Emma Watson simply doesn’t get it

emma watson

I normally don’t like to write too many articles on celebrities (with my previous post being an exception), but given that this is about Emma Watson, the self-appointed Khaleesi of feminism, I simply couldn’t resist this time. Apparently the feminist film star drew the ire of sex-negative feminists when a photo of her in Vanity Fair showed her with her breasts barely covered by a white crocheted capelet. It shouldn’t really be a big deal, but as soon as it got out, she was branded as a hypocrite by other feminists, and her many critics. The reason I’m writing about it is because of her response to all this:

“It just always reveals to me how many misconceptions and what a misunderstanding there is about what feminism is. Feminism is about giving women choice. Feminism is not a stick with which to beat other women with. It’s about freedom, it’s about liberation, it’s about equality. I really don’t know what my tits have to do with it. It’s very confusing.I’m confused. Most people are confused. No, I’m just always just quietly stunned.”

At that point I couldn’t help but laugh, because Emma obviously doesn’t realise what feminism truly is. Maybe in the past, feminism was about liberation, but today, feminism has barely anything to do with freedom. Certainly not for men, and apparently not for women if they’re the wrong kind of feminist. She has no idea what’s become of feminism. The movement had already accomplished its historical goal of ensuring that men and women are equal under the law, but without any legitimate causes to fight for in the West, the movement has become a hotbed of infighting wherein feminists consistently shout out those who aren’t ideologically pure enough. How it got this way has been explained many times, but I generally think that there are three simplified ways of explaining it:

  1. The misandrists were allowed to take control of movement and represent it in the public.
  2. The movement got tainted by Marxist ideological principles, which is way feminists see women as a class.
  3. Having been subsumed into progressivism and cultural Marxism, the movement in its current form (third-wave feminism) is now unwilling to deal with legitimate women’s rights issues in countries where feminism would actually do some good (e.g. India, China, Saudia Arabia, Mauritania, etc.), and are thus condemned to vapid first-world issues, as well as the by now thoroughly debunked myth of the gender wage gap.

Another thing she doesn’t realise is that feminism has become a culturally authoritarian ideology, in this case the left-wing equivalent of the Catholic church, and like all authoritarian ideologies, they don’t care about human nature (and they think they can change the way humans think), and they are only happy when everyone thinks the same way they do. So we shouldn’t be surprised when feminists lash at Emma Watson for showing a bit of her breasts in a Vanity Fair photo – this is them acting as if she has committed heresy against their ideological puritanism.

Ultimately that’s the only reason for this pointless fracas. Feminists and progressives in general have become the new puritans, and that’s fundamentally why people like me actively oppose them. In fact, they’re so similar to the old Christian puritans that sometimes criticising feminism can be just as socially awkward as criticising a Christian used to be. Instead of the New Christian Right of the 1980’s, we now have third-wave feminism, and these feminists are the new pearl clutching class.

However, I think the nonsense is also Emma Watson’s fault, but not because she volunteered to pose in the photo. After the Harry Potter film series finished (ending perhaps her only real claim to fame if we’re totally honest), she’s spent the past few years building up an image as the face of feminism in Hollywood, unaware of the reasons why feminists are so unpopular. Through her He for She campaign, she presented herself as the “righteous” feminist who only wants to spread the word of feminism, while condemning other celebrities for expressing their feminism in ways she doesn’t like. She’s basically the feminist equivalent of Jimmy Swaggart, and this is the moment where she’s exposed as a hypocrite.

hypocrisy

This is what a feminist looks like.

In a way, it’s great to see self-righteous hypocrites like her get taken down a peg in a way they so evidently deserve. This is a woman who talks about how women need feminism because they’re oppressed, speaking from an awesomely lofty position of wealth, privilege and celebrity status, and yet she has the nerve to accuse critics like myself of not understanding feminism. She has no idea why we don’t want anything to do with feminism, and at some point, we’re going to get tired of telling her. She’s a champagne feminist at heart, and I say this because she talks about how we “need” feminism (and her army of professional ass-kissers in the left-wing media parrot this), but let’s be honest. Emma Watson isn’t oppressed. Any woman who made it in Hollywood can never be considered oppressed, unless you see women as a collective class.

Overall, I think Emma Watson constantly talks out of her ass like most Hollywood celebrities do, but to her credit, I believe her when she says she’s confused, because she has absolutely no idea of the beast that feminism really is. If she did, then trust me, she wouldn’t be calling herself a feminist.

Advertisements

Tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth

women's march

On Saturday the presidential inauguration was followed by the Women’s March protests, and since then I have yet to hear the end of it. The women were protesting the inauguration of Donald Trump, so the media reported on it as if it were some sort of righteous feat of activism, pretending that they were standing up for women’s rights, but really it was just a bunch of over-privileged nutjobs whining that the candidate they didn’t like won and was inaugurated without a hitch. It was a waste of everyone’s time, and in such a way that it was literally no different to when a bunch of Tea Party protestors agitated vainly against the re-election of Barack Obama.

It’s easy to guess why the women were marching in droves. They still believe that Donald Trump is a brazen misogynist who views women is little more than pieces of meat, and they probably believe the accusations of sexual assault levied against him. Of course, it’s all a lie. There’s no proof that Donald Trump is a sexist, nothing but hearsay, conjecture and ad hominem slurs. The idea that Trump hates women comes from the cultural Marxist view of women as a class. For the progressives (who themselves have adopted the ideology of cultural Marxism), insulting one woman means insulting all women. After Donald Trump insulted Megyn Kelly (the former Fox News presenter who will now work for NBC), many progressives invented the narrative that Donald Trump is a sexist, a misogynist, and by extension, and enemy of women’s rights.

