Posted on | October 20, 2014 | 9 Comments
Dani Colman (@DirectorDaniC) is both a feminist and a good writer, a rare combination in an age when the repetition of gender-theory jargon and a hatred of Republicans are considered sufficient qualifications for any woman to be hailed as the Next Great Feminist Intellectual. While I was attempting to find another article, I instead stumbled onto Ms. Colman’s fascinating Medium.com essay, “The problem with false feminism (or why ‘Frozen’ left me cold).”
Now, in case you missed all the hooplah over Frozen, it’s the feminist propaganda cartoon that can make the nipples of a Bryn Mawr College Women’s Studies major become erect with ideological arousal. To read the orgasmic feminist praise for for Frozen, you would imagine that the script was written by Katharine MacKinnon, based on a novel by Andrea Dworkin. The enthusiastic encomiums that feminists heaped on Frozen convinced me that Karin Martin and Emily Kazyak must have been hired as script consultants (see “Feminists Worry That Disney Movies Are Making Girls Heterosexual” if you didn’t get that joke). At last, it seemed, Disney had made a film in which patriarchal oppression and the male gaze had been replaced with androgynous egalitarianism.
What gay girls can get out of “Frozen”
A Queer Perspective on Disney’s Frozen
— Daily Kos
When a conservative Mormon grandmother criticized Frozen as an example of “the gay agenda,” she was widely mocked, but even those who mocked her agreed: Frozen is gayer than the first four rows at a Melissa Etheridge concert. How gay is it? It’s gayer than a Bette Midler Fan Club fundraiser for the Tammy Baldwin re-election campaign.
Frozen‘s metaphysical gayness is not an opinion, but an objective fact. The difference between the conservative Mormon grandmother’s view of Frozen and the LGBT-friendly media’s interpretation of the film was simply a matter of whether you are (a) a liberal who thinks a gay/feminist propaganda cartoon for kiddies is a good thing or (b) a sane normal person who thinks this is a bad thing.
I have made absolutely no secret of how much I disliked Disney’s Frozen. I hated it. I spent most of the movie alternately facepalming, groaning, and checking my watch . . .
It was, therefore, a huge surprise to me just how many people loved Frozen. Not just loved, but slavered over it. Critics have been downright competitive in their effusiveness, calling it “the best Disney film since The Lion King”, and “a new Disney classic”. Bloggers and reviewers alike are lauding it as “feminist”, “revolutionary”, “subversive” and a hundred other buzzwords that make it sound as though Frozen has done for female characters what Brokeback Mountain did for gay cowboys. And after reading glowing review after glowing review, taking careful assessment of all the points made, and some very deep navel-gazing about my own thoughts on the subject, I find one question persists:
Were we even watching the same film?
You can read the whole thing, but notice what Colman says, just before listing a scoreboard of romantic endings in Disney films:
I’m now counting out every feature with a love story that ends in a happily ever after. A traditional, heterosexual happily ever after, I should qualify, though it’s not like Disney is likely to actually attempt a same-sex love story any time soon. Or ever. [Emphasis added]
I’ve heard the theory that Elsa’s “Let it Go” is subtly intended as a coming-out anthem of sorts, but there’s no confirmation from Disney of that, so I’m inclined to believe it’s one of those convenient Disney moments the LGBT community can adopt with pride whether Disney wants them to or not (something of which I wholeheartedly approve, by the way). And yes, Elsa doesn’t end up with a man of her own?. . .?but if not ending the film with a heterosexual romantic interest is supposed to automatically out Elsa as a lesbian, then frankly Disney’s just doing it wrong.
These are just short excerpts from a long essay — please, don’t think I’m trying to distort her meaning by selective quotation — but after reading the whole thing, I was like, “What exactly is she saying here?” While acknowledging the obvious significance of the heroine’s manlessness, Colman seemed to be expressing resentment that Frozen‘s message was neither gay enough nor feminist enough.
As I say, Colman is a good writer, and she obviously put a huge amount of work into her analysis of Frozen, justifying her hatred of it. However, she cannot hate Frozen more than I hated American Beauty (except for a certain scene with Thora Birch, which I enjoyed in a very bad way) but I didn’t feel the need to rant endlessly against American Beauty. It is sufficient condemnation to say that American Beauty is an anti-bourgeois/anti-suburban movie; anyone who sees it and doesn’t recognize the movie’s core message — the normal life of a normal middle-class family is an unworthy life — just isn’t paying attention.
If I do not need more than a few sentences to explain why an evil movie is evil, what’s up with Colman’s mutli-thousand-word reaction to Frozen? It seems that she felt feminists were too happy that it cleared a minimum threshold, as she concludes:
I don’t want Frozen to be good enough. I’ve spent more than enough words explaining why I think it spits in the face of what we should be thinking of as feminism, and how, like a schoolyard bully, it ennobles itself by mocking its predecessors. I don’t want to think that, when I perhaps have daughters some day, this is what I will be able to take them to see; still less do I want to think that the older, more progressive features will have been deemed irrelevant in favour of the new, Frozen-style model. I applaud the attempt to broaden the range of multi-faceted female characters in animation; I appreciate the intent of having two women in prominent roles instead of the usual one, but I want to see better. And the more effusive praise we heap on a movie that shouldn’t even be good enough, the less likely it is that better will ever happen.
Of Ms. Colman’s hypothetical future motherhood — “when I perhaps have daughters some day” — I’d wager $20 against that “perhaps.”
Like so many other feminists, Ms. Colman is eager to tell us what is appropriate for our children, and to denounce us for disagreeing, but she considers her time and talents far too precious to be squandered in the ordinary business of parenthood. The feminist contempt for motherhood is a variation on how progressive intellectuals, who have careers, hold a special contempt for those of us who merely have jobs.
The reason progressives are always proclaiming their devotion to “workers” is because progressives consider people who work actual jobs to be in need of the intelligentsia’s charitable sympathy. Feminists love to talk about “working mothers,” but feminists are generally neither workers nor mothers. It takes a Ph.D., faculty tenure and a six-figure salary to be able to advocate the interests of those grubby moms who are too dumb to know what’s good for them.
Once you see through the dishonest hypocrisy of the progressive intellectual’s pose, you consider their pity an insult to your dignity. What the liberal is saying to the (allegedly) oppressed is, “Oh, you poor thing! You need my help, because you can’t help yourself.”
To which anyone with a scintilla of self-respect must answer: “Fuck you. Hate me all you want, you arrogant snob, but I need no pity.”
Pitying a person is not the same as helping a person, and the liberal’s problem is that he doesn’t know why the difference matters. They would rather do “Fondue Sets for Namibia” — promoting some kind of do-gooder project to “help” a distant person whom they feel deserving of their liberal pity — than to actually do anything to help nearby people who are less exotically “oppressed.” If your car breaks down on the freeway three miles from the nearest exit, you’ll walk the entire distance, both ways, before a liberal stops to help. Liberals are without exception the most thoroughly selfish people on the planet.
