Rush Limbaugh assured himself of a permanent place in the Feminist Hall Of Villains when he coined the term feminazis to describe militant women’s rights advocates two decades ago. Limbaugh’s use of the term was excessively broad and unfair to be sure—to Rush, all feminists are feminazis— but it has become newly appropriate and useful as the Left increasingly advocates fascist tactics when it sees no quick route to its objectives using such repugnant means–to them—as the free market, open debate, merit-based advancement, and individual autonomy.
Is tarring these arrogant ideologues who favor enforced “equality” over basic Constitutional rights such a pejorative label uncivil, unfair or hateful? Why no, in fact. Sadly, tragically, frighteningly, it is entirely accurate. Here are two examples:
MSNBC’s Melissa Harris-Perry
Bemoaning the fact that male professional sports pay their athletes more than female sports(because they are more popular, because more men follow sports and because male athletes are, on average, bigger, faster, stronger and better) Harris-Perry made this statement on her far-left even for MSNBC show on the network:
During the break I was trying to think up a solution to the problem of building audience (for women athletes), so my solution is in 2016 we go completely dark on all media coverage of men’s sports, just for one year. We have the only televised sports, the only print sports, it’s only women’s sports, and we’ll just see whether or not women could get a fan base if in fact they were the people who were constantly on our televisions and in our newspapers.
That’s a reasonable “solution” to this TV personality, scholar, teacher, author, pundit, feminist, fascist. Cripple lawful businesses. Restrict communications. Limit commerce, advertising, marketing, merchandising. Restrict the public’s entertainment choices, and male athletes’ earning capacity. After all, it’s all about the vagina, right? If women can’t compete against men, then just eliminate the men, their rights, and their advantages by edict. The First Amendment, the right of contract, equal protection, due process, enjoyment of life—why should they stand in the way of the progressive, feminist agenda?
This is how fascists solve problems.
Melissa Harris-Perry is a feminazi.
PS: In the comments, esteemed reader Charles Green chides me for not taking Harris-Perry suggestion as a joke. First of all, the woman is humorless. Second, the fact that she knew her suggestion could never happen isn’t the same as a joke. That would be a solution to her, because she is squarely in the ends justify the means camp, like all extremists. I am sure readers could concoct “jokes” similar in spirit about “solutions” (facsists love “solutions,” you will recall) to other “problems” involving ethnic, racial or gender designations that Harris-Perry, for one, would condemn in the harshest terms. I know Rush could…
London-based author Kamila Shamsie
In an op-ed in The Guardian, Shamsie, a novelist of some success in her native Pakistan and in the U.K., proposes a year of publishing only women’s works. This is her solution to what she sees as gender bias in the field of literature, from publishing to awards to reviews. Shamsie suggests 2018 as the “Year of Publishing Women,” writing that that it is “time for everyone, male and female, to sign up to a concerted campaign to redress the inequality.” The way to do this, she fervently believes, is to stop male writers from making a living, blocking publishers from making money off of their works, and forbidding readers from purchasing any new work by someone without a vagina. (How Caitlyn Jenner’s inevitable book will be handled is not discussed. Will male authors identifying as women be excepted from the draconian ban if they can score a reality show or a Vanity Fair cover? Interesting…)
Kamila Shamsie is a feminazi.
Says feminist website Bustle: “How epic would it be if book publishers published only women for an entire year? Only women. As in, zero books by men… for a whole freaking year! ”
Wouldn’t it be wonderful???
These are all Hillary Clinton fans, as I’m sure you know. This is why they don’t care about her corruption, dishonesty, hypocrisy and lies, her efforts to buy favor with the media and to sell influence and access. All that matters is gaining power, and to remedy real or imagined injustice by any means necessary, with any casualties necessary, including rights, choice, careers and lives.
Do not be fooled into believing that the Harris-Perrys and the Shamsies are harmless, addled extremists who will be ignored and mocked as a matter of course. That is always the advantage fascists have: initially they seem too extreme to be taken seriously. Do not think this is a fleeting fad or a phase either. The progressive movement, dragging the Democratic Party with it, is increasingly sliding toward fascism.
Our obligation as citizens and American is to condemn and expose such autocrats for what they are.
And what they are is feminazis.
Yeah, I agree: it’s an ugly label.
It is also an appropriate one for ugly enemies of freedom
Ethics Alarms 
In other words female athletes and authors are only better than nothing.
