Bailey Poland (@the_author_) reacted rather predictably to my noticing her typical feminist expressions of sadistic cruelty. You see, if you read what a feminist writes, and then express criticism of what she has written, you are “inciting harassment,” because no one can ever be permitted to disagree with a feminist. Once you understand the rules of feminist discourse, you expect these reactions. Feminists are certain that they are morally and intellectually superior to the rest of us, which is why we are in need of their lectures. You need Bailey Poland to tell you what to think, and if you don’t enjoy being tutored in this manner — if you are a literate adult weary of these jargon-filled gender-theory sermons from 24-year-olds — your objection to her ideological harangues will be interpreted by Bailey Poland as proof that you are an ignorant bigot.
When a feminist deigns to acknowledge the existence of others, it is only so that she may talk down to them.
No feminist ever apologizes for insulting the intelligence of her readers by this high-handed pose of superiority. Bailey Poland knows everything about “toxic masculinity” and “benevolent sexism,” whereas you are obviously a cretinous dimwit who can’t even spell “misogyny.” The young feminist is omniscient, possessed of infinite knowledge, so that we are expected to be grateful that Bailey Poland has condescended to share with us mortals her cosmic and eternal wisdom.
Atop the stack of books on my desk are the following titles: Beyond God the Father: Toward a Philosophy of Women’s Liberation by Mary Daly (1973), Loving to Survive: Sexual Terror, Men’s Violence and Women’s Lives by Dee L.R. Graham (1994), The Sexual Liberals and the Attack on Feminism, edited by Dorchen Leidholdt and Janice G. Raymond (1990), and Fraternity Gang Rape: Sex, Brotherhood, and Privilege on Campus by Peggy Reeves Sanday (Second Edition, 2007). These titles are among the more than 70 feminist books I’ve read during the past year-and-a-half of research, and certainly there is nothing a 24-year-old can tell me about this subject. The only reason I noticed Ms. Poland at all is because a commenter on an earlier post had mentioned how obnoxiously self-righteous she is. Indeed, Bailey Poland responds to criticism by complaining of “the torrent of misogyny,” which she attributes to the unwillingness of males “to seriously engage with a woman’s opinions.” Her critics are “deliberately misreading content taken out of context,” and I myself am afflicted with a “complete lack of reading comprehension.” You see that feminism must always be a lecture, and can never be anything like a civil conversation, because SHUT UP!
Disagreement is hate, according to Feminist Logic™ and nothing any man says in his own defense is ever valid, because SHUT UP!
Ask yourself, why does any woman become a feminist? Because she is a narcissist who views males as being so vastly inferior to herself that she finds routine social interaction with normal men offensive. This is what Bailey Poland’s “nice guy” column was really about: “How dare these repulsive heterosexual men act friendly toward me in hope of becoming more than friends?”
We may acknowledge that the “nice guy” — what pickup artists would call a “Gamma male” — is an annoying type, without resorting to feminist theory about the nice guy’s “misogyny.” Bailey Poland’s use of this term implies that male heterosexuality is inspired by hatred for women, a rather startling claim. Whenever we encounter the words “misogyny” or “misogynist” in feminist discourse, we must remember what these words actually mean. To call a man a “misogynist” is to accuse him of hating women, which is a different thing than merely saying he is a “sexist,” i.e., someone who believes men and women are different. Most people, including most women, are “sexist” in this sense of the word. They recognize that the differences between men and women are both real and socially significant, and therefore do not see evidence of patriarchal oppression everywhere they look.
“Feminist consciousness is consciousness of victimization . . . to come to see oneself as a victim.”
— Sandra Lee Bartky, Femininity and Domination: Studies in the Phenomenology of Oppression (1990)
Feminist discourse about male heterosexual behavior is intended to humiliate men, to make men feel ashamed of being normal.
Any man who enjoys the sight of a good-looking woman is guilty of objectifying her with the male gaze. You will never see Bailey Poland criticize gay men for their sexual attraction to men, nor would any heterosexual feminist dare to criticize as “problematic” the sexual feelings and behavior of lesbians. No, gay men and lesbians are exempt from Bailey Poland’s criticism, because their behavior does not inspire in her the distinctive contempt that all feminists feel toward normal male sexuality: Fear and Loathing of the Penis!