#YesAllWomen are treated like they're broken if they don't want to have kids.
— Dani Colman (@DirectorDaniC) May 26, 2014
Which is to say, no, I don’t expect Dani Colman ever to take time away from her professional career to change diapers and read bedtime stories. She’s too busy explaining to the world “what we should be thinking of as feminism,” and I guess I was too dumb to figure out what she meant. Having spent a few months in a deep study of feminist theory (e.g., Natasha Distiller’s 2011 book Fixing Gender: Lesbian Mothers and the Oedipus Complex), obviously I know what I think of as feminism, but is it what I should be thinking?
So I poked Dani Colman on Twitter, hoping to elicit from her a clarification. And, wow, did she ever give me a clarification:
Let’s get this straight (pun so very much intended)
I’m going to preface this by pointing out that you are a vocal, self-identified conservative, and I am a vocal, self-identified liberal, so we are going to disagree on certain key points without much chance of ever seeing eye-to-eye. So I’m not going to try to convince you of anything, and I’d appreciate your doing me the same courtesy.
With that said, please don’t patronise me. I’m a professional writer, a trained storyteller and a rather competent linguist, so please take me at my word when I say I’m quite aware of the subtext of my work, and I don’t appreciate the implication that I don’t actually know what I wrote.
So your issue seems to be that, by using the word “heterosexual” twice in a particular context, I am “problematising hereosexuality”. Frankly I’m not sure whether to respond academically, or from the standpoint of being a straight woman with a very satisfying sex life, but since I’ve written about my own sexuality in other forums I’ll stick to the academic.
Disney has a long history not of “problematising” homosexuality, but of effectively effacing it. This comes from a long-ago decision by Walt himself to appeal to the broadest possible demographic, and if you want to know more about that you can read it on my tumblr. At the time it was a perfectly rational decision and one that certainly played a role in Disney’s early near-monopoly on the family entertainment market, but times have most certainly changed. Homosexuality is increasingly de-stigmatised, and positive adult non-heterosexual role models are beginning to be visible in mainstream media. “Orange is the New Black”, for example, has received much justified praise for placing gay/lesbian, transgender, multi-racial and lower-class narratives on the same footing as the narrative of white, upper-class Piper. It isn’t about overpowering or replacing heterosexual narratives: it’s about increasing the number of non-heterosexual narratives to match. Equality, not subjugation.
In children/family entertainment, those role models don’t exist, and this is a problem because there is an irrefutable correlation between exposure to positive relatable role models as a child and mental health (of the I-don’t-hate-myself variety) as an adolescent. It’s like the theory that the characters in Winnie-the-Pooh are stand-ins for different mental health issues: a child with no knowledge of depression can still tell a parent they feel like Eeyore. A young adolescent struggling with his/her sexuality benefits enormously from positive portrayals of the full spectrum as a child, because even if the adolescent in question ultimately determines that s/he is straight, that decision can come from an unbiased and egalitarian understanding of all the possibilities.
Disney is the world’s largest provider of family entertainment — more than that, Disney has (until recently) been the textbook in the question of what and what “isn’t” appropriate for family entertainment. That means that if a child were to reach into a barrel of DVDs of animated movies and pick one at random (discounting the collected works of Ralph Bakshi because let’s not be idiots about this), that child would have literally no chance of picking one with a protagonist who isn’t a zero-on-the-Kinsey-scale heterosexual. Heterosexuality isn’t a problem, but that is. Heterosexuality isn’t just the norm in animated entertainment — it’s the only. And the two times in my “Frozen” essay that I use the word “heterosexual” are, in fact, to point out that that is the case. In the first, I qualify that my table of “happily-ever-afters” only includes heterosexual relationships because those are the only ones available to include. In the second, I draw attention to the fact that certain “Frozen” fans use Elsa’s lack of any relationship as indication that she is a lesbian, and I rather lament the fact that that seems to be the best Disney has to offer its LGBTQ fans.
So it’s really a stretch to say that I’m “problematising heterosexuality”. A feet-behind-the-ears, Cirque du Soleil contortionist stretch, if I’m honest, because at best I’m not really saying anything about it. I’m saying that it’s a sad, sad situation that the largest provider of family entertainment in the role has such a dearth of positive role models for LGBTQ families and children that even a slight deviation from the established and *very* heterosexual Disney model is lauded as a breakthrough. On an entirely personal level, I have absolutely no issue with heterosexuality, though it would probably say something about my self-esteem if I did. I do have an issue with non-heterosexual individuals not being able to enjoy the same ability to relate to beloved characters that I do. It’s not fair, and frankly it’s bullshit. Pointing out — twice — that the Disney model is exclusively heterosexual isn’t “problematising” anything except the fact that it’s exclusive.
Now, if I’m still complaining about heterosexual narratives when there’s actual equality in media, feel free to call me on it then.
OK, briefly to reply:
- “Equality”? Ma’am, the most recent federal government research indicates that heterosexuals outnumber the gay/bisexual population more than 40-to-1 (97.7% heterosexual vs. 2.3% gay/bisexual) in the United States. What should “equality” of representation look like, under such circumstances? The combined membership of Southern Baptist churches probably exceeds the total LGBT population of the United States, but how many Southern Baptists are employed in Hollywood or at the major broadcast TV networks? On what basis, really, should we impose quotas in the media?
- Your offering of the “young adolescent struggling with his/her sexuality” as a presumed object of pity — “We must have more gay characters, so teenagers feel better about themselves!” — bears a near-zero resemblance to most actual gay teenagers I have known. At least three guys I went to high school with died of AIDS. Only if “struggling” is a synonym for “enthusiastically pursuing” could it be said that those dudes ever struggled with their sexuality. And don’t even get me started on the lesbians I knew in college. The idea that every homosexual is a helpless victim who is just one slur away from suicide is one of the most ridiculous myths that liberals have ever created, and they’ve created quite a few. But why even mention global warming?
- Is there “a dearth of positive role models” in the media for, say, hillbilly children? I mean, Disney hasn’t produced any movies about Princess Shonda who lives in a double-wide trailer and marries the King of Long-Haul Truckers. Exactly what kind of character qualifies as a representative role model for any particular child, and how close must the representation be before we assume the child can identify with such a character? I’m not Jewish, but I love Mel Brooks movies. I’m not British, but I love James Bond movies. The assumption that gay people can only relate to overtly gay characters in media is a theory that suffers from a shortage of factual proof. Common sense and anecdotal evidence suggest otherwise.
