Man-Hater @AlannaBennett Promotes #Ghostbusters as Feminist Revenge

Posted on Comments

 

Alanna Bennett is the kind of selfish feminist who attends elite Oberlin College (annual tuition $50,586) and then spends the rest of her life angry because nobody gives her as much pity as she feels she deserves.

“As a professional writer, my life now is stuffed with privileges I’ve longed for since I found out they existed. . . . And yet: The money I make barely covers a life in New York and my student loans.”
— Alanna Bennett

Yeah, it’s terrible that somebody put a gun to your head and forced you to attend Oberlin, because obviously Oregon State (annual tuition $10,107) wasn’t good enough for a Special Snowflake™ like yourself.

Feminism is motivated by anti-male revenge fantasies, providing selfish women a chance to bask in applause for their deliberate acts of cruelty. Feminists consider it “courageous” to inflict harm on males, which is why Alanna Bennett knew she would be praised for urging women to cause “male tears” by supporting the feminist Ghostbusters remake:

 

The new Ghostbusters remake is hate propaganda, promoting the fundamental feminist belief that males are useless, stupid and/or evil.

Like all feminists, Alanna Bennett hates men, and it is therefore not surprising she hates movies with heterosexual themes.

 

Was anyone surprised that Alanna Bennett tweeted out images of kissing her girlfriend (a “non-binary” “queer” feminist) during BuzzFeed’s LGBT Pride celebration? (Are there any heterosexuals employed at BuzzFeed? If so, are they afraid to admit they’re heterosexual?)

Rather than being honest about her man-hating motives for supporting the feminist remake of Ghostbusters, however, Alanna Bennett insisted that it was critics of this project who were motivated by “hatred.”

 

In other words, if you don’t like seeing old movies hijacked by feminists and turned into anti-male propaganda, you’re a hater. As I’ve explained, the whole project is just a feminist political statement:

The message of the all-female cast is simple: Males are useless, because girl power saves the day!
Sometimes I’ve called this “Lesbian Ghostbusters” because it was predictable, from the moment the project was announced, that this new movie would emphasize a familiar “Third Wave” feminist theme of males as either (a) incompetent idiots or (b) evil oppressors. Like so many recent feminist movie projects, the new Ghostbusters aims to pass the “Bechdel Test,” which originated with lesbians who did not want to see either male heroes or heterosexual romance in movies.

Keep in mind that I wrote that without knowing anything more about the new Ghostbusters than could be learned by reading a couple of reviews. However, if you understand what “Third Wave” feminism is about (Feminism Is Queer), the implicit premise was obvious enough. And, as Matt Zion’s “rage review” shows, my prediction was right:

“They make Chris Hemsworth . . . he’s an idiot. They make him an idiot. Then they have the guy who delivers the Chinese food to them — it’s a running gag throughout the movie — he’s terrible at his job and he’s an idiot. And then the villain is not an idiot, he certainly is very intelligent, but he’s creepy, weird and he’s just antisocial. . . . Every man is portrayed like a complete a–hole. The mayor is an a–hole. . . . They go to like a rock concert or something, and the guy who is in charge of that . . . he’s an a–hole. Every man in this movie is an a–hole. . . . Basically, it was a man-bashing film.”

Twenty-first century feminism is about demonizing and silencing males, teaching young women to despise men as either irrelevant or dangerous.

Alanna Bennett‘s mind is completely warped by her vicious hatred of men. Because feminists are psychologically incapable of relating to males in a normal way — they are “without natural affection” (Romans 1:31) — they consider it “hate” for any man to defend himself against the relentless slander of feminism’s anti-male rhetoric. This means that any man who disagrees with feminist ideology is a sexist. This is a “Kafkatrapping” tactic, where denying the accusation is cited as proof of your guilt.

Because she is a feminist, and therefore views males as inherently inferior, Alanna Bennett considers all male opinions invalid. So the fact that men don’t like the new Ghostbusters is as irrelevant to her as any other male preference or belief, except insofar as her anti-male belief system means that this wretched movie is good because men don’t like it.

Anything men hate is good, and anything men like is bad — this is a fair summary of the basic feminist worldview, the anti-male political ideology around which Alanna Bennett has organized her life. Therefore, no matter how awful the new Ghostbusters actually is, it must be praised!

 

You see that Alanna Bennett is emotionally invested in this anti-male propaganda film. Feminists demand the new Ghostbusters be praised, in the same way Goebbels demanded praise for Triumph of the Will.