Ever since the very first Women’s Liberation protest against the 1968 Miss America contest, feminists have been trying to eradicate every source of normal male happiness. Men cannot look at women, because that is “objectification,” and men cannot talk to women, because that is “harassment.” A man cannot kiss a woman without risking a sexual assault charge, and intercourse is rape. Men should never have wives, because marriage is slavery, and men should never be fathers because motherhood is a violation of a woman’s “right to choose.”
“Pregnancy is barbaric.”
— Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex (1970)
“No woman should be authorized to stay at home to raise her children. Society should be totally different. Women should not have that choice, precisely because if there is such a choice, too many women will make that one.”
— Simone de Beauvoir, 1975
“I don’t particularly like babies. They are loud and smelly . . . time-sucking monsters with their constant neediness. . . .
“I don’t want a baby. . . . Nothing will make me want a baby. . . . This is why, if my birth control fails, I am totally having an abortion.”
— Amanda Marcotte, 2014
Bailey Poland hates the man who acts “nice” to her, because (a) he is a man, (b) no man is actually “nice,” and therefore (c) acting “nice” proves that he is dishonest. From a feminist perspective, everything a man does is always wrong, because all women are victims of male oppression. His mere existence is an injustice against women.
It does not matter who a man is or what he does, the sadistic impulse of feminism invariably requires his humiliation as punishment for his male existence. Her vengeful appetite for unlimited cruelty toward males is what distinguishes the feminist from normal women. And nothing incites the feminist’s instinctive sadism more than a man who refuses to genuflect at the throne of the Bitch Goddess. The feminist’s rheteric about “equality” is in fact a demand for recognition of her superiority. She feels insulted by a man who acts as if he were actually her equal.
This is what inspires the feminist complaint about “mansplaining.” Any man who believes he has knowledge or experience that could be useful to a feminist is mistaken. Men know nothing, according to feminist theory, which is based on the belief that the experience and feelings of women are the only valid basis of knowledge.
“Women are an oppressed class. . . .
“We identify the agents of our oppression as men. . . . All men have oppressed women. . . .
“We regard our personal experience, and our feelings about that experience, as the basis for an analysis of our common situation. We cannot rely on existing ideologies as they are all products of male supremacist culture. We question every generalization and accept none that are not confirmed by our experience.”
— Redstockings, “Manifesto,” July 7, 1969
A man who claims to know anything is expressing “male supremacist culture,” because the only actual knowledge is that which is confirmed by women’s experience. This is true even with regard to men’s own lives and feelings. Go read Bailey Poland’s account of the “nice guy” — she knows that he secretly hates women. She knows that the only reason any man is ever “nice” to a woman is to get sex in return. There are no honest or unselfish men, from the feminist point of view.
Because every man is an agent of oppression, as the Redstockings explained, no man can be trusted. Everything a man says is either simply wrong (because men know nothing) or else it is a deliberate lie (because no agent of oppression would ever tell the truth to his victims). Feminism thus negates the possibility that a man could have anything useful to say about anything, and therefore SHUT UP!
See? Even my advice that males should avoid interaction with feminists must be mocked by Bailey Poland, who also ridicules the time I spent researching her work. She had claimed that men never “seriously engage with a woman’s opinions” and yet, when I took the time to engage her seriously, my endeavor only served as a basis for further insults.
She’s a grad student younger than my oldest daughter, but I am a male who knows nothing and, unless you agree with everything Bailey Poland says, you are also utterly ignorant. Feminists are Our Moral Superiors™ and our refusal to acknowledge Bailey Poland’s superiority can only be explained by our “complete lack of reading comprehension.”
Men who make negative generalizations about women are "sexists."
Women who make negative generalizations about men are "feminists."
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) August 21, 2015
Feminists are extraordinarily clever.
They created history's most successful hate movement
by presenting hate as "social justice."
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) August 21, 2015
Let me give you a hint, sugar:
Oppressed people don't go to grad school.
You are not a victim. Stop whining, you spoiled brat.
