Tag Archives: misogyny

The Alt-Right Would Enjoy Living Under Sharia

If it weren’t for the dread of having to worship a different sky goblin, I swear these people would have a field day being able to revert their treatment of women to that of the 1800s.

Jordan Peterson claims women shouldn’t be allowed to wear makeup or high heels at work; that sexual harassment is their fault and women and men likely aren’t able to work together.

This guy has been praised for a good couple of years for his stand on newly invented gender pronouns; ever since, he has evolved into the go-to conservative academic for opposition to whatever the left tries to push. Although he sounded levelled to begin with and more tempered than the usual reactionary band, it seems that at the end of the day, philosophising aside, he holds the view of a religious puritan – women should be mandated to stop “provoking”, because men can’t help themselves.

Though his solution is not to have them covered from head to toes, as those in Islamic theocracies are, the drive is identical – women enjoy too much freedom of expression; they should be treated as sexual nitroglycerine and have a dress code imposed on them when men are present.

Never mind that women who abandon their femininity in aesthetic terms (some radical feminists for instance), giving up makeup, cutting their hair short and at times growing their armpit hair, are referred to, by the same crowd, as a disgrace to womanhood and completely unappealing.

Nope. They don’t want them dressing like men (that causes impotence apparently), but they don’t want them excessively feminine either, as unwanted erections are also an inconvenience. They must want some virginal, nun-like characters whose sole intention is to make sure they are not noticed. Who would know that their appearance is likely to cause offence for all the wrong reasons.

Reinstate Magdalene laundries while you’re at it. Dickhead.

Why red lipstick, he asks. Well (I’m paraphrasing), it’s because it’s indicative of sexual arousal. Because every woman going to work, apparently, is not worried about the long hours, mortgage, debt, family duties or a boring job – she goes there specifically to show her male colleagues how she looks when sexually aroused. Every single day, as she gets ready, that is her drive. For an academic, such views are incredibly simplistic and idiotic.

Never mind that a woman goes out in public in a manner she feels comfortable in, and some wouldn’t leave their homes without the makeup routine – partly because they know that if they don’t look their best, they might be jeered at by the same entourage which also jeers at them for looking too appealing. They just can’t win, can they? And by winning, I mean be left alone.

I don’t suppose the same standards would apply to ladies well past their prime, considerably overweight ones or those with a visible physical defect. Men who think like Jordan Peterson are only concerned with the object of their own desire – young,  very attractive women. Maybe if they stopped wanking off to porn every day they would cease to look at a colleague and immediately think she is provoking through the colour of her lipstick, like a Playboy bunny. I understand male hyper-sexuality, but FFS, they can keep these obsessions to their private space.

I think it’s grotesque for a woman to set off to work each day keeping primarily in mind that her male colleagues or employers will study her from head to toes. And that she, just by being female, is some kind of threat to their mental well-being.

Which brings me to the fact that I don’t understand the alt-right’s opposition to Sharia law, where women are concerned; if someone were to formulate a similar doctrine for the west, changing only what specifically pertains to Muslim worship, I reckon they’d be more than happy. Apparently, they’ve got vagina on their brains to such extent that women in their vicinity are a danger/ in danger.

Stefan Molyneux, another guru for young men who can’t get laid and become nostalgic for eras they’ve never experienced, claims, among other things, that a woman belongs in the home, for breeding purposes (I know I sound like a feminist here, and believe me, I’m not; I simply find this approach vile, as is any attempt to impose a lifestyle choice to others). Being a homemaker is a choice, in the west anyway. It’s not my place or Molyneux’s to dictate what a woman should want out of life.

The illustrious bullshit spinner also has a rather strange obsession with the clitoris (a woman wants to tie a string to her clit and drag the man along, paraphrasing again). His misogyny, transparent down to his tone, which oozes anger and frustration, is poisonous to young minds.

One notable position he holds is that women are responsible for starting families with complete arseholes – as if, you know, during courtship an arsehole actually displayed his natural behaviour. In other words, if a woman finds herself in an abusive situation and is unable to leave, it’s her fault after all. The idea that women only date aggressive men and should instead date “nice” members of Incel was what motivated Elliot Rodger to go on a shooting spree. AWALT is not some innocuous groan of frustration thrown around on Reddit; it actually has consequences.

