture. Women are deemed sexual objects for use and abuse by men.
“Despite all efforts by a team of eight specialists in Mount Elizabeth hospital to keep her stable, her condition continued to deteriorate over these two days,” Loh said. “She had suffered from severe organ failure following serious injuries to her body and brain. She was courageous in fighting for her life for so long against the odds, but the trauma to her body was too severe for her to overcome.”
She is unnamed, she is dead. The existing (patriarchal) system tries to justify what happened:
“The tragedy has forced India to confront the reality that sexually assaulted women are often blamed for the crime, which forces them to keep quiet and not report it to authorities for fear of exposing their families to ridicule. Also, police often refuse to accept complaints from those who are courageous enough to report the rapes, and the rare prosecutions that reach courts drag on for years.
Indian attitudes toward rape are so entrenched that even politicians and opinion makers have often suggested that women should not go out at night or wear clothes that might be seen as provocative.”
Victim blaming is on the first page of the rapist’s playbook. It happens in India, and it happens here in North America. One in four women experience sexual assault/rape in our society – the same barriers in India are present here in North America that deny women justice and protect and promote rape culture. They are working on the problem in India:
“Nehra Kaul Mehra, a young Indian studying urban and gender policing at Colombia University in the United States, said, “We come from a feudal and patriarchal set-up where we value men more than women.
“We kill daughters before they are born. Those who live are fed less, educated less and segregated from boys,” she said with a black band of protest around her mouth.
Sonia Gandhi, the governing Congress party chief, assured the protesters in a statement that the rape victim’s death “deepens our determination to battle the pervasive, the shameful social attitudes and mindset that allow men to rape and molest women and girls with such an impunity.”
What needs to happen is like the following statement.
“The outrage now should lead to law reform that criminalizes all forms of sexual assault, strengthens mechanisms for implementation and accountability, so that the victims are not blamed and humiliated,” Ganguly said.
Amen to that.
Ah yes, tokenism at its best. Just imagine the dudely outrage when called out on this particular trope. See! See! We have a female character… oh wait.
*update – textual goodness*
Take note of the Male-to-Female ratio.
“I’m the only girl.”
— Marzipan, Homestar Runner
— Marzipan, Homestar Runner
For any series not aimed solely at females, odds are high that only one female will be in the regular cast. The Smurfette Principle is the tendency for works of fiction to have exactly one female amongst an ensemble of male characters, in spite of the fact that roughly half of the human race is female. Unless a show is purposefully aimed at a female viewing audience, the main characters will tend to be disproportionately male. In many series, men will have various different personalities, but women will always be The Chick. Thus, by the Law of Conservation of Detail , you only need one. In other cases, the women are feminized versions of existing male characters. This trope has lessened over time, but even now it often applies to animated fare aimed at boys or a general audience. This is especially serious when the regular cast is full of synthetic entities or other species which have a voice or are sufficiently humanoid; these will always be more masculine than feminine, with any feminine examples receiving special attention, suggesting that women are merely an unusual subtype of men. Why does this trope happen? Often, the problem lies with the source material — the work’s an adaptation of something written or created decades before equal recognition for women started to gain momentum. Sometimes, however, writers will try to correct this problem by inserting a few more female characters or at least an Affirmative Action Girl. When the time for merchandising comes, unless the cast is all female, manufacturers won’t create as many figures of the female members as they would males of the franchise even if the series is Merchandise Driven (or at least, until the mid-90’s). This creates a vicious cycle in which The Smurfette Principle is upheld by both toy manufacturers and TV writers, each reasoning that the other will enforce it anyway. This may be because, statistically, companies believe that action figures of female characters don’t sell as well as the male ones, all evidence to the contrary. Of course, the shortage of female action figures to base those figures on can lead to another vicious cycle. In classic comedy animation or shows, especially slapstick, women are often absent because hitting a girl just isn’t considered funny. (In the case of harmless Amusing Injuries, this isn’t always the case.) This trope can also be justified by its unfortunate accuracy in certain contexts. It is fairly realistic for armies, police forces, adventuring parties, and similar groups to be predominantly male, especially if set in a non-Politically Correct History. As noted in the examples below, this trope is nearly universal in all forms of media. Most writers try to balance this out with Positive Discrimination, making the girl more intelligent and level-headed than everyone else, but it still doesn’t change the simple fact that there’s only one of her. Usually, all it does is turn her into a Mary Sue for everyone to loathe. Writers who recognize the problem after a season or two may expand the cast with Affirmative Action Girls. This is usually more effective. Interestingly, this can extend to Mooks and the Monster of the Week with Monogender Monsters, to avoid the Unfortunate Implications of violence against women. The name of this trope was first coined by an article in the New York Times printed April 7, 1991, called “The Smurfette Principle”
. The article discussed the negative message which this trope gave its young audience: that males are individuals who have adventures, while females are a type of deviation who exist only in relation to males.
The Male Rights Activists are a sad counter-current to the feminist movement of today. The MRA contingent seems mostly to promote nuclear grade stupidity, misogyny and ignorance; all while magically claiming that they are the oppressed class. The seismic levels of projection and butthurt reverberate from places like The Spearhead (I will not link directly to this site, as MRA trolls are persistent, bellicose and clueless)like a siren call for those generally white males who feel slighted by the fact women want to be treated like human beings and by that proposition WMP may have be turned down a bit from 11 to accommodate them. By the magic of cut and paste, we have an article lifted from the very fires of Mordor the mendaciously vapid hate mill entitled “Feminism as a Subsidy for Daughters of Wealthy“. I’ll update the article with reality as we go.
by W.F. Price on July 1, 2011
I’ve made the point a number of times that today, strident feminists are often from successful, well-heeled families. [How is that for a topic sentence? Not only are strident feminists rich, because he’s made the point earlier today it must be correct. The sheer amount of anecdata and projection are staggering in this “post”, and of course hilarity ensues.] Having attended a private school for some time as a kid [Which obviously makes me a sociological/statistical expert], I’ve long been well aware that wealthy urban women and girls embrace “progressive” feminism as a matter of course[Here is the first mention of the group we are supposed to hate…those damn womenz who have it so good, more privileged then men by gosh and by gum. Here is a thought, if you are lucky enough to be making a reasonable living it is likely that you’ve been exposed to post-secondary education and those wacky liberal view points like egalitarianism] . At first glance it would seem to be an entirely superfluous commitment [Poor grammar, like comma splices, are the least of our superfluous worries. The shitbarge content of this diatribe trumps any grammatical quibble] , as they have the world at their fingertips and lead the most privileged lives on the planet, but I’m starting to think there are practical benefits to it as well[Holy-frack batman, did you see that? Based on my butt-hurt feelings from boarding school I’m going to make hasty generalizations and set the stage for my “oppressed”male whinging] .
In the old days [Ah, the good ole days when half the population was treated like chattel], wealthy families always faced the issue of marrying off daughters. If lucky, their daughters would marry a successful man [Hypergamey is good, rememeber this point fair reader, there is a quiz] while young and no longer be a burden on the family[Patriarchal] finances, but if she didn’t find a suitable mate, or had to marry down, she could end up being quite expensive long-term [no elaboration, or mention of how, but trust him, the women they are a problematic bunch] — even possibly a scandalous, destabilizing influence on the family [citation needed].
Today, however, daughters of the wealthy glide right into nonprofit jobs paid for with government grant money [I’m going to get finger fatigue typing citation needed but fear not gentle readers I shall persevere], some get jobs as directors of this or that government program “for women and children,” and others take on fairly important positions in corporations or government agencies [Mr.Price knows this obvious ‘fact’ because well, he says so… and that should be good enough] that are now increasingly dominated [read equally represented, but then again equality is a dirty word for MRA’s.] by women due to affirmative action [Which really is the system that has been in place for white males since the inception of the modern state, but to be ahistorically sound, it simple should not be mentioned.].
For a wealthy or upper middle class father, having an adult daughter with a considerable income is a huge source of relief. Many of the girls I grew up with who[Wow, your sample size must mean that it is true across the board, because generalizing from your pitfully small data set is bound to produce good results] to put it tactfully, had quite ordinary capabilities and talents [again, your judgement must be sacrosanct because you are endowed with the penis], obtained advanced degrees and well-paid jobs in make-work positions that are overwhelmingly female[Really? Citation needed. Which make work positions would those be, teaching, nursing, academia perhaps? Because there are certainly no male make-work positions that exist *cough* middle-management. I had to toss my hat in the ring, as baseless arbitrary judgements seem to be the flavour of the day]. That wealthy men would support this is perfectly natural; if their daughters can earn a nice government or corporate salary [because that is all the womenz do is sponge off the public weal. As an aside, can you guess what Mr.Price’s views on socialism are? You get a shiny loony if you get it right.] it takes a great deal of pressure off them. Girls[Spot the misogyny! Mr.Price you are infatilizing one half of the population, you greasy-poopstain try people as a noun, it may seem funny at first, but I know you can do it.] who grow up accustomed to luxury cars, vacations in Aspen and platinum cards don’t give these nice things up without a hell of a fight, and from daddy’s perspective[because the contributions of women to society are not real until validated by a man?] it’s far better for Uncle Sam or the local corporate behemoth to be paying for these things than him.
For the women themselves, it allows them to pursue their luxurious [Mr.Price has never been to grad school or accustomed to the luxuries of the student lifestyle… but hey he’s been pulling so much out of his ass why not this claim as well?], hypergamous lifestyles[Mr.Price cannot remain even internally consistent, Hypergamey simply means marrying upwards in ones social hierarchy and something he is a firm supporter of, if you read his second paragraph. It is nice to see inchoate arguments along with the blatant fabrication going on, it is like a zesty side dish of fail.] without having to settle down at an earlier age and without having to answer to daddy[because women should be subservient to all men, not just their fathers; how many flavours of douche can Mr.Price be?]. For them, feminism has come to be another entitlement [err… basic human rights, that is not to be treated like property. Tomato, To-mah-to right??] that comes along with the privilege they’ve always[? – oh and citation needed] had. I think this explains why feminism is so overwhelmingly embraced by the urban upper classes.
———
Wow. Just wow. Mr.Price, seemly at a young age has been curb stomped by the hobnailed boots of the stupid-fairy and the beating took. And now he is broadcasting the stupid to the world, aren’t we lucky.
Part I was such a resounding success, it was only natural that Part II would also appear. Melissa McEwan’s thoughts returns to DWR in the form of a repost of her helpful hints for all the dudes out there. A big thanks to Shakesville for putting the concepts so clearly and succinctly.
Ms. McEwan says:
“Most blokes, whether they’re trying to be more feminist-minded or not, don’t consider themselves to be the sort of guy who disrespect women’s agency, and yet there are still myriad ways in which men are socialized to express ownership of women.
Here, I’m going to explore three of the prominent ways in which male ownership of women is expressed (and visit some ways in which they can be avoided): Exceptionalism, Breach of Consent, and Failure to Respect Agency.
Exceptionalism.
Some expressions of ownership are insidious, subtle but dangerous: Exceptionalism, which is singling out one woman as an exception to the rule—that is, saying she defies the stereotypes of womanhood—is a less obvious but no less pernicious expression of ownership.
A man who expresses exceptionalism about his mother, his sister, his wife, his girlfriend, his female friend(s)—”My [woman/women] aren’t like those other women!”—is implicitly marking territory around women related to him, the boundary marked by women he is willing to see as individuals, and all other women, who are stripped of their individual humanity to be regarded as a monolith.
It can be difficult for men to accept that exceptionalism, which is often intended as a compliment (and frequently received as such!—because women are socialized to hate women just as much as men are), is, in fact, a profoundly damaging anti-feminist practice. But the flipside of “complimenting” individual women by detaching them from womankind is turning the vast majority of women into an indistinguishable horde with universally contemptible traits.
Exceptionalizing a woman can also, in the long term, serve to undermine her sense of self, as it obliquely encourages her, in a bid to retain her value as an Exceptional Woman, to reject any part of herself that might be seen as stereotypical of women. Even if not so intended, exceptionalism thus becomes a form of control, tacitly encouraging a woman to futilely try to wrench her personhood from her womanhood, which is impossible and thus ultimately breeds self-loathing and/or contempt for the man who exceptionalizes her.
If you find yourself thinking, “This woman is not like other women,” consider how much your understanding of “other women” comes from intimate knowledge of multitudinous individual woman vs. cultural narratives about women as a whole. Consider as well whether meeting one woman who bucks those narratives might suggest, in fact, not that she is one in (literally) three billion, but instead that women are more individual than is routinely suggested in vast and diverse ways throughout our culture.
It doesn’t undermine the specialness of a woman to regard her as a unique person well-suited to your personality and preferences and idiosyncrasies, as opposed to an Exceptional Woman. Indeed, it is more special to be regarded as a cool woman in a world full of cool women than it is the only cool woman on the planet.
Breach of Consent.
Read the rest of this entry »
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…