- Your emphatic description of yourself as “a straight woman with a very satisfying sex life” is rather at odds with what struck me, in your critique of Frozen, as your emetic aversion to screen depictions of heterosexual romance. Given your overtly anti-heterosexual tone in criticizing Frozen, what are we to make of your assurance that you “have absolutely no issue with heterosexuality,” and that your “self-esteem” would be at stake if you did? You insist that your criticism arises from a disinterested concern for “actual equality in media.” You have no direct personal interest in the representation of homosexuals. However, as a philanthropic humanitarian feel that they are victims of unfair bias. OK. As mystifying as your attitude is, I accept that you are sincere both in your (personal) heterosexual satisfaction and your (political) gay sympathy.
Have I been reading too much feminist theory? Have I misconstrued the meaning of what I have read? Or is it the case that for Dani Colman, as for many other women who call themselves “feminists,” this label means whatever any woman wants it to mean?
It does often seem thus. Whatever any woman is angry about, that’s “feminism.” If she gets stopped for speeding, the speed limit is a manifestation of patriarchal oppression. If her checking account is overdrawn, male supremacy is to blame. Sexism explains why her thighs look so fat, and if the service is too slow at Starbucks, that’s misogyny. Also, if a woman’s anti-male political principles seem to be at odds with her own very satisfying heterosexual life, it’s just right-wing hate when you sarcastically point out the contradiction.
An infinitely elastic definition cannot actually define anything. Feminism either is a definite political philosophy, or it is not.
But if intellectual coherence and consistent political principle are important to you, you cannot be a liberal. You can be a Marxist feminist or a lesbian feminist, but “liberal feminism” — what does that mean?
There I was, reading Dani Colman’s critique of Frozen and thinking, “Wow, she’s a hard-core feminist.” I figured her idea of an acceptable Disney cartoon would be to turn Monster into a musical comedy with Aileen Wuornos as the romantic protagonist. And yet somehow I totally misread Ms. Colman who, in fact, is so enthusiastically heterosexual that she could never be one of those pathetic lesbian weirdos like Lauren Morelli. While Ms. Colman has endless pity for helpless queers, she “absolutely” isn’t one of them.
Why would anybody want liberals to like them? It’s a mystery to me.
Posted on | October 19, 2014 | 2 Comments
– compiled by Wombat-socho
I admit to putting this off all day because frankly, I didn’t want to follow Stacy’s post this morning about Hannah Graham with Rule 5 Sunday; it seemed gauche and inappropriate at the very least. There’s a time and a place for everything, though, and this is Rule 5 Sunday’s. As usual, click not in times and places inappropriate for doing so, for many of the following links lead to stuff that is NSFW.
Animal Magnetism leads off with Rule Five Friday and the Saturday Gingermageddon, Average Bubba joins in with his own Rule 5 Friday, and Goodstuff chimes in with a very seasonally appropriate Halloween Ho Down. Ninety Miles from Tyranny chips in with Morning Mistress, Hot Pick of the Late Night, and Girls with Guns, and First Street Journal presents Strange Bedfellows.
A View from the Beach contributes Jessiann Gravel, Real vs. Fake at 240 FPS, I Need Proof, Fear of Spiders?, “Calabria”, The March of the Penguins, “Call on Me”, Gone Fishin’, Back Later, and Got Mud?
At Soylent Siberia, it’s your morning coffee creamer, Another Header for Irish, Monday Motivationer Red Dawn, Evening Awesome See-Through, Tuesday Titillation, Humpday Hawtness DDDamn, Falconsword Fursday El Fuego With Underboob, Happy Hour Hawtness, Corset Confabulation, T-GIF Friday Forget Stairmaster, Weekender Annalisa Greco, Afternooner Red Rocker, and Bath Night Foam.
Proof Positive’s Friday Night Babe is Emanuela de Palma, his Vintage Babe is Esther Williams, and Sex in Advertising is covered by Guess. Also, Flowering Curves of Beauty, Women of PETA XL, and the obligatory 49er’s cheerleader! At Dustbury, Meghan Trainor (no relation), Ann Dvorak, and Jedediah Bila kickin’ it Diana Prince style.
Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! Deadline to submit links to the Rule 5 Wombat mailbox for next Sunday’s Rule 5 post is midnight on Saturday, October 25.
Posted on | October 19, 2014 | 21 Comments
Virginia authorities have not yet officially confirmed that the remains found Saturday in Albemarle County are those of Hannah Graham, but it appears that suspect Jesse Matthew will be facing a murder charge in the case of the missing 18-year-old student:
The remains were found around noon near Old Lynchburg Road in Albemarle County, said Charlottesville Police Chief Timothy Longo.
The area is less than 10 miles from where Graham, 18, was last seen. Longo said he “made a very difficult phone call” to Graham’s parents to share the discovery with them, but forensic tests need to be conducted to determine the identity of the remains.
The weekslong search for a missing University of Virginia student appears to have come to a sad end with the announcement by police officials that they have discovered human remains that could be hers.
Further forensic tests are needed to confirm whether the remains are those of 18-year-old Hannah Graham, but Graham’s parents were notified of the preliminary findings, Charlottesville Police Chief Timothy Longo told a news conference Saturday, shortly after the discovery was made. . . .
Longo said a search team from the Chesterfield County Sheriff’s Office found the remains Saturday on an abandoned property in southern Albemarle County — the same region where police found the body of 20-year-old Virginia Tech student Morgan Harrington three months after she vanished in 2009.
Last month, after arresting a suspect in Graham’s disappearance, police said they found a “forensic link” between the two cases.
Thousands of volunteers had searched for the 18-year-old Graham in the weeks since her disappearance Sept. 13. . . .
“Countless hours, thousands of hours, have been spent by literally hundreds of law enforcement, civilian volunteers in an effort to find Hannah,” Longo said. “We think perhaps today proved their worth.”
Jesse Leroy Matthew Jr., 32, has been charged with abduction with intent to defile Graham. A preliminary hearing is set for Dec. 4 on the charge. . . .
[After Matthew was arrested] Virginia State Police announced a “forensic link” to Harrington’s killing. That case, in turn, has been linked by DNA evidence since 2012 to the rape of a woman in Fairfax, Virginia, who survived after a passer-by startled her attacker, the FBI has said.
Following Matthew’s arrest, Christopher Newport University released a statement noting that he had been named in a police file involving a Sept. 7, 2003 sexual assault on the Newport News campus. Matthew was a student there from January 2003 through Oct. 15, 2003.
Matthew had transferred to CNU after three years at Liberty University, where he also was briefly on the football team.
When he was at Liberty University, he was accused of raping a student on campus. That charge was dropped when the person declined to move forward with prosecution, Lynchburg Commonwealth’s Attorney Michael Doucette said.