All in all, I can find clear congruence between adepts of Sharia law and this new generation of right-wingers (MRA, alt-right, Christian conspiracy nutters etc; they are all patting each other on the back for being “red pilled” when it comes to women). These are some of the points they seem to agree on:

  • A return to outdated moral values and social standards is necessary;
  • Attractive women should cover up to avoid male attention;
  • Men just can’t keep it in their trousers and sexual assaults are provoked;
  • There is rampant sexual immorality in the world, with a focus on sexual minorities;
  • Women either belong in the home, with alpha males as providers, or should be rejected altogether as whores and deviants;
  • The alpha male must protect his territory, status, ego etc;
  • Militarism and hawkishness are apparels of “true alpha males”;
  • Men should be the unquestioned leaders of their households and communities (it’s not like Jim Jones and Warren Jeffs didn’t do a splendid job);
  • Adultery on a woman’s part is unforgivable, whilst men can fuck about all they like, or have multiple wives, respectively;
  • Women’s nature is to be submissive and a variation in that sense is deviant/ rebellious;
  • In group interactions (work for instance), men and women are better off separated.
  • Women are immature and unworthy of leadership positions or intellectual endeavours.

It’s slightly amusing that just today I learned of research carried out by Dr. Hector Garcia, regarding the god archetypes humanity seems to construct. “The Alpha God” details the links between our late primate ancestors and our current behaviours and aspirations, culminating in the kind of being we imagine as worthy of worshiping.

The archetype of an all-powerful alpha male, before whom mortals must bow (I’d never known apes also bow before alphas in their group, hence that’s where all the submission rituals must come from…and believers think they are establishing a connection with the divine… when they are in fact just imitating apes).

The being Christians and Muslims worship is very, very concerned with men’s inability to control their sexual urges and women’s moral duty to cover up.

This has nothing to do with ethics or spirituality but with Cro-Magnon understanding of human nature.

 

The Men’s Rights Movement: A Misguided Octopus

In the vein of other political octopodes, this movement started with the apparently benign quest of countering toxic feminism, yet quickly developed into its “other side of the coin”, joining members not through calm and rationality, or hope for a better world, but anger, frustration, residual disappointment, entitlement, cultural claims of superiority, “regressivism” and in some cases, pathological hatred.

It is thus fair to claim that this movement, just like feminism, plays an active part in a manufactured tribal war of the sexes, as opposed to simply countering the extreme views it claims formented it in the first place.

If we engage in a rather grotesque exercise of imagination, we can compare both these movements with the human centipede envisaged in the creepy film bearing the same name. Once the tribal bond is established, the head of the centipede merely engages in an act of bowel relief, the contents of which pass through everyone attached. Such is the case with toxic ideas. I am attached, therefore I receive and pass on the message, without processing (digesting) it first.

The octopus analogy refers to the many subdivisions of this movement, each emphasising a different issue. On the whole, the MRM pushes forth the following ideas:

  • Western societies favour girls and women over boys and men, in terms of declaring them superior in nature;
  • Education is geared towards the needs and formation of females;
  • Women have legal advantages over men in terms of conceiving and raising children;
  • The job market favours women;
  • Women often make false claims of victimisation by men, especially when sexual misconduct is involved;
  • Feminism seeks to infiltrate Marxist ideas into western states;
  • Women have become undesirable to men through fashion fads and their lack of interest in pleasing men through their image or behaviour;
  • Women are deluded in thinking they can fill positions only men can;
  • Women are generally labile, hysterical and untrustworthy;
  • Women have unwarranted and delusional demands of men;
  • Women use their sexual prowess in order to prey on men;
  • Women seek to demean and demonise men;
  • Marriage is a prison;
  • Masculinity as a concept is under threat.

Needless to say, as in the case of feminism regarding all men with suspicion, there is only a thin line between making these assertions about some women and ending up making them about all women, not to mention male feminists (“betas” or “castrati” as they are sometimes referred to, the latter referencing eunuchs).

What is so disengaging about feminists today is precisely the generalisation and acrimony; the intention to dominate. Sadly, the same is present in the men’s rights movement.

It seems that neither side is actually looking for a better understanding and a harmony-conducive compromise through open discussions, but plain and simple dominance. This is achieved through righteous anger, demonisation, derision and solipsism.

The blind fighting the blind, so to speak.

Perhaps no advocate of this movement is better known than Paul Elam. To see the drive behind this individual one only needs to read a few of his “best quotes”:

Should I be called to sit on a jury for a rape trial, I vow publicly to vote not guilty, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that the charges are true.

There is nothing left to interpretation or fit for whitewashing. Fortunately, such declarations might see Mr Elam permanently excused from jury duty, yet the encouragement given to others, to do the same, is very poisonous.

