You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Feminism’ tag.
The working title for this post was accurate, but a bit wordy: Dude Superciliously Imagines What Females Think then Blames Females for His Imagining of their Problems. We tightened things up a bit and figured we’d add more verbosity in the introduction.
The Dude over at Talonrest is a master of erecting stupid assertions (go there now for the bullshite-in-the-raw), applying them to the group he hates (feminists, women, double-XXers, etc.) and then castigating feminists for acting (as he portrayed them to act) so damn shallow and stupid. Talon’s glaring problem is that his argumentation only briefly entertains connections to reality.
Talon DudeMcDudinstein is all about abandoning any semblance of rationality preferring to sashay headlong into meandering fields of straw arguments and butt-cogitations that manage to both besot and flagellate the reader not only with their insipidness, but astonishing lack of grounding in anything resembling fact.
Different format time folks, let’s deal in paragraph sized chunks to see if we can really appreciate what dear Talon is trying to say.
“Behind all the feminist posturing about being independent and empowered a big fear for many millennial young women still remains the impending big 30. That’s when the facade starts to crack and they realise that they didn’t have this all figured out.
You will see signs of it start to happen in the late 20s as the strong independent millennial woman who has been living it up in the years of her prime attractiveness starts to realise that the party won’t last forever and that she is no longer the center of the universe for the high-quality male attention that she used to take for granted.”
This is really a grand example of what happens when dudes ‘analyze’ the experience of females through the fucked up lens of patriarchal expectations. Those expectations are:
1. A female’s worth in society is directly correlated to the physical attributes men find attractive.
2. Male ‘attention’ is a valuable resource because, implicitly speaking, females cannot achieve in society without male help/attention.
Both points are the kind of nefarious bullshit women struggle against everyday. The grand quest to be though of as human, rather than desirable fuck-object starts here.
The fight to be a subject that is capable of action, rather than a object to be acted upon is fundamental to the feminist movement and happens to be one of the tenets many radical feminists organize around. (The radical notion that women are people too – et cetera)
“It happens gradually, but one day she suddenly realises she has been receiving a lot less attention from men. The waiter at Starbucks is no longer extra-friendly to her. People start expecting her to pull her weight at work and no longer cut her as slack despite her pulling the usual charm offensives. She looks at that new young pretty intern that just joined her workplace getting attention from everyone and suddenly realises that she can no longer compete.”
Misogyny comes in so many flavours, here we see the restated notion that female worth is derived from male attention. Female people have the same extrinsic and intrinsic value as human beings – and this is the key truth that Talon, our shit-nozzle of the day cannot comprehend.
“It is telling that most of the social media posts worrying about the impending big 30 come from my empowered, independent female acquaintances, along with the usual self-assuring polemics about how they “still got it” and are wiser and stronger with age. But you get the distinct impression that they are just posturing and attempting to make sense of a very confusing situation.”
Women are not confused about the situation as they have been socialized from the beginning to be pleasing objects of desire for men, and are also aware of the penalties for non-compliance. Aging-out or fatting-out of the prime attention of zone of dudes can be bitter celebration for many women as it marks the transition from constantly creeped on fuck-toilet to mostly ignored invisible non-person. Choosing your patriarchal shit sandwich has never been so empowering…
“What’s more interesting is that my female acquaintances who have settled down in their 20s and have gotten on with life in starting a family and working on building a functioning, fruitful and healthy marriage don’t exhibit any sort of the same angst on social media.”
The Second Shift doesn’t leave much time for facebook. Raising a family mirrors of the inequality women face in society, as women are responsible for most of the work that goes into rearing children and the domestic hell that goes along with said task.
“Meanwhile their strong, empowered counterparts are trying to get into fad yoga, getting cats and hopping onto the next fashionable frivolous activity that comes along in an attempt to prolong their party years. But it’s clear for all to see that their best years are behind them, and they are just trying to relive the heady days of their early 20s, except without the devoted male attention and valuation that they used to take for granted.”
Because the male-gaze is awesome.
“This is the brutal reality of female nature that many millennial women don’t realise- they time they have in the sun is actually quite limited. Young women who keep themselves even passably attractive enjoy a lot of social leverage based upon their biological youth. This, along with modern pop-culture feminism that encourages “empowered” behaviours without caveats that leads to them having a distorted idea of their own value.”