Of course, it’s all a big lie, but that in itself is the problem at heart. The more outrageous the lie, the more easily people who aren’t informed will believe it, and if a lie is repeated often enough, many will perceive it as the inescapable truth. This is how we got to the point where millions of women believe that Donald Trump is a chauvinistic caveman who just grabs vaginas all the time. In other words, the Women’s March is based on a lie, a lie that has been perpetuated by the establishment because they see the populist Donald Trump as a threat to their interests. Unsurprisingly, the feminists, who see Donald Trump as the patriarchy made flesh, are more than willing to help them spread this nonsense, which is part of how you see a lot of young people believing what is provably a lie.

The opposition to Trump has become incredibly childish, having taken a lie as the truth, to the point that they have become emotionally invested in the narrative they have created for themselves, all without a shred of evidence. After all, if he truly were a misogynist, why would he hire Kellyanne Conway as his campaign manager, and later his counselor? If he were truly a misogynist, he would never have become friends with Hillary Clinton before running against her, and nor would he think of his wife Melania very highly.

Of course, we shouldn’t be surprised. Modern feminism is a religion built on lies. They believe that women are eternally held back by “the patriarchy”, and must be given special treatment in order to advance in life. They also believe that women are purposefully paid less than men, despite this being illegal under the law. They also believe that all men are potential rapists who reduce women to objects simply by looking at them, never mind that it’s the feminists, with their ghastly rhetoric, that are the ones who reduce women to little more than their bodies, or even their vaginas.

Before people start confusing my words, I’m not against the idea of marching. I believe that people must have the right to protest, but I don’t think every protest is just. In fact, I think the Women’s March was little more than feminists protesting the democratically elected President of the United States based on accusations of misogyny, and the false notion that Donald Trump poses a threat to women’s rights. Oh, and it turns out that many of the organisations involved in the Women’s March are tied with George Soros, the billionaire philanthropist who was revealed to have given money to Black Lives Matter, and backed Hillary Clinton during the election. Why am I not surprised?

Will these lefty loonies just give it up already? Trump has won, and he has taken the oath of office. There’s nothing you can do, other than call him out when he actually does something wrong. All the feminists were doing was making the cause of women’s rights look like a joke in the eyes of people who had already had enough of the feminists and their nonsense, which in the end will only hurt their movement in the long run. Good going. At least rate, even the moderate, and often more naive liberals who support you will eventually come to the conclusion that you’re delusional, and all the support you’ll have left are the far-left gender ideologues who will harm your movement further as it completes its transformation into a toxic echo chamber.

If nothing else, what the were doing is an example of the kind of hyperbole that we are seeing. Yes, Trump is a questionable choice of President, he has made questionable business decisions, and I reserve some skepticism of some of his policy positions, but he is not a monster. He hasn’t thrown people off of buildings, he hasn’t rigged elections, he isn’t a rampant sexual predator, and he absolutely isn’t Hitler. This kind of hyperbole does nothing other than turn people against each other, and now against the head of state, and in the end they’ll be crying wolf so often that when it is time to question Trump on policy, nobody will care, and it will be the left’s fault, because they were too busy creating the same kind of division that they will then accuse Trump of creating.

Why we don’t need feminism

While in university, I found a somewhat cringeworthy poster presumably written up by art students (I found this in the fine art area, it’s not hard to connect the dots) which basically attempts to convince the viewer of why the modern world would “need” feminism. What I get is that they’re obviously misinformed, having drunken the feminist Kool-Aid from a keg. That said, I think of it as an opportunity to break down each statement, showing the obvious holes in the ideology, and why we don’t need feminism.

imag0303

Statement #1 – “Because society does not accept vulnerability in men, or strength in women”

I have a question – why do you have to care what other people think of you? It always seems to me like feminists and other assorted leftists place an unhealthy emphasis on society, and that’s because leftists believe that a person’s problems come from society, and that to fix them requires changing society. If a woman wants to be strong, that’s fine. In fact, from my experience, strong women tend to be praised in mainstream culture, and nobody I know seems to have a problem with more vulnerable (translation: less assertive) men.

Statement #2 – “We need to teach our children that they are in charge of their bodies, and not force them to give affection.”

And how do you feminists propose to do that? Do you plan on teaching sex education in primary school, or lower? Because if so I would have some serious problems. This isn’t the sort of subject that should be taught to children, and certainly not in the way feminists have in mind. As for “force them to give affection”, what on Earth have they been reading? I swear that whenever you wear the feminist lens you always see problems wherever you go, and whoever wrote it hasn’t bothered to explain this position. Not that I would expect one from something that’s meant to appeal solely to people within their echo chamber.

Statement #3 – “Because all over the world, there are people who don’t understand that NO means NO.”

Yes, you are absolutely going to get people like that, and if they are breaking the law then they should be punished. That’s all it has to be. You don’t need feminism just because there are assholes in this world. At any rate, most people already accept that no means no, and you’ll always get people who don’t, just as you’ll always have murderers even though murder is illegal. I fail to see how feminism is necessary in this sense.

Statement #4 – “Because women and men still become victims of domestic violence everyday.”

Gee, I didn’t know feminists suddenly cared when men are abused.

