This website is a member of Liberty Alliance, which has been named as an company.
Wednesday , December 7 2016
th3XOS9VD6

I Peeped into Feminism’s Window, and I Wish I Hadn’t

“It’s all about equality.”

That’s the buzzword you can’t avoid these says. Equality, the equal treatment of everyone. Hence the name, feminism.

What follows is the result of an honest outreach to cut through the stereotypes of women who identify as feminists. After all, I abhor the mistreatment of women and I believe any woman who meets the requirements should not be hindered from pursuing any career she desires. Yes, that’s a tad simplistic but the point is I’ve had no issue with having female family, friends, loves, coworkers, and bosses. By no means do I believe women are inferior or incapable. So why are we so diametrically opposed?

Because feminism is not about any of these things. Know that my attempt to understand would not have been earnestly bidden, and if ever noticed it will be rejected out of hand. Contrary to the occasional, seemingly obligatory, call for men to relate, understand, empathize, or embrace the feminist ethic, any woman who observes modern feminism and willingly self-applies the term does not want the support or allegiance of men. They want men to shut up and go away. That is, when they don’t want us subdued, emasculated, or even dead.

Here’s a wild proposal I have for ending all wars, strife, unhappiness, and advancing society into a utopian future. Using our advancing technologies in the realm of designer genes and steadfast commitment to “pro-choice” medical practices, we alter the gender ratio until we eventually achieve approximately 10 women for every man. Through community organizing and societal engineering, every man is entitled to his own personal harem of 10 females with whom he can divvy up the roles of breeding, pleasure, and housework as he sees fit. In return, all their needs are seen to by the man they’re designated to. Don’t worry, it’s not slavery.

If that idea seems a little, oh I don’t know, morally abhorrent to you then you’re both a decent human being and a hindrance to society’s evolutionary utopian destiny. Why? If you clicked on the first link you know. I can’t really take credit for the idea. Like a proper misogynist I stole the idea from a woman, made a few tweaks, and claimed it as my own. Her idea, instead of having the 10 to 1 women in harems, had the 1 to 10 men pent-up in stockades (she used the word reservations) for breeding and manual labor.

She believed the men would be happier because they’d be relieved of their current everyday worries and women would want to have sex with them all the time. Interestingly enough, she unintentionally makes the argument that true equality is 1 man equals 10 women. She believes that men should be removed from all influential positions in society but in exchange kept in a gilded cage. Once men are vastly in the minority and no longer making decisions in society, or even for themselves, then women will truly value them and treat them really well.

Make no mistake, slogging through these particular internet waters renewed my despair for humanity (how members of law enforcement can hunt down kiddie porn traffickers without becoming suicidal is a new mystery to me). The relative anonymity of the internet allows people to release their inner scumbag. Imagine the worst things you could possibly say to another person, then know that those things have been posted online in all caps directed at feminists. I can only complain to a certain point because I am not, nor will I ever, associate with anything resembling the suppression of free speech. Suffice it to say there are a lot of anonymous internet loudspeakers out there who need a very real crowbar to the teeth.

This phenomenon is, of course, not exclusive to feminism and when observed on a large-scale across a variety of topics isn’t loyal to any ideology. It’s not even limited to politics. When they believe they’re protected by anonymity, people are jerks. You know this. I know this. We all know this. But feminists, indeed, all social justice warriors (SJW’s for those familiar with the professional outrage biz) need the universal nature of internet vitriol to be forgotten. Or at least carefully managed to lend credibility to their claims.

Understand that, although Anita Sarkeesian (someone whose name will be popping up again) gets hate and threats from the “Cheetos-stained underpants dwelling in mom’s basement” crowd, Sarah Palin gets it from the “Cheetos-stained underpants dwelling in mom’s basement” crowd as well as from the suit getting paid millions of dollars to say it on his own show on HBO and feminists couldn’t care less. Why? Because she’s a XX chromosome traitor. Bear in mind that while we’re presented with depictions of jackanapes who type obscenities at SJW’s as evidence of the underlying misogyny of western culture there are scholarly feminists with tenure academically pontificating on the best ways to deal with the “male” problem.

