One of my favorite things to do on Twitter, when feminists accuse me of ignorance, is to post the list of feminist books I have read.
This is generally met with invitations to kill myself, or fornicate myself to death, or perish in flames, but that’s because feminists are not abusive or harassing at all, amirite? I loved the feminist outrage over the fact they aren’t allowed to throw a man in jail for a tweet, even when feminists are the ones engaging in vulgar, harassing tweets themselves.
The judge in the Elliot case accepted that the perpetually aggrieved victims of the sisterhood felt threatened by a man tweeting responses to their own abusive tweets, and also quite sanely decided the sisters were utterly irrational.
A feminist writer by the name of JR Thorpe has recently posted an article demonstrating rather perfectly that media feminists have absolutely no clue what feminism is actually about, what theories underpin their hate movement, and what the actual, lived consequences of feminism are.
Let’s help her out, shall we?
Wanting to be a stay at home is a feminist choice
No, actually, it’s not. One of the earliest, and most vocal adherents of feminism declared that “[n]o woman should be authorized to stay at home and raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.” The words of Simone de Beauvoir, the grand dame of feminism. She went on to describe stay at home wives and mothers as ‘parasites sucking the living strength of another organism.’
Think she’s the only feminist who thought that way? Think again. Here’s an eyewitness account of another famous feminist Kate Millett, leading a chant that all feminists were encouraged to embrace.
“Why are we here today?” she asked.
“To make revolution,” they answered.
“What kind of revolution?” she replied.
“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
“By taking away his power!”
“How do we do that?”
“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.
“How can we destroy monogamy?”
Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears. Was I on planet earth? Who were these people?
“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.
Charming, no? How about Mary Jo Bane, who said “in order to raise children with quality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.” Vivian Gornick agrees, declaring that “being a housewife is an illegitimate profession.” Linda Gordon openly admits that “the nuclear family must be destroyed… whatever is the ultimate meaning, the breakup of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.’
According to feminists, JR, being a housewife is not a feminist choice.
Liking it when dudes open doors is a feminist choice
No, it’s not. That is called benevolent sexism, and having a man open a door for you contributes to your oppression in ways perhaps more nefarious than overt sexism. If you are a feminist, you understand that when a man opens a door for you, he is expressing deep-seated loathing and contempt for women.
How ya liking your movement so far, JR?
Loving Grooming and Femininity is a feminist choice
No, it’s not. It’s called the performativity of gender and it contributes directly to misogyny and oppression of women. There is an entire cabal of feminist theorists who critique femininity and domination, linking the two directly to sexual objectification of women. Sandra Lee Barky writes “[k]nowing that she is to be subjected to the cold appraisal of the male connoisseur and that her life prospects may depend on how she is seen, a woman learns to appraise herself first. The sexual objectification of women produces a duality in feminine consciousness. The gaze of the Other is internalized so that I myself become at once seer and seen, appraiser and the thing appraised.”
Caring about how you look is oppression, JR. Sorry. And behaving in a typically feminine manner reinforces male supremacy, particularly any acts that demonstrate tenderness:
“Indeed, the exigencies of female tenderness are such as virtually to guarantee the man’s absolution by the woman–not on her terms, but on his. Moreover, the man’s confession of fear or failure tends to mystify the woman’s understanding not only of the power dimensions of the relationship between herself and this particular man, but of the relations of power between men and women in general.”
[Apologies for quoting the extensive word salads of feminists, but this is generally how the crazy bitches write, because their ideas are so simple and stupid, they would be rejected immediately if stated clearly.]
Believing there are differences between the sexes is a feminist choice.
No, it is not. It’s downright HERESY, and you know immediately that’s a valid criticism, because it contains the word ‘her’. Gender is achieved through the process of socialization, period. Any and all differences between men and women are the product of different social conditions. Never mind the fact that science proves this theory absolutely, irrevocably dead wrong. According to feminists, boys demonstrate greater cognitive abilities than girls because misogyny teaches girls to be weaker, slower, less resilient and have less developed motor skills.