That’s at least two sexual assaults and one murder in which Matthew was suspected before Hannah Graham disappeared last month. Our justice system often fails in this way. A criminal gets away with one crime (a rape charge was dropped in Lynchburg) and gets away with another crime (he was a suspect in a second assault in Newport News, but not prosecuted), and the fact that he has escaped apprehension encourages him to continue pursuing his criminal habits. Then one day, usually after years of escalating his criminality, the petty criminal is charged with an atrocity that makes national headlines.
People say, “Were there warning signs? Were there clues that this person was a dangerous monster?” Yes, always there are. Why were the clues and warnings overlooked, so that the monster got away with his life of crime for so long? It’s simple: Most people do not think about crime and criminals in a realistic way. The reality can be expressed very simply: Who commits crimes? Criminals do.
True, any law-abiding citizen may decided tomorrow to stop obeying the law, commit a crime and so become a criminal. Yet in terms of law enforcement generally, a majority of really serious crimes — murder, rape, kidnapping, aggravated assault, armed robbery, grand theft — are committed by a relatively small number of lifelong criminals. These people are characterized by their general anti-social personality; the criminal’s contempt for decent citizens is expressed by his refusal to live by society’s law. The habitual offender gets away with many small crimes (petty theft, breaking-and-entering, narcotics possession, etc.) and this confirms his view that people who obey the law are just chumps, or cowards who lack the boldness to defy the law.
This anti-social worldview is at the root of the criminal’s persistence, and explains why some petty criminals continue escalating their criminality until they commit murder.
The good news is that law enforcement has in recent years begun to figure out how to apply this common-sense understanding of the criminal mind in a systematic way. Technology has provided very useful tools — video surveillance and DNA testing being the most obvious — and the development of nationwide database systems means that it is increasingly difficult for the persistent criminal to evade detection. Furthermore, our laws and our courts have become less tolerant of the repeat offender. Our prison population has increased because the criminal justice system is no longer biased toward “rehabilitating” the perpetrator of serious violence. Now, we understand (and act on the understanding) that the violent criminal must simply be kept off the streets, if we are to protect citizens against violent crime.
It appears that Jesse Matthew was able to evade apprehension for more than a decade from the time of his first serious crime until he committed the crime that made nationwide headlines. But law enforcement moves forward every day, and if not every crime can be prevented, we can at least hope that every criminal will be punished.
Posted on | October 18, 2014 | 9 Comments
– compiled by Wombat-socho
- Political Rift
- Batshit Crazy News
- Watcher Of Weasels
- Noisy Room
- Trevor Loudon
- The Right Planet
- Regular Right Guy
- Walker Ministries
- Bookworm Room
- Independent Sentinel
- Virginia Right
- That Mr. G Guy
- Regular Right Guy
- Batshit Crazy News
- Walker Ministries
- Political Rift
- Batshit Crazy News
- That Mr. G Guy
- Regular Right Guy
- A View from the Beach
- Ninety Miles from Tyranny
- Batshit Crazy News
- The Camp of the Saints
- Regular Right Guy
- That Mr. G Guy
- Peach Pundit
- Conservative Hideout
- Political Rift
- Dyspepsia Generation
- First Street Journal
- Living In Anglo-America
- Batshit Crazy News
- Regular Right Guy
Top linkers this week:
- Batshit Crazy News (20)
- Regular Right Guy (14)
- That Mr. G Guy (13)
- Political Rift (8)
- A View from the Beach (^)
Thanks to everyone for their linkagery! Deadline to submit links for next weekend’s FMJRA will be noon on Saturday, October 25.
Posted on | October 18, 2014 | 193 Comments
When word that [Cardinal Raymond Leo] Burke was on his way out [from the Apostolic Signatura] began circulating last month, it signaled that Francis would take major steps to reshape the church. It coincided with the selection of a new archbishop of Chicago, Blase Cupich, who Catholic progressives celebrated for positions like breaking with the American church hierarchy when it withheld its support for President Obama’s health reform law over questions of abortion and contraception.
Papal infallibility relies on a pope being in full solidarity with the bishops of the church, and this week solidarity is not easy to find.
Decades of growing leftist influence within the Catholic Church, which John Paul II and Benedict XVI had temporarily suppressed, but could not ultimately stop, has now elevated an Argentine leftist to the papal throne. Catholic conservatives are and will continue to be purged from positions of influence. Conquest’s Second Law: “Any organization not explicitly and constitutionally right-wing will sooner or later become left-wing.” Catholics are seeing it confirmed.
This is now the Catholic church of the Berrigan Brothers, “Nuns on the Bus” and Dignity USA. Because conservative Catholics would not excommunicate the heretics when they had the chance, now the heretics are in control. The attempt to paint a smiley face on this disaster includes, e.g., an editorial about “how gay Catholics can lead the rest of the Church to a greater understanding of God’s truth.”
Ri-iiight. Your next pedophile priest scandal in 3, 2, 1 . . .
As a conservative Protestant, I have for years resisted the “road to Rome” solicitations of my conservative Catholic friends, mainly because of ancestral prejudice — coming from a long line of stubbornly independent-minded Calvinist types — but also because I knew something like this would happen to the Catholic church sooner or later. As far as I’m concerned Rerum Novarum is ample refutation of “papal infallibility.” It’s just bad economics and Quadragesimo Anno is arguably worse. If “Catholic social teaching” is divinely inspired, why is its fundamental economic theory so laughably wrong?
Seriously, my conservative Catholic friends, why do you think you now have a socialist Pope? And don’t deny try to deny the obvious truth: Francis is somewhere to the left of Bernie Sanders. You have a socialist Pope because, when you had a conservative Pope, nobody thought to hand him a copy of Human Action or The Mirage of Social Justice and say, “Here, learn something about how the economy really works.” Then get together a confab to produce a revision of “Catholic social teaching” that reflects actual facts.
Also, if you ever get another conservative Pope, excommunicate some heretics. Maybe burn a few of them at the stake, just to get the point across. But definitely excommunicate them. What’s the point of having a Pope, if he’s not excommunicating heretics?
Posted on | October 18, 2014 | 99 Comments
The troll @streever jumped into my Twitter timeline Friday to challenge my assertion that “Feminism is anti-male, anti-heterosexual and — most importantly — ANTI-FREEDOM.” This inspired me to reiterate the basic theme of the “Sex Trouble” series, by way of demonstrating its relevance to the #GamerGate controversy.
Pause now to consider: I spent weeks ignoring #GamerGate because I recognized a risk of becoming distracted from my research, focusing on academic feminism’s anti-male/anti-heterosexual biases. Yet as soon as I took a belated interest in #GamerGate, I almost immediately found myself challenged as to my authority on the subject which I’ve spent months researching. In other words, @streever wants to distract me from my #GamerGate distraction and, by his ignorant quibbling about feminism’s biases, thereby seeks to discredit my commentary on #GamerGate. It’s like I’ve wandered into a hall of mirrors.