Anyway, you don’t need feminism to address domestic violence. Of course, any feminists interested in helping to tackle the issue are welcome, but domestic violence is not an inherently feminist issue, especially if, as whoever wrote this pointed out, it’s not just women being affected. The most useful thing feminists could do is to empower women to break their silence, and hopefully call the police. Other than that, you don’t need feminism for this.

Statement #5 – “Women are seen as second class citizens.”

That’s definitely true in Saudi Arabia, along with the other countries in the Islamic world, but not here in Britain.

Statement #6 – “Feminism has become synonymous with man-hating – this further emphasises the gender divide that feminism was created to break down.”

At least there’s some self-awareness in this crowd, but I would argue that feminism has done much more damage than simply emphasising a gender divide. The reason feminism has become synonymous with man-hating is because most feminists don’t care about men. Not all of them are misandrists, but there are enough misandrists in the movement that people can see feminism for what it is – a movement that primarily benefits women, and advocates for the supremacy of the female gender. As I’ve written about before, the actions of modern feminists have served to damage relations between men and women, mainly because if you keep beating men with the “sexist” and “misogynist” labels all the time, they’re going to get sick of it. Also, what positive thing did they think treating men like a privileged overclass to be overthrown would do?

The fact of the matter is that misandry has become a normal thing in modern feminism, and none of the mainstream feminists are challenging this.

Statement #7 – “Because fathers are not considered as important in their child’s development as mothers.”

I thought that’s what you feminists wanted. Make up your minds already!

Even if the feminists wanted to address this, how do they plan on doing this? I would argue that the men’s rights activists would be more qualified to handle this, but the thing is, feminists refuse to work with them. They view men’s rights as nothing, because for them, why would privileged patriarchs have problems in the first place?

If they want to address this issue, maybe they should stop constantly demonising men, and maybe they’ll get some results.

Statement #8 – “Donald Trump believes women are slaves! He will put an end to feminism.”

Well this sounds very bizarre, because I’ve never heard Donald Trump say anything of the sort. It’s another wild claim that sounds like the writer pulled out of Raw Story, or Salon, or some other progressive propaganda outlet.

As for whether or not he’ll end feminism, I severely doubt that Trump himself cares about feminism at all, but I believe him being elected represents the beginning of a cultural shift away from political correctness. A Trump presidency wouldn’t mean the end of feminism (you can’t really kill an idea after all). All that would be dead is the power and influence feminism has to shame people with, and in a way the feminists deserve it. The movement has clearly been corrupted by power, and has completely lost touch with ordinary people. Trump getting elected is the kick in the ass that they so desperately need.

Statement #9 – “Because women are denied the right to make decisions concerning their own bodies.”

No they aren’t, not here in Britain, and certainly not over in America. This is bold claim that, while it would be accurate in the Islamic world, doesn’t fly here.

Statement #10 – “Because men and women are the same at their core – we are all human and deserve to be treated as such.”

There are biological difference between men and women, and those should not be overlooked, but I agree that in terms of character and what we are capable of, men and women are equals, and here in the West we are treated as equals. We’re all treated based on the choices we make and our character as individuals, and that’s great. The problem is that feminism is not an egalitarian movement. They want equality of outcome, rather than equality of opportunity, so they won’t be happy anyway so long as we live in a free and open society.

Statement #11 – “Because no country in the world can say it has achieved equality of the sexes.”

Britain has. America has. Sweden has. In any Western country, men and women are equal under the law. But that’s not what feminists mean isn’t it? No, they want gender quotas to force companies, governments, schools and other establishments to make sure that 50% of all employees are female. That is not what I would call an egalitarian society. Feminists don’t want gender equality. They want gender parity, just that equality sounds like a much better word to most people.

Statement #12 – “Grab them by the pussy.”

Oh give it a rest already! It was no more than locker room banter, that was recorded eleven years ago. It sounds unpleasant to a lot of people, but it doesn’t justify feminism. That you feminists are so concerned with men saying things that sound unpleasant to you tells me that you are more focused on policing other people’s speech than actual equality.

Statement #13 – “Because feminism can create a better world – for ALL the sexes.”

No it can’t. In fact, in its current form, all feminism can do is make the world a much worse place for both the sexes. You have men who are so afraid of how women will treat them that they are checking out of society to avoid any sort of risk, and you have women who actually decide to pursue a career in the same way as men do, and it turns out they are more likely to suffer from depression. Also, marriage rates are declining, more men are committing suicide, and we now live in a world where you can’t address any of those and more issues without having your reputation tarnished by some shrill social justice warriors who may want to get you fired. Is that what you might call a better world for all the sexes? I would think not.

Also, shouldn’t that be for both the sexes? There’s only two.

Statement #14 – “We are still stuck in the way of blaming the women/victim when they are raped or harassed. ‘What were they wearing?'”

Some people do this, but not everybody does this. Feminists seem to have the habit of sweeping everything and everyone with the same brush.

Statement #15 – “Because I still do not feel safe walking home at night as a woman.”

Probably because you’ve been fed lies by the news media. Trust me. I used to think I wouldn’t be safe at night on my own as well, but I was wrong. In fact, it turns out that women are safer out at night than they think, and that men are more likely to be a victim of violent crime than women. I’m so sick of this narrative that women aren’t safe at night just because of widely publicised incidents on the news. All it does is scare people into not having a life, and it seems to me like feminism is scaring women into thinking solely about how vulnerable they are. That’s the total opposite of empowering women.