I’m pretty sure this ‘social leverage’ is what douche-canoe misogynists like Talon bang-on about all the time. All the submissive beauty rituals that differentiate females from the accepted standard of ‘normal’ (male) must be lauded and elevated so that somehow they become desirable to perform. Hey ladies, perform all these pointless rituals to appease the male gaze, but on the same time we’re going to shit on you your for doing all these frivolous time-wasting things. Patriarchal double standards for women are the norm in this society, and this is just one of many.
Striving to be valued as full human being is society is hardly a ‘distortion’. Ass-hat.
“They assume they will always be attractive and that the red carpet from men will always be out for them. They don’t realise a lot of the “you’re beautiful” polemics will actually be coming from themselves after they pass the big 30. There are always thirsty Beta men who are willing to snap up the leftovers after the party stops for our “empowered” woman when she ages out of the market, but she is unlikely to find this men very appealing.
The “empowered” woman stuck with lower tier dating options. Cue a lot of self-convincing that they are not snag a Beta they can’t feel attracted to because they are trying to cash in before all of their attractive fade and eventual resentment that the “empowered” lifestyle didn’t deliver them Mr. Big at the end of the day.”
*sigh* – Because all women are about snagging the ‘prime’ ‘alpha’ male. One of the neat things about making arguments is that one cannot arrive at truth when one of the premises you’re basing your arguments on is false. In this case, patently false – classifying men, like wolf packs, into Alpha and Beta males – is based on discredited shit research that got almost everything wrong about wolf society. I’ve talked about this before on the DWR before so I’ll quote myself to on how wrong the MRA classification system is:
“Schenkel’s observations of captive wolf behavior were erroneously extrapolated to wild wolf behavior, and then to domestic dogs. It was postulated that wolves were in constant competition for higher rank in the hierarchy, and only the aggressive actions of the alpha male and female held the contenders in check. Other behaviorists following Schenkel’s lead also studied captive wolves and confirmed his findings: groups of unrelated wolves brought together in artificial captive environments do, indeed, engage in often-violent and bloody social struggles.
The problem is, that’s not normal wolf behavior. As David Mech stated in the introduction to his study of wild wolves (Mech, 2000), “Attempting to apply information about the behavior of assemblages of unrelated captive wolves to the familial structure of natural packs has resulted in considerable confusion. Such an approach is analogous to trying to draw inferences about human family dynamics by studying humans in refugee camps. The concept of the alpha wolf as a ‘top dog’ ruling a group of similar-aged compatriots (Schenkel 1947; Rabb et al. 1967; Fox 1971a; Zimen 1975, 1982; Lockwood 1979; van Hooff et al. 1987) is particularly misleading.”
So, as the studies cited indicated, these assertions have been shown to be erroneous for over twenty years. It is known that accuracy (wit, intelligence, charity, …) and MRA’s don’t mix. If you can stomach the manosphere you will see this error perpetuated with metronomic regularity.
“A Red Pill masculine man worth his salt will know that these “empowered” women in full on approaching or post-30 panic will not be good prospects for a relationship. Their years of “empowered” feminist living would have stuffed their minds full of ideas that give them an entitlement mindset to commitment that is way beyond their value proposition. In addition, it is highly likely these “empowered” women would also not be having any maternal feminine aspects that are considered desirable wife material.”
Yes, having their minds stuffed with ideas that they are full human beings and not just objects of male of desire, the nerve of 30+ women. Oh, and keep in mind when you hear ‘maternal feminine aspects’ please read ‘patriarchally approved ritualized submission to men’.
[…] – Skipping repetitious meandering prose.
“Meanwhile, the Masculine man who has been focused on improving himself would find that his options in the dating marketplace would have opened up dramatically. While the early years can be tough for a man, the later years will only get better if he has spend the intervening years improving himself.
The Masculine man is shaped through adversity and develops the important life skills and experience that allows him to have a true value proposition in the Dating Marketplace.”
Masculinity is about exercising your will over others. Masculinity is toxic.