“If you look at the argument of a lot of these reviews [of the new ‘Ghostbusters] that have come out, there are so many of them that are like, it’s not good or it’s average, but it’s going to do so much for women. Go see it.”
— Matt Zion, “Ghostbusters 2016: How Every Man Is An Idiot Or An A–hole”

This bizarre attitude — requiring that a mediocre movie must be praised, because it is politically incorrect not to like it — reminds me of Lysenoism under Stalin in the Soviet Union. Facts don’t matter to an ideologue like Alanna Bennett, whose commitment to feminism is an all-encompassing loyalty. The feminist is a True Believer, fanatically devoted to the movement, and ferociously hostile to the male enemy.

 

What is sad about such women is how their anti-male beliefs function as a self-fulfilling prophecy. Because feminists like Alanna Bennett are so profoundly prejudiced against men, smart men avoid them. There are 3.5 billion women on this planet, and most women actually like men. Therefore, no intelligent guy with any sense of self-respect would waste his time hanging around an ax-grinding man-hater like Alanna Bennett. Because the only men who ever hang around feminists are stupid (or perhaps, desperate), it is easy for women like Alanna Bennett to believe there are no intelligent or virtuous men in the world. Feminism acts as a sort of force-field of hatred that drives good men away.

 

It’s a good thing she likes her cat. At least she won’t be lonely.

“The fanboys rallied against the project and it turns out . . . those f–kers were right.”
— Ed Whitfield




 

 


67 comments

  1. This bizarre attitude — requiring that a mediocre movie must be praised, because it is politically incorrect not to like it. . .

    This reminds me of a book written 30 years ago by Franky Schaeffer, the son of theologian Francis Schaeffer. In it, he took Christians to task for supporting crappy art merely because it had a Christian theme. He was/is right, of course. Art of whatever genre should stand on its own merits and should be judged on whether it is good art, not because of the theme. Pilgrim’s Progress is art; Left Behind is crap, even if one agrees with the Dispensational premise.

    So too, these in-your-face “statement” movies. Make a good movie first. If it’s good, people will pay money to see it and imbibe the theme and “lessons.” If the movie is crap, people will only remember that it was crap. Reviewers who bend over backwards to support something from “their team,” only do their cause a disservice.

  3. If any movie was as deliberately anti-female as the new “Ghostbusters” is anti-male, we could expect feminists to denounce it. However, when men objected to this remake, feminists insisted that male opinions were “hate.” The double standard involved is intentional and shameless. Feminists support anything that hurts men, without regard for whether it actually helps women in the process. As I say, feminism is a revenge fantasy.

  4. As a female, I find very little in the Ghostbusters movie appealing. I can appreciate the reasoning behind the Bechtel test though in that there are a lot of movies where the woman is simply window-dressing. It simply asks questions that assure that females are depicted as real beings and not just part of the setting. I wouldn’t fault it for being overly feminist since it is potentially a useful tool in that regard.

    I also feel that the Ghostbusters would have been better served if it had featured a ‘diverse’ cast which had involved men and women kicking ghost-butt side by side, which is, in many ways, the way nature intended men and women to go through life. It would have been more natural (the Ghostbusters line-up does not seem natural to me) and it would have provided a good example of how men and women can work together as equals in difficult situations bringing their respective strengths and weaknesses to bear. There is no reason they couldn’t include a token feminist lesbian on the cast and had the rest be relatively normal people who the audience could relate to in order to sate the need for female representation, but alas, it is an opportunity lost.

  5. I said in a comment to a prior thread, they should have had a “passing the torch” moment between the old and new casts with the original characters’ kids taking over the business. Ernie Hudson’s daughter–the no-nonsense physics Ph.D–, a couple of sons, one of whom is Harold Ramis’s ne’re-do-well hippie kid, and another daughter with Annie Potts reprising her secretary/receptionist character to bridge the two movies. Fans of the 1984 movie would want it to succeed and new fans could get into a more diverse cast. Instead, we get clubbed in the head with social justice.

  6. Left Behind may have been crap, but it was entertaining crap. You can’t say that about the Ghostbusters reboot.

  7. I haven’t seen any of the various movies, but the books became tedious–repetitive plot points and set pieces. It seemed that the authors were trying to milk the series for lots of money. It could have been done in one-third of the volumes to the same effect.

