What’s the most hateful stereotype of videogamers? That they are losers, retreating into a fantasy world as psychological compensation for their real-life failures. It’s kind of like the stereotype of feminists as ugly women who are angry because men don’t like them.
As we view the #GamerGate controversy, then, it’s interesting to see how these two groups interact. Of course, the liberal media have sided with the feminists — because ugly angry women vote Democrat — which means that conservatives are obligated to defend the videogamers. So it’s easy for me to decide which side I’m on, even though I haven’t been “into” videogames since I was a college junior feeding quarters into the Pac Man machine at the Red Rooster Pub. Also, fighting feminists on the #GamerGate front doesn’t mean I agree with every argument made by everyone else fighting feminists on the same front.
Which brings us to this comment, apparently from a gamer, naming feminist anti-gamer Anita Sarkeesian and . . . well, it’s weird:
As ridiculous as my statement is going to sound, I’m pretty sure that Anita [Sarkeesian] is trying to prevent us from experiencing the joys of 2D women. The kind of joys man Japanese men who’ve rejected the pig disgusting ways of 3D women already have.
There is nothing more frightening to these feminists than the idea of a man finding emotional fulfillment through love of a robot, or the idea of woman as opposed to an actual woman. Most of society is set up to shame men who don’t fall in line, also fall in love with a woman. Men who haven’t been approved by women are deemed other, and rejected from society.
The future waifus, and the Hatsune Miku occulus rift sex experiences take away one of feminism and women’s powerful weapons over the male gender. Their dominance over sexuality.
Once man is freed from the institutional forces which oppress him, and force him to find purpose in the approval of women, he will be free to pursue his own dreams.
Finally men will have no need to fight over women, as they will have something that replaces them the same way robots have replaced the male industrial work force of the world. Wars will be ended, and we will achieve world peace.
The masculine will be set free, allowed full creativity, and the world will enter a new enlightened age. We will explore Mars, Jupiter, and the furthers reaches of our solar system. Male and female will be united, working together towards a better future for humanity.
But only if we can free ourselves first.
Like I said, it’s weird, and some have speculated it may be a parody. Yet assume, arguendo, that this is an actual comment by an actual person who actually thinks that way. He is defending his own enjoyment of “2D women” — including animated characters and sex robots — by arguing that men are escaping oppression from “institutional forces” by their retreat into fantasy relationships.
Notice that the commenter uses the term waifu, which refers to a “fictional character . . . typically [in] an anime, manga, or video game” that a fan “is attracted to and considers a significant other.” This blurring of the line between fantasy and reality should raise alarms to any student of psychology, yet it is increasingly common. There are people for whom the characters in movies or TV shows are the most important people in their lives. There are fan sites devoted to, say, Harry Potter films or Orange Is the New Black, and some of these online fan communities have hundreds of members. Likewise, there are numerous sites devoted to Japanese anime series, where the members post their own drawings of the characters or write “fanfic” storylines.
The retreat into fantasy is increasingly common, as is the kind of blurring between fantasy and reality where fictional characters have a tremendous emotional significance for fans. This is really nothing new, nor is the phenomenon limited to males. Think about women who are obsessive fans of soap operas or romance novels, for example. Or think about people who are involved in the Society for Creative Anachronism, which began with Diana Paxson and Marion Zimmer Bradley, both influential early figures in the feminist neopagan movement. It would be hard to find a more perfect example of a retreat into fantasy — escapist regression — than people whose devotion to Arthurian legend leads them to spend their weekends dressed up in medieval costume, or feminists whose rejection of modernity leads them to witchcraft rituals with groups like the Covenant of the Goddess or the Reclaiming Collective.
OK, some guys are introverted and socially awkward or are otherwise disadvantaged vis-à-vis the pursuit of female companionship. From the perspective of such a male, he is “rejected from society” because he is not “approved by women.” From his perspective, female “dominance over sexuality” (their ability to refuse relationships with “undesirable” males like him) is among the “institutional forces which oppress him.”
Does that sound crazy? Yes. Is it crazier than the radical feminism of Mary Daly, Andrea Dworkin, Marilyn Frye and Joyce Trebilcot? No.