At any rate, @streever appears to be a classic “white knight” Gamma male. He is posturing for an audience, real or imagined, in an exhibitionistic display of his moral superiority. Anyone who has read Thomas Sowell’s The Vision of the Anointed recognizes the narcissistic self-flattery involved in this sort of preening. We need not dispute the sincerity of @streever‘s folly in order to understand its egocentric psychological function. Rationalizations are seldom fully conscious; having dealt with more than a few notorious sociopaths, I realize it’s a waste of time to wonder whether they actually buy the self-serving bullshit they peddle to others. (In addition to The Vision of the Anointed, I recommend Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer and Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcisissm as useful to an analysis of this personality type frequently encountered in political controversy.) Once you realize you’re dealing with an antagonist’s mental illness rather than with his “arguments” (which tend to be composed chiefly of slogans, epithets and assertions rather than actual arguments) your enjoyment of the dispute will be exponentially increased, as the self-righteous fool proceeds to prove beyond doubt that he is, in fact, a self-righteous fool.
I questioned Robert Stacy McCain on his controversial assertion that feminism—#YesAllFeminism?—?is ‘anti-male’, ‘anti-heterosexual’, and ‘anti-freedom’, by questioning the power dynamics at play between oppressed and oppressor.
(Notice the obsession with power, which any reader of Foucault will recognize, although whether @streever got his “power dynamics” jargon from Foucault or some other source, we don’t know, as he cites no authority but himself.)
How can someone be meaningfully ‘anti-heterosexual’ in a society that celebrates, supports, and assumes heterosexuality by default?
My real question, though, is why a viewpoint which is critical of exclusive heterosexuality and toxic ideas of maleness is a problem; why should I or anyone else see this as a challenge to ourselves?
(How much feminist literature has @streever read? I’m sitting here surrounded by dozens of volumes, by feminists famous and obscure, published over a span of some 40 years. The latest addition to this stack is Kate Weigand’s 2001 Red Feminism: American Communism and the Making of Women’s Liberation. This volume is not only important in its own right, demonstrating the roots of so-called “Second Wave” feminism in the pro-Soviet Left of the 1930s and ’40s, but the author herself is significant. Weigand’s lesbian partner, Smith College Professor Nancy Whittier, is one of three lesbian academics who are editors of the popular Women’s Studies textbook Feminist Frontiers. What one may conclude, from extensive study of such works, is that feminism is not “critical” merely of “exclusive heterosexuality,” but of heterosexuality, per se. Nor is feminism opposed only to “toxic ideas of maleness,” but rather feminists regard all males, collectively, as engaged in oppression of all females, collectively. Is this “a challenge to ourselves”? One might inquire of Sally Miller Gearhart, Marilyn Frye, Dee Graham, Celia Kitzinger, et al., whether they actually meant what they wrote on these topics. Also, what about those heteronormative Disney cartoons? But never mind, we return to @streever’s rant.)
Women have been excluded and shut out of the legislative, judiciary, political, and economic structures of our society for longer than they’ve been accepted; the structures we live under now were originally conceived, created, and managed nearly entirely by men. I can not fault a woman, a historically oppressed person, for criticizing her oppressors; nor can I fault LGBT people for criticizing their heterosexual oppressors.
(Observe how @streeter is blind to the problem inherent in his description of “a woman” — which woman, he does not say — as “a historically oppressed person.” This assumes as a premise women’s status as a “historically oppressed” category, so that your mother was oppressed by your father, Nancy Reagan was oppressed by Ronald Reagan, Jackie Kennedy was oppressed by John F. Kennedy, and on backward through the millennia to the dawn of time. We suppose @streever imagines that somewhere in Africa, paleontologists are seeking fossils of the first hominid woman who was oppressed by the first hominid male. While I might question whether my grandmother was oppressed by my grandfather, this is irrelevant to the subject at hand, i.e., whether the culture critic Anita Sarkeesian, or any other 21st-century feminist intellectual, should be automatically viewed as cloaked in the mantle of historical oppression. Exactly who are Anita Sarkeesian’s “oppressors”? The gamers who are tired of her lectures about the “male gaze” in videogames? Or does @streever mean to argue that all women, even powerful and affluent women, are entitled to consider as their “oppressors” all men generally? It would be interesting to see @streever attempt to make such an argument, but he doesn’t do that. He merely asserts this — women oppressed, and men their oppressors — as if it were self-evident. And do not for a moment expect @streever to demonstrate how all heterosexuals are “oppressors” of all “LGBT people.” He doesn’t have to prove this, you see. Oppression is the major premise of his syllogism, and if you do not accept that premise, you’re just a hateful bigot. But now back to @streever’s rant.)
McCain wasn’t able to explain this to me, because it isn’t explainable; he’s simply wrong. No right-thinking human can blame an oppressed person for holding ideas that question and criticize their oppressors.
(Here we see the category “right-thinking human” — bien-pensants, as the French would say — offered as an invitation: “Agree with me and join the Right-Thinking People’s Club, or disagree and be Simply Wrong.” Again, @streever asserts the “oppressed person” and “their oppressors” as self-evident categories, without exemption. Merely by being female or among the “LGBT people,” you see, the “oppressed person” acquires the authority to “question and criticize” everyone outside those categories, and no one may even expect the oppressed to make coherent or factual arguments, for to expect this is to “blame an oppressed person.” We may call this the Solipsistic Subjectivity of the Oppressed. Continuing @streever’s rant.)
What really interested me were his underlying assumptions; he takes for granted that exclusive heterosexuality is the ‘normal’ sexuality of an organism in nature. Although we have any number of examples from nature of animals possessing more fluid sexuality, McCain seems rigidly locked to the idea that exclusive heterosexuality is the only acceptable sex for a human, although I am unable to find either a biological or theological rationale for it in his writing. . . .
You may read the whole thing. Putting away the italic fisking format, anyone can see the startling contrast between what @streever is willing to accept as self-evident premises – i.e., the categorical validity of “oppressed and oppressor,” and “the power dynamics at play between” these categories — as opposed to what he requires to be proven, i.e., the normality of heterosexuality.
Normal heterosexuality explains why there are 7 billion people on this planet, and the question before us in the present tense is not the inherited grievances of the “historically oppressed,” but rather how our own actions today affect the future of ourselves, our families, our neighbors, our society and ultimately the Fate of Humanity. Providing the future with human beings well-suited to assist their fellow humans — to be assets, rather than debits, in the Great Ledger of Historical Accounting — is a philanthropic endeavor.