Statement #16 – “Women in developing countries are still being discriminated against and are at a disadvantage regarding their education and their bodies. Being forced into marriage or having their genitals mutilated.”

Finally, a feminist talking point that is actually on point. I agree wholeheartedly that feminism might be needed in the developing world, and that’s partly why I’m concerned that most feminists aren’t interested in that at all. Maybe if you spent less time on safe spaces and trigger warnings, you might actually be able to get something done in those other countries. It’s too bad that’s the only statement that makes any sense.

Statement #17 – “It needs to be understood that ‘cat-calling’ is NOT flattering.”

Some people might find it flattering, and others might not, but I think it’s mostly considered rude nowadays. If you don’t like being cat-called, that’s fine, but you shouldn’t force everyone to think the same way as you. That feminists are so adamant that everyone think the same as them is precisely why feminism has become such a bad word in the first place. That most feminists aren’t aware of this is truly astonishing.

And yet people wonder why I don’t like feminism.

Honestly, I shouldn’t be too surprised, but it’s genuinely concerning what people in my generation are buying into. I know there are good feminists out there (and I sense that I will have to constantly point this out), but these good feminists aren’t being given enough of a voice. It’s the bad feminists who are commanding the dialogue through the mainstream media, and even though some people can say “they aren’t feminists” or “they aren’t what feminism is about”, but the sad truth is that a rotten egg is still ultimately an egg. The bad feminists are still ultimately part of the movement, and it’s because the moderate feminists allowed them to take over the movement that feminism has taken on its current shape.

In the end, we don’t need feminism. What we need is egalitarianism, which is superior principally because when you’re an egalitarian you don’t care about what gender, colour or creed you are. Feminism has failed because it wants to have all the power and influence it can get, and in the process, it has ultimately tarnished itself.

The feminist war on Japanese pop culture

tsunderstorm

Ever since Gamergate, and perhaps before then, feminists, progressives and social justice warriors have been embarking on a vain and ultimately futile quest to stick their nose in all aspects of popular culture, wagging their fingers at people who just want to be entertained. Of course, when they realised that they couldn’t get gamers to bend the knee to the religion of social justice, they moved on to a new target – cute anime characters. This new zeal for finger-wagging comes fresh from The Mary Sue, an agenda-pushing feminist site that wags its finger at anything in geek culture they find “problematic”, who wrote an article called “Moé, Misogyny and Masculinity: Anime’s Cuteness Problem–and How to Fix It“.

The premise of the article is pure hogwash. It claims that moé characters, those little sister type characters in anime who are meant to be seen as adorable, are “problematic” and represent an “undercurrent of misogyny” (note: whenever someone says there’s an undercurrent of something, there’s a good chance that he or she can’t provide any evidence to back up their claim). The author, Amelia Cook, goes on a meandering sermon about how moé characters are bad because they’re “unrealistic” and “initialised”, before ultimately discrediting her own argument in the last paragraph, which effectively reads as her saying “moé should be fixed because I don’t like it”. Whether or not you don’t like something about anime (and there are things I find questionable), that’s no reason to demand that it should be changed according to your whims. In the same article she cites the My Little Pony fandom as an example of “grown men challenging perceptions of masculinity through cute pop culture”. In other words, otakus who like moé are evil perverts, but grown men watching a cartoon for six-year-old girls is a good thing? Only in feminism people. Personally I don’t know what part of the article is more contemptible, the fact that she can’t tell fantasy from reality, or the fact that she wants Westerners to “fix it”. Sounds a lot like imperialism to me.

That itself is rather baffling because usually the social justice warriors are big fans of cultural relativism (the belief that one’s beliefs and activities should be understood by others in terms of that person’s culture). They’re more than willing to turn a blind eye to the most viscerally unsavoury cultural practices that can be found in the Middle East, India and parts of Africa, but for some reason they’re offended by Japanese cartoon characters. In fact, the same author seems to have a particular beef with otaku culture, having written an article bashing fanservice over a month ago, declaring that is “normalises the objectification of women”. Nevermind the fact that fanservice featuring male anime characters exists as well. Would Amelia care to mention that? Oh wait, she won’t, or if she brings it up she’ll deny it, because the concept of men being objectified in the same way as women goes against her feminist dogma. I’m honestly sick to death of the whole “objectification” argument, mainly because its only an excuse that feminists and religious conservatives alike can lean on to demand the censorship of art and entertainment. Also, fanservice can be used for comedy. I’ve heard of plenty of anime series’ that do this. Maybe Amelia Cook should check them out.

Of course, the legions of anime fans on Twitter responded swiftly, with the hashtag #OperationMoe having been doing the rounds all week. However, it’s not just anime the SJW’s are after. The Mary Sue is the same sight that accused Final Fantasy XV of being sexist for having an all-male main cast, denouncing its fans as pigs. In fact, social justice warriors have developed a special kind of hatred for Japanese games. I’ve always noticed that Western critics tend to look down on Japanese games and anime with a certain kind of supremacist snobbery, and Japanese developers take notice of this, so they try as hard as they can to make sure their games can appeal to the Western market, and sadly, that leads them to the tragedy of self-censorship. Games like Tokyo Mirage Sessions, which would be completely innocuous over in Japan, often get brutally censored when being released in the West, and sometimes it’s completely pointless.

Of course, if we want to see Japanese works uncensored, we can peruse the internet in all its glory, but my problem is this: they shouldn’t have to censor themselves at all. I think certain Japanese developers are starting to take notice of the kind of pathetic PC culture we are engaged in. When asked by a fan about the bikini costumes in Tekken 7, Tekken producer Katsuhiro Harada replied: “ask your country’s SJW’s”, calling out the self-professed culture critics who are so fragile that they get offended by swimsuits.