EXACTLY! This is why I dislike exclusionary organizations (Female bar associations, alongside the bar association is an example); What the organization is saying is that the exclusive class can’t compete against the population as a whole. Early feminism still had issues, but at least they were genuinely about female empowerment…. This latest crop is all about female laziness. “Why should we do it for ourselves when men can do it for us?” “He for She” It assumes a power level in men that I’m not convinced exists, and a power vacuum in women that would have their suffragette foremothers spinning in their grave.
that would imply that the exclusive class is somehow inferior.
Yes, yes it would, wouldn’t it? That’s my point. Otherwise, what’s the point in restricting the membership?
These two women are truly nuts. Trying to shut down televised coverage of men’s sports is about as likely as trying to take guns away from Texans. The nazis gained power because most Germans supported them or were afraid of them. I’m trying to work up some outrage about these women but they represent such a tiny percentage of women they can’t be taken seriously.
Of the two, MHP’s statement was the least serious, except that she was willing to make it at all, which shows some kind of void somewhere. She can’t possibly understand how absurd, impossible, and also wrong such a suggestion is. What is it she’s missing?
Jack, Jack, Jack. It’s usually the left that is (justifiably) accused of being devoid of a sense of humor, but you’re making a bid to disprove it.
If the tongue-in-cheek isn’t already evident in the transcript of Melissa Harris-Perry’s “proposal,” then it’s certainly in high evidence on the video in her laughter in response to her guest’s reaction.
Please. There are probably good examples out there of left-wing feminazi behavior, but you’ll have to keep looking to find them.
Harris-Perry has a record that makes this wishful thinking rather than a joke. Would you laugh at Rush saying, “Well, I guess we could solve the inner city problems by just locking up all the African Americans as soon as they turn 11! HAHAHAHAHAHA!!” Would Harris-Perry? The statement is misandry, and I have no doubt, no doubt at all, that if Harris-Perry could pull her “solution” off, she would.
Nazis were big on solutions, did you know that? If that was a delivery of a joke, then she is the worst comic in history.
Do you think Shasie was joking too? How about the professors who will only call on female students? You’re an enabler Charles. It is flat out wrong to dismiss “jokes” about gender discrimination on public policy shows.They are much more than jokes, They are trial balloons.
“I have no doubt, no doubt at all, that if Harris-Perry could pull her “solution” off, she would.”
I have no doubt, no doubt at all, that you are utterly mistaken about her actually seriously wanting to do this.
Any ideas on how we could resolve the shootout at the no doubt corral?
Then I would love for you to explain what she was doing there. Is the contention that she was making a depreciating joke about women’s competency after having a segment decrying the plight of women in sport? Was she serious, but insincere, pandering to a group that she thought would identify with the statement? You tell me. Spin it Charles.
Her comments are absolutely no different from Chris Rock making a statement to the effect that “during the break, I was trying to think of a way to get standup comedy some equal respect on TV with all the sitcoms and reality TV, and you know what, I think we oughta have 24-7 standup comedy on all channels, all the time, for a year – then maybe comedians would get some respect!”
It’s a standard rhetorical technique – express your exasperation with comic exaggeration.Then laugh.
Note the response of the interviewee – basically, “Well, I hardly think they’d go for that!” to which MHP laughs deeply – because of course it is SIMPLY A JOKE. And a weak one at that.
Honestly, how anyone can actually watch the video and confuse that sort of Good Morning America softball TV banter with a serious political proposition is completely beyond me. (Actually, I take that back: if you’re seriously motivated to find dirt, you’ll see it where it doesn’t exist.)
There are plenty of sound, defensive, rational reasons to go after MHP – this simply isn’t one of them.
Charles, you know I didn’t say it was a serious political position. I said it was a genuine, “Wouldn’t it be great if…” This is how this woman thinks. She sees nothing wrong with that suggestion in principle, her principles, fascist principles, and neither do many of her viewers. If she said, “We could solve a lot of these problems by just repealing the First Amendment,” that wouldn’t be a serious political proposal, but it wouldn’t be a joke, either.
Oh–Chris Rock is a comedian. What he says is presumptively seriousness. Harris-Perry is a far left, Social Justice Warrior political commentator. What she says may be objectively ridiculous, but it is not presumptively a joke.
The contention is then… That this was a joke…. But it wasn’t depreciating to women, because it was rhetorical exasperation? That those are mutually exclusive? And that you can say basically anything you want, so long as there’s someone to point out that it’s unlikely to happen, and there’s at least one person in the room who will laugh?
And as an aside…. Are you really suggesting that a political commenter be held to the same standard as a comedian? I know Jon Stewart blurred that line… But really.