What philanthropic works does @streever claim to his credit? On what basis does he assert his authority to say that “exclusive heterosexuality” is a problematic idea lacking justification by any “biological or theological rationale”? Is it not just common sense that we should prefer the ordinary way by which man and woman become husband and wife and in turn become father and mother?
Well, @streever is a young fool who, to my knowledge, has never actually done anything to help anyone. He seems to be an entirely selfish person who cares for nothing except his own opinion of himself, posing for the admiration of “right-thinking people.” It is not necessary for such a fool to do anything charitable in order to imagine himself as a philanthropist. No sacrifice, no discipline, no labor is required of him. He need merely array himself rhetorically on the side of the “historically oppressed,” and to denounce as “simply wrong” those who dispute the fashionable idiocies of the intelligentsia, in order to count himself a humanitarian benefactor to others.
Barrett was exactly like @streever in his assumption of his own superiority and his assumption that I would be an appropriate target for his “Mock the Bigot” game. You disagree with them, and therefore you must be a cartoon stereotype of that Reactionary Hater these young fools have been taught to believe “right-thinking humans” must constantly crusade against. Back to @streever now:
The single most destructive influence on both McCain and myself is the type of toxic, angry maleness that he himself advocates and lives by. This narrow-minded view of what constitutes males and maleness is forced upon society by men like McCain, who have a homophobic and bigoted view of what constitutes maleness and men. [Emphasis added.]
Have I exhibited “toxic, angry maleness”? Are my views “narrow-minded”? Am I “homophobic and bigoted”? Never mind all that: Notice how @streever asserts — tendentious assertions are his habit — that my “narrow-minded view . . . is forced upon society,” without specifying the mechanism of force by which this occurs. Whereas the tax man takes your money (by force) and uses that money (without your permission) to fund the promulgation of feminism’s hateful doctrines at schools and universities, thus producing multiple harms to society, inter alia, the complete waste of time and hydrocarbon molecules that is @streever.
“The destruction of the incest taboo is essential to the development of cooperative human community based on the free-flow of natural androgynous eroticism. . . .
“The incest taboo can be destroyed only by destroying the nuclear family as the primary institution of the culture.
“The nuclear family is the school of values in a sexist, sexually repressed society.”
— Andrea Dworkin, Woman Hating: A Radical Look at Sexuality (1974)
“[P]atriarchy (not capitalism or sex roles or socialization or individual sexist men) is the root of all forms of oppression . . . all men benefit from and maintain it and are, therefore, our political enemies. Within this framework, heterosexuality, far from existing as a ‘natural state,’ ‘personal choice’ or ‘sexual orientation,’ is described as a socially constructed and institutionalized structure which is instrumental in the perpetuation of male supremacy.”
— Celia Kitzinger, The Social Construction of Lesbianism (1987)
“Is there some commonality among ‘women’ that preexists their oppression, or do ‘women’ have a bond by virtue of their oppression alone? Is there a specificity to women’s cultures that is independent of their subordination by hegemonic, masculinist cultures? . . .
“Is the construction of the category of women as a coherent and stable subject an unwitting regulation and reification precisely contrary to feminist aims? . . . To what extent does the category of women achieve stability and coherence only in the context of the heterosexual matrix?”
— Judith Butler, Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (1990)
“[L]esbian coparents whose children are conceived through donor insemination do depend upon . . . formal, rapidly institutionalizing markets for acquiring the precious liquid that will assist them in bringing children into their lives. . . .
“The erasure of biological paternity that occurs with officially anonymous sperm donation all but seals the fate of semen as a commodity whose exchange value derives almost exclusively from its use value to women who control their own reproduction.”
— Maureen Sullivan, The Family of Woman: Lesbian Mothers, Their Children, and the Undoing of Gender (2004)
“There’s no way a 14-year-old can consent to a relationship with an adult. . . . She took away her innocence. My daughter trusted her, and she deceived her.”
— Tampa Tribune, “Mom Of Minor In Teacher-Student Sex Case Speaks Out,” June 17, 2008
“A former dance director at Humble High School . . . admittedly had sex with one of her female students.
“Amanda Michelle Feenstra pleaded guilty Wednesday and was sentenced to 10 years deferred adjudication and probation. . . .
“Police said Feenstra engaged in deviate sexual intercourse with the student from August 2010 to November 2011. The student was 17 years old when the relationship began and Feenstra was 30. . . .
“The student’s mother accused Feenstra of stealing her daughter’s innocence.”
— KHOU-TV, “Former dance director at Humble High sentenced for having sex with student,” Oct. 23, 2013
“While ‘childless’ means the condition of being without children, it implies that everyone who does not have children would like to have them. However, being ‘childfree,’ like [actress Helen] Mirren — and like me — means that one does not want to have children at all. . . .
“I don’t feel like something is missing from my life because I don’t have children. I don’t want to have kids.”
— Chanel Dubofsky, “‘Childless’ or ‘Childfree': The Difference Matters,” May 8, 2014
“If I was really gay, I would have known when I was younger. There was a prescribed narrative, and everything about my own story challenged the accepted one.
“Five months after my wedding, I flew to New York . . .
“I was finally forced to consider a question that had never, ever occurred to me before: Holy shit, am I gay?”
— Lauren Morelli, “While Writing for ‘Orange Is the New Black,’ I Realized I Am Gay,” May 21, 2014
“The first girl I ever dated, and the first girl I married are both gay now.”
— Steve Basilone, June 13, 2014
“A Wallingford woman was sentenced to over 17 years in prison for filming herself sexually assaulting a 3-year-old female child, according to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the District of Connecticut.
“Angela D. Martin, 30, filmed herself with a cell phone sexually abusing the child and sent it to another individual in California, according to court documents. . . .
“In addition to the video, officials say Martin possessed and distributed other child pornography that she received from individuals through email, text messaging and chat applications.
“Martin is a registered sex offender due to a prior conviction in Connecticut for second degree sexual assault of a minor.”
— New Haven Register, “Wallingford woman gets 17 years for filmed sexual assault of child,” Oct. 15, 2014
Civilization’s most basic unit, the family, has been under relentless assault by a degenerate intellectual elite for more than half a century, wreaking tragic destruction on women and children, undermining law and unleashing upon our citizens a deadly carnival of satanic evil that every day claims its helpless victims. High school students are molested by their teachers, college girls are kidnapped and murdered, creepy lunatics open fire on the streets of lovely beach towns — but, no, not one of these manifest evils should be attributed to the wrong ideas our intelligentsia have taught “right-thinking humans” to believe.
Instead, when a private citizen speaks truth in defense of what is good and wholesome, he must be accused of having forced upon society the narrow-minded, homophobic and bigoted view of toxic, angry maleness. Translation: Shut up, while we ruin the world.