  9. Hahaha… no. Left Behind was terrible.

    But if you want to double down on the badness, there was a video game tie in. Left Behind: Eternal Forces!

    It was even WORSE than the books OR the movies.

  10. Calling this Ghostbusters feminist propaganda simply gives them an excuse for the fact that feminists can only make crap movies.

  13. And I could also really get behind that. I was unclear in my post because when I said “The Ghostbusters” I was referring to this new film. I actually really liked the old Ghostbusters. As a child of the 80s it was a real thrilling and fun movie that added its whackiness to the era.

    What I see happening here though, is they’ve erased any sense of normalcy from the film by pretending that it’s normal for 5 women to be working in a job that most women would not be interested in doing, let alone qualified to do.

    I’ve seen this in fiction written for non-heteronormative audiences as well where there’s this weird pretending away of normalcy which seems to make the story seem bizarre and unreal because of the mental gymnastics involved in accepting all the assumptions made in order for that to happen.

    A good example would be a Pathfinder game that introduced a transgendered character in one of its campaign settings. The character’s wife helped fund his sex change operation because she loved him/her so very much. (My siblings and I are gaming nerds ok, so I tend to follow these things) and reading that bit made me really wonder several times over WHY? WHY WOULD ANYONE DO THAT? Further, why would anyone introduce such a huge loss of logic and reason into a situation where it wasn’t warranted other than to make an unnecessary nod to a political faction? Needless to say I don’t buy Pathfinder anymore. I don’t have time for it anyway.

  14. Listening to Matt Zion’s review, I was struck by something: did anyone even die in either of the first two movies? Anyone at all?

    There’s a certain kind of poorly-written female-centered urban fantasy in which the heroine is a psychopath, and her boyfriend is a sociopath. He will remorselessly execute supernatural shoplifters and graffiti artists — but she’s okay with him, despite innocents dying because she has far more power than forethought or impulse control.

    From something Matt said, I’m wondering if the latter applies to Kristen Wiig’s character.

  15. As for why that trend exists, my best hypothesis is because of our societal difficulty with holding women accountable. That makes it hard for a writer to believably depict a super-powered woman who is carefully ethical, since it would have to be endogenous* and that just isn’t realistic. We all had to be corrected at some point or another.

    * Or the result of a fictional female-dominated society, such as Wonder Woman, but then you have different issues with the suspension of disbelief.

  16. I agree, except the Nicolas Cage Left Behind could very possibly be the worst movie ever made. It’s so bad that when I started typing this, I misspelled “possibly” as “pissably” and I should’ve left it on G.P. It couldn’t have been worse if it starred Warren Beatty. In fact, the only way to watch it would be as a drinking game, wherein you take a drink everytime Cage utters either wooden dialog or grossly overacts, but then you’d puke your guts out and/or pass out within half an hour. Which would actually be a blessing.

    But having said that, I’d rather binge watch a Nic Cage Left Behind marathon than watch this Ghostbusters remake.

  17. I LIKED the Left Behind movies. I bought them, and still watch them.

    I also bought and watch the Brady Bunch remake movies.

    And the old Mad Max movies. And pretty much every Mel Gibson movie.

    And I make my husband watch them with me. But we’re even, because he forces me against my will to watch Space Balls, and the Fifth Element, over and over and over. OK, maybe the Fifth Element was OK the first 150 times I saw it, but not anymore.

  18. Yeah, it can’t be that the movie sucked, right?

    The campaign against Ghostbusters is that these social justice stupids are so lame all they can do is take something someone else made and insert themselves. It’s lame.

  19. So, if I don’t see the new Ghostbusters, does that make me:

    1 – A sexist pig; or
    2 – A redneck deliberately boycotting a film featuring powerful women; or
    3 – Someone who very rarely watches any movies at the cinema?

  21. The lovely Miss Bennett states, on Facebook, that she is a film and television writer for BuzzFeed, which is based in New York City. But BuzzFeed is an internet-based company; does Miss Bennett need to live in NYC to work there? Jersey isn’t cheap, but couldn’t she live in Jersey for a few bucks less? Could she live in Pennsylvania, which is a lot cheaper, doing her work over the internet?

  24. Sounds like a wash to me. At least he isn’t making you watch “Rescuers Down Under” that many times.

  26. Stern was smart making the Ghostbusters pinball machine– they made it about the original movie (with Ernie Hudson doing narration), not this new movie.

  28. A few months ago my dog and I sat on the couch and rewatched the original Mad Max trilogy.

    Well, I rewatched them. She’d never seen them before.