I think I’m going to bookmark this conversation for later use, because as humorless as you seem to suggest we’re being, you and I both know that if say… Rush Limbaugh was chortling over an abortion clinic Stuggling in North Dakota, and said something to the tune of, “Well, maybe we should close all the abortion clinics in South Dakota so they’ll have more business up there.” The left would go Fucking. Insane. And Rush is a closer parallel than Chris Rock.
Moreover, your gallantry is misplaced. This is a woman who is an anti-white, anti-American, anti-democracy, anti-male, anti-Constitution, Marxist nut. She has advocated communal raising of children, and political indoctrination. She led a panel in mocking Mitt Romney for having a mixed race grandchild. She says outrageous things every day, and would clearly overthrow the U.S. government in a heartbeat and install a dictatorship—benign, of course, to confiscate property of “the rich” and install strict quotas in every profession. It troubles me that you would extend any benefit of the doubt to someone like this.
And your theory in this case makes no sense. If she were joking, it would be mockery of her own guest—“I guess you girls could attract an audience—if there weren’t any GOOD athletes to watch!”— and undermine everything H-P had been saying before. Her thesis was that it was wrong and unfair that female athletees were paid less, and then you think she would suggest as a joke that the way to to make women equal is to eliminate men? That’s the joke I would make to mock her idiotic complaint! She was making the exact same point as her British novelist clone. “Let’s even the field by taking the men off it.”
She’s fascist, Charles, and a bigot. And she is never funny.
MHP has no sense of humor. I second all you’ve said on her, Jack.
And given the fact that gender is just a social construct, why do we even have men’s and women’s anything? As you mentioned in passing a few posts back, I think the idea of separate sports is passe. Why can’t men win purses (so to speak) on the “ladies” tour? What’s the difference between a book written by a woman or a man? If only women were to be published during a given year, who’s to say whether a particular author is a man or a woman? That’s oppression. I might feel I’m a woman that year. To plagiarize Monty Python, I might get over it, but still.
Thanks for that confirmation. Someone with that kind of dead-eyed ideological extremism can’t have a sense of humor, or they couldn’t talk the way she does. I think Charles is extrapolating from the fact that she knows—unlike her British twin, that her “solution” is a practical impossibility. That doesn’t mean she would love to see it.
It’s like President Obama’s occasional musings about wishing he didn’t have to deal with a Congress.
Our current President and leader of the free world: “This is … an anti-white, anti-American, anti-democracy, … anti-Constitution, Marxist nut.”
That’s unduly harsh, Bill. He’s not really a Marxist.
I’d say the jury’s out on that.
You don’t think that given a free hand or a clean sheet he wouldn’t go for a centrally controlled economy? I think he’d do so in a heartbeat.
And four out of five ain’t bad. [I finally got your joke. Do-oh!]
It’s early.
It’s 2pm where I am. No excuse. haha.
For me, that’s early.
Ya, but John D. Rockefeller came a lot closer than he will.
Other Bill.
You are mistaken. Melissa Harris-Perry has a finely honed sense of humor. Those Tampon Earrings she wore to support Wendy Davis’ filibuster against abortion-related legislation to set up her campaign for Texas Governor were hysterical. Yes, they were. I laughed and laughed. In fact, I almost guffawed. I even chortled. My thoracic endocrinologist was worried I might even bust a gut.
jvb
Brilliant! (rolls eyes) Ban those truly good at their professions so that the mediocre can have a chance…
Good point, Other Bill. If gender is only a social construct why then do they need bans on male athletes and authors to be seen and heard? This is why I can’t get behind the feminist movement in any way, shape of form. They contradict themselves as it suits them depending on the issue, it’s dishonest and just plain two-faced.
Feminism is certainly illogical most of the time these days, and hideously, flagrantly so. Which is extremely unfortunate. I’m all for feminism. My Great Aunt was very active in the Suffrage era and a big deal in teachers’ rights and education. My mother and all the women in our family were very strong women, some probably lesbians. My wife has been very successful in computer management for two really big companies and our daughter and daughter-in-law are very successful workers as well, as well as being good mothers and wives. I’m all for women, but so much of the feminist/women’s studies dogma is just absolute cant. Which is a tragedy. Women need encouragement and support. Guys can be assholes.
It doesn’t help that the very etymology of “feminism” doesn’t seem to align with their world view.
And let me add this to the “joke” discussion: I am sure Adolf chuckled hugely the first time he suggested his “solution.” Some joke. Again, only fascists think its funny to use government force to rob a category of citizens of their rights. Genuine bias and hate underlie such a”jokes.”
