The manufactured hype over the 13th doctor

jodie whittaker

Yesterday it was apparently announced that the actor to succeed Peter Capaldi on Doctor Who will be Jodie Whittaker, meaning that for the first time ever, the role of The Doctor will be played be a woman. Being that I haven’t ban a fan for nearly a decade, I wouldn’t really care less, but apparently the progressives and social justice warriors have decided they want to rub their noses about it, and use it as an opportunity to virtue signal after a number of viewers took issue with it. Indeed, plenty of people on Facebook, including people I know personally, seem to have missed the point entirely.

First, Doctor Who hasn’t “broken the glass ceiling”. Not only is the “glass ceiling a myth invented by feminists to justify their authoritarian quota policies, but Doctor Who is also not the first sci-fi franchise to have a female lead. The Alien franchise did just that since 1979. Did everyone suddenly forget about Sigourney Weaver, or is she too old to even be a part of pop culture history at this point? Second of all, from what I can tell the reason some people don’t like the idea of a female Doctor Who isn’t because she’s a woman. It’s because the BBC has a very poor reputation as one of the most politically correct institutions in the UK. Naturally this would give rise to the idea that they only selected a female doctor to appease progressives.

And they would be right, but I think what we’re all missing the real reason they cast Jodie Whittaker as the Doctor – it’s basically a massive PR stunt. You might not believe me, but it will make perfect sense when you hear of the circumstances. You see, Doctor Who’s ratings are actually falling, to the point that it’s been suggest as a reason for Peter Capaldi’s departure from the show. I’m not sure how much further Jodie Whittaker could ruin Doctor Who, being that Steven Moffat had already done that since the start of the decade.

From what I’ve been hearing under his helm the show has become yet another mouthpiece for the BBC’s lefty social justice propaganda. Perhaps the most nakedly obvious expression of that agenda is the creation of Bill Potts, a black lesbian who looks like a near-exact caricature of a middle class social justice warrior type, who I have to assume was created solely to win praise from middle class lefty fans and media critics. The result? It won over the intended targets, with many media outlets heaping praise on the show and Bill Potts, at the cost of losing more and more regular viewers who are growing tired of the pernicious invasion of social justice in their TV.

They cast Jodie Whittaker with the same exact thing in mind, and I think it what happens next will look something like this. Right now the producers are busy congratulating themselves on how progressive they are, and generating hype by blowing the sexist comments out of proportion because it’s an easy way to get clicks from you. When they air the first episode with Jodie Whittaker, I predict that the show will enjoy a slight ratings increase on the next season premiere, only for ratings to continue plummeting further and further when people realise it’s the same boring show with the same declining quality in writing. After the producers realise that ratings haven’t gotten any better as a result of this publicity stunt, the producers will probably blame sexism for their declining ratings, and insist that the show needs to be more progressive, more political, all while they have to once again fight off speculation that the show will be cancelled, which will probably be more likely to happen if I’m proven right.

After that, the new doctor will be treated with the same fondness as the new all-female Ghostbusters did last year, as one of the most cringe-inducing symptoms of a time gone wrong, and even the producers will distance themselves from it. If you think about it the idea of the 13th Doctor is almost exactly like last year’s reboot of Ghostbusters. The producers shoehorned a female lead into the series for the sake of appealing to progressives and identity politicians, using her a conduit for some sort of feminist moralising, and they expect you to lap it all up, deeming anyone who criticises the new feminist icon to be a sexist. The problem was that by calling everyone sexist, you will alienated most of the fanbase, along with ordinary cinema goers. With Ghostbusters it lead to the film failing to turn a profit, killing off all hopes of a sequel and forcing the film to be given a subtitle on all home releases.

With Doctor Who, I think you will get exactly the same result. If Doctor Who doesn’t get cancelled, it will probably come back with a reduced budget, and the next season will have even lower ratings, so either way the show is doomed, and its reputation will be thrown down the garbage chute. This whole big to-do over the new Doctor Who star being a woman simply reeks of a manufactured controversy designed to sell a failing TV show. It’ll probably succeed temporarily, but once people realise that the show is still in its zombie years they’ll probably tune out. The people who wanted a female doctor probably won’t even care. They just want to celebrate the show “breaking muh glass ceiling” and insert their agenda as far as they can. They don’t care that they’re destroying a show that lots of people like. They only care about whether or not popular culture is progressive, and if you’re not in line with their agenda, then they’ll smear you as a backwards-thinking bigot or a misogynist until you either comply, or watch your career burn to the ground.