There is another dimension to the SJWs’ new war on anime, one that makes the “progressive” label that they brandish so much seem bitterly ironic. I think that the Western critics who bash anime so much do this because they think lowly of Japanese culture, or at least their attitudes towards sex. What we have to remember is that Japanese culture is very different to ours. They’re attitude towards gender roles are distinctly more conservative than those in the West, and they perceive sexuality differently. Namely, the Japanese have historically had more permissive attitudes to sex and nudity, and in some ways they persist to this day. Of course, Western critics are entrenched in their own culture, and Japanese attitudes towards sex and/or erotic material is an affront to what feminism has taught them, hence they find it acceptable to avoid an opponent’s argument by mocking his/her anime avatar (if an avatar is present). The ethnocentric bias is present in today’s “culture critics”, which is ironic because they consider themselves diametrically opposed to racism (yet their repeated emphasis on race has all the hallmarks of a racist). If anything, the fact that they treat anime with particular disdain because of Japanese attitudes towards sex makes them the bigots.

To me, this is perhaps an example of the hypocrisy of progressives, as their belief in cultural relativism stops at the borders of Japan, a country that doesn’t seem to be having the same problem with social justice warriors that we’re having. Anime appears to be next front that social justice warriors are fighting, but it’s not a fight that they can nor should win. If I have any advice for Japanese game developers and anime producers who are thinking about the West’s social justice warriors, I think they should ignore them. The SJW’s will always look for new targets, and they will never be satisfied. As for the anime fans, I say keep fighting. The social justice advocates will try and subjugate everything in their midst until everything conforms to their ideological agenda. If you love anime, keep fighting the good fight against social justice warriors who want to police everything you love. The gamers will be at your side, having fought their own battle against agenda-pushing feminists in video games industry (as a side note, most of the games Anita Sarkeesian condemns as “sexist” happen to have been made in Japan). If there are any social justice warriors perusing my site, this message from Twitter is for them.

untitled

“Toxic masculinity” is a dangerous myth

fullmcintosh

One of the most common buzzwords spread around by third-wave feminists and progressives is the phrase “toxic masculinity”, which is basically their way of saying “we don’t want men to assert themselves at all, even when it’s appropriate”. What they’ll tell you is that the term “toxic masculinity” is a way in which “the patriarchy” (yes, this comes from feminist circles) is harmful to men, referring to what feminists perceive as socially constructed attitudes that compel men to be violent, unemotional, and sexually aggressive.

Not only does the toxic masculinity narrative espouse that all men are inherently violent (which in turn becomes the feminist rationale for the “teach men not to rape” argument), but it also presents men as incapable of being any better than creatures of animalistic passion and rage. Of course, progressives and feminists love this kind of postmodern claptrap because in their mind, it lets them justify treating men as inferior, broken creatures, with the added bonus of giving them an imaginary bogeyman for whenever men commit violent crimes (for example, this Think Progress article, which tries to connect “toxic masculinity” with the Orlando massacre).

I don’t know about you, but I’m convinced that the whole toxic masculinity nonsense is not only sexist, but also ludicrous, and dangerous. I firmly believe that the idea of “toxic masculinity”, preached by charlatans and bought by impressionable readers, is a dangerous myth that can only bring harm to those who believe it, including men. How? Well put it this way, what could be more harmful to a man than being taught that his masculinity, the natural state of being a man, is inherently evil? It’s not even based on anything that could be demonstrated as observable facts. Everytime I glance at an article with “toxic masculinity” in its title, I can immediately assume that it’s dabbling in postmodernist nonsense.

And the thing is, I’m not entirely wrong. The idea comes across to me as what happens when feminists look at hypermasculine stereotypes of men and assume that all men act like that, or are inclined to. The problem is that in today’s world, men are taught to see masculinity in general as something to resent, and in the process, we a new generation of more sensitive, neurotic men who don’t stand up for themselves. I know this because I almost became one of them. I know what it’s like to question the very things that make a man what he is, until I realised that a lot of what I felt was based solely on resentment towards feeling unable to meet what I perceived were social expectations. To me, that’s literally what toxic masculinity sounds like – a way for third-wave feminists to tap into weak, battered boys by feeding into their delusions. It makes men weaker by giving them the idea that their self-confidence is “toxic”, and even a hint of aggression (which is sometimes necessary when sticking up for your interests) is misogynistic, it deludes them into seeking approval from others instead of commanding respect, and it instils a victim complex into men who are unfortunate enough to be infected with the ideology that inspired it. In short, it disempowers men.

Of course, the religion of toxic masculinity may benefit feminists, but what about women who aren’t feminists? It’s a time-tested fact that the majority of women are attracted to self-confident men who assert themselves when the time is right. They don’t even have to be the hypermasculine type, as long as a man can outwardly express self-confidence and self-control, then it’s safe to assume that those men have a reasonable chance of finding a partner. With the idea of toxic masculinity convincing men that they are the problem, the men who buy into it become outwardly weak, much like neurotic thralls who try to constantly appease women. The reality is that most women aren’t attracted to weak-willed men, passionless men who self-flagellate themselves in front of them, and yet those are the kind of men that feminism and the myth of “toxic masculinity” are creating, and so I’m not surprised when a man writes about how he allowed his wife to cheat on him with other men.