— Robert Stacy McCain (@rsmccain) August 21, 2015
I’d ask her to explain what she means by “mine.” It should be fascinating. 😀
Point and laugh.
It infuriates them, and helps you remember that she’s fundamentally unserious.
That sounds like these folks. They will stop at nothing to ruin your image because their message can’t withstand scrutiny. It’s like being a great restaurant and having your scuzzy competitor bury dead fish around your building. They reduce your customer base–even after you’ve solved the problem–but they still serve the same scuzzy crap. You need friends on your side with this type.
Speaking of de Beauvoir:
Simone de Beauvoir: A Nazi, a pedophile, and a misogynist
http://www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/simone-de-beauvoir-a-nazi-a-pedophile-and-a-misogynist/
The feminist marriages I’ve observed haven’t been overflowing with happiness, love or respect.
I don’t think you’re aware of how organized these things are and how many well funded organizations (and their hired activists) are part of it.
That said, I am very aware of the increasing militarization. When Los Angeles Unified Cops can carry M-16s–yes, you heard me right–a school district got M-16s from “military surplus” (right….), then the police state is becoming a reality right in front of our eyes.
The paid activists and the militarization are two parts of the same coin, both bought and paid for by Wall Street. Create the illusion of chaos with your activists, being careful to pick cases where the cops can be fairly easily proven not guilty in a trial, so that you also create the illusion of injustice. Then, when the planned riots start–with real people joining in with real grievances–encourage enough violence that the M-16s have to step in.
Totally fabricated and we need to get this word out there before they take everything.
Yes but here’s the thing. Most of the responses are not abusive. Often, admittedly, a couple or three are ugly. Those get screen-capped and retweeted, and then all the others are lumped in, like this: “I received 100 abusive tweets today, they are all monsters!”
The progressive movement is extremely well organized and lavishly funded. There is nothing grassroots about it. It is funded by some of those very corporations you rail against.
The media wants ratings, the military-industrial complex wants contracts (to supply militarized police), the legal industry profits as well.
Cause chaos, and the private-public combine gets both profit and power. The Heglian Dialectic of create problem, create anger, grow the state to “solve” problem.
It is not about left or right. It is about divide and conquer.
“As the squirrel made laps inside her dress
She began to cry and then to confess
To sins that would make a sailor blush with shame.”
— Ray Stevens
I have a heterosexual patriarch at home to feel around my boobs for me. 😀
Receiving lame and ineffectual threats from a sociopathic feminist – high five, Linda, way to go!
ROFL!! 😀
You would call vandalizing, raping, publicly urinating and defecating, coupled with a complete inability to coherently state why they were actually there an “otherwise peaceful protest against state policy”?
I would call the typical pro-life or TEA party protest an “otherwise peaceful protest against state policy”, but not occupy. If I’d been in charge, I’d have come down on those losers like a ton of bricks.
Yup.
And NeoWayland the technopagan.
Now see? This is a lot more believeable than the argument you’re replying to. I can agree with this. Which is a sad, sad state of affairs.
I was just about to give him his props, but you beat me to it, LOL!
They did the same to Paul Nathanson and Katherine Young, who have co-written books on misandry. Yes, defeat the hetero-patriarchy by shouting down a gay man and a woman! Idiots.
Heh. I think I’ve linked that article here before, but it’s a classic.
“…desperately trying to slam the pretty pink lid on top of the moral sewer it is hiding.”
Super! I like that one.
No, they aren’t hired to pad the numbers. They’re hired to incite and organize, and they’re good at what they do.
That’s the exact image that came to mind. You know the pink ones are suing now:
http://www.lifenews.com/2015/08/21/planned-parenthood-threatens-to-sue-pro-life-group-behind-shocking-expose-videos/
The key, of course, is that it’s CIVIL court. If these people had found any wrongdoing anywhere in the past month since the first video was released, there would have been charges in California. Kamala Harris would zipped into Sacramento on her broomstick and filed fake charges. The fact that nothing happened means that there aren’t REAL charges. Just PR.
The civil case is PR.