That’s what it’s all about in the end. The BBC, and indeed the entire mainstream entertainment industry, has been taken over by toxic ideologues who want nothing more than to control the way we think, and they want to use entertainment to influence us into accepting their way of thinking, and it’s not working anymore. They realise that they’re obsolete thanks to the Internet, and they don’t like it one bit. They’re probably wondering “why do people not like our totally progressive revolutionary TV show”, and of course nobody has even considered that TV is simply outdated, and so is Doctor Who.

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.

A plea to the few remaining good progressives

solidarity

Let this image illustrate what progressives think they’re doing.

Following the recent victory of Donald Trump, I’d like to talk yet again about the progressives, but this time, I want to take a different approach. In my more recent posts, I have been absolutely cruel towards progressives (with good reason, namely I’m an ex-leftist who got sick of all the nonsense). In university I’ve met good people who consider themselves progressives, and surprisingly enough, are actually willing to hear my case.

Before anyone gets the wrong idea, I disagree with progressive ideology, and as I’ve demonstrated previously, I’m still a strong, vociferous critic of feminism in its current form, but I care less about the ideology and more about the people act. Of course, I’ve called progressives and feminists out in this site for basically treating ordinary people like absolute crap because they disagree with them.

Thankfully I haven’t found any of those characters on campus (for now at least, I’ve been sort of steeling myself for the past two months), but it remains crystal clear to me that these “good progressives” and “good feminists” aren’t making their voices heard loudly enough. I don’t doubt that they have good intentions. Of course they do. But the problem is that the movement is clearly dominated by the reprehensible social justice warriors, and many of the mainstream progressives (celebrities, politicians, artists, etc.) aren’t even trying to distance themselves from the bad actors, often because they’re trying to pander to them.

This and the many other failures of the progressives practically ensured Trump’s victory, and now even other progressives (the one’s who aren’t still pouting and pooping their diapers over a Trump presidency) are starting to realise that it’s partly their fault, along with the media, and which point we’re finally on the same page. Realising that there’s a problem in the movement is a good start, but I think it’s going to take a lot more than to get the public back on their side, and if you’re one of the good progressives, like the ones I know in real life, I’m willing to help, if that is you’re willing to listen. Let’s break this down into a few points.

1) Don’t shut down the conversation by calling the opponent “racist”, “sexist”, or any other “-ist” or “-phobe” you feel like.

Seriously, that’s one of the biggest gripes people have with progressives right now. They’re not willing to have a conversation on meaty issues such as immigration, black-on-black crime, radical Islam, or the biased family courts, probably because doing so would mean taking off the ideological lens, if only for a while.

If you didn’t want Donald Trump to win because you thought he was a racist, or a sexist, or a xenophobe (neither claim holds up to scrutiny by the way), then that’s too bad. Calling him those things didn’t work, and trying to shame his supporters with the same tactic definitely didn’t work. You can’t persuade people to side by telling them they’re bad people if they aren’t. It didn’t work when conservative Christians tried it, and it isn’t working today.

Besides, by abusing these very words, you effectively reduce their value. If every trivial thing is racist, it means nothing because the word “racist” has lost meaning, and it’s nothing other than a disservice to people suffering from actual racism around the world. Same with sexism and sexual harassment. It’s only baffling how a dad joke can now be considered “sexual harassment”, but the consequence is that it might end up being harder for people to take genuine sexual harassment claims seriously.

2) – Kick Marxism out of the movement

Today’s progressives get much of their ideas from Marxist theory, as well as critical theory as prescribed by the Frankfurt School. Such nonsense must be purged from progressivism if you have any hope of winning back public acceptance, and possibly winning elections. Marxism is not only illiberal at its core, but it has repeatedly demonstrated itself as a failing ideology. Every country that has tried Marxist ideals ultimately becomes an impoverished dictatorship where all the wealth, power and resources are concentrated in the hands of the ruling class.

Critical theory is also pure nonsense. All it teaches you is to deconstruct everything you see, while offering no positive alternative. Today’s modern social justice warriors think almost entirely with critical theory (they’re practically breast-fed with it in universities), and that’s why they see the bedrocks of society – marriage, capitalism, the family unit, – as problematic at best, and enslavement at worst.

Also, in what way does Marxism, or indeed socialism, represent the best interests of the working class? In the 1980’s, the Labour Party began to tilt extremely to far to left, and went full Marxist under Michael Foot. The end result was Labour being kept out of power until 1997. I can see the same thing happening to Jeremy Corbyn. He’s already turned the party into a living joke, and as long he’s continuing down his current path, Labour will be virtually unelectable. To me, it seems as if today’s progressives, by embracing Marxist ideals (to the extent that racism and sexism are redefined through the Marxist framework of “oppressor vs. oppressed”), have isolated themselves from the working class, to the point that progressivism is now an ideal home for champagne socialists like Russell Brand or Owen Jones.