The modern feminist movement is, first and foremost, a strain of leftism. And all strains of leftism serve one objective: complete and total societal organization from the top down. Regardless of what flavor they espouse, they hold to it with a fanatical level of belief as fervent as any cult and tolerate heresy about as well. Not long ago actress Kaley Cuoco had to perform the modern ritual for public penance when the social justice thought police accused her of blasphemy. In an interview she said, in effect, that she didn’t identify as a feminist because she had never faced inequality in her life. That was pulling back way too much of the curtain. She had to get nipped in the bud. Slut shaming is an egregious sin of sexism, but shaming into the cult is perfectly acceptable. If you are not an avowed feminist, you have no business being a woman.

There is a logic fallacy colloquially known as moving the goalposts. With this fallacy person B refuses to concede to person A’s argument until certain criteria are met. If person A meets those criteria then B will still not concede the point and then list new criteria for A. The concept can also apply to social movements. The more common term for it is mission creep, and when a movement or organization has any amount of authority it can be cause for alarm. Especially if it becomes formalized as a government power because they never go away.

When a person or group notices a problem, injustice, or cause they work to build support and achieve a solution. Agree or not with their crusade, it’s all well and good. This is the seed of all social endeavors, but each one is eventually at risk from a most unusual paradox.. success. Some individuals really give their all for the cause. They build their whole lives around it, and it might even become their livelihood itself.

That can leave one in the awkward position of having the most to lose when you win. So what do you do? If you don’t move on, then you declare that the crusade is not over and charge a new hill regardless of whether or not you’re still relevant. Just about any federal agency would make a good case study, but take the EPA. I don’t like the EPA. At all. But once upon a time we were terrible about pollution, littering, and recycling. I’m not initiating a debate as to whether federal power was the appropriate solution. I’m just saying once we were like that, now we’re not. The point is, why did it have to be a federal agency as opposed to an initiative? We used to be horrible polluters, now we have procedures for recycling, filtering waste byproducts, and handling hazardous materials. So what does the EPA do now? They try to completely collapse the coal industry, ban asthma medication and harass a family into destitution over literally nothing. (Note: The whole clip is good but what I’m referring to is at the 7 minute mark.)

The correlation to feminism? Well, there was a time when it was about suffrage, equal standing and pay. Now, their battle cry is demanding that lady parts equal a right to first degree murder. Sure, they trot out the talking point about pay not being equal at predictable intervals but it’s been discredited to such a degree that uttering it is absurd. They shout inequality but fail to articulate what that means (moving the goalposts). It falls on deaf ears anyways because no substantial number of men view women as inferior. The “glass ceiling” can only be shattered so many times, and women have time and again clearly demonstrated that they want to be treated equally… except when they don’t. By equality feminists mean remove all feminine drawbacks, keep all feminine perks, get rid of men’s only social clubs, keep women’s only gyms, etc.

Oh, and then there’s rape. Here a rape, there a rape. Everywhere a rape, rape.

The word springs from the mouths of feminists like “cheep, cheep” does from chicks. At this point one would normally write out some sort of disclaimer line about how rape is terrible and they by no means are attempting to justify it or make light of it. But I’m not going to do that. Because I don’t have to.

Rape is a complicated topic to discuss when in conjunction with feminism. There are a lot of oddball reasons why feminists have a love/hate relationship with it. It is an obscene, horrid act and yet a powerful weapon in their arsenal. Going back to the earlier point about the creative double standards feminists must maintain regarding online commentary, now rape must be the only criminal act feminists care about and apply across the spectrum of men. Men wield rape as a weapon to dominate so women must in turn wield it as a concept.

While no sane individual, woman or man, would actually want to experience such a violent, violating crime on their person, the feminist collective has a bizarre rape fantasy that they revel in. The reason why is because, again, they are leftists first and rape is an express ticket to the left’s coveted victim status.

Additionally, it is a cudgel to beat men with in the public forum and the courtroom. The way a leftist can shout racist and bring a losing argument to a screeching halt and declare victory. They shouted sexist for the same reason but it never really had the desired results. Probably because you can’t find the white hood store next to Victoria’s Secret in the mall and Ku Klux Klan Kuarterly isn’t exactly outselling the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition.