And then there’s Adolf as the distraught Auburn football booster.
My favorite is the “Downfall” meme where Hitler (as a head athletic department guy at the University of Texas) rants about A&M leaving he big 12 for the SEC and about the lack of interest in the Longhorn Network.
Jack, I find only one thing incorrect in your analysis of this whole mess. You wrote, “Is tarring these arrogant ideologues who favor enforced ‘equality’ over basic Constitutional rights….” Any type of equality, forced or otherwise, is not the objective of this particular brand of feminism. The objective, as the rest of your post well demonstrates, is not the equality of women but the destruction of men. You are right to take this seriously. I have always been a feminist, albeit generally tending toward the passive side, and women of this ilk scare me almost witless.
Shelly, please explain it to Charles. Dismissing this persistent and growing trend as just a joke is either a ploy (though not by Charles) or serious naivete.
I don’t know whether to scoff or shake at reading this. It IS in fact the Nazi creed dressed up differently and made to seem like a good thing. They didn’t go right to the death camps, though that was their ultimate goal. There were any number of intermediate steps that made life closer and closer to intolerable and ultimately impossible for target groups: could only possess so much money, could not practice their chosen professions, etc., all aimed at pushing them out of society as undesirable. Of course the idea didn’t start with the Nazis, they just made it super efficient.
In fact this reminds me more of Cromwell’s tactics against the Irish. For those not too well versed in that somewhat obscure era of history, the predominantly Catholic Irish had backed the Royalist forces against Cromwell’s Parliamentary forces in the English Civil War, who had beaten them pretty decisively. In retaliation for backing the losing side in this war, Cromwell imposed extremely punitive laws on the Irish, and these became still more punitive after the failed revolution of 1798. Suffice it to say that these laws essentially shut the Catholic Irish out of society altogether and reduced them to slavery in all but name for choosing the wrong side.
I’m beginning to believe white heterosexual men of faith have lost the war of culture and, in retaliation for “being on the wrong side of history” are now about to be shut out of society in the same way. Articles like this make thoughts like that not seem quite so farfetched. After all, since the media is now pushing the idea that we MUST elect the first female president right after the first black president to keep the progressive narrative going, no matter the shortcomings of either, it’s not really that far of a jump to temporarily shutting certain sectors to certain classes in order to allow favored classes to progress more easily. It’s also not far of a jump from temporarily shutting hiring, promotions, or whatever, to permanently shutting them, and making either melanin or a vagina a prerequisite for civil service, elected office, or whatever.
Here’s the thing: the Irish decided in the end they weren’t going to tolerate this, and ultimately threw off the English yoke by violent and sometimes terroristic means. The Jews let themselves be paralyzed by disbelief and false hope until it was too late – some of them even became Ordnungsdienst, policemen in their own communities, allied with those who would destroy them, whether from hope that they could prove their value to their masters or simply from trying to save their own skins. It didn’t matter, ultimately they all wound up on the same train, and I needn’t tell you the destination. That said, they later took a leaf from the Irish and were using the same tactics in the Mandate of Palestine, which led to the State of Israel. The only way any class or race or sector gets walked over or exterminated is if they let themselves be. I can throw in the Armenians as one such group, although there were isolated incidents of resistance such as the siege of Van, for the most part they were simply wiped out. The question is are white men going to just shrug and say “this isn’t happening” or ally themselves with the new favored classes becoming “manginas,” “straight allies,” and now “white allies,” or are they going to say “this is crap, and we’re fighting back?”
Two words…pajama boy.
White males have never been particularly good at fighting back. For one thing, they tend to go overboard. I call your attention to the Aryan Brotherhood and the KKK, both of whom identify the wrong culprits and wind up punishing innocents for the outrageous acts of others. This generally means that any white male “Who first cries ‘Hold! Enough!'” is tarred with the same brush as the aforementioned organizations (there are others, but these are the two who came first to mind). Nobody likes to be called a racist, sexist or any other kind of “-ist”. Consequently, there is little or no organized resistance; at least, no RATIONAL organized resistance, because all of the rational white males are trying to avoid being call an “-ist”. And DAMN sure nobody wants to be lumped into the same bunch as one of the fringe outfits. All of this is by way of saying do not expect to see a spontaneous uprising of outraged white males any time soon. Sure, we’re out here, but I, for one, am not about to join the KKK, and I would rather not be perceived as sharing their world-view. In that, at least, the far left has been successful. They have made it clear that there is no middle ground; that, in fact, the only two available positions are “Be an ally, or be an enemy”. Since most of the media backs them, that has become fact.