“To live for the moment is the prevailing passion — to live for yourself, not for your predecessors or posterity. We are fast losing the sense of historical continuity, the sense of belonging to a succession of generations originating in the past and stretching into the future. . . .
“Narcissism emerges as the typical form of character structure in a society that has lost interest in the future.”
— Christopher Lasch, The Culture of Narcissism: American Life in an Age of Diminishing Expectations (1979)
God has entrusted innocent souls to your care, but our decadent elite hate God, they hate you, they hate your children, and most of all the elite hate your obstinate refusal to acknowledge them as your moral superiors. Therefore, they take sadistic pleasure in the wickedness their dangerous ideas inflict on you and your children.
Responsible adults — men and women as husbands and wives, mothers and fathers — who have a direct flesh-and-blood stake in the future, and who are concerned for the world that will exist for their grandchildren and descendants in a future beyond their own lifetimes, must be shouted down and silenced as these irresponsible intellectuals do everything possible to destroy our civilization.
They call themselves “right-thinking” people, and we are ‘simply wrong.”
— Michelle Ray (@GaltsGirl) October 18, 2014
You see what weird cultural ideas #GamerGate brings into focus.
Posted on | October 18, 2014 | 25 Comments
Via Hot Air headlines, David Brooks continues to terrify rational people with the thought that this twerp is somehow a thought leader in our society:
Low idealism begins with a sturdy and accurate view of human nature. We’re all a bit self-centered, self-interested and inclined to think we are nobler than we are. Montaigne wrote, “If others examined themselves attentively, as I do, they would find themselves, as I do, full of inanity and nonsense. Get rid of it I cannot without getting rid of myself.”
This invites the question of how Brooks got his drivel back in time to afflict Montaigne. Humans are overwhelming the scorpion in the tale of the hapless frog. That so many human frogs like to vote for scorpions can be seen as the passive aggression of Socialism bulldozing everything toward the mean.
Low idealism continues with a realistic view of politics. Politics is slow drilling through hard boards. It is a series of messy compromises. The core functions of government are negative — putting out fires, arresting criminals, settling disputes — and much of what government does is the unromantic work of preventing bad situations from getting worse.
Let’s be clear, Brooks: our homo bureaucratus infestation has metastasized into something worse, starting fires, employing criminals, engendering disputes. When Rahm said “You never let a serious crisis go to waste“, you’re a fool if you don’t think him perfectly capable of fomenting such.
Politicians operate in a recalcitrant medium with incomplete information, bad options and no sleep. Government in good times is merely dull; when it is enthralling, times are usually bad.
Hence the counter-Progressive idea that less government is preferable. Scope creep in the last century of our government has all of the appeal of scope creep in a software project. Except that, while Lois Lerner’s email can vanish in a puff of cyber-smoke, Lois and her ilk will continue to acquire and wield more administrative power until they are stopped. It’s their nature. Like the scorpion.
So low idealism starts with a tone of sympathy. Anybody who works in this realm deserves compassion and gentle regard.
Anybody who actually thinks that is a fool. Government is not parental in nature, and citizens are not children. Despite the efforts of Progress to paralyze our society with pap like your writings, Brooks.
The low idealist knows that rallies with anthems and roaring are just make-believe, but has warm affection for any politician who exhibits neighborliness, courtesy and the ability to listen.
No, Brooks: politicians are not the kindly figures you’re trying to sell here. I’m sure they put on a smile and toss out a Buckley quote for you when they pat you on the head. Nice Bobo, nice. You fling such pleasant poo in your column, Bobo. How is your ObamaCare policy doing, by the way?
The low idealist understands that those who try to rise above the messy business of deal-making often turn into zealots and wind up sinking below it. On the other hand, this kind of idealist has a full heart for those who serve the practical work of legislating: James Baker and Ted Kennedy in the old days; Bob Corker and Ron Wyden today. Believing experience is the best mode of education, he favors the competent old hand to the naïve outsider.
Aren’t you just a well-trained Bobo? That competent old hand feels good when it pats your head, no?
What we need is term limits and more frequent turnover. Ted Kennedy was not a sympathetic character. We need simpler systems that can be readily understood by competent outsiders. As Will Rogers put it:
Politicians are like diapers. They both need changing regularly and for the same reason.
Bobo, your lust for aristocracy is unbecoming an American. But so is pretty much everything you write. We all need to be our own statesmen, to our maximal ability. Govern ourselves, and quit thinking we can offload the need to grow up onto the state. The disastrous results of that surround you.
Posted on | October 17, 2014 | 122 Comments
My #GamerGate coverage had only just begun when @streever — who obviously doesn’t know me from Adam’s housecat — made the mistake of disputing my authority to describe feminism as “anti-male and anti-heterosexual.” This is not necessarily @streever‘s fault.
The whole point of my “Sex Trouble” series about radical feminism’s war on human nature is that the vast majority of people, including many otherwise normal women who naively call themselves “feminists,” don’t know the truth about feminist theory — its esoteric doctrine, as opposed to its exoteric discourse. Your typical ordinary “feminist” is merely a liberal whose ideological commitment is no more profound than this: “Vote Democrat — because vagina!”
Understand what I mean when I say feminism is a journey to lesbianism: There are lifelong lesbians who aren’t feminists for the simple reason that they don’t need a theory to justify themselves and they don’t enjoy politically correct sex. Non-feminist lesbians include not a few stone butch dykes who refuse to listen to post-modern crypto-Marxist lectures about why their preference for masculine wardrobe, penetration and domination is the “wrong” way to be lesbian. Furthermore, there are many lesbians who just don’t hate men enough to be feminist. In fact, a lot of ladies who are “playing for the other team” (to use the famous Seinfeld phrase) have an ironic empathy for the problems of heterosexual men, as lesbians also have to deal with the typical woes of trying to get along with women. (Some ex-lesbians are “ex-” for this very reason: They can’t cope with the hormonal drama.) Anyone who looks at exit-poll data must realize there are more Republican lesbians than the mainstream media is willing to admit; if you’re pro-capitalism and pro-America, it’s kind of hard hard to be a feminist.
So, there are non-feminist lesbians and there are “heterosexual feminists,” but the latter category is rather timidly defensive within the field of Women’s Studies, where “raging lesbian feminists” prevail and gender theory necessitates problematizing heterosexuality. It is certainly no accident that the most widely assigned anthology of feminist literature — Feminist Frontiers, a common textbook for Introduction to Women’s Studies classes at American universities — is edited by three lesbians. The best and most recent research indicates that heterosexual women outnumber lesbian/bisexual women by a ratio greater than 40-to-1 (97.7 percent to 2.3 percent), but if you were to attend next month’s annual meeting of the National Women’s Studies Association, you would find the NWSA Lesbian Caucus accounts for far more than 2.3% of the faculty and graduate students in attendance, and nobody in the NWSA would dare challenge the Lesbian Caucus directly. The heterosexuals in Women’s Studies “know their place,” so to speak, and their metaphorical place is in the back of the feminist bus.