But you CAN shout, “Rapist.”

It’s the magic word that puts the opponents of feminism in the same treacherous ground the left always wants their adversaries in. They frame the confrontations so that countering the progressive faith puts you in a reputation-killing, career-ending minefield, and they’re just waiting for the gotcha quote or sound bite.

For 2 kinds of people rape is a profession. Sex traffickers and feminists. They produce wildly dishonest studies about the number of rapes that occur and demand actions based thereon. Just recently, a male college student was effectively given a restraining order and an unwarranted look into his personal life for LOOKING like a female student’s rapist. That’s right. Not being her rapist. Not being related to him. But bearing a resemblance.

However, things like this are just window dressing on the house feminism built called “rape culture”. The intangible, amorphous entity that presides over society and insidiously endorses the mistreatment of women. Again, the insultingly false studies and stats are presented to support the idea that men, as a whole, are rapists in their minds and waiting to branch out. Buzzfeed, the same Buzzfeed that inadvertently presented proof we elected an adolescent to the presidency with a bonus of horrible timing, abandoned any pretense of shame when they reported on a study claiming a third of college males admitted anonymously that they would rape a woman if they knew they would get away with it. A figure they obtained from a sample size of 86.

My particular favorite response in the comments section was along the lines how many of us would be guilty of murdering our boss if this is the standard. But really, is it so hard to believe that you would get a similar or even greater figure for a whole host of crimes? How many would say they would rob a bank if they could get away with it? That doesn’t make it right, but that’s just the point. None of it is right. People are not right in the head, not just men. But rape is the only crime feminists care about, and everything qualifies as intent.

For a proverbial spigot of this mindset on full blast, one can turn to the Facebook group, I Acknowledge Rape Culture Exists. I stumbled upon them when I got in the mood one day to revisit I Acknowledge Apartheid Exists, a group I had previously observed as proof alternate realities exist and through some as yet to be understood scientific anomaly, one was leaking through into ours via Facebook posts. I need to start a page called I Acknowledge Progressive Lunacy Exists and it would just consist of reposts from these two gems claiming the exact opposite of reality all the time.

But back to the rape-truthers (totally hijacking that hashtag), here are a few choice examples of what people actually spend time believing and stating that you have to see. Even though, fair warning, it’s disturbing:

Incidentally, I checked out that article but didn’t really read it. Apparently, whoever this guy is speaks for men’s rights or something. I don’t have a clue who he is. He doesn’t speak for me. I don’t stand for men’s rights anymore than I do women’s because it’s individual rights that matter.

Not quite sure what Glenn Beck has to do with this, but here is an example of one of feminists’ biggest mistakes. They believe they speak for, or at least have the right to, all women. It’s a byproduct of progressive group-think. Most women don’t hate men.

I saw this around in a few different places. Feminists seem to think it incredibly clever. I found it rather naïve. In this situation, you telling your dog “no”, are acting as the authority figure. What happens when you leave the room? Besides, in a rape situation you wouldn’t be the woman saying no, you’d be the peanut butter. Want to bet your virtue on the dog listening to you now? And let’s just tiptoe around the fact that a feminist’s dog’s favorite food is peanut butter. We don’t need to go there.

You know it’s the complete lack of self-awareness that all leftist philosophy thrives on.

Exhibit B.

No words.

The final irony of the rape culture narrative is that it is partially self-defeating. It accomplishes the task of portraying men as Neanderthal-ish brutes, but simultaneously undermines the “girl power” aspect of the movement. Women proudly stand as equals, if not superiors, to men in all aspects and yet they can be brought low by violation. How bad will it be for the “ground troops” of the feminist movement if they ever learn that their elitist leaders practically salivate over the possibility of their rape? They’re sacrificial lambs for the culture war of progressive ideology. For them, your trauma is good for business, even if they’re women.

The other side of this coin is slutshaming. I’ve brought this up before but it bears repeating. Counter to what feminists claim is said, a woman has every right to dress provocatively and get blackout drunk at a party and she shouldn’t have to worry about being violated. However, it’s still a stupid thing to do, and feminists refuse to admit that. Again, only when the topic is rape. Ask a feminist if it’s stupid to leave a BMW in a bad part of town with the windows rolled down and the keys in the ignition, even if you should have every right to do so without being robbed and they will say, “Of course.” Change it to a miniskirt and excessive alcohol consumption at a frat party and they say, “How dare you, misogynist pig!”

This idea of teaching guys not to rape instead of women not to get raped is asinine. People know not to rape. Those who rape know what they’re doing and they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. They’ll receive no sympathy from me. But treating the teaching of women that making themselves vulnerable is a bad idea as sexist ensures more victims, not less. Don’t be dumb, because when you’re dumb, awful people take advantage. THIS IS A FACT OF LIFE!

Remember, elitists push these horrible ideas because they do want more women raped, because that is the fuel with which they power their agenda. That is why the media jumped on the Rolling Stone story without verifying it first. They practically needed it to be true. A little slut-shaming would prevent rapes. Discouraging foolish behavior is normal and healthy. Those who claim to be a “proud slut” are not allies of women.

The reason why the more ludicrous/honest feminists like the ones at the beginning of this piece reach the conclusions they do is because they are at least coming to grips with the fact that what feminists “want” is counter to nature. While denouncing rape culture self-ascribed feminists are demanding the right to expose, at the minimum, their breasts. Proud slut is an assault on convention, but then men go and screw it up when they meet women demanding to go nude with approval.

Feminists demand that a topless woman be treated as the same non-issue as a topless man, seemingly unaware that in this day and age of fat-shaming the topless man is not as accepted as he used to be. It’s here where they don’t just want men to change their attitude, they want to change their nature. And it isn’t going to happen. Men will always, always notice a pair of breasts. They’re a sexual stimulant for men. Feminists brave enough to acknowledge this seek to change it through submission.

Delving into the world of feminism is mentally hazardous, because like any other progressive cause, it changes its own rules to avoid scrutiny. But it’s also abstract, self-important, doe-eyed metaphysical, and pointless. Look up vegan feminist blogs if you ever want to read something that you don’t have the slightest clue what they’re talking about. What you will understand is that we really have too much time on our hands if these are their concerns. These are things people come up with for causes because we are all privileged, not just white males. We pontificate about some pretty inane stuff.

And that’s when it isn’t, even if it might be fake, absolutely horrific and evil. Not to mention unbelievably moronic, vain, and selfish.

No current piece on feminism would be complete without touching on the latest stir in modern feminism, Gamergate. For anyone who is understandably ignorant of this until now, this was a “revolt” by fans of video games claiming feminism and political correctness in general had corrupted video game journalism. Feminists and other opponents countered that it was just sexists desiring to continue to exploit and undermine women in the video game industry and through games themselves.

On a sidebar, I love gaming. It is the greatest medium for entertainment ever made. Books do still have an edge over everything in the sense that they don’t go beyond a description and therefore, do better than anything else to ignite your imagination which is what immerses you in the story. Movies and TV visualize everything so your imagination goes into neutral. You might say the same thing of games but they counteract that by putting you into the story. A few out there might be confused because their acquaintance with games still consists of Pac-Man and Super Mario, newly minted over by Angry Birds and Candy Crush and all sprinkled over with a vague conception of games being mass murder simulators because of a daytime talk show.

But they’re so much more. You can race million dollar cars through the streets of real cities, lead your favorite sports team through the championships, build mind-boggling structures, combat Nazis/terrorists/zombies/aliens either on the ground or as a general ordering your troops. You can explore space or deep underwater or mythical realms. You can run through history or through the future. They’re interactive stories. That said, if you take issue with women in movies and TV, then video games aren’t going to be any different. And as more women begin to play games, feminists are going to demand change to accommodate. It’s kind of like what European settlers did to indigenous tribes.

Gamergate has been hashed out to death so I’m not going to go to dig it up. But Ms. Sarkeesian, who runs a website and series called Feminist Frequency and discusses the portrayal of women in pop culture with an emphasis in games, has made a couple of points I wish to contend. And you know what, she does make valid arguments sometimes. It’s just that feminists seem to complain a lot and demand change, but they don’t create change. I suspect that in secret they’re dismayed when their attempts aren’t met with the success they believe they deserve.