What I’m trying to say is that capitalism doesn’t have to be your enemy. In fact, capitalism is arguably the fairest economic system we have because you’re rewarded based on the effort you put into your work, whereas in a socialist system, everyone would be paid the same no matter how hard they worked, assuming they work at all. Instead of trying to get rid of capitalism entirely, why not focus on reforming the existing system so that it is harder for poor people to be exploited? I’m not saying that I’m advocating this, I’m just suggesting a possible route progressives can take.

3) – Censorship is never justified, no matter who’s been offended

One thing that appals me about today’s progressives is that they find themselves justifying, and sometimes advocating for what is effectively censorship. Usually this takes the form of a progressive arguing that a Christian preacher shouldn’t be allowed to speak in public. Any progressive can make that argument, but that doesn’t make it a morally justifiable one.

The problem with modern progressives when it comes to censorship is that when you take away anybody’s right to free speech, for any reason, it sets an uncomfortable precedent. If the fundamentalist Christian is silenced, then it’s only a matter of time before anyone else can be silenced as well, and for any given reason.

That’s why I think progressives should abandon the whole concept of “hate speech” (which is essentially a secular equivalent to the concept of “blasphemy”), as it is invariably used to justify censorship. In a truly free and equal society, all speech is protected, without exception. The concept of hate speech serves only to demonstrate how authoritarian the progressive ideology has become.

4) – Stop thinking in terms of race and gender

What’s the most effective why to combat sexism and racism? Stop judging people based on race and gender. It’s really that simple, unless you’re a social justice warrior who can’t help but think in terms of race and gender. A consistent problem that many progressives are having today is that they’re thinking of men, women and ethnicities as collective groups, wherein everyone in that box is supposed to think the same way. This is how today’s progressives have been convinced that insulting one woman means that you hate all women, or that only white men vote Republican.

Identity politics, once the preserve of nationalists during the 1930’s, has become a hallmark of the contemporary left, and this has to stop. Nobody is buying into this identity politics crap anymore, because people don’t want to be judged by what they were born as. Most people can see straight away that the identitarian train of thought exhibited by progressives is no different to the very racist thinking that they claim to oppose.

Some progressives and social justice warriors are actually convinced that being colour blind (read: not paying attention to one’s skin colour) contributes to racism, if it’s not a form of racism. This, of course, is nonsense. I would argue that it is more progressive to be colour blind than to continue focusing on race, and therein lies the problem. In today’s world, most people are colour blind when it comes to race, and that’s a good thing because it means most people don’t give a crap about race. This is what Martin Luther King Jr. was talking about when he dreamed of a world where people would be judged based on the content of their character, rather than the colour of their skin. What today’s progressives do, however, is slap to Dr. King’s face.

5) Globalism is not your friend

In today’s world, the overarching conflict in politics is not simply a matter of left vs. right. It is now a matter of globalism vs. nationalism, and nationalism isn’t as bad most people think (it’s only when you have extreme nationalists who think in terms of race that you start getting problems). It’s no coincidence that the progressives have been on the losing side in 2016. In Britain, they sided with the Remain camp, because the EU represents their dream of a borderless Europe. In America, they sided with Hillary Clinton, the epitome of 90’s-era globalist, neoliberal politics, despite the fact that she is overwhelmingly corrupt.

Coincidence? I think not. Today’s progressives are globalists, whether they want to admit it or not. The problem is that the globalist elites don’t give a damn about progressive ideals. It may sound like it because they are centrists, but really, all the globalists care about is enriching themselves at the expense of the rest of the population. The irony is stunning because progressives often claim they are helping the working class, and like to think that they’re going against the establishment. The reality is that globalism is the establishment, and the people on the top don’t care about the working class. They don’t care about the progressives either. To them, you’re useful idiots who can help them propel their agenda.

By selling out to globalism (which I assume they only did because they don’t like the sound of nationalism), the progressives have alienated themselves from the working class, thus ensuring that they will be defeated in the elections and referendums to come, just as they have been defeated this year.

I know this might be a lot to swallow, but if you’re a progressive and you care about the future of your ideology, and if you don’t want to see a whole decade of right-wing governments dominating the west, then the onus is on you to be the change you wish to see. I know there are good progressives who are tired of the antics of those social justice warriors, and if you’re one of them, take my advice to heart. I’m trying to help you get your groove back. All you have to do is talk to people who disagree with you, listen to their criticisms, maybe challenging them. You can either take my advice, and the advice of other good-hearted liberals, or you can continue doubling down on the failures of progressivism, and ensure your continued failure for years to come.

