You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Misogyny’ tag.
I’m not sure when the definition of progressive queer activism changed to mean defiling and destroying women’s spaces, but unsurprisingly, the violent men of Queer activism (terrorism) are at it again. And quite honestly, they (GAG) can fuck the hell right off – violent patriarchal repression of women with a shiny coat of queer paint is still male violence and misogyny – and has no place in a society that claims to value women and stand for ‘equality’.
This violent shit doesn’t raise eyebrows or cause a stir in the media because the targets are only women after all. Meghan Murphy and the Guerrilla Feminist Collective are on the case though. Thank heavens.
“GAG / Gays Against Gentrification have vandalized the building housing the Vancouver Women’s Library. This latest action is prompting the following comparison of this new alt-white group’s activism.
♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂ ♂
Protest methods against for-profit business in Chinatown:
* Stand across the street, 1/2 a block away, sing a nice christmas song with the lyrics changed protesting gentrification & racism (as an all white group)
* Inch closer, but remain outside the business, on the far side of the sidewalk so as not to disrupt customers and business operations
* Smile, sing, display signs neatly and respectfully, either laid on the sidewalk or in their hands
* Abide by all common-sense understandings of legal protest on/near private property
* Take responsibility for and pride in their action
Protest methods against volunteer-run, no-profit, free & inclusive women’s library on the night of their launch:
* Shout and scream slurs at library visitors outside
* Enter and take over the space with outraged entitlement
* Jason, a white male, continually asks which women inside are sex workers, and shouts “we don’t want you in our fucking spaces”, referencing the fact that he outed himself as a “trans person involved in sex work” thereby staking a claim to the area (?) which is a well known hunting ground for Johns seeking children and indigenous women specifically. Jason, are you a John? Can you clarify what you meant by “involved in sex work”? This can have so many meanings. TIA
* Destroy and steal library property: ripping artwork, destroying books, stealing wine, pulling the fire alarm
* Physically intimidate and assault library visitors outside
* Scream sexist slurs at women library visitors outside
* Bar library visitors from entering the space, actually turning people away who travelled in the heavy snow to reach the library
* Steal hand-painted sandwich board outside the library
* Vandalize the building that houses the library. A space shared by a diverse group of artists and artisans, jeopardizing the safety, livelihood, and work of many, not just that of the library.
* Discard all common-sense understandings of legal protest inside or on private property
* Deny any responsibility for their actions although almost every member of GAG was present and engaged
* Repeatedly claim to be committed to engaging in learning and discourse, yet reject, shut down, delete any and all criticisms, coming from a wide range of people and groups.”
So, GAG understands what peaceable protest looks like, but they chose not to when it comes to a library for women. This is what happens when women challenge the dominant male narrative in society, and this is why we need a feminist movement that is dedicated to fighting for female emancipation from patriarchy.
A book-banning campaign by Gays Against Gentrification (GAG) is demanding the Vancouver Woman’s Library (VWL) remove and ban over twenty feminist books from their collection. These works — written by renowned women authors who have a long history of engaging in critical analysis against the oppression of women as class — focus on female exploitation, male supremacy, violence against women, reproductive freedom, lesbian identity and women’s health. As a matter of principle and in defense of freedom of speech and thought, no library should ever ban any books under any circumstance – especially ones written by and for women at the VWL. As authoritarianism takes deeper root throughout the world, it is more important than ever that any attempt to silence women in their struggle for liberation is resisted by all, at every moment. We urge VWL to keep these books on their shelves.
I would like to thank a recent commenter here on DWR for the placement of a tidy swarm of bees squarely in my bonnet. The honour, of course, goes to Godless Cranium for this nugget of wisdom shared on a previous thread:
“And I’m not saying sexism doesn’t exist or doesn’t play a factor sometimes, but I don’t think it’s as pervasive as you think, and I certainly don’t think all men are oppressors like patriarchy theory demands we believe.”
Before you can say “not all men…” check that thread for my response, I have it covered – but I think such a clearly stated denouncement of the patriarchal nature of our society requires a response with a little more… hmm… vibrancy than just a text based reply.
As chance would have it, current political events in my dear home province of Alberta have served up a glorious(?) example of the sexist and patriarchal attitudes that continue to flourish in our society.
The political event that I refer to is the leadership race for the Alberta provincial Progressive Conservative party. As of November 8th, the women who were in the race have both dropped out citing extensive misogynistic threats and physical and social intimidation.