Below I will expand on two offshoots of this movement, on a gradient of harmful prejudices and intentions.

MGTOW 

Along the way, the men’s rights movement developed a radical branch known as MGTOW, short for Men Going Their Own Way. This particular group, though not disavowing sexual interactions with women, for short-lived practical purposes only, does swear them off in the sense of commitment and forming families, as apparently, all women are ravenous, manipulative parasites who can exploit men more than ever before due to our current culture of female empowerment.

It’s safe to say personal experience along those lines is a prerequisite for men who adopt this radical declaration. Both in being disappointed and looking for a justification for disappointments caused (that does, indeed, happen).

For a taste  of the group’s attitude (rather reminiscent of bile), here is a collection of fine quotes.

Incel

Although the term itself is gender-neutral, Incel, as in “involuntarily celibate”, is mostly circulated in online discussions between young men who find it difficult to find a female partner. It is often associated with the men’s rights movement and at some point spawned a radical offshoot known as Truecel, which in turn, spawned Elliot Rodger.

In other words, this group is a glorified case of blue balls, pardon the frankness.

They tend to focus on the superficiality of women and their preference for overtly alpha males (the MGTOW type perhaps), arguing women have materialistic and self-gratifying selection criteria when it comes to male partners, and some, such as Rodger, argue the female sex is animal-like in pursuing assholes.

They blend in with the rest of the select MRM gathering through their awful views on women; the only difference is their lack of dignity about it. Whilst the MGTOW crowd tries to display some type of spine, even if the result is members’ own loneliness and nothing more, Incel types declare their desire for vaginas (artificial ones will do, some claim). An infamous Truecel member even came forth with the proposition that it’s the government’s responsibility to provide men with sex, as some kind of social program.

For a taste of this group’s attitude (with a tinge of sour grapes), here is a collection of their intellectual produce. 

Identity politics are not limited to the left. To counteract the plethora of labels and categories the left has consecrated in popular jargon, the right is slowly building a system of its own.

Those who are willing to share their lives with women provided women always obey them.Those who hate women to the point of wanting little or nothing to do with them. Those who hate women but demand sex of them.

And on it goes; it seems all these attitudes, temporary as they may be for each individual, are identities and chosen paths in life now.

 

“Calling Out Misogynists” – Really Funny

 

Feminism-page-0

From this intellectual masterpiece we can all learn how to identify and shame ten types of misogynists, each type more vile than the other, in a perpetual quest to oppress women, as well as the gender undecided.  But first, a quick word of tolerance for self-conscious men and the allies of feminists, whatever that means.

Let’s say you know better than to use words like “hysterical or “bitch, and you sure as fuck know not to blame heated arguments on the fact that someone is on her/zir/their period. If this is you, you’ve got a running start.

So to make it clear, there is no such thing as hysterical behaviour on women’s part in recorded history. This is a made-up word, unlike “zir”, which is completely legitimate. I don’t suppose this SJW who was protesting Milo Yannopoulos at UCLA counts:

 

Anyway. Moving on to the perpetrators.

  1. “Manterruptors” 

It’s so common in multi-gendered situations to witness men talking out of turn, interrupting other people while they’re talking, or completely disregarding the allotted time-limit a facilitator has set for individual questions or comments. These men will often highjack the conversation and/or derail its original topic in order to match their own personal interests.

Coming from a feminist, whose “allies” routinely disrupt speakers they disagree with, that is just side-splitting. I don’t suppose shouting “racist” undeservedly to shut up a conservative speaker, whose presence had been carefully planned at a venue, with time and resources invested, counts as interrupting. Which these groups and their “allies” engage in on a weekly basis, from what pops up on YouTube. Rarely has there been a more vicious and relentless manner of impeding free speech than the one we witness nowadays from so-called social justice warriors.

“Misogynistic? you might ask, skeptically. Isn’t that kind of behavior just plain rude?The answer is yes – regardless of who you are, these kinds of behaviors are just plain rude. But the larger question I would pose is: What possesses a person to act this way in the first place? Who is it that feels comfortable (or oblivious) of dominating space in this way?

The larger question is directly related to one of the subsequent points regarding a supposed entitlement to “take up space” – namely “manspreading”.  Hence, from the fact that men sit with their legs apart on the tube, we deduce they are prone in one and all situations to be bothersome, which stretches logic far more than any pair of legs ever could.

This is logic doing the splits.

2. “Emotional labour dodgers”

By emotional labour, we understand a man’s act of listening to women and supporting them in their hour of need.