 

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 return of the moral busybodies

stop funding hate

It appears that in today’s world, the home of persistent, self-appointed moral guardians is in the left, and this is evident in a divisive new campaign called “Stop Funding Hate”. What is it? It’s a campaign that aims to pressure major companies into withdrawing ads from right-wing tabloids such as The Sun, The Daily Mail, and The Daily Express. In other words, it’s a thinly disguised attempt at censoring newspapers they disagree with. They made news this month when they released a John Lewis style mock advert calling on them to stop funding right-wing papers. Sadly they’ve already gotten one company to cave in, as Lego announced that they will stop advertising in The Daily Mail. The Co-op Group (for those who don’t know, they’re a British supermarket chain) has also announced that they are “reviewing their policies”, and Waitrose and M&S are also being urged by the group.

I don’t know if anyone else has noticed, but this campaign sounds exactly like the self-appointed moral crusaders of the 1980’s, and it’s sickening. It seems as if today’s progressives are obsessed with silencing opposing opinions, and to be fair, that’s all the left can do nowadays. They’re losing elections, their propaganda is being rejected, and their ideas are being proven wrong in the face of reality. Incidentally, the main targets of this campaign – The Sun, The Daily Express, and The Daily Mail – are all right-wing, populist and most importantly Eurosceptic publications, and all of them backed Brexit. Taking that into account, it’s no surprise that they’re targeting those publications in particular.

Even more baffling is the fact that somebody is actually giving these moral busy-bodies what they want. My question to Lego is this – are you insane? The first rule of handling social justice warriors is that you shouldn’t give them what they want. If you do, then they know that they will have power over you, and they can demand more from you, and they will because they are never happy. This is why you never apologise to a social justice warrior, it shows them that you are weak, and that’s exactly what Lego has done in this situation. At least John Lewis, the company being targeted by the group’s latest ad, has shown some sense, having stated that they “never make an editorial judgement on a particular newspaper”.

I had a quick look at their Facebook page, and according to their about page, they claim to stand for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of choice, impartiality, inclusiveness, consistency and universality, and at this point, I know they’re full of shit. They are not in favour of free speech or freedom of the press, or freedom of choice for that matter. They cannot be if the point of their campaign is to stop companies from advertising on newspapers they disapprove of. That is not the goal of a group that values freedom of speech. It is in fact censorship, and it’s wrong when anybody calls for it, no matter how noble you think your goal may be.

Their claim to stand for impartiality is also bullshit, mainly because they’re deliberately targeting newspapers that supported Brexit, and oppose mass immigration. As for inclusiveness, I’m definitely sure that’s what an SJW would stand for, but I’m pretty sure that they’re the kind of people who would ostracise you if you expressed any opinions that differed from theirs (for example, feminism). The only two principles I can say they do hold sincerely are consistency and universality, given that they are consistent in their petulant, self-righteous moralism.

Given that the focus of their campaign is coverage involving immigration, Stop Funding Hate exemplifies the reason why nationalism is coming back into vogue here in Europe, because the left refuses to allow an honest discussion on immigration to take place, preferring instead to talk down to the common man, labelling anyone who opposes immigration at all as a “racist”, “xenophobe” or an “Islamophobe” (more common than ever due to the Syrian migrant crisis). To me, this campaign is yet another symptom of just how terribly simplified political discussion has become. We live in a time where the left has turned any discussion on immigration or almost anything else political into a matter of “love versus hate”, which is complete nonsense. It reminds me of San Angeles in the movie Demolition Man (which is a classic I would recommend to everyone reading this), in which the rules of society are geared toward engineering a world where people aren’t assholes.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t necessarily like the sensationalist rhetoric of these right-wing newspapers, and I’ve always criticised them because of it, but that doesn’t make it right to pressure companies into withdrawing ads from those papers. To me, that fundamentally contradicts the right to a free press, goes against a company’s right to freedom of association, and could very much set a dangerous precedent. In the future, maybe a Christian pressure group could force a company to pull their ads from a paper that constantly criticises their religion. If that happened, we would basically have a scenario where the censorship that the left demands so much is used on them.

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

Why pandering to social justice warriors has failed

suicide squad vs. ghostbusters

This summer, two films have been placed on the spotlight. One of them is Suicide Squad, a film that, despite its shortcomings in terms of narrative, is a decently entertaining comic book film. The other one is Paul Feig’s terrible Ghostbusters remake, in which he ruins a beloved film by pandering to social justice warriors. Consider this for a moment. When the Ghostbusters trailer was revealed, nearly everyone, including myself, absolutely hated it, while mainstream film critics, social justice warriors, and the film’s producers, sung praises of the film before it was even released, and tried to dismiss anyone who didn’t like it as a horrible sexist.