The problem is, if a middle-ground is denied, the only option for you would be the KKK or Aryan Brotherhood.
http://www.stentorian.com/propagan.html
Clearly, white Americans in general do not qualify for 1) to 4). And yet, what can we expect if all whites are defined as the enemy by the media?
The far left defines white males as #2, the ruling group.
Which they do erroneously, as there is no white male organization.
Precisely.
So the only choices are to either accept being a second-class citizen because of the sins of the previous generation or to become a racist hater? I refuse to accept that. The only question is do we try to beat the other side at their own game like Washington (who had to do it to bring in necessary allies), make up our own rules like Michael Collins (who was successful, but morally gray and ultimately paid a terrible price) or simply abandon the game altogether like Gandhi?
So the solution is to block out all male athletic event coverage to force people to other options like women’s sports?
Think of all the Shakespeare that would be read, people would learn to play chess again, people may join intellectual clubs and discuss things, think of the works of creativity and art to be produced, think of the community involvement- old men may gather at the local barbershop with young people and discuss the local situations, houses and yards may get maintained with real pride.
I think her solution will have great results. I Donno if it will get more people to watch women’s sports though…
Never knew John Lennon was alive and living in Texas. Just Imagine.
Good point though. Maybe the networks could broadcast the meetings between the NFL, NBA and MLB owners and their bankers as the “worked out” their defaulted loans. I’d watch that.
Sports are one thing…. But you look at the world of authors in particular…. Women are doing fine. Think of the books that have made the news in the last generation: Harry Potter, Song of Ice and Fire, 50 Shades. Think of the bestselling authors from this year: http://www.amazon.ca/Best-Sellers-Books/zgbs/books 9 of the top 20. Why on earth are we having this conversation? This hits me as a manufactured problem.
Minor correction (if you are listing the written works of women to make a point): Song of Ice and Fire is written by George R R Martin…
No no, I knew that, I just can’t think of any other books that hit the mainstream like those three franchises in the last 20 years, and 2 of them were women. Maybe I should have been clearer.
Humble, hit the sci-fi authors. The list STARTS with Anne McCaffrey and C.L. Moore and goes on from there.
You’re not going to believe this, but my great-grandmother was named George. Pronounced it Gorgie. Yes, great-grandmother.
I am puzzled that some consider this a leap that couldn’t possibly be taken seriously. I direct attention to Title IX, which forced colleges to spend equal funds on women’s and male sports regardless of the demand. To do this, popular sports for men like baseball and wrestling had to be eliminated, and the athletes in those sports,as well as spectators who wanted to see them, were just out of luck. It succeeded in its goal: it created women’s team sports where there were none, and audiences by default, in part by eliminating opportunities for male athletes. It’s really the same theory as what Harris-Perry was suggesting,just at an earlier stage..
Don’t you find it interesting that Title IX is also the vehicle by which colleges are currently more comfortable restricting speech by intimidation, enforcing political correctness, “free speech zones,” stifling debate, and chilling dissent than the reverse? Is it any wonder men are becoming ever more spineless and compliant – some would say, “well trained?” Pretty soon only women will have sufficient drive to run for office, having nothing at all to fear from the their milquetoast neo-eunuch male peers.
Isn’t it amazing how broad laws can, through regulation or “interpretation,” always metastasize into monstrosities when the party in power decides to use them for purposes other than that for which they are written? Civil forfeiture, anyone? “Structuring?” The Patriot Act? There’s probably no end to the examples.
They’re not Feminazis.
These are Feminazis:
MaggieH: [Males are] Fucking mutants. When will there ever be a male-only deadly disease taking over the earth to put them out of their misery, huh?
Luckynkl: The male-born are biologically incomplete mutants, useless and obsolete; walking viruses on two legs and a cancer, spreading disease, death and destruction wherever they go. They are the walking-dead and the antithesis to life. Gyn-energy sucking vampires who have to plug into women and feed on them in order to survive. No different than a parasite who sucks the life and energy out of its host.
WhiteTiger: If we’re going that road, why not just cull boy babies for awhile? Re-establish a sane balance. Then we can start selective breeding programs for donor males…
Bev Jo: There are no words to describe them. There are tiny parasitic wasps who paralyze small animals (spiders, caterpillars, etc.) and lay their eggs on them, so the animal is alive while being slowing eaten by the growing baby. But the wasps aren’t deliberately cruel. These men remind me of a deliberately female-hating version of that. They’ve prove what I’ve been saying for decades — they are more female-hating than even many het men. The character in Silence of the Lambs who skinned women to wear really seems more accurate all the time.