The difference between these two varieties of craziness, however, is that being an advocate of radical feminist insanity is socially approved. There are some 90,000 U.S. college students being tutored in Women’s Studies classes taught by fanatical ideologues who have been rewarded with prestigious degrees and faculty tenure for their skill in articulating feminist lunacy. Anita Sarkeesian’s Feminist Frequency “is a 501(c)3 non profit charity,” contributions to which are tax deductible.
By contrast, opposition to feminism is effectively forbidden within academia (Larry Summers was forced to resign from Harvard University after he dared to question feminist dogma), and the organizational resources available to critics of feminism are scattered across a handful of conservative groups, none of which gets the kind of enthusiastic publicity that feminists like Sarkeesian get from the mainstream media. When A Voice for Men held a conference this year, they were harassed by feminists accusing them of being a hate group.
Given the remarkable cultural hegemony of feminism, and the consequent marginalization of feminism’s critics, should we be surprised to find that some disadvantaged males are unable to articulate their personal grievances without sounding crazy? No, this is not the least bit surprising. The fundamental goal of feminism is to deprive males of social support, to reallocate society’s resources in such a way as to disadvantage men in order to create “equality,” a term feminists define to suit themselves. And it is here, as we examine feminism’s ultimate objectives, that we discover their totalitarian purposes.
No amount of actual “equality” shall ever satisfy feminists and any attempt to placate them is doomed to fail for the same reason that Neville Chamberlain’s concessions to Hitler at Munich did not result in “peace for our time.” Once he had the Sudetenland, Hitler next annexed the rest of Czechoslovakia, which was the prelude for agitation about the Danzig Corridor, precipitating the blitzkrieg of Poland. Hitler’s ambition of world conquest could never be satisfied by any partial concession the Western democracies might make, because his ambitions included the destruction of Western democracy, per se.
The same is true of feminism, an anti-democratic totalitarian movement that is no less fanatically committed to the destruction of Western civilization than was Hitler himself. No matter how fluently feminists may speak the language of democracy, their campaigns to silence opposition betray their totalitarian purposes, and it is not difficult to find evidence of their limitless appetite for conquest. Women are now 33% more likely than men to earn four-year college degrees, but has this de facto female supremacy in academia put an end to feminist demands? Of course not. Instead, we find feminists claiming (despite all evidence to the contrary) that women are experiencing a “rape epidemic” on college campuses, manufacturing phony statistics to support their anti-male propaganda, and perpetrating the Rolling Stone gang-rape hoax at the University of Virginia — feminism’s very own “Reichstag fire,” with the role of Marinus van der Lubbe played by “Haven Monahan.”
None of this analysis relates directly to the comment by the male who retreats to a waifu fantasy or dreams of “finding emotional fulfillment through love of a robot,” perceiving actual women as “institutional forces which oppress him.” Clearly, such a perspective reflects psychiatric disturbances analogous to the delusions of “PIV is always rape, OK?” Yet a clear understanding of what feminism actually is helps us understand why so many young men are unable to find effective help for their problems. Feminism’s implacable anti-male hostility excludes the possibility that any man could ever deserve help or sympathy.
Feminism is essentially a philosophical justification of merciless sadism, encouraging women to believe that males deserve nothing but humiliation and destruction, to avenge injuries suffered by women. Feminists thus demand as women’s most fundamental right the incessant slaughter of unborn children (more than a million abortions are performed every year in the United States), the death of innocents being the bloody tribute of their hateful revenge. Feminists denounce motherhood and marriage as oppressive to women, because they believe any woman’s fulfillment of the roles of wife and mother can be possible only by her subjugation under male domination.
No sane man would seek “emotional fulfillment through love of a robot,” but as insane as that is, it’s really no more crazy than a man pursuing emotional fulfillment through love of a feminist.
To see a dishonest hate-monger like Anita Sarkeesian celebrated as an intellectual, and to see a perverted freak like Brianna Wu similarly celebrated as an icon of heroic womanhood, surely must cause honest and rational observers to conclude the world has gone mad.
Insanity has now become so pervasive that perhaps the only question people need to ask themselves is, “What kind of crazy am I?”