I find it amusing that JR can write the following sentence without a hint of irony or self-awareness: “some stereotypes about sexual differences, particularly in the brain, are actually nonsense: according to a study published in TIME in 2014, girls have been beating boys in high school testing for a century across all subjects, including math and science.”
Well, which is it? Are girls smarter than boys, indicating some pretty fundamental differences in brain structure, or are girls just smarter, but somehow incapable of achieving anything remarkable in math and science.
Ha ha. Trick question! We know the answer. There are no brain differences between men and women, but women are smarter, and don’t do anything exceptional with that intelligence because gender is socialized, and women are socialized to repress their knowledge of cold fusion and quantum entanglement, because the patriarchy…uh…well, the patriarchy has some reason for that. I don’t know what! I didn’t read the advanced blame the patriarchy for everything theory, apparently.
Being submissive in bed is a feminist choice
Nope. Sorry. Heterosexual sex in general is rape, and women must not submit to rape. Unfortunately rape fantasies, and submission fantasies are absolutely central to women’s sexual desires, and those fantasies require dominant, powerful men. You can see why this is a problem for feminists. They turn themselves inside out trying to justify their political stance that male domination is bad, toxic and harmful to women with their lust for dominant men who control them sexually.
It’s quite a conundrum. Here’s Morgan, trying to justify her sexual satisfaction in having a man push her around:
When you’ve spent most of your life fighting to be taken seriously as a woman, it can be extraordinarily grating to discover that you want to call any man “sir.” This, then, is the plight of the feminist sexual submissive—how do you maintain your identity as a strong, intelligent, independent woman when you also get off on letting people push you around?
Sorry feminists: you can eat your cake, or have it. Pick one.
Liking pornography is a feminist choice
Oh, hell no! The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is pretty clear on sexual objectification of women:
“[o]bjectification is a notion central to feminist theory. It can be roughly defined as the seeing and/or treating a person, usually a woman, as an object. In this entry, the focus is primarily on sexual objectification, objectification occurring in the sexual realm.”
Porn is the ultimate sexual objectification of both men and women. Both are products to be consumed. Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon don’t believe in your ‘feminist’ pornography for one second. The consumption of pornography is central to how men control women.
“Pornography defines women by how we look according to how we can be sexually used. … Pornography participates in its audience’s eroticism through creating an accessible sexual object, the possession and consumption of which is male sexuality, as socially constructed; to be consumed and possessed as which, is female sexuality, as socially constructed”
Porn or feminism: pick one.
Believing other parts of your identity are more important than your gender is a feminist choice.
Absolutely not! It’s in the dictionary, for heaven sake! Feminism is about women. You can add some tags to it, Black feminism, lesbian feminism, Asian feminism, Muslim feminism, but gender remains central, and cannot be superseded by any other dimension of your identity, or the whole house of cards collapses. Imagine for one second, we took class, the privileges of having money, as the dominant defining aspect of a person’s relationship to the wider world.
The idea of male privilege evaporates, and without male privilege, feminism cannot exist.
It’s very interesting, JR, that you raise precisely the points another human rights movement explores in depth. Provide all human beings with choices and opportunities, remove legitimate roadblocks, and then stand back and let the humans face the consequences of their choices, both good and bad. Feminism does not do any of those things. Women’s choices are not respected, roadblocks interfering with men’s abilities to be the people they want to be are left intact, and women are protected from the consequences of their actions, all at the behest of feminism.
I have some news for you, JR. You’re not a feminist. If you genuinely care about all the issues you raised, and want to have the freedom to be who you are without being condemned or judged for that, you’re a men’s rights activist. MRAs are the group fighting for you to have choices, and critically, consequences. We call that ‘fully realized adulthood’, and we want it for every adult. Even women.
Lots of love,