Meanwhile, Suicide Squad was denounced by the very same kind of people who defended the genuinely terrible Ghostbusters reboot (you know, the middle class “critics” I mentioned in the first paragraph). They accused Suicide Squad of being “sexist”, “racist”, and “insensitive”, all without any particular reason. Of course, while the critics spent their time flailing around and trying to convince people not to see Suicide Squad because they don’t like it, Suicide Squad has so far broken many box office records, and made well over its production budget within less than a week of its release, making $294 million at the time of this writing, against a bloated production budget of $175 million (it’s not enough if you count marketing costs, but at this rate, it’s getting there). Contrast that with Ghostbusters, which apparently opened to empty theatres, and only made $80 million within the first ten days since its release in July, and as of now has made $180 million against a budget of $144 million. That doesn’t sound bad, but if you account for the marketing costs, Paul Feig’s Ghostbusters needs to make at least $300 million in order to break even, and given how unlikely it is that is, Ghostbusters is a box office bomb.

I think Hollywood should take two lessons from this. Firstly, it shows that film critics have virtually no influence on the public’s taste in films, though in my opinion, that should have been obvious. Critics usually pan action films and formulaic rom-coms, and yet they tend to make a killing in the box office. Secondly, it should show Paul Feig and other progressive directors that pandering to social justice warriors doesn’t work.

In my opinion, the failure of the new Ghostbusters film had nothing to do with its largely unfunny cast, and everything to do with its monumentally poor marketing strategy. The whole point of the marketing campaign was to get people to accept that Melissa McCarthy, Kirsten Wiig, Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones are the new Ghostbusters, but all the trailer did was convince people that it would be a howlingly unfunny disaster, and the mere fact that they had to play the sexism card in order to defend it made matters even worse. By contrast, Suicide Squad didn’t discriminate. Rather than trying to market the all-female cast as a sign of how “progressive” the film is supposed to be, the mission of Suicide Squad’s marketing campaign was to make it look edgy and stylish, or at least in the eyes of young teenagers. That film’s marketing campaign didn’t discriminate, because DC and Warner Bros. know that if they did, it would be commercial suicide, and the end result is Suicide Squad making far more money then Ghostbusters did.

You don’t need a degree in advertising to know that it isn’t wise to alienate your audience. Ghostbusters’ marketing, with its blatant attempt at pushing Paul Feig’s ideological agenda, pretty much killed the film’s chances of commercial success by alienating a huge chunk of the audience, namely the people who loved Ghostbusters when they were children and are now horrified at what the maker of Bridesmaids has done to it. How does that not alienate an audience? Add a dash of gender politics to the mix (courtesy of left-wing news outlets and left-leaning entertainment sites) and you make an already bad PR disaster cataclysmically worse.

The failure of Ghostbusters was entirely Hollywood’s fault, but then, what did they expect? They were trying to make a film specifically for third-wave feminists, progressives and social justice warriors. They’re the kind of people who, because the personal is political to them, will get up in arms other everything they don’t like, so no matter how hard you try, you can’t please them. Hell, you even had people complaining that Leslie Jones’ character was a racist stereotype of black people (and to be fair, she played an extremely stereotypical character). There is simply no profit in appealing to a demographic that cannot be pleased, and by trying to appease the unappeasable, what inevitably happens is that you alienate everybody else.

I would also blame Hollywood’s increasingly bloated budgets and increasingly extravagant expectations. With a production budget of $144 million, and a marketing budget of around $150 million (totalling $294 million), Ghostbusters would need to make a worldwide gross of around $300 million in order to break even, and if Paul Feig is to be believed, it would have to make upwards of $500 million in order to turn a sizeable profit. Even Suicide Squad, which easily outdid Ghostbusters within its first week, will need to make well over $350 million to turn a profit, because comic book films are now placed under higher expectations than ever before. That’s how Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice can make $872 million worldwide, well above the combined total of its production and marketing budget (which would be around $415 million), can still be considered by Hollywood to be a disappointment.

I sincerely hope that Suicide Squad finishes its box office run as a success, because it would prove my point – that the progressive film critics have no real influence over whether a film is considered good or bad, or whether a film succeeds or fails. Meanwhile, I expect Ghostbusters to not only end its box office run as a failure, but I also hope that it serves a cautionary tale of how appealing to social justice warriors is a monumentally bad tactic. If after all this, Ghostbusters somehow gets a sequel, then I’ll know that Hollywood has truly gone off the deep end. Then again, I doubt that Hollywood ever learns from its mistakes.