“The only two women vying for the leadership of Alberta’s PC Party have both dropped out of the race.
Sandra Jansen and Donna Kennedy-Glans — socially progressive voices within the party — both gave notice on Tuesday that they were withdrawing.
Jansen, the PC MLA for Calgary-Northwest, cited intimidation and harassment for her decision.”
“In all of that time, I have never before experienced harassment like that which occurred up to and including this past weekend in Red Deer.”
Hmm. What is going on in the upper political echelons of our political class?
“In the release Jansen said she has been harassed online and her social media feeds have been “filled with filth.” The final straw in Red Deer was when “insults were scrawled on my nomination forms.”
“Volunteers from another campaign chased me up and down the hall, attacking me for protecting women’s reproductive rights, and my team was jeered for supporting children’s rights to a safe school environment.”
Hey now, politics is a rough and tumble affair, one should expect to face slings and arrows – it is a part of the process. I mean male politicians get the same calibre of flak, right?
“Sandra should stay in the kitchen where she belongs.”
“What a traitorous bitch.”
“Now you have two blond bimbos in a party that is clueless.”
“Dumb broad, a good place for her to be is with the rest of the queers.”
Let’s listen to what she has to say about the harassment she, like other women, face every day.
“Jansen was highlighting an issue that is bigger than her experience, according to Nancy Peckford of Equal Voice Canada.
“The vast majority of elected women are encountering some sort of misogynistic behaviour, online bullying, or harassment on a fairly regular basis,” she said.
“I think what’s very disturbing for Equal Voice is the misogynistic and sexist undertones and explicit commentary that’s used to diminish women’s contributions to public life and also undermine the confidence and the leadership female elected officials are offering.”
The misogyny she is experiencing is systemic, it happens everywhere all the time. Watch as Ms. Jansen explains her motivations as to why she made her speech. It is a damning look at how patriarchal our society actually is.
“Other women have also spoken out about the sexism they encounter in public life, including Conservative MP Michelle Rempel.
“The everyday sexism I face involves confronting the ‘bitch’ epithet when I don’t automatically comply with someone’s request or capitulate on my position on an issue,” she wrote in a National Post opinion article in April.
“It involves my ass being occasionally grabbed as a way to shock me into submission. It involves tokenism. It involves sometimes being written off as not serious when I’ve clearly proven I am.”
“That combination of the immediacy and the anonymity means that it’s sort of exploded into a new culture of pretty vicious, vitriolic attacks,” she said.
“Unfortunately, the attacks are particularly vicious toward women, and the attacks against women aren’t just violent, they’re sexualized violence. So it’s quite disturbing to see that some people will behave in this way, and it’s a challenge for our political culture to respond effectively to it.
She hopes more and more people will come together to condemn misogyny in politics and said it’s important for party leaders to forcefully and unequivocally reject the attacks.”
Yep. Misogyny needs to be addressed and kept in the spotlight, not only as the struggle for this generation but also the next generation of women and girls to show that having political aspirations (or professional ones) doesn’t mean facing a constant stream of harassment and misogyny.
But wait! There is more! Let’s go to another profession and and listen as Danielle Campbell describes what women have to face if they want to join the Police.
“Danielle Campbell walked into the canine unit 20 years ago as the first female graduate of the Edmonton Police Service dog handler program.
She faced insults, taunts and the reek of urine on her belongings.
“When I was in the unit they drew Xs on my eyes and they drew cocks around my face, a whole bunch of them … they would urinate on my gear.
‘It was ridiculous,” she said, referring to how a picture of her and her dog was defaced. “The sergeant in charge did nothing about it. Nothing.”
Campbell, 51, is no longer a police officer with EPS. She ended her 27-year-career in August 2016 when she resigned as deputy chief of police, the highest rank achieved by a woman within the city’s police force.”
The common saying is that women have to work twice as hard to get half as far ahead in society. Danielle Campbell is the embodiment of this, as her hard work and dedication – her proficiency at the job – eventually fought her way to the level of Deputy Chief of Police.
“A high-ranking officer in the human resources division told her she had to sign a document saying she wouldn’t get pregnant.
She was also told she could never become a dog handler because of her gender due to concerns over her menstrual cycle affecting the dog.
“I burst out laughing. But he didn’t laugh with me, he was dead serious,” she said.