But here’s the thing: Men will often pour their hearts out to their female or gender non-conforming friends in a therapy-esque fashion, but when the tables are turned, men are often not willing to reciprocate the same kinds of emotional labor.(…) The unconscious expectation that men often have regarding this one-sided caretaker dynamic is explicitly rooted in misogyny. It implies that every woman or gender non-conforming person owes you some kind of free, maternalistic, emotional labor.

Even these words, emotional labour, are more than relevant to this person’s attitude towards friendship and support. It’s an exchange. A trade. An endeavour. You can’t get any colder and more mercantile than that.

A therapist, mind you, expects remuneration for their time; a friend or lover doesn’t. People who are close do not hold a stopwatch while listening to each other, monitoring whether they’re getting as much as they’re giving. Anyone should think twice before confiding in a person with this type of attitude.

3. The “manspreader”

While this term was coined specifically in relation to the subway car environment, I feel it can be applied to all sorts of scenarios: men who leave piles of their personal shit everywhere in shared living environments, men who leave unfinished projects spread out across designated work stations they might share with their co-workers, and so on. In my opinion, the definition of a manspreader can be extended to any dude who – by virtue of the amount of physical space he is taking up with his physical body or personal items – makes it impossible for anyone else to utilize a space that they should also have equal claim to.

Farther down the pit of ridiculousness, it seems that even men being messy at home or at work, which many people are, is somehow misogynistic. This makes no mention of women who have a hard time keeping a place tidy and whom they are in turn “oppressing”.

Again, logic doing the splits, this time while riding a fun fair bull.

4. “Manbabies” and accidental manipulators

This refers to a breakup situation inspired by a pop song, where the man, though declaring he was not in love with his former partner, insists that she shouldn’t have cut him off completely. Hence, she has the “cojones”, or indifference, whatever you want to call it, and he wants to stay friendly. That makes him a “manbaby”.

There is something odd about expecting anything relevant out of a pop song, which might’ve been produced on the bog by one of those conveyor belt writers the industry uses. Accusing all men of having this attitude – which is not even strange by the way, but a variation of human behaviour – is, again, a stretch so painful to the more sophisticated parts of the brain. Not to mention that women can – and do – the exact same; in fact it is more characteristic for a woman to have a hard time letting go.

5. Unauthorised advice givers

For instance, try being a woman alone in a hardware store! Hardware stores are like breeding grounds for unauthorized advice givers!

These would be the people who try to help out on a technical level or in other ways, with the would-be recipient of said help feeling insulted. Nothing to do with the dynamic between men an women, and everything to do with arrogance (that of thinking one is above advice, especially from people who might have helpful pointers). Quite ironic after describing “manbabies” above.

6. The “mansplainer”

This would be a guy who over-tries to convince others of his point or pretends to know more than he actually does. Again, human behaviour, nothing to do with misogyny.

Another common and unchecked form of mansplaining is the refusal to stop and ask for directions when you know you are fucking lost!

And how is that oppressive to women, again? Who are these people bothering by wandering about not being sure where they are? It seems every form of male behaviour, either common, potential or made up, is “misogynistic” to some.

If a man looks lost, maybe you should stop him and engage in some good ol’ unauthorised advice giving.

7. “Manarchists”, “mactivists” and “brogressives”

Assuming this is not attempted typing after a litre of vodka, it appears the feminist community has come up with yet more awkward terminology.

In its most basic sense, these terms refer to men in activist communities who perpetuate misogynistic behaviors by virtue of failing to put their revolutionary theories into practice. These are men who have made commitments to their communities to challenge systems of oppression like capitalism, heteropatriarchy, white-supremacy, sexism, and ableism.

OK, so here’s a progressive sabotaging their own activist movement from within, by creating tension between the men and women forming it. Bravo to the queens of discord; what can I say.

SJWs often display cannibalistic tendencies and tend to separate into ever-smaller groups, based on “irreconcilable differences” (minor issues dealt with in a hysterical way). No wonder they can never get on with the rest of the world; they can’t even get on with each other.

8. Racist sexualisers 

These are men who perpetuate racialized tropes through the ways they sexualize women and gender non-conforming folks. (..)You don’t have to actually say these things aloud in order for them to influence your dating life.

While agreeing that stereotyping is the hallmark of small minds, I can’t help being curious regarding the second phrase, which indicates the author might not hear these things with a frequency that is proportional to the indignation.