Mary Sunshine:Females don’t have to kill baby boys. Just not nurture them. Females are forced to *birth* baby boys, but beyond that a female’s physical actions are her own.
Males will die without the constant infusion of female energy that they get from our wombs and from our lives. They are perfectly welcome to take the male infants from the hands of the midwife, and what they do with it from that point is *their* decision.
Femitheist Divine:All Men Should Be Castrated? – International “Castration Day”
Some Feminists have considered this as an option. It is highly controversial.
Allow me to introduce myself…
My name is Krista, otherwise known as “The Femitheist”. I am a female, a feminist, and someone who believes strongly in True Equality.
Now, I will begin explaining this entry before I post the actual article… for your discussion, of course.
omen MUST and WILL have equality, and this is the ONLY way to achieve TRUE equality. The testicles of all males, which produce the majority of their testosterone, are the primary cause of their violent behavior. The testicles also attribute greatly to many of the health problems men experience later in life (such as prostate cancer and, of course, testicular cancer).
~:The Solution… International Castration Day.:~
It is my belief (which I consider factual based on my research) that all men SHOULD be castrated. Not only for their own safety, but for the safety of all innocent women and children.
And, to achieve this…
The entire world should have an international holiday known as: “Castration Day”
Males of all ages will be brought to the public squares of their cities nude, to stand together in a circle, as they await castration by a woman known as “The Castrator”, who will be a woman chosen from the public much like a juror.
Girls of all ages will attend, lining the streets to cheer and applaud the males as they join the rest of civilized society.
It will be a free vacation for any working woman. And, young girls will be able to leave school to attend this glorious ceremony.
The males will then have one hour to get to know their Castrator. Their female “spouse” will also be able to choose whether or not they would like to milk the male in order to retain a sperm sample.
If the male is too young for a “spouse”, their mother or closest female relative will decide.
After this, the men will be given anesthetics. They will be placed on a table, where their Castrator will then slice open their ball-sack, remove their testicles, and the excess skin, stitch them up and clean them up.
They will be given thirty minutes to rest after the procedure.
Once the males have all been castrated, they will be grouped together again for one last look before walking nude back to their homes.
The women will then return to their jobs, schools, et cetera, and rejoice in the completion of yet another successful ceremony.
Any man who tries to evade this holiday, “Castration Day”, should be murdered wherever they
are found (treated as a criminal, as it will be a crime not to attend). Or, forced to attend.
Regardless of age.
Any woman who disagrees should be provided therapy in order to free her from misogynistic indoctrination.
This holiday should replace the day known currently as “Father’s Day”.
If this practice were adopted officially all across the world, all war, crime, and violence would end.
We would have a true Eutopia, where peace reigns, and men do only what they exist for…
===
Why, in the days before the glorious feminist revolution, back when men supposedly held the horrifying reins of power according to the feminists, do we not hear of such policies enacted towards women by the so-called evil men?
Only in the sense that someone like Mengele (who performed medical experiments on human subjects) was more a Nazi than someone like Julius Streicher (a virulently anti-Semitic journalist). That last article is just plain sick and the writer needs to be committed.
She’s actually a YouTuber with a middling following. That rant was a little extreme, even for her, but I have no doubts that she’s said it.
Youtube can make folks famous, like singer Tiffany Alvord, but I shudder at the idea of a mutilation advocate getting famous.
So, you’re saying “there are worse things”….
I still think the original examples qualify, even if there are insane feminists who are even further beyond the pale. As Steve-O noted, Mengele and Streicher were both Nazis.
All the things being said in this thread and you choose to attack middle aged lesbians and give the males a pass. And you wonder why the radfems consider trans a MRA group. This is exactly why I stand with them, thought they hate me, and against you who should be my natural ally in the political arena.
Who is beating/raping/killing LGBT people? Is it the radfems?
Who is the cause of LGBT your homelessness? Is it the radfems?
Who imposes beauty standards you can never live up to? Is it the radfems?
Who says a male can’t wear a dress or makeup? Is it the radfems?
No, their crime is not wanting penis in women’s showers, for wanting safe spaces that we aren’t invited to, for wanting to abolish the oppressive system of gender instead of making it a raison d’etre.
If there were no gender norms we wouldn’t put our lives at risk by violating them.
Criminals.
The cause of homelessness is varied among individuals.
Not the state.
Not civilian law.