For me, the fact that major news outlets are propagating the idea of “toxic masculinity” represents a startling shift, but it says more about feminism than anything else. In its current incarnation, feminism has sought to tear men down every turn, and I’m convinced that it’s merely a way of exercising vengeance against men for what they perceive as a “male-dominated culture”. The feminists, progressives, and left-wing liberals in general have given up on trying to change the world for the better, so they are now engaged in the cultural destruction of the old world, because only by degrading the existing culture can you justify creating a new one.

The most hypocritical part as that the people propagating the myth of toxic masculinity claim to be in favour of empowering women, or creating equality. If people of one gender are allowed to feel empowered while people of the other gender are to feel ashamed of themselves, then I’m afraid we live in an unequal society at best, and a totalitarian society at worst. I’ve already known this for some time, but at this point it should be clear that third-wave feminists aren’t really in favour of equality as they claim. You can’t say you’re in favour of gender equality and yet espouse the notion that men are evil. It’s literally no different to how men used to treat women over a hundred years ago, just that today the roles are switched, and now the establishment media denigrates or objectifies men, all while hypocritically decrying female objectification.

huffington post hypocrisy

The hypocrisy of the media is never-ending.

The misandrist bias in the mainstream media is basically why Gawker thought it was okay to realise a sex tape featuring Hulk Hogan, while also releasing an article condemning the leaked nude photos of Jennifer Lawrence. It’s also the reason why feminism enjoys such a lofty position in contemporary culture, despite the fact that nearly all issues regarding gender bias against women in the West have been resolved, while men’s rights advocates, who wish to address gender biases against men (such as the family court system, and the fact that prostate cancer research doesn’t get as much funding), are either ignored, ridiculed, or vilified by the mainstream media.

Next time you see an article decrying “toxic masculinity”, my advice is to ignore it. It’s essentially another progressive writer using postmodern gibberish to lecture you about why masculinity is somehow evil, and that’s just what they do if they aren’t calling masculinity fragile. It’s no wonder why both men and women alike have now been abandoning feminism, because it has ultimately become the means by which crazed gender ideologues can rationalise misandry, and because of that, relations between the two genders are more tensed than ever before. Masculinity isn’t toxic and men aren’t evil (most of them anyway). In fact, for the most part, men try to be good to women, but in today’s culture, a lot of men are so scared of crossing the line that they don’t know what to do, and we can thank feminists and the mainstream culture for telling them that anything they do is harassment. If masculinity is seen as toxic in the distant future, it will be because of the culture the progressives have created today.

Why do neofeminists hate marriage so much?

julie bindel

Marriage always sounds immediately bleak to those who are bitter, like this woman pictured here.

Remember the days when feminists were campaigning for a woman’s right to make her own choices? Apparently those days are gone, and today’s axe-crazy feminists are too busy looking for dragons to slay. That is to say that, despite the movement having accomplished the goal of establishing equality between the sexes, they’re hell bent on eliminating every last spec of “sexism”, and they see it everywhere. An easy example of this is can be found in a video produced by The Guardian, featuring the noted radical feminist Julie Bindel.

The video itself has been doing the rounds online for about a month, and since then it’s pretty much been trashed by nearly everyone on the Internet, and rightly so because you need only to watch it in order to see how bad the premise is. Bindel basically argues that marriage “can never be a feminist act” because she sees it as an institution that has “curtailed women’s freedom” for centuries. First of all, why does marriage have to be feminist, or is it merely a matter of whether or not it is compatible with the feminist gospel? Second of all, I would argue that marriage is only oppressive if you feel it to be that way. If the feminist views marriage as inherently bad, then she must have had a bad opinion of it, whether through experiencing a loveless marriage (which can and does happen), or through hearing of several accounts of abusive marriages in this country or elsewhere.

I find Bindel’s assertion of marriage as a purely patriarchal institution to be laughable. If marriage worked in men’s favour, why is it that a woman gets to take half your belongings and your house when you split up? I’m sure Ms. Bindel is bereft of an answer to this question, but it’s a real phenomenon. If marriage favoured men why do women win custody over the children more often than men do? Also, why does marriage have to be about equality or about male privilege? It’s got nothing to do with either. Isn’t marriage supposed to be about love? Isn’t that why men don’t marry until they find a woman they truly love?

She then goes on about how marriage supposedly devalues women as property through two nonsensical arguments. First, she asserts that the tradition of a bride being given away by her father is supposedly symbolic of the bride being “her father’s and then her husband’s property”. I have never heard that idea until now, and it’s completely false too. People don’t think of it in terms of property. It’s just a romantic tradition that people have kept over the centuries. I suppose the whole “property” bullshit is related to the idea that a man has to get his girlfriend’s parents’ approval to see or marry her. It’s a very old idea, but I doubt that it’s remotely necessary. If a man wants to have this tradition, then more power to him. As for the idea of “property” in the context of Mary Wallstonecraft’s claim that marriage is a “legal state of prostitution”, that’s also false. I hope there aren’t people around today who still think marriage is basically prostitution, and if there are, they probably support the government paying for free birth control products. You can’t condemn marriage as prostitution while simultaneously prostituting your birth control rights to the government, and having the taxpayer pay for it.