    Anyway, for the first time, after at least a half dozen viewings over the past three decades I realized that his dog in Road Warrior was a Blue Heeler.

    And then, about two weeks later I adopted one myself. It was entirely unplanned.

    Still don’t have the last of the V-8 Interceptors, though. Probably a good thing considering what happens to that car, Max and the dog.

  29. Haven’t seen the Nicolas Cage one. It is on Netflix, I think, but so far I have resisted its siren call.

    Maybe the worst movie I have ever seen is Battlefield Earth. I picked it up on VHS about fifteen years ago from a video shop that was shutting down. It was so horrible that after watching it I immediately rewound the tape and sat through it a second time. It really needs Tom Servo, Crow and Mike Nelson sitting in front of it wisecracking.

  30. It’s as though the producers deliberately went out of their way to piss off the original’s fan base.

    Which maybe they did, to create buzz.

  36. Good way to produce a mega-flop. Abrams is trying the same thing with Star Trek making Sulu a queer. The reboot had some good points, but has been increasingly dreck. I won’t watch anymore of the Star Trek reboot either.

  37. I used to have a Blue Heeler. If you like hyperactive children, they’re good dogs. Mine passed back in 2001.

  38. *waves to a fellow Pathfinder*
    Yeah, Paizo can be as subtle as a hammer with their SJW memes. I know there are a few on the staff that are more conservative than the developers. I still play and raise various levels of hell on the Paizo boards. The problem with the SJW is they’re fine with magic gender switching, but not dealing with a) using magic to heal the mind so it matches the body, or b) actually making it more relevant than checking off a box.

  39. Thanks for the laugh! This is the most ridiculous article I’ve seen in a while.
    The comments are a hilarious circle-jerk as well! Amazing

  40. I think Abrams is pretty much boxed in regarding Sulu, given how much of a caricature of the flaming queen Takei has made himself.

    Which has puzzled me. Granted, Takei was never the most macho actor around, but he wasn’t a swish. Since coming out however, he has made himself into a cartoon.

    But publicity is oxygen to actors, even washed up ones. And Takei has jump started his career since then. So being an outrageous parody is better than appearing at cons and being overshadowed by Shatner, I guess.

  41. I don’t actually like hyperactive children, but were I a kid today there’s no way I’d make it through school without being doped to the gills.

    Lucky for me, in my day nobody thought it was a good idea to drug boys for the heinous crime of being boys.

  44. Yes, he did.

    What’s interesting is how many small jobs the ST cast did before the series, bit parts in series all over the place.

    That’s the way TV was in those days. You’d spot a heavy in one show, and a few weeks later notice the same guy playing a doctor in another.

    I saw William Windom speak at a convention once and what he said stuck with me. He said as an actor, about ten percent of what you do you wish you’d never done and that everyone would forget it. Ten percent was what you wanted on your resume, and the rest was just paying the bills.

  45. If you begin with a good story and the intention to tell it well that’s a good start.

    If you start with the message and then try to construct everything around it, you’re stacking the deck against yourself.

  46. I don’t think Takei has boxed him in. Abrams never consulted Takei and Takei doesn’t like making Sulu queer. He’s been very forward about the issue. He’d go for creating a new character, but he wants to see Sulu left alone to be the character Takei portrayed.

  48. How, exactly, will someone “lay waste” to my “childhood” with their “joy”? By liking a remake of a movie I saw when I was 17?

    Oh, I see… “Make a hashtag to counteract the hatred.” Oh, no… not a hashtag!

    Honest to God, I truly believe that the young lady (?) who wrote these tweets have no idea how actual people think or behave.

  49. These days they’d probably re-open Auschwitz just for me alone. The way feminazis are carrying on, it won’t be long before they seriously propose something similar.

  50. Sorry, I did not mean that Takei himself pressured Abrams to gayify Sulu.

    The problem is, today making Sulu overtly gay would be more or less mandatory. Whatever Takei’s personal feeling may be on the subject, the SJWs will demand it.

    These are the people insisting that Elsa be made specifically lesbian, because she so obviously is. Obvious to them, that is. Anyway, since Takei has chosen to be as outrageously parodically gay, to nearly Nathan Lane levels, it therefore follows that his most famous character has to be gay.

    Has. To. Be.

    I hope these people don’t believe Anthony Hopkins is an actual serial killing cannibal with an MD.

Comments are closed.