“The “empowered” woman on the other hand, has coasted through her life based on her youthful biological attractiveness and feminist “empowerment” ideology that made her overestimate how valuable she was just for having a vagina. She is less likely to have gone through the same adversity and rejection that a young man has in his struggle to be valued and hence is out at sea with a clue on what to do once she can no longer rely on her looks.”
Oh my goodness. Pro-Tip: Being Born with a vagina means a ticket to second class status in society. Not being heard, not being seen (other than as a sex object to be possessed), not being represented. These are all part of the female experience. Fuck-Nugget is trying to compare males facing rejection to the shit-show that is living life as female, as it appears to him to be a valid comparison (fml).”
“They are the ones that become the true matriarchs- the women who contribute their valuable life experience and maternal instincts towards nurturing the next generation of functional, fruitful adults, not the aging feminist spinster taking fad yoga and adopting multiple cats trying to live in a real life parody of Sex and the City.”
Yes ladies, if you adopt the submissive patriarchal ideal things will be right with the world, negating your personhood will payoff huge dividends as you’ll be expected to raise the next generation of patriarchally screwed up women and men.
This is why it’s important to have a long game mindset in your Masculine journey, don’t be like the thirsty Beta who can’t think 5 years ahead and is always clamouring for female attention, making him the prime target of the panicking “empowered” woman seeking a chump willing to take any woman to settle down with. Focus on improving yourself and success, along with high quality feminine women worth your investment will naturally come.
*sigh* – Stupid ‘sage’ advice for the conclusion. Avoid those females with notions of personhood and wait to attract the perfect slave befitting your station. :(
This shit makes me tired. The amount of horrible is off the scale, and yet it dribbles forth with disquieting regularity from dudes who think they have the great game of life down and are grasping the bull by the horns.
I hope, by quietly pointing out that our MRA friends are not grasping the horns, but rather are elbow deep into the rectal fissures of said bull, that people can see how the societal system known as patriarchy fucks with people on an individual level, leading them to the dehumanizing conclusions we see on display here today.
“No matter how much evidence you have of racism and sexism, no matter how many documents, communications, encounters, no matter how much research you can refer to, or words you can defer to, words that might carry a history as an insult, what you have is deemed as insufficient. The more you have to show the more eyes seem to roll. My proposition is simple: that the evidence we have of racism and sexism is deemed insufficient because of racism and sexism. Indeed racism and sexism work by disregarding evidence or by rendering evidence unreliable or suspicious – often by rendering those who have direct experience of racism and sexism unreliable and suspicious.”
— Sara Ahmed writing on the blog Feminist Killjoys.
The feminist tag in the wordpress reader keeps sending me these reality defying, stomach churning, polishing of turding, decidedly bad-will gifts. Aggrieved man children are now, during this very second, writing
inspirational insipid posts about how terrible it is to be a man and how getting back to patriarchal standards is the *only* thing that will save society from degenerating….(to what state – egalitarianism? the horror). I can’t review the entire post, a tip of the hat to Talon’s Rest for making the notion of word diarrhea come to life, the fail is much too thick for that, let’s delimit our topic to one putrid subheading:
“The Birth of The Manosphere and Neomasculinity”
(Well since it is known that men cannot give birth, thus we can assume that the ‘birth’ of the Manosphere and Neomasculinity entered our world with a wet plop and we can now examine these floating nuggets of wisdom in the sombre light of day.)
“However as the body of Red Pill knowledge and thought expanded, Red Pill men started to explore issues beyond simple inter-gender dynamics to get success with women and realised that Red Pill truths had plenty of implications for everything from culture, to soceity, and eventually civillisation.”
(Fuck, I don’t know about you, but I’m breathless already. This is such an artful way of saying entitled dude shitlords got together for a whinge-festival about how fucking sad-pants they are that women are being treated less like fuck-toilets and more like human beings.)
“This led to a formative set of ideas that rose to encapsulate what we know today as Neomasculinity, an idealogical framework that combines Red Pill truths on biological human nature, traditional wisdom and masculinity […]”
(Biological human nature? What in heaven’s name is that? Are some dudes still fapping on about the giggle fest that is ‘classic’ sociobiological roles – man=hunter woman=gatherer – thus we should emulate primitive society because it’s right(?) type thinking. Sociologists have this other theory – socialization – that you may want to consult before wheeling out more ‘hard hitting” (un)truths.)
(Traditional wisdom and masculinity? OH! You mean patriarchy? The shit system we live under that both women and men suffer under? That is the traditional system you are referring to, you complete and utter lack-wit. Celebrating the oppression half the human race as the method of maintaining your position in the dominant class…way to go douche-canoe. )
“to aid men in making their way in the modern world where regressive progressivism has all but destroyed old-school patriarchal masculinity, seeking to help the masses of men left aimless and confused by it’s destruction.”
(Good old school patriarchal masculinity is shit. So is the current school of masculinity that is floating around. You see, my half-witted friend, masculinity is a condition that can only exist if there happens to be an inferior class to kick the shit out of, in this case femininity. Nothing says ritualized submission like femininity. To pine for a return where these values are more strongly codified makes you a horrible person, as in, Ebola just called and wants to talk about you about an image makeover. )
“Unlike the MGTOW who believe in opting out and giving in to the decline, the PUA who recede into nihilistic hedonism, and the MRA who futilely seek to reform an unreformable system,”
(Oh my stars! MRA’s wanting to reform the system…the lolz just keep coming!)
“Neomasculinists believe that the best way to go about giving the modern man a future is to build tribes of strong masculine men from the ground up,”
(What is up with putting caveman ethos on a pedestal? Building strong tribes works so amazingly great just look at the harmony in Syria, it’s a productive love fest for all involved and an example to be followed for the betterment of humanity. Sectarianism is actually good for us… (!))
“resisting the spread of degeneracy as social insurgents against the numerically superior regressives as first, and later as a dominant social force when the tide of strong masculine men finally reaches a critical mass.”
(You never define degeneracy. Moving toward a world without patriarchy means the end to the explicit and implicit oppression of women. We can give egalitarianism a chance instead its current status as ‘clueless liberal dude pipe-dream’. I cannot even fathom how you managed to make out the dissolution of patriarchy as degeneration. Or could it be that you’re scarred spit-less that your once iron-clad entitlement to the best of everything in society is under threat? Naw, couldn’t be that, the masters are always happy to give the slaves a helping hand up and share the wealth…)
“The aim is for masculine men is to be the best that they can be, and to slow, or even reverse the slow slide of their civillisation into degeneracy. If the slide cannot be reversed, these masculine men will then seek to gather their tribe to build a new one.”
(LoL. Shitlords must be shitlords to stop the corruption of a society moving toward a more egalitarian future. Hurrah! Bonus points for ‘reforming’ society after it all goes down trope . Who gets to be Mad Max – oh fuck bro, no can do anymore – the more important question now is who is Furiosa!)
“As a countercultural movement these ideas were largely found their place in the internet on blogs, chat forums and social media. This collectively became known as the Manosphere, a place where male interests and issues can be discussed by like-minded men.”
(In other words, arrogant man-babies gather to take the piss and moan about the evilz of women and their sooper-sekrit feminist movement that is hell-bent on the destruction of man. )
The manosphere – the gift of sad hilarity that keeps on giving.
I’m not sure what the author of the review was thinking… Actually, on second thought I might have an idea – this is the liberal left dude deciding to be ‘edgy’ and take on an issue that feminists, especially radical feminists, like to rattle on about. One would hope that with a title of a book like ‘Why Rape Culture is a Dangerous Myth – From Steubenville to Chad Evans” one might, at the very least raise a cursory skeptical eyebrow at the presumptive nature of the work. Perhaps this is just my own bias showing through, but I think that it would be a good idea to least familiarize oneself with the topics at hand before presenting a review that would have worth to someone outside the liberal circle of ‘progressive’ dudes who think that they ‘get it’ and can speak with authority on the topic(s).
So there are two dimensions to this review of a review, the tone deafness of the review and the astonishing amount of cluelessness posited by the author of the book in question. Both will be tackled as the cocksure nature and faux-authoritative pronouncements being made about the experience of women in patriarchal culture – as interpreted by men – in this ‘review’ sadly illuminates how far we have to go to becoming a decent culture, and one that doesn’t rely on marginalizing half of the population based on their private bits.
The Red Pen of Justice has been under wraps for a very long time now and has been agitating to let loose once again on the blogosphere. I cannot deny the RPOJ discontents anymore, so gentle readers, suit up, sit back and prepare for a radical feminist analysis of the important words going on over at David Marx:Book Reviews.
“It has sometimes been said that sex and intimacy can mean what we ultimately want them to mean; which, for all intents and self-gratifying purposes, can more often than not entail the go-ahead (regardless of one hundred per cent consent). The ‘go-ahead’ that is, amid a resounding variant of ways in the eyes of the law, not to mention society at large.”
“”It has sometimes been said that sex and intimacy can mean what we ultimately want them to mean; […]”
Who said this and when? I think this defaults to what David Marx thinks on this particular topic, as no references are made to any relevant sociological source. This could be interpreted as David, with artless academic-ese construction, trying to authoritatively make a point.
My eyebrow raised because it looks like David is making the case for non-consensual relations somehow being a-fucking-okay because we can define consent out of the occasion. Funny how a review about the purported mythological status of rape culture is actually affirming its existence.
“The ‘go-ahead’ that is, amid a resounding variant of ways in the eyes of the law, not to mention society at large.”
Sentences missing objects/clauses don’t make sense. Charitably, I think David means that the ‘go-ahead’ or consent is somehow related to what is agreed on in society.
“Either of which can, and often does trigger dire and detrimental consequences.”
I’m done playing parse the sentence fragment – make your best guess here – thanks Dave for being unfathomable in your writing style.
“That we live in a society, where so-called honour killings (usually by men) are on the unfortunate rise; and a vacuous dirt-bag of Tunisian descent feels it’s in his right to attack a mother and her two daughters with a machete at a summer resort in France – because, in his eyes ”they weren’t wearing enough clothes” – is a both a sad and a very, very serious indictment of today’s moral fabric.”
Almost always by men, as they are upholders of honour/subjugators of women. Why mention that the killer dude was Tunisian? One should try to curtail the impulse toward xenophobia and racism in a serious review. And how is this one incident a serious indictment of anything other than horror we all know and love as organized religion; the big three and the various tributaries of fail almost always reinforce the patriarchal status-quo. Name the problem Dave.
“The fact that such vile and callous behaviour is entwined with varying degrees of religiosity, only accounts for the latter being something of an idiosyncratically laughable indictment.”
So you spend the words to make a point and then dismiss it as ‘idiosyncratically laughable’ in the next paragraph? Coherence is a thing Dave, more of it would make what you’re trying to say easier to understand.
“Yet as Luke Gittos points out in Why Rape Culture Is A Dangerous Myth – From Steubenville to Ched Evans: ”The argument that we live in a rape culture encourages a deeply harmful notion of inherent vulnerability, which adds to a worrying problematisation of intimacy in wider society. This is likely to have a significant effect on the young, who are often taught that intimate relationships are potentially dangerous”
What? A Jaw dropping non-sequitur after a word salad of an introduction, this review has legs!
Let’s look at the content after you massage your jaw for a bit, I should have warned you gentle reader, limber up those oral hinges it only gets worse from here.
“”The argument that we live in a rape culture encourages a deeply harmful notion of inherent vulnerability, which adds to a worrying problematisation of intimacy in wider society.”
The fuck it does. The argument we live in a rape culture threatens the status-quo notion that women should always be sexually available to men. Rape culture threatens the normative idea that women are not really fully autonomous, that they do not share the same rights to their personhood and autonomy, rights that men, under patriarchy enjoy by default.
Problematisation? Is problematic too ordinary a construction for you? Jeezus. A dudes ability to fuck females with impunity is not synonymous with ‘intimacy’. Luke Gittos is riding high on the Misogyny Train, and a decent review would call his shit out for what it is.
Tell me Dave, how is treating a woman like she has rights and a full human being a fucking problem with regards to intimacy? It’s only suffers from ‘problematisation’ if you are in favour of the current toxic environment that women are forced to inhabit.
“If such is the case, which, throughout various parts of the world it most certainly is, does this mean intimacy and ultimately love, should be denied?”
If love and relations can only be had with the shitty patriarchal overlay that shafts both men and women, then yes it should be denied. But you are not arguing that, are you Dave, your faffing on with Gittos about how denying women their agency (consent) is making it hard for dudes to feel intimacy. This is a primal man-baby argument – if we can’t have sexy times *my dudely way* then everything is wrong with the world and the feminist sponsored end times are here.
“Immediately prior to the above, Gittos also writes: ”Recent decades have seen the expansion of the law around rape to cover many new areas of sexual behaviour. The impact of the hysteria around rape has been the shutting down of debate around this expansion and the demonisation of anyone who seeks to question it.”
Hysteria? Man-children really can’t help themselves when it comes to patriarchal tropes. But let’s get back to what he’s saying – the broadening of laws to protect the integrity and autonomy of women is making his boner sad. Gittos (emphasis on ‘git’) is also sad that he gets shit on for harkening back to the good ole’ days where beating and raping your wife was just the norm and everything was hunky dory – if you happened to be in the same class as Gittos…
“That the ”hysteria around the rape has been shutting” down it’s ”debate,” is surely cause for alarm, which to a certain degree, these 140 pages do tackle head-on. But, as Graham Matthews recently wrote in Will Self and Contemporary British Society: ”The language used in rape cases is of the utmost importance since, according to Lyn Higgins and Brenda Silver, ‘whether in the courts or in the media, whether in art or criticism, who gets to tell the story and whose story counts as ”truth” determines the definition of what rape is.”
Why in a review of the GIT are you talking about Will Self and Contemporary British Society? Is foisting non sequitur after non sequitur on your reader a stylistic choice? It’s a bad one, let me assure you.
“There again, as Luke Gittos has categorically stated in Why Rape Culture Is A Dangerous Myth’s Introduction: ”this book is not about rape. It is not about the hideous criminal offence that takes place every day, and is the subject of arrests, court cases and prison sentences up and down the country […]. This book is about the contemporary panic around ‘rape culture’ that […] often bears little resemblance to the reality of rape.”
Translation: The idea that rape culture exists and is working in my favour is unpalatable to my sensibilities, thus the problem must be with the hysterical women and their risible claims… *facepalm*
“The argument of the book is that intimate life is suffering under the panic around rape and rape culture. This panic has arisen in the context of a society which is less sure of the parameters of intimate life than ever before. “
Oh consent is necessarily a roaring tempest filled with vapours purposefully designed to confuse the man-brained. The idea that women are struggling toward agency is an affront to needs of the ‘peen and patriarchy and must be done away with because my male right to unfettered access to female bodies is at stake – and this unfettered access – is what is important.
“As old narratives of intimate life die away, what has replaced them is not a new, individualised sense of what intimate life is, but a ream of laws, regulations, guidance and expertise about how we should conduct the most private aspects of our lives. This presents a serious challenge to the status of individual judgement about intimacy and, accordingly, the future of intimate life in general.”
I thought it couldn’t get worse, but Dave also seems to aspire to the swaggering, self-aggrandizing pile of mule-feces that Libertarianism is. Where white males are the only ones who can have the *true* feelings of oppression while simultaneously wielding power in society. If you cannot handle intimacy with a female that has autonomy and full human being status – then the only females of the blow-up variety will fit your particular bill. So go forth, find your inflatable Sally, and kindly fuck the hell off.
“Herein lies something of a literary juxtaposition, surely?”
*rolls eyes* – Dave, sounding smart and being smart have never been so clearly demarcated.
A fucking equals A? This is the epic conclusion mic-drop you’ve assiduously been setting up. Step aside Machiavelli, Word fucking salad Dave is in the house! You are brought this review to close with a tautology? I have another for you, hold on it is earth shattering level of awesome – “stupid people are stupid people”.
And do you know ‘taurine’ means? It is a goddamn amino acid. Another meaning, common in the 17th century is ‘of or like a bull’. So is this a bullish book on rape culture, or did your thesaurus go to the dark side and led you astray with it?
“Regardless of judicial interpretation, sexual intimacy or, dare I say it, ”individual judgement.”
Did you eat alphabet soup and are just burping this shit up and then writing it down?
And also: Subjects, what the fuck are they?
The double shot of tautology and quasi-coherent sentence structure ends this review with an unsatisfying, stultifying dribble that offers offence not only to feminism, but the English language as well.