If men don’t say them aloud, how in the world do other people determine these are in fact their thoughts? Is it just a guessing game? Or is it a phenomenon you think might be prevalent but in fact might not be at all? Just asking.

Another common phenomenon that occurs under this banner happens when men tend to have women of color in their lives take on the roles of casual lover, booty-call, non-primary or “sidepiece,” while considering the white women they date as more“serious relationship material.”

Again, there is nothing to suggest that in real life this has anything to do with race. If anything, it is this approach which objectifies the women, treating them as passive in said relationships, being acted upon, when they in fact make a conscious choice to be in that position.

9. Cis-sexists

Negating someone’s gender identity is extricably linked to misogyny. You do not get to decide what qualifies someone as a “man” or a “woman.” When you fail to see transwomen as “real” women, you are asserting patriarchal control over what is and isn’t considered “womanly.”

As a human being and a man, one might have a tiny, tiny right to assert an opinion regarding their own condition. And as such, “discriminating” against a man’s chosen new identity, one would not be discriminating against a woman, in their own view.

10. Fetishisers of non-consensual pain

This was all caused by someone telling the author she had a sexy voice while having a sore throat and being barely able to speak. What was that word again? “Manbaby?” No further comment required.

There is a way that we are all taught to fetishize women’s pain. If this is in a BDSM context, that’s one thing – but when someone is in pain non-consensually, don’t fucking fetishize that shit. This might seem trite, but I’m telling you: It’s something men do all the time without even thinking about it. This also goes for telling a woman she looks hot after having lost a ton of weight. Aside from being fatphobic, you also don’t know how or why that weight loss happened! Maybe she has a parasite that has had her throwing up every meal for the past six months.

Personally, I’ve never seen or heard of any case of a man “fetishising” a woman’s illness or injury, in these few decades of being alive on this planet. If it does happen, I’m sure it’s not a widespread phenomenon.

Here’s where it gets twisted – apparently it’s normal for men to actually cause and get sexual gratification out of a woman’s pain, emulating physical assault, but somehow inappropriate to make comments about her voice or even innocently compliment her appearance. These people have everything upside-down, honestly.

However, after all this, the ally’s guide takes the cake, in terms of being so far removed from reality.

When venting to a close female or gender non-conforming friend, ask yourself, “Am I willing to reciprocate the same emotional labor that’s being offered to me right now?”

For someone to even think they are a match for the demands of “emotional labour”of a social justice warrior, they would have to be unrealistic. The constant winging over nothing, the fabrication of drama out of thin air, the thousands of trigger words to avoid and the stick up those behinds which are too precious to compliment – all these make an SJW ineligible as a friend to a normal person. One would have to be masochistic to engage with such people, let alone give them details of their personal life. Allow me to assume that this guide might be aimed not at real friends, but at hypothetical ones, who will fail to manifest in the form of actual humans.

When in multi-gender company ask yourself, “Am I talking out of turn?” “Am I dominating the conversation?” “Am I feeling a need to be the know-it-all at the table?” “Do I actually know what I’m talking about or am I bullshitting so as not to compromise my masculinity?”

In other words, be uncomfortable. Be very, very uncomfortable. Be anxious, be self-conscious, see this interaction not as an encounter with friends but a test you must pass; feel unworthy of your company; pray that they can tolerate your obnoxious nature.

Or, alternatively, simply don’t engage with this lot. Which I’m sure will be the most popular choice.

When in need of emotional support ask yourself, “Who are the men in my life I might be able to seek support from?”

Because, it seems, women are “not your mother or therapist”, so you don’t want to impose on them; even if said women are very close to you, the main thing on your mind should be a feminist’s opinion/ demand, creeping its way into your personal relationships. Speaking of which:

After a breakup with a female or gender non-conforming partner, ask yourself, “Am I taking up a ton of space with my reaction? Am I relying on her/zir/them to caretake me through it?

If trying to control how men approach their breakups is not entitlement, I don’t know what is. If a man does this as an ally, it means he is starting to politicise his romantic relationships and sees everything through the feminist lens. Creepy, as usual.

Be humble and ask yourself, “Do I make a concerted effort to learn from my female and gender non-conforming friends about what sexism/ misogyny feel like first hand?”

In a context of being misogynistic by existing, as feminists seem to put it, one needn’t make an effort aside from understanding they were born with the wrong genitals.

Dismantling patriarchy is hard work, but you’re well on your way to becoming the feminists we need you to be!

Um…. No, thanks.

No one will ever rise to that status. Or has a sane reason for attempting.