Come on. That argument is condemned here. If I criticize Democrats I am not giving a pass to Republicans; if I criticize antigay fanatics, I am not giving a pass to pro-gay bullies; if I condemn the NFL, I’m not giving a pass to the NBA. I can write about one topic at a time…read the rationalizations: one party’s bad conduct doesn’t make any other party’s conduct better.
How true, when you type Mr Marshall. But suppose for a moment that my comment was directed at someone who does give a pass. Venting about men with castration talk, that was wrong, as were parts of the SCUMM Manifesto. So is Die Cis Scum, The Cotton Ceiling, doxxing Gallus Mag, and ‘Carlotta Sklodowska.’
The latter have been given a pass while every opportunity is taken by one person to snipe at the gender critical folk.
It’s “Jack.”
As you wish, I was merely trying to respect my elder.
Now you’re REALLY in trouble…
“Who is beating/raping/killing LGBT people? Is it the radfems?”
As a group, no… But if you had a Venn diagram of radical feminists and rapists/abusers/murderers there’s bound to be some overlap. Maybe even more overlap than in the population at large. Valerie Solanas and the ‘kill all men’ movement comes to mind. If the question was: Who is slinging insults and hate speech at LGBT people, radical feminists have produced some of the most chilling bullshit I’ve ever read.
Who is the cause of LGBT your homelessness? Is it the radfems?
There’s an argument. Radical feminism generally opposes any kind of shelter that caters to men, or men and women in the same building. The idea is that any money that goes towards helping men is money that could have gone toward helping women, so helping men is hurting women. Seeing as the vast majority of homeless people are men, yes, I feel I could make a strong argument that radical feminism does directly contribute to that problem.
Who imposes beauty standards you can never live up to? Is it the radfems?
No… This one is human nature given no natural confines. But I just can’t bring myself to care about your self esteem issues. I know I just made that personal… But who the heck was talking about any of this? I’m sure this is important to you…. And I can’t talk for the rest of the people on here, but if you’re making the dichotomy either we care about the harms that radical feminists commit, or we care about issues of body image, because we can’t do both (and I completely reject that dichotomy, by the way) Then the harm radical feminism commits win. Without contest. You shallow twit.
Who says a male can’t wear a dress or makeup? Is it the radfems?
Yes. Actually. There is a branch of feminism that would call that appropriation. This is a pitfall of putting the entirety of feminism under one very large tent; you have to accept all schools of thought that identify as feminist, and while you can label some of the stupider groups ‘radical’, that is EXACTLY what we’re talking about here. The idea was put forth very recently from radical feminists that gay men and drag queens were appropriating black female culture, and that they needed to stop.
What I think, and I’m sorry but I’m going to make a presumption, is that you’re a coffee shop feminist. That you believe that men and women should be equal, and therefore you support feminism, but unfortunately you don’t understand the greater connotations and baggage the label has. If all feminism was was the belief that men and women should be equal, I’d be a feminist, but it isn’t, so I’m not. More than 80% of America believes that men and women should be equal, and less than 25% identify as feminist. Assuming a 100% correlation between the two (and it isn’t, because some feminists believe that women should be treated better than men, but even making that assumption), That leaves in excess of 55% of people who believe in equality between the sexes outside the lens of feminism, and I’m making an assumption here, but I assume it’s because they see that lens as flawed.
I’m not a third wave funfem. I’m a Dworkin and Reymond reading, gender abolitionist person who’d very much like to be though of as an ally to radical feminists.
Dworkin…. Who pursued pornography the same way Joe Lieberman pursued video games? And Reymond, who argued that transsexuals reinforced gender stereotypes and shouldn’t be allowed to transition? Those are your role models? I’m sorry I assumed you were benign.
And on that line…. When you tell a group of people their identity is invalid, because their identity is a social construct, you don’t get to wonder why that group doesn’t like you very much. I’m just saying. Feminism historically was never been friendly to the trans community, the recent attempt to bring them into the fold is part of the desperation of a shrinking movement to find new members.
So I guess I can’t convince you to give Gender Hurts by Sheila Jeffreys a read?
Let’s try a test. This is a real time scroll of porn searches, obviously not safe to look at away from home http://www.pornmd.com/live-search tell me how long to can read it without getting upset. Then switch it over to the “shemale” feed and do it again. Then come back and tell me why trans people, who are harmed by cultural gender norms and their portrayals in pornography, and anti-porn, gender-abolitionist feminists shouldn’t be natural allies.
For bonus points add up the number of times the word rape, forced, teen, daughter and son appear. Bonus points when two or more appear in the same search.