Secondly, she asserts that there’s a bias in favour of brides being virgins, and claiming that the mere idea of brides being virgins before marriage is “insulting to women”. It’s because we don’t view women as property that we don’t expect women to be virgins before we marry them. If all men were fussy enough that they will only marry virgins, then they’d only be alienating themselves from potential partners, and we all know that finding a partner who is a virgin will become more difficult as you get older, because it’s generally safe to assume that nearly everyone over 35 is no longer a virgin. Also, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with wanting to marry a virgin as long as she’s not forced to be a virgin, and I also don’t think there’s anything wrong with marrying a non-virgin.

I’ve written before about how virginity isn’t a bad thing, but I think it in today’s post-feminist world, virginity has become frowned upon by young people. In the old days, virginity was more highly valued, and even today men do tend to seek out virgins, not because of any “patriarchal traditions”, but because heterosexual men are biologically driven to find a partner who, to their knowledge, is a virgin. That’s still sort of true today, but nowadays, while a lot of men still like the idea of having sex with a virgin, it generally doesn’t matter whether or not you’re a virgin. Ultimately, straight men like myself want to marry a woman whose nice, caring, trustworthy, honest, and one who’ll raise a family with us. That’s the reason why promiscuous women are frowned upon in society, because anyone who’s promiscuous can’t be trusted to commit to a relationship with you, and certainly can’t be trusted to raise a family with you. It’s got nothing to do with sexism, and everything to do with trust.

Ms. Bindel also appears to have confused our society with the Islamic world, where women are treated like cattle, and are expected to be virgins until they’re married. In fact, later on in the video she states that it’s still legal for a man to rape his wife in 47 countries. What she won’t mention is that in the vast majority of those countries are either Islamic countries, or African nations where Christianity is the main religion, with some exceptions. Most of those countries are third world nations with retrograde cultural values, and many of those countries have a terrible human rights record anyway. The minute you look at those facts, the idea of marriage running counter to human rights falls apart quickly. Yes, there are countries that still allow forced marriages, arranged marriages, child brides and what have you, and that’s awful, but we don’t allow that precisely because we understand that it’s immoral.

I won’t go through the rest of her argument, since it basically falls apart on its own, but her overall message seems to be about convincing women that marriage cannot be a feminist act. Here’s my question – why should marriage be a feminist act? Marriage shouldn’t be about politics, or ideology, or equality, or power, or anything else other than love between two people. The fact that neofeminists like Julie Bindel are incapable of grasping that tells you everything you need to know about their ideology. They assume the worst of every choice you make. When the feminists see a married couple, they see a sex slave controlled by a man. When the feminists see an independent woman dressing lightly because she feels like it, they see a woman dressing to gain the attention of a man. Even innocuous conversations between a man and a woman can be interpreted by feminists as a man harassing a woman. The feminist worldview in this case is a very bleak and ugly worldview where the agency of a woman is always in doubt. This and other logical fallacies are why I find feminism and progressivism so abhorrent.

I think that feminists, along the SJW’s and their allies in the left-wing media, just want to abolish the institution of marriage altogether because they are ideologically opposed to it, so they’ll use any argument they can to try and repel young people away from marriage, and in America at least they’re succeeding. A growing number of American men are giving up on marriage, with just 26% of millennials choosing to get married compared to 48% of baby boomers. Meanwhile, monogamy itself has come to be seen as uncool, old-fashioned and naive, and I personally blame the feminists and the progressives in the mainstream media for it. They’ve created the myth that marriage is like a prison, and they’ve convinced men to despise marriage by convincing them that they’ll be spending their married lives with a wife metaphorically pulling him on leash, when in reality, there is no evidence to support that narrative.

I also find it very hypocritical that the mainstream media will denigrate straight marriage at every possible opportunity, while celebrating gay marriage all day long. If marriage is supposed to be about love between two people, then isn’t love universal? Why value the love of one couple over another because of their sexual orientation? Isn’t that the very same kind of bias that the progressives are supposed to be fighting against? It’s not just marriage that leftists are against. They want to destroy the traditional institutions of Western civilisation so that their distorted worldview can be translated into reality, because reality will almost always contradict the social justice leftists of the world. That’s why they want to silence speech that disagrees with them, to avoid being defeated intellectually by a more rational argument.

The ideas that the older generation grew up with – the idea of free speech, the desire for a happy marriage and a family, the right to self-defence – those are ideas that I admire, and the feminists, Marxists, SJW’s and Guardianistas want to destroy them. I imagine that the idea of little children going “Mommy I’m glad you’re home” is like nails on a chalkboard to them, but I don’t think most people actually believe the feminist narrative. Am I supposed to believe that Julie Bindel is happier than the average feminine-looking woman who has a devoted husband and children who are happy to see her?

Of course, marriage is by no means perfect, but I personally feel that a marriage is only as good or bad as the people who marry, and that a marriage only survives when both partners commit to it. A good and stable marriage requires both partners to attend to each other’s needs and care for each other, and I guess that’s too much work for marriage-bashing SJW’s like Julie Bindel. Whether or not you want to get married, it’s perfectly fine, but I feel there’s a reason that both men and women want to get married. They’re attracted to the idea of being together with someone who they love and trust, and when I have kids, I would rather they grow up in loving married family than in a single-parent household with them glued to the TV.

Is feminism the cult of our time?

smash the patriarchy

“…and to Hell with the Devil!”

If you have no idea what feminism is, and you look it up on the Internet, you’re almost guaranteed to find it as the rallying cry of vicious social justice warriors, status-seeking professional victims (such as Anita Sarkeesian), and the left-wing media outlets who take their side. They pretend that they are the oppressed, when in reality, they are the ones oppressing speech in universities, pressuring advertisers and businesses, and demanding that boys attend consent classes in universities. If that sounds terrifying, you haven’t even heard the worst of it yet.

