The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Third-Wave Feminism Ruins Everything

Posted on | March 10, 2017 | 1 Comment

“The male gaze creates a power imbalance. It supports a patriarchal status quo, perpetuating women’s real-life sexual objectification.”
Janice Loreck, Ph.D. Monash University

While working on a longer post about something else this morning, I happened to notice this feminist discourse on Tumblr:

As a result, some concerns have been raised in the feminist community as the visual representations seem to normalize . . . the belief that people are categorized as female or male and that the genders fall into a particular role in the world. To address these concerns, one can explore the principles of psychoanalysis, a method of investigation of the unconscious mind affecting the conscious, founded by Sigmund Freud. By looking at Freud’s idea of phallocentrism, which was later elaborated by Laura Mulvey and branched out into the male gaze, festishistic scopophilia, and masochism . . . communicated to the audience by objectifying femininity.
In order to understand psychoanalysis, one must be aware of its center principle, phallocentrism, an idea indicating that cultural meanings are structured around masculine terms (Rose, 2016). Phallocentrism, derived from the castration complex, is a belief in which the phallus (penis) is associated with the dominance of the male sex. . . .
With the idea that masculine is superior, males gain a visuality that “asserts that the masculine position is to look and the feminine is to be looked at as the feminine seems lacking” (Rose, 2016, 157). This concept can be explained through male gaze, an idea that is closely linked to voyeurism, the pleasure of looking. Specifically, male gaze “invokes the sexual politics of the gaze and suggests a sexualised way of looking that empowers men and objectifies women” (Loreck, 2016). In cinema, Mulvey describes that females are generally characterized for their beauty. As a result, women are portrayed as an “‘object’ of hexterosexual male desire [and] her feelings, thoughts, and her own sexual drives are less important than her being ‘framed’ by male desire” (Loreck, 2016).

OK, what is this about? Korean pop music videos, known as “K-Pop.”

Having never seen any K-Pop videos, I can’t say whether this feminist criticism of the genre is accurate. However, I will ask a question no one ever seems to ask: “Why are feminists always against anything which might appeal to the interests of heterosexual males?”

Who has time to come up with this kind of pseudo-intellectual Freudian nonsense? Have we solved the problems of poverty, hunger, disease and war so that now there is nothing left for our university faculty to do except purging “the male gaze” and  “objectification” from music videos?

This is how Third-Wave feminism works:

  1. Find something normal people enjoy.
  2. Subject it to a Marxist, Freudian or Foucauldian analysis to explain how it oppresses women.
  3. Be rewarded with a book contract, TV appearances, faculty tenure, a glowing profile feature in the New York Times, etc.
  4. Condemn anyone who criticizes you as a “misogynist.”

 

 

 

You’d think people would catch onto this scam sooner or later, but there is never a shortage of fools in the world, and the progressive elite creates a system of incentives for the pseudo-intellectual hustlers who specialize in peddling feminist nonsense about “oppression” to these fools.

Left-wing billionaire George Soros gave $246 million to more than 100 organizations involved in the “Day Without a Woman” protests. Stop to think how much “activism” can be purchased for that kind of money. Then, consider how many Gender Studies professors and their students would like to get a slice of that lucrative “activism” pie. Next, ponder how much “monkey-see-monkey-do” imitation could be inspired if a network of a few hundred hired “activists” spent many months promoting the Feminist™ brand in campus protest rallies, magazine articles, blog posts, YouTube videos, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc.

Gosh, do you think giving so many millions of dollars to feminist groups had something to do with the 2016 presidential election? Or are you such a clueless fool that you think this was all just a random coincidence?

Like I said, I’m working on something else now and don’t have time to explore this at length, but “Heteronormativity in K-Pop” is the kind of toxic feminist nonsense that college professors are now cramming into the minds of impressionable young people.



 

 

Comments