“If you consider sexual desire and romantic love between men and women to be natural and healthy, you are not a feminist. . . . There is nothing natural about sex, according to feminist ideology, no biological urge that causes women to be attracted to men.”
— Robert Stacy McCain, April 10, 2014
Beyond this demonstrable phenomenon of the extraordinary lesbian influence on radical feminism as it is taught on our university campuses, however, beyond all the quotes I could produce to demonstrate that phenomenon, there is the simple truth: Feminist theory is incompatible with (and hostile to) the normal woman’s life of men, marriage and motherhood. A woman might be a heterosexual feminist, but she can never be a happy heterosexual feminist, because feminism’s core beliefs are that (a) all women’s problems are consequences of male oppression, (b) this oppression (patriarchy) is systemic and pervasive, (c) all women suffer from patriarchal oppression and all men benefit from it, (d) the nuclear family is the basic institutional unit of patriarchy, (e) both normal gender (i.e., sex roles, and our concepts of masculinity and femininity) and normal sexuality are “social constructs” produced to serve the interests and fit the prejudices of male-dominated patriarchal society, and (f) women cannot be equal until they destroy this system. Feminists must, as their slogan says, “Smash Patriarchy.”
“Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women’s bodies.”
— Andrea Dworkin, 1989
“Female heterosexuality is not a biological drive or an individual woman’s erotic attraction . . . Female heterosexuality is a set of social institutions and practices.”
— Marilyn Frye, 1992
“Male sexual violence against women and ‘normal’ heterosexual intercourse are essential to patriarchy because they establish the dominance of the penis over the vagina, and thus the power relations between the sexes.”
— Dee Graham, 1994
“Male supremacy is centered on the act of sexual intercourse, justified by heterosexual practice.”
— Sheila Jeffreys, 2005
Anyone with two eyes and common sense can see this, and every honest feminist must admit it. But honest feminists are rather rare, and I’m always grateful to encounter the forthright radical lesbian who speaks the blunt truth about the feminist agenda. Confronted with what feminism actually means, the normal woman’s reaction is no different than the normal man’s reaction: They’re horrified by the anti-human totalitarian hatred implicit in this doctrine.
- Essential Feminist Quotes: ‘Most Women Have to Be Coerced into Heterosexuality’
- Essential Feminist Quotes: ‘Rapists Serve All Men by Enforcing Male Supremacy’
- Essential Feminist Quotes: ‘Lesbianism and Feminism Have Been Coterminous’
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) October 17, 2014
— STREEVER (@streever) October 17, 2014
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) October 17, 2014
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) October 17, 2014
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) October 17, 2014
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) October 17, 2014
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) October 17, 2014
The naive liberal who calls herself a “feminist” in 2014 is much like the naive liberals who, in the 1930s and ’40s, joined Communist front groups because they believed the dishonest Popular Front rhetoric of “peace,” “justice” and “civil rights.” Ronald Reagan, who admitted that he himself had been deceived during his days as a bleeding-heart liberal, became the history’s most famous foe of Communism. Reagan liked to joke that the difference between a Communist and an anti-Communist is that the Communist is someone who reads Marx and Lenin, while the anti-Communist is someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
So it is with feminism now, and members of the videogaming community have rather accidentally been given an opportunity to understand feminism. Thanks, “Social Justice Warriors”!
Videogames are a male-dominated phenomenon, which is a bad thing, as far as I’m concerned. I lost interest in videogames more than 30 years ago simply because feeding quarters into a Pac Man machine was a waste of time and money. Our family has a little Pac Man console that we packed away the last time we moved and I haven’t unpacked it yet, but I occasionally used to plug in Pac Man and spend an hour or two racking up a high score, then toss it aside and dare the kids to top my high score. But I quit videogames before FPRP (First-Person Role-Playing) games became the norm, and so I never developed an appetite for “Mortal Kombat,” “Grand Theft Auto” or “Call of Duty.” My teenage son wastes hours playing “League of Legends,” much to my dismay. Time spent playing games is time that could be better spent on something useful and productive, and it is disheartening to see bright young people develop a habit of (or rather, an addiction to) time-wasting.
In her book Men on Strike, Dr. Helen Smith criticizes the stereotype of male gamers as stunted, puerile losers. However, (a) it’s hard to see how playing “Madden” all day is compatible with a fully functional adult life, and (b) couldn’t those endless hours of gaming be better spent on some income-generating activity, or at least something with real-life utility? But having spent my own adolescence in a haze of sex, drugs and rock-and-roll, maybe I shouldn’t be so harshly judgmental of the arguably less harmful recreations available via XBox and Playstation.
Yet if teenage boys (and adult men) would rather spend time playing “World of Warcraft” than working, educating themselves, or pursuing the companionship of females, why? Isn’t it a fact — as I believe Dr. Smith would agree — that the workplace and schools have become hostile to men in many ways, and that relationships with women are less satisfying to men because of the anti-male attitudes feminism has encouraged women to adopt? If universities now treat normal male sexuality as a sort of hate crime waiting to happen, if a man can lose his job for even daring to flirt with a female co-worker, and if any potential girlfriend would bring to a romantic relationship a towering stack of resentments against males, what options are left to the young bachelor? Why bother? Instead he spends all weekend in a “Call of Duty” gaming marathon, an emotionally satisfying activity he perhaps interrupts only to (a) sleep, (b) order a pizza, and (c) jack off to some porn.
This is sad beyond words, but there is obviously a reason that videogames are a multibillion-dollar industry, just as there’s obviously a reason a vast amount of the Internet is nothing but porn.
Now, however, as a result of #GamerGate, this poor fellow discovers that one of his few remaining pleasures in life — the games that occupy such a large part of his leisure hours — is threatened by feminists whining about the need for “diversity” and “inclusion,” complaining about “objectification” and “sexualization” and of course, THE MALE GAZE!
You expected these dudes to meekly accept your feminist lectures?
Not just no — hell, no. When you back men into a corner and terrorize them with threats, don’t be surprised to learn that the patriarchy knows how to smash back.
People told me for weeks, "Stacy, you need to write about this #GamerGate thing,," and I ignored it. Guess what? I just stopped ignoring it.
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) October 17, 2014
Feminists have finally pushed their bullshit too far. I’m as surprised as anyone that #GamerGate has turned into what it is, but somehow a worldwide army of geeks and nerds has been mobilized to fight the feminist menace. Better late than never, guys.
keep looking »