A large portion of her focus was a running series titled “Tropes vs. Women” during which she addressed unflattering depictions of women, and she went beyond the simple scantily clad eye candy and the damsel in distress. Some of the tropes she brought up included the token woman in an otherwise all male group, the woman whose sole purpose is to die to provide a male with righteous anger, and a negative portrayal of a feminist. The last one she called out from the show Family Guy for a character that parodied Gloria Allred. Feminists obviously revere Allred, though normal people consider her a celebrity lawyer equivalent of an ambulance chaser.

The main problem with Sarkeesian’s analysis, and this is a prime example, is the same double standard that we’ve seen twice already. To get to this negative feminist trope, she had to pole vault over the 15 tropes crammed into the main character alone. But she only cares about the tropes that offend her sensibilities. Plus, the honest truth is that no generalizations are cut from whole cloth, even if they are unfair. She claims the “femi-nazi”, a term originally coined by Rush Limbaugh, doesn’t exist. But I don’t need to cover that again. There are women planning to literally intern/kill men.

In a separate video she discussed the remake of True Grit. Apparently the character Mattie Ross has garnered respect in feminists, and rightly so. She’s sharp, assertive, tenacious, and determined. She doesn’t take flak from even the gruffest of men. She’s not sexualized in any way and she’s doing all this at the age of 14. But not so fast, Anita says. In her mission to get justice for her murdered father, she’s clearly in favor of the death penalty, and that’s not very feminist. And there they go, assuming to speak for the masses again.

This one thing is very simple. A person who “speaks” for others is never, ever, EVER self-appointed.

Apparently to be a feminist, you can approve of killing a baby by the vacuum and snipped brainstem method so a young woman isn’t inconvenienced in finishing her liberal arts degree. You can be in favor of gender cleansing the planet. But you can’t sanction capital punishment even for murder. And for those keeping score, murder is in fact more despicable than rape.

And before one complains too much about tropes and stereotypes, understand that they are an inevitability of storytelling. All types of storytellers have to rely on semi-subliminal cues and generic archetypes to convey an array of meanings without dedicating space and time to the development. Of course, this is all new territory for us on the right because watching different progressive tropes attack each other is a refreshing change of pace.

Might be my political bias, but I would think that if equality was the true goal of feminists then they would be libertarians. Why do they overwhelmingly subscribe to Marxism? It’s kind of sad. To combat men, they need the support of The Man. The whole philosophy is a reaction to the sense of weakness. They seek strength in the collective because they feel weak. And blind allegiance to the cause can lead to awkward instances. Remember Femen? They were the European feminist group seeking to shock convention through nude protests because if there’s one thing men can’t stand, it is attractive women taking their clothes off. And yeah, if that seemed a little odd to you, your instincts are right. Turns out the pretty nude blondes for women’s rights brigade was run by a man. (NSFW!)

In fact, it’s only fair to ask the question. Would women’s lib exist at all if men didn’t tolerate it? If we are keeping women down we’re not very actively quelling troublesome voices. How did this “patriarchy” ever come to exist in the first place? Why would ancient women consent to surrendering their equal standing?

May I now offer an alternative to women out there? A place where you can be yourself, where you and your strengths are valued. Where you can be respected, admired, and sought after at the same time. Where your input in a solution is asked and your opinion listened to. Where you’re treated as an equal because you’re regarded as an individual first. It will be hard to hear and strange at first for some because they’ve heard differently their whole lives. I urge you to give an honest consideration to being on the right. Not for the support of a party or politician. Just liberty, the concept. The crucial element missing from every aspect of the left and why they’re always wrong, their steadfast hatred of self-determination. Don’t be a feminist. Don’t be an anti-feminist. Be you.

The smearing and character assassination of sexual assault victims by their attacker? That’s the left. That’s Bill (and Hillary) Clinton. It’s the left that want’s you martyred by rape. The left that wants you miserable, underprivileged, and angry. To them, you’re a demographic, not a person. You’re easier to control that way.

 

About John Sutton

Married father of three. 5 C's. Particularly concerned with matters pertaining to the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 10th Amendments.

Leave a comment ...

Trending Now on WayneDupree.com

Send this to friend