Despite how unpopular feminism has become, it has still managed to influence a vast number of people in society, and the tactics and rhetoric employed by modern feminists make feminism look like a dangerous cult, but to be fair, that’s because it is. As a progressive ideology, feminism has an incredibly flimsy narrative. If women were really oppressed, then not many women would be going to universities, and we certainly wouldn’t have a woman running for president, let alone as the Democrats’ frontrunner. In order to survive, feminism requires the obfuscation of facts and a willing suspension of disbelief. It requires that you conform to groupthink, and are willing to abandon rational thought, which is a universal trait in all religions and cults.

Another disturbing trait of modern feminism is militaristic hatred towards men. They claim to want gender equality, and they have claimed in the past that feminism benefits men. Well, if I as a man was supposed to benefit from feminism, then why do feminists actively spam such inspiring hashtags as “KillAllMen”, “MasculinitySoFragile”, and “IBatheInMaleTears”? The reason feminists are so hostile to men is because their goal isn’t equality. Their goal is to create a matriarchal society, a complete reversal of the old-fashioned gender roles that were enforced before the 20th century, and I feel that the only reason they could possibly have is vengeance. Why else would they operate under the banner of social justice?

Of course, once you actually read into feminism and study the antics of their followers, you’ll find something much darker. Modern feminism can definitely be likened to a sickening cult, but there are certain cues that have led me to an even more disturbing conclusion, that feminism has become a kind of postmodern religion – specifically the matriarchal equivalent of Christianity.

Before you assume that I’ve gone crazy, allow me to explain why I think this makes sense. Christianity and modern feminism have a lot of nasty habits in common. Both are unashamedly sexist, but where Christianity was sexist towards women, feminism is sexist towards men. Both Christians and feminists are eager to try and convert people to their banner, and some are often very annoying in their approach (though we have yet to see the online feminist equivalent of Jehovah’s Witnesses, maybe “Anita’s Witnesses” would suffice?). Both of them believe in an adversarial figure that must be resisted, with the mythical “patriarchy” being the feminist stand-in for Satan.

Both Christianity and feminism share a culture of victimhood. In Christianity (or at least in certain denominations), we are all victims of the original sin of Adam and Eve, and remain powerless unless we “accept” the word of Jesus. In the feminist world, women are victims of oppression, and remain powerless without feminism to empower them. Call me old fashioned but I don’t think that sounds very empowering. In fact, it sounds to me like feminism is doing the opposite of empowering women, by casting them as a perpetually oppressed group. All the while, feminism is doing the exact same thing that a Christian cult would do, complete with the brainwashing and denial of reality.

Both Christianity and feminism have a weird obsession with the female body. Of course, the church wanted to control it, and convinced believers that the body itself is sinful. Feminists, meanwhile, associate their cause with the body positivity movement, but use that to demonize fertile, thin-looking women (as Naomi Wolf has made a career out of doing), and also any women who voluntarily works in porn or as a topless model. For the middle-class feminists, bare breasts on Tumblr or Instagram are good, but bare breasts on The Sun are bad, even though there’s no difference other than their prudish disgust for anything they don’t like. Speaking of prudery, today’s feminists have become the left-wing equivalent of the conservative moral busy-bodies of the 1980’s, eager to censor anything that looks remotely sexual, including advertisements featuring bikini-clad women, “sexualized” video game characters, music videos and pornography.

Another major thing they have in common is the concept of blasphemy. In the Dark Ages, Christian dogma was the law of the land, and if you went against the teachings of the church, you were perceived as having committed blasphemy against the religion, and would likely have been put to death. Feminists, meanwhile, routinely push for the censorship of anything that hurts their feelings or offends their ideology, and it doesn’t just stop at men, as feminists are not above shutting out the opinions of women who they perceive to be the wrong type of feminist. They both have buzzwords for those who deviate from their narrative. The Christians had “heathen” or “sinner”, while the feminist’s favourite buzzword is “misogynist”, which they use to make you feel as if you hate women just because you don’t accept feminism. They frequently use this word in order to shut down legitimate debate.

Just as Christianity presumes the guilt of all non-Christians, feminism presumes the privilege of all men (especially straight white men), thereby presuming that all men are guilty of sexism and misogyny, and are supposedly likely to commit rape. Finally, they both idolise figures who they paint as victims they revere for their suffering. For the Christians, this is Jesus Christ, and for the feminists, that would be the likes of Anita Sarkeesian, Zoe Quinn, Laurie Penny, and just about any feminist who performs the same pallid routine.

Of course I’m overlooking the obvious differences, but I didn’t intend to go all the way. The fact of the matter is that modern feminism has become a militantly far-left cult, using the vast array of progressive causes in order to strengthen it and gain membership. Much like Christianity, it serves only as an obstacle to social progress, because despite the feminist’s pretence of advancing social progress, their movement has in fact become so regressive and tribal that it now presents the greatest threat to women’s rights, and a lot of it will be down to bad image, because ever since the Gamergate fiasco, feminists have become among the most despised people on the planet in very short order. Even with all the dirty tricks they will use in order to dominate the political arena, and despite being favoured by many celebrities in mainstream culture, the feminist movement is failing to achieve its goals. With all that in mind, you hear a feminist complaining that “feminism” has become a dirty word, I think I’ve aptly presented my case for why.