“I just stood up and I said ‘This conversation is over. You have absolutely no empirical data to support that. That is just ridiculous,’ and I walked out. And to be honest with you that’s when I thought I was going to be fired.”
She wasn’t fired and neither was the officer or officers who sent her a Barbie doll in the mail, noose around its neck with the note: “No split tails in the dog unit, take a hint bitch.”
So yeah, I’m thinking there might be something to it when women say there is a culture of harassment and misogyny that makes their careers and lives more difficult than it needs to be.
“I really believe that so much has improved, and there’s so much more support for diversity and inclusivity and gender equality.
“But we’re not fully there yet,” she said, adding what she sees happening in the United States and, closer to home, in Alberta politics, is concerning.”
Please note the sentence – “we’re not there yet”. This is the key right here. Liberal dudes are so very quick to say the need for feminism is over, or sexism isn’t that bad, or that prevalent. Dudes… *you* don’t get to say any of that shit. When we hear it from women, then, and only then, can we declare sexism to be ‘over’ and no need for feminism.
It’s not your call. Stop trying to make it your call, it isn’t always all about you.
Fun fact: Morgan Ramsay, founder of the Entertainment Media Counsel, did an objective study of how much of gaming journalism talks about sexism or social justice.
To do this, he downloaded 130,524 articles from 37 RSS feeds of 23 outlets, including The Escapist, Rock Paper Shotgun, CVG, Edge Online, Eurogamer, Gamasutra, Game Informer, GamePolitics, GamesBeat, GamesIndustry International, GameSpot, GamesRadar, IGN, IndieGames, Joystiq, Kotaku, Massively, MCV, NowGamer, PocketGamer.biz, Polygon, Shacknews and VG24/7, published over a period of twelve months. He then did a search on how often these games articles mentioned sexism, feminism, or misogyny.
The result? Over a period of one year, 0.41% of 130,524 articles referenced feminism, feminist, sexism, sexist, misogyny, and misogynist explicitly.
That’s less than half of one percent.
So next time you hear someone whining that “feminism is taking over video games journalism”, what they’re actually whining about is that feminism exists in video games journalism.
This post from the garrulous hodgepodge of turds known as ‘ihatesocialjusticewarrors’ manages to test the very boundaries of quantum physics – the stupid here is so super-dense that the Planck constant just may not apply. The original buffoonery can be found at ihatesocialjusticewarriors.com. The dumb is strong at this site, consider yourself warned. :)
“There is a widely held belief that feminism is a movement for equality between men and women. This is inaccurate and a misconception.”
Whaaat? These two sentences are true. Feminism is the movement to liberate women from the detrimental constraints of patriarchal society. Might we have common ground between DWR and ‘IHATESOCIALJUSTICEWARRIORS’?
Wait for it.
“Feminism is actually a form of sexism.”
And *boom* goes my head into the desk.
“Feminism views women as inherently inferior to men, no different than the traditional ‘sexists’ they are actively engaged in fighting against.”
Not. Even. Close.
Feminists are in the business of analyzing, deconstructing, and critiquing the patriarchal society that women are forced to live in. The goal of feminism is to eradicate the patriarchal superstructure that society is based upon; the very same patriarchy that damages both women and men.
Women are treated as inferiors in society because the patriarchal status quo, not because of any inherent inferiority.
Happy to clear that up for you.
“Feminism doesn’t encourage women to be as efficient as men, but rather they attempt to adjust policies to accommodate women. This isn’t equality. Instead it’s making the determination that being a woman is a handicap and special rules need to apply.”
What does being ‘efficient like a man’ look like? It looks like you are implying that men are the default normal setting in society and, that if women could just be more ‘man-like’ they would do better. Of course, the idea that default human = man, is the sorta of bullshit that feminists have been fighting against since the founding of the movement.
Adjusting policies? You mean supporting structural changes that move toward levelling the playing field? We certainly cannot have any of that.
The common thread running through so much of the feminist backlash is the wacky idea that equality is somehow achievable with the current state of affairs. The problem with this analysis (other than its made of certified grade A bullshit) is that it ignores the structural reality of society. Society is heavily tilted toward favouring men. How could it not be, as men are the primary architects of society, so why would they not craft it in their favour?
Axiomatically speaking, no egalitarian solution can be reached until patriarchy has been dismantled.
It is known that being female *is* a handicap in society. Females are not taken seriously, not given bodily autonomy, not paid as much, and for the most part relegated to the sex class to be objectified by the ‘default humans’ a.k.a men. Not exactly carnival fun times for the double XX caste.
“If feminists truly believed that women were equal to men, then there would be no motivation nor reason for them to implement, or to push to implement, special rules or adjust any of the policies that govern workforce requirements or productivity.”
Because not challenging the status quo will somehow fix the status quo…
1. Observe differential treatment on the basis of sex.
2. Do nothing about it.
4. Profit! – Sweet sweet egalitarianism for all!
C. *thud* *gasp* Need ASA stat, head sore from repeated desk impacts.
“Let’s face it, feminism is just a different form of sexism.”
Maybe in your imaginary world reverse racism(?) exists as well, but back here in reality feminism really isn’t sexist, as it attempts to directly address sexism in society and fix said problem.
“It’s also misogynistic in that it attempts to put unrealistic demands onto average women and it denies the very nature of what a woman is and how nature designed her.”
Aww f*ck, it is all about the fluff pink lady brains isn’t it? Along with the migrating wombs and bouts of hysteria – women had better just shuffle back to the kitchen before more male egos are hurt and privileges are threatened. It’s not patriarchy that is holding women back, but rather biology that makes females inferior…
*thud thud thud thud*
“Feminists hate women and want them to be men instead. There, somebody finally came out and just said what we were all thinking.🙂”
Feminists want to see the structures in society that mandate differential treatment based on body type erased. Feminists have no desire to become the oppressor class, rather they seek to redress the fundamental imbalances in society.
And there you have it gentle readers, your dose of deconstructed ass-hat misogyny for the day.
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.
The new Ghostbusters Movie looks like a lot of fun. What is not so much fun, the overwhelming negative reaction to the trailer mostly by man-babies who have to get their winge on because an all female cast of a rebooted franchise is ruining their lives. But hey, take a look at the trailer and form your own (slightly framed by me) opinion on the upcoming reboot.
There. Now that wasn’t so bad now was it? To my informed readership there could be issues with the dialogue, what is considered funny, how much can one really glean for a trailer – the usual suspects when it comes to evaluating a possible film to watch.
Then there is this dude. Welcome to Ground Zero of glibly earnest misogyny. Feel free to stop the vid at any time. It doesn’t get any better.
The pattern laid out by the douche-nozzle above can be found replicated in the comment section of the movie. But before we get to that, the we should examine the numbers of the situation.
At the time of this screen capture, 877k of negative votes for this movie. Similar trends for other movies?
Evidently not, especially note the Adam Sandler, a movie crafted with all the care and attention a drunkard has while taking his mid bender shit of the day. For this toadstool of a movie, 13k people have rated it negatively. Yet, how did Ghostbusters earn so many down-votes? Could it be the threat of male-centric media dominance ever so slightly slipping way? The plaintive wails from thousands of fragile male egos, given an anonymous forum, showing how threatened they are?
I shan’t talk about the Green Lantern – its better and more humane that way.
A small sampling of the comment section:
Now before I go on my spiel, I managed to find a comment hidden in this thread that is golden as it encapsulates the phenomena at hand.
Well there you have it. Problem named. Male entitlement and the reaction to the threat of not being centre of the media universe, for just one movie. The amount of push-back over the new Ghostbusters movie is quite staggering, as it is in fact, just one summer movie and unlikely to change the dominant mode of production in Hollywood.
If we put on our sociological glasses and get our hypothesizing boots out we can appreciate the fertile ground the discussion of this movie brings about. Can we perhaps extrapolate to other venues in society that have been traditional bastions of male power and the backlash that must have been experienced by women trying to change the status quo?
Consider the amount of misogyny present, even in the small sampling presented here (you can go see much much more in actual thread if you’d like) and what does that say about about our society? I would say that despite all the hurley-burley about social justice warriors and their ilk ruining *everything* that one of the dominant themes in our constructed social existence is the hatred of women.
This hatred of women is a learned generational feature – the commenters on this trailer are of the new ‘enlightened’ generation. This is scary frakking shite we have here, because without direct attention to the processes that form this toxic hate, nothing will change. Deprogramming the patriarchal misogyny that cripples men and destroys women must be moved up the priority list (stat!). We have wasted too many generations on a system that is destroying us.