Apologies Jack (see I remembered this time), if the link is unacceptable in any way.
“So I guess I can’t convince you to give Gender Hurts by Sheila Jeffreys a read?”
You could try. I can guarantee you that I won’t waste my money on it. I think that Jeffreys suffers from the delusion that society is trying to hammer gender reassignment sugery down transgender people’s throats, as opposed to transgender people fighting tooth and nail to get the surgeries.
“Then come back and tell me why trans people, who are harmed by cultural gender norms and their portrayals in pornography, and anti-porn, gender-abolitionist feminists shouldn’t be natural allies.”
Because while society as a whole still has some serious hang ups when dealing with transitioning people, and most medical plans won’t cover their medical costs, the pornography industry welcomes them because there is demand. That the demand may be demeaning is almost irrelevant, because it is a means to an end, and I will respect their choice to participate. The reason anti-porn, gender-abolitionist feminists and the trans community aren’t natural allies is because you deny them their chosen identity, and you’re actively attempting to undermine one of the ways for them to transition without replacing that with a process that works. It comes fundamentally down to that they don’t care whether you think gender is a social construct. It’s important to them.
More, I think the point you were trying to make is that porn customer’s fantasy preference in some way affects their behavior in their day to day life. It’s strange because this is an idea that pops up every time there’s popular new media. There have been movements that said that Romance novels caused violence, that TV shows or movies cause violence. Joe Lieberman led a campaign against violent videogames on the same premise. And do you want to know what the science said in every. Single. Instance? That the idea was bunk. Violent media is a fantasy release, not a lifestyle choice. I can’t see why porn would be different. I think that burden of proof is on you.
Does this study meet the burden of proof for the influence of pornography on behavior? http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/4/8/e004996
As for surgery. Most trans people don’t want it, transvestites want you to think of them as being just like transsexuals right up until you mention getting rid of their precious. You know, like Caitlyn Jenner. That’s all a woman is to them, the trappings of gender. Of course there’s a conflict with the people who consider gender harmful.
Now if they would admit that liking those things and those social roles don’t represent some inherent femaleness, that having whatever inclinations doesn’t make a person any more of a male or female than not, they’d be on the right track.
And something being important to someone else doesn’t make it any less of a social construct. Money is a social construct too.
“Does this study meet the burden of proof for the influence of pornography on behavior?”
No.
“Strengths and limitations of this study
Analysis explores experiences in depth, going beyond simplistic explanations linking motivations for anal sex with pornography.”
You didn’t even read the first paragraph…
“Surveys suggest that young men and women—and older adults—are engaging in anal intercourse more than ever before.1–4 Sexually explicit media depictions are often mentioned as affecting how sex is viewed and practised[SIC] by young people,5–7 with anal intercourse being one of the ‘high risk’ practices thought to be promoted by such media,8 ,9 although evidence about the influence of pornography on anal practices is thin.5″
And later…
“The ‘pornography’ explanation seems partial at best, not least because young people only seemed to see this as motivating men, not women. We found other important explanations and motivations in young people’s accounts, as we will see below.”
I think you saw what you wanted to see, and that may be your problem in general. As to the rest of it, I think you fail to empathize with the group… I mean… You’re basically saying that it’s unreasonable not to accept your premise…. but that’s only true if they first accept your premise. And you’ve given them no reason to do that. And a couple not to.
Jack, I’ve got one caught in moderation probably because of a word included in a link. If that turns out to be a problem I can rewrite the post.
Nope, I’ll go get it.
Much obliged.
The biggest things exclusively harming LGBT people are sexually transmitted diseases, depression, and domestic abuse (of which there is a much higher rate in gay/lesbian relationships.) Anyone who cares deeply for the LGBT community would logically address these internal issues first. I don’t trust the motives of anyone who wants to ascribe all of that group’s woes to some evil, outside oppressive force.
LGBT people are sexually transmitted diseases, depression, and domestic abuse (of which there is a much higher rate in gay/lesbian relationships.)
That’s actually not true. The numbers from the CDC study on violence showed that gay male relationships had the lowest numbers in domestic abuse, and lesbians had the highest. It kind of follows the rest of the numbers…. While men generally do more damage when they commit acts of violence, women are more likely to hit, more likely to hit first, and more likely to use a weapon.
That certainly does sound a good bit more feminzi-ish!
P.S. Melissa Harris-Perry is a tax cheat to the tune of $70K. She needs to put her own house in order before she starts passing out advice to the rest of the world.