The Congressional Hearing is PR: http://www.weaselzippers.us/232267-congressional-democrats-targeting-the-group-behind-the-planned-parenthood-undercover-videos/
Lots of yelling “BAD ANTI ABORTIONISTS! BAD MISOGYNISTS”, but no real charges. Both the court and the Congress will be looking for tiny needles in the innocent haystack to prove “fraud” and “wrongdoing” to the world. But they will be nothing real. They will also be terrible PR.
Fortunately, prolifers are stubborn. They’re not in this for the short term.
Great article. It should be linked everywhere possible.
No one can disagree with a progressives or a homosexuals as well as a feminists becuase they are all such victims
Why do feminists always beg for money?
Ms. Poland keeps using the word “harassment.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk
Point and laugh? Can’t be bothered.
Nah. I prefer indifference.
Saves EVERYONE the trouble of “mysterious surveillance” from vast lists of “blocked” critical thinking.
Damn, I read my comment three times and didn’t see anywhere in it where I said all of them were wearing Gucci loafers.
And I will stand behind my comment about the majority of them being spoiled brats who still live on Mommy and Daddy’s dime.
Most people who get banned earn it by completely losing their shit and personally attacking other commenters. This is behavior up with which I will not put, and I have a banhammer to correct the problem.
She clearly doesn’t understand this patriarchy thing very well, because if anyone belongs to anyone, it’s the womyn who is owned by the man. Simple gender politics really.
Yay I’m a bot! Can I try a Turing test please?
Good flippin lord, could you shove any more leftcult emo points in that paragraph?
Because they are bums.
You have it backwards. Critiquing actual people with names is legitimate. Critiquing all white men on Earth is bald-faced bigotry. How does one essentially “abuse” the KKK?
And of course, that is the book that kicked off gender feminism.
Given that a Civil suit will open the door for Discovery, why would the pro-life side oppose it?
Never stop an enemy when they’re making a mistake.
We live in an age of madness.
Maybe she meant it like on those candy hearts they give out around Valentine’s Day: “Be Mine.”
Isn’t that sweet? She’s got a crush on you!
In your expert opinion, wouldn’t you say RadFem is derivative of Marxism? What are the similarities and differences?
Yep. Most of them are 1%’ers or come from 1% families. It’s the lifestyle and income they have or to which they aspire. They’ve never experienced oppression but they sure have studied it.
In order to protest, one must have a clear opinion and some answers.
“F*ck the system!” does not fit either of these things.
“Occupy” was the nexus of stupidity for this decade. I heard them accurately described as “anarchists for big government.”
They have no idea how to make anything work. They just want their tuition and their drugs paid for.
According to Ms. Poland, hitting on women is harassment.
https://suite.io/bailey-poland/6qxj2mv
Feminists: “You are a man, and by extension a creep. Don’t look at me or talk to me!”
I promise to never even look at Poland on a map.
And in the end she, and those like her, will appeal to the nanny state to enact more laws to “protect” women, and punish men. This is really why feminism is so dangerous. They have become just another arm of the state, and seek to use government aggression to impose their ideology. This has numerous ancillary benefits for the corporate state, too, namely more control over its citizens, and new ways to extract money out of them. Ms. Poland then goes on to complain that anti feminists have no arguments against feminists other than “feminists are ugly”, because that makes it easier for her, while she refuses to debate because all arguments against feminists are either “harassment”, or facile.
Feminists are also instrumental, and on the front lines of gun control. Comedian, and feminist Amy Schumer, and cousin of Senator Schmuck Schumer, is pushing for more gun control, and yet another database of people with “mental problems” to keep guns away from, after the shooting during a viewing of her debased, degrading, feminist propaganda film “Trainwreck”.
I’ve always thought that would be an excellent tactic to counter the “Slutwalks.” Behind the crass exhibitionism is a colossal amount of insecurity; a mob of people howling like hyenas while they’re putting their homely assets on public display would shut them down far more quickly than a regular counter-demo.
But you mentioned it, you creep.
Husbands usually delight in breast exams. Don’t ask how I know, 🙂
And then she started naming names!
I’m a transbot. I wasn’t born a bot, I just woke up one day and discovered that a complete stranger had revealed an unexpected truth: I’m really a bot inside.
I wrote an instruction manual for transbots, “I’m a Bot, and So Can You!” Here is the complete text: