Extreme radical "feminists" suffering sexual oppression unto them

Frito · 19-01-2014 01:17AM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

It reads like... Stalinist manifesto or something. The language is so much about organising people into groups: colonised women #2 etc.

If it were to catch on (which it won't) it would be pretty frightening.

Perhaps it's Scum manifesto fan fiction. Won't hold my breath for movie rights.

Femme_Fatale · 19-01-2014 01:34AM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

It bothers me that the OP felt the need to go to such lengths to say they don't have a problem with feminism in general. I understand why, because saying a word against feminism these days is just asking to be shot down right away by a large segment of the population.

I'd have thought it would be to minimise people driving by to say it's typical of all feminism, which WOULD happen.

You know what tough? I think theres more than a minority of feminists who think like this.

You think half of all feminists think like this?

And those who don't make no real effort to distance themselves from these kind of lunatics. Fuck feminism, and fuck everyone who tells me that saying so means I'm against equal rights. I'd say feminists are if anything opposed to equal rights. If someone went around saying the only racism that matters is against black people, they'd be instantly called a moron. Why do we not have the same attitude towards those who claim the only gender issues that matter are those which affect women?

Yep, there we have it: condemnation of feminists across the board.

Femme_Fatale · 19-01-2014 01:48AM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

No, I think a large amount of those with a platform to speak either support it or turn a blind eye.

I really doubt it's anything other than an extreme minority who support the viewpoints of this blog.

Yes, I'm against feminism in general. Why is this not an ok thing to say? Being again feminism =/= being against equal rights.

There's nothing wrong with it.

The thing that's wrong is to view all feminists as man-haters. Lots simply focus on areas where women face obstacles because of their gender. Nothing to suggest they wouldn't feel the same about when that happens to men.

Karl Stein · 19-01-2014 01:53AM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

Fuck feminism,

Bizarre.

Why does feminism bother you so much? Why the anger?

Femme_Fatale · 19-01-2014 02:03AM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I don't view all feminists as man haters though. I just wonder why so few people seem willing to shout down the crazies.

Well I'm sure there are lots of men who criticise Paul Elam and the like, and hate his misrepresentation of men (the way I hate this maniac's misrepresentation of women) but it's kinda hard to shout such people down.

Most people don't support the Westboro Baptist Church, yet it's still here.

Apparent lack of engagement does not mean implied support/complacency.

I don't mind men's rights groups just focusing on men's issues - the way certain stuff affects them just because they're men (and it doesn't affect women - e.g. the obvious parental rights one) makes this kinda necessary. It only gets problematic if hostility towards women in general comes out of it, but the original agenda in and of itself doesn't involve this.

Karl Stein · 19-01-2014 02:08AM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I don't like any movement that prioritises the rights of any one group.

So children's rights campaigners should not have fought for children's rights because it was prioritising children's rights over those of adults?

So black people should not have fought for equality because it was prioritising tackling the concerns of Black people?

So gay people should not have fought for equality because it was prioritising tackling the concerns of gay people?

You know that these groups agitate for equality because the realities of inequality?

Femme_Fatale · 19-01-2014 02:20AM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I'm not sure who he is, I assume I would be better keeping things that way?

Men's issues equivalent of the radfem loon (although not even he is as bad as the woman this thread is focusing on).

Most people don't support the westboro baptist church, but they don't go around calling themselves members of the westport baptist church. That's the part I don't get, modern day feminism seems to have a relatively high amount of people with such twisted views, but people are still content to be contained within the same umbrella term. I know that most feminists are for equality for any genders. So why not call yourself something that reflects that? Gender equalist, or you know, something more catchy. It seems similar to someone against all forms of racism calling themselves a black rights activist. Maybe I'm genuinely just missing something here but it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Differing interpretations of feminism I guess. People who see it in terms of the great things it achieved, people who see it purely as just focusing on when women face crap because of their gender (and any other group of people who face crap because of who they are) and then the loons.
It's too huge not to consider all the variables within.

RDM_83 again · 19-01-2014 02:21AM

just read it there, stuff like this doesn't even make me angry, its just sad, what happened in her life to make it so filled with hate like she must have a father,possibly brothers and other male relatives
.
I do wonder how actual rape victims take her writing though?

Karl Stein · 19-01-2014 02:26AM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

There just isn't the same level of inequality anymore

Inequality persists so groups will come together to agitate for equality. Get over it.

so we end up with people like the one in the OP who make issues up.

That's an amazing leap in bad logic. Citing the OP and saying 'that's feminists for ya' would be equivalent to drawing attention to one of those Westboro Baptists Church 'God hates fags' loons and saying 'that's Christianity for ya'.

Daqster · 19-01-2014 02:35AM

carolinespring wrote: »

Just had a read of the blog post and it is very Andrea Dworkin inspired. Really man hating stuff.

Indeed and unfortunately women like her had some quite drastic effects on western society and the price of that is still being paid today (with regards to how the sexes interact with one another at least).

Women like Dworkin thrived on the disharmony they caused.

Foxhound38 wrote: »

It reads a bit like something Andrea Dworkin might write in one of her less coherent publications, but even she doesn't quite go as far as the OP's article and that's saying something!

Oh I don't know. She was a pretty venomous herself:

"Intercourse is the pure, sterile, formal expression of men's contempt for women."

"I’ve always wanted to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heeled shoe stuffed up his mouth, sort of the pig with the apple; it would be good to put him on a serving plate but you’d need good silver.”

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies."

"To be rapeable, a position that is social, not biological, defines what a woman is."

"Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman."

WilyCoyote · 19-01-2014 06:19AM

Chucken wrote: »

Is she saying us ladies aren't supposed to enjoy the rumpy pumpy?

No, she's not. But in the old days - the good old days - before women started talking about having an orgasm ........ you could keep the key in your front door. Nuff said!

WilyCoyote · 19-01-2014 06:37AM

Stopped after reading the opening salvo. She's a nutter. Neurotic feminist like Dwokin. Incapable of giving love. A deeply fucked human being.

Galwayguy35 · 19-01-2014 06:44AM

The people posting in the comments section really seem like they're great fun altogether :rolleyes:

Must be tough on them even stepping outside the door and seeing all those "rapists" walking around.

tritium · 19-01-2014 10:13AM

I read the first bit - thinking this is batsh1t crazy; then I clicked on some of the links- the ops article is the saner stuff! Guess its true about a page not refusing ink

One of the sadder things is people with thus sort of extreme views tend to find a home in academia, as though their hatefilled views are somehow niche and worthy of exploration. Just look at some of the obituaries written from that niche for Dworkin. It means an influential aspect of social science is immediately tainted by this misandrist bile under a label of academic thought.

I do wonder how many posters who were outraged for the return of kings thread are just going to dismiss this blog as a single nutter though

...

Wibbs · 19-01-2014 11:36AM

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

This is the blog of some nutcase. Not exactly mainstream, so hardly cause for any real concern?

It is to some degree, because the interweb can magnify such opinions and makes them look more mainstream and sometimes that can translate into the real world. EG the "one in four" statistic of rapes in US college campuses is widely disseminated online and it's now usually taken as a given in the mainstream.

tritium wrote: »

One of the sadder things is people with thus sort of extreme views tend to find a home in academia, as though their hatefilled views are somehow niche and worthy of exploration. Just look at some of the obituaries written from that niche for Dworkin. It means an influential aspect of social science is immediately tainted by this misandrist bile under a label of academic thought.

US academia in particular is chockablock with this kind of ivory tower extremist guff and not just with "feminism".

I do wonder how many posters who were outraged for the return of kings thread are just going to dismiss this blog as a single nutter though ...

Again just like the RoK crowd, a small enough group of people can garner quite the following, or it looks like quite the following online. Numbers online are all to often very hard to judge or quite simply hugely inflated. hugely inflated numbers are an advantage, both from an agenda point of view and a business point of view when you can convince Mr Google of your views and page impressions. The beast feeds itself.

When the RoK thread kicked off I had a root around the site and their forum* and while lurker traffic is no doubt high at times depending on whatever scandal numbers they're attracting, the number of actual contributors is actually quite small. A hundred people max kinda small. It looks far bigger than it actually is. The example in this thread is even smaller, though look at how many more will view their guff even from this one thread in one Irish forum. You wanna pimp for page hits, then outrage is a good way to do it.

A good example of that was from the RoK site. The piece entitled "reasons to date a woman with an eating disorder"(or something like that). People were falling over themselves to be morally outraged en masse on twitter, arsebook et al, linking the site in every tweet and post. The guys on the RoK forum were actually laughing about this and how it was pulling in the most traffic they'd had so far. TBH I could see why they were chuckling over it. So if something offends you, ignore it. Don't link it all over the bloody place.

*and I found outside the obvious crazy stuff, (which IMH for some of the contributors it's more satire and seeing how much they could wind people up) it was mostly a bunch of blokes talking shíte and you could hear similar enough around a pub table a few beers in. Put it this way, if AH wasn't moderated against such stuff, how many "bitches be crazy" type posts would we see here? Quite the number I'd warrant

johnnyskeleton · 19-01-2014 11:52AM

clairefontaine wrote: »

All you have to do to lose your house and your kids is get someone to march down and get a restraining order. You do not need proof, you just need to swear under oath and tell a pack of lies about your enemy and boom.

Also nigh impossible to vacate. It is one of the most pernicious muscles of an unjust and politically correct motivated court and judge, especially in a liberal jurisdiction.

But we don't have restraining orders in Ireland. A barring order maybe, but that's not as you describe.

Legs.Eleven · 19-01-2014 11:53AM

Linking any of these lunatics (RoK included) to Boards only helps their "cause". Same thing when people link to Daily Fail articles in AH. Anytime I see a link like that, that gives lunatics/professional trolls airtime, I groan. I have no idea why people don't consider their actions before doing this.

I have no idea what any of these extreme Feminists say because I don't go looking for their bile on the internet. I didn't even click on the link in the OP tbh (but read the snippets posted in threads). I wouldn't give any of them the satisfaction. I didn't click on the RoK site either. I exist in blissful ignorance. It's great.

19-01-2014 11:55AM

Chucken wrote: »

Crazy Lady: ..If you tasted something and it tasted disgusting, why on earth would you force yourself to eat or drink it again and again until your taste buds are so numbed you no longer feel the disgust, and come to believe you enjoy it? This is pure torture. So is PIV.

dafuq

That said, that's probably what happened with me and coffee

Wibbs · 19-01-2014 12:10PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

But we don't have restraining orders in Ireland. A barring order maybe, but that's not as you describe.

True. Thankfully, while there are always ways we can improve, we're not nearly so bad in this particular area of law. TBH I can see how if you're male in the US and have come up against this kinda thing in a no fault divorce where you stand to lose your shirt and kids why you could buy into the RoK/Manosphere/MGTOW(men going there own way) stuff in a big way. There does seem to be a cultural change afoot in US as far as many men are concerned. Fewer getting married and the age for marriage going steadily up. Getting married there seems to be much more of a financial and emotional risk than getting married here.

Legs.Eleven wrote: »

I have no idea what any of these extreme Feminists say because I don't go looking for their bile on the internet. I didn't even click on the link in the OP tbh (but read the snippets posted in threads). I wouldn't give any of them the satisfaction. I didn't click on the RoK site either. I exist in blissful ignorance. It's great.

Nah I usually read such stuff for the lulz. Jezebel another example. I find the latter the Daily Fail of liberalism. Some good articles, but with a fair smattering of rightonism that creases my face with laughter on a regular basis.

Muise... · 19-01-2014 12:26PM

Wibbs wrote: »

Nah I usually read such stuff for the lulz. Jezebel another example. I find the latter the Daily Fail of liberalism. Some good articles, but with a fair smattering of rightonism that creases my face with laughter on a regular basis.

For maximum scorn-chuckles, try any of the screechy, preachy articles on upworthy.com. People keep sharing this **** on facebook as though being sound has only just occured to them. You'll laugh! You'll cry! You'll punch a puppy in the face!!!

tritium · 19-01-2014 02:38PM

Wibbs wrote: »

It is to some degree, because the interweb can magnify such opinions and makes them look more mainstream and sometimes that can translate into the real world. EG the "one in four" statistic of rapes in US college campuses is widely disseminated online and it's now usually taken as a given in the mainstream.

US academia in particular is chockablock with this kind of ivory tower extremist guff and not just with "feminism".

No disagreement from me here. Unfortunately the tendency to defer to academics who may have no grounding in reality means that many government policies in mamy countries are influenced disproportionately by this kind of view.

I would note however that because men's rights have never taken a solid foothold in academia this kind of craziness has far more potential to become a vein of "official policy" that the RoK sh1te (not to say there is no harm or danger in that either)

Wibbs · 19-01-2014 02:58PM

Muise... wrote: »

For maximum scorn-chuckles, try any of the screechy, preachy articles on upworthy.com. People keep sharing this **** on facebook as though being sound has only just occured to them. You'll laugh! You'll cry! You'll punch a puppy in the face!!!

Wow some comedy gold there alright.

Foxhound38 · 19-01-2014 03:03PM

Muise... wrote: »

For maximum scorn-chuckles, try any of the screechy, preachy articles on upworthy.com. People keep sharing this **** on facebook as though being sound has only just occured to them. You'll laugh! You'll cry! You'll punch a puppy in the face!!!

Yep, I had to block Upworthy.com from facebook - the odd snippet of interesting stuff, but so "right on" and so smug in delivery, couldn't take it any more.

And then when you click on the video/story/whatever the screen blanks out first and a box comes up saying "Are you a good person (or some such bollocks)? Yes (Share Story on FB) or no" - fcuk off, question phrasing aside, I haven't even read the story/watched the video yet! :mad:

tritium · 19-01-2014 03:14PM

Doctor Jimbob wrote: »

I don't think theres too much risk of this kind of thing becoming part of any official policy tbh.

You might think that. Then you do a search for a thread here on board fairly recently where a poster cited the role of one extreme femenist Janice Raymond during the Reagan administration in denying fairly fundamental healthcare rights to transgender people purely based on this sort of extreme ideology. BTW, this particular nutter is a published academic, revered in political circles and still very much in demand

Daqster · 19-01-2014 03:57PM

tritium wrote: »

I would note however that because men's rights have never taken a solid foothold in academia this kind of craziness has far more potential to become a vein of "official policy" that the RoK sh1te (not to say there is no harm or danger in that either)

Oh I think we are long past the stage were such craziness has the potential to become a vein of official policy. Men who complain about the lack of equality in family courts will often get told that 'patriarchy is to blame' for that, as the laws that are responsible for it, were brought in during that time, but.. that is such a bloody red herring. Many sexist laws and sexist legislation was drafted and passed during that time period, which have now been redressed. Had a bias in the courts existed which penalized women and favoured men, then you can be damn well assured that it too would have been addressed by now.

We get the argument that 'ah, that's just the extreme feminists' and yes, 99% of feminists I ever spoke with came across as nothing but egalitarian and it was that very egalitarian mindset that had them declare themselves as feminists but the problem is that the 99% are not reflective of the feminists that drive the feminist movement, the 1% are, far more so and a quick glance at any that got into positions of power backs that up. They might say publicly that radfem nonsense isn't what they are about, but out of the other side of their mouths they will quote and hail the likes of Dworkin as being a pioneer and hero.. sorry heroine.. to them.

Harriot Harmon, for example, is a woman who defined herself as a crusader in the arena of gender equality, waxed lyrical about how she would address any areas of inequality that were presented to her if she was voted for but not only did she renege on the promises she made, she in fact helped to bring in sexist and racist laws of her own, showing yet again that putting feminists in positions of power is a very foolish thing to do as they will invariably just focus on their own agenda of making things 'better' for women, no matter what the consequences are for the opposite sex.

Sweden is a good example now of what can happen when nonsense feminist opinions are listened to. They now have a Feminist film rating system, want men to have to sit on buses with their legs closes, has a preschool there that banned the terms 'him' and 'her' and even has politicians who campaign to bring in legislation that will make it compulsory for boys and men to pee sitting down (I am not making this up):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HwfVPmFNlg

To me, there is a no need for feminism today, egalitarianism is perfectly fine a badge to wear if one believes that all people should be treated as equals, have the same political, economic, social and civil rights as one another. When I see or read someone saying they are a feminist today, I feel the same as if I had just seen someone wearing a 'Free Nelson Mandela' t-shirt.

B0jangles · 19-01-2014 04:10PM

I wrote this for another thread, but I think it might fit in here, as a counter to the idea that Feminism is an outdated movement with nothing left to fight for:

Imagine you wake up today to a normal world, You switch on the t.v and a picture of the Dáil comes on - the room is filled wiith 126 women and 25 men, This is normal, this just the way it is, The Taoiseach is a woman as is the majority of the cabinet, There are 2-3 men in there, but this is a fairly recent development for which you should feel grateful. You have in the past brought up that fact that this is extremely unbalanced but your query is rejected as irrelevant; why should an overwhelmingly and historically female government not be able to understand, empathise with and legislate for issues which are specific to men? That's totally sexist of you.

Anyway, you get up to go to work, you work for an ordinary international company. The CEO, CFO etc of this company are women, the board of the company is 90% women, with maybe 1-2 men included. The people you encounter in your day to day work are a fairly even mix of men and women, but you start to notice that the higher-ups in you company do still tend to be women all the time, they even seem to have women-focussed group sessions where men at that same level feel excluded or awkward about intruding - in order to fit it you have to laugh at jokes that basically assume that men are brutish and stupid, but hey, that's the business world. When the senior staff at your company go out for a fun afternoon, they usually go to a day spa. You already feel awkward about trying to come along and join in when you discover that some of the spas your company goes to don't actually allow men to be members at all.

Somewhat discouraged, you move from looking at the political and business fields and move to looking at the police force - surely it will be more equitable?

No, by the most recent figures (1995) , there are no male commissioners, dept commissioners, assistant commissioners or Chief Superintendants. There is one male superintendant, compared to 160 female ones, 5 male inspectors, compared to to 244 female ones, a whole 49 male sergeants but again the women are ahead with 1,812 female sergeants. And among ordinary gardai there are 709 male gardai compared to 7.756 females.

Damn.

OK lets look at the judiciary:

- Supreme court - 6 women, 2 men,
- High court, - 32 women, 5 men
- Circuit court - 27 women, 11 men
- District court - 47 women, 16 men

Hang on, this is ridiculous, are you telling me that both the goverment, the police force AND the judiciary of this country are almost totally controlled by women??? How are men ever supposed to get a foothold in power? It's a kind of folk-truth that men make better carers for children because they are physically bigger and stronger so they can protect them better whereas women are good at multi-tasking so they are better in the wider political/business worlds because they are more flexible. Historically the law has reflected these outdated ideas about what people are good at, but, un****ing-believably, some women have started to claim that the historic tendency to assume men will care for the children and thus to give custody to them is evidence that men have taken control of society and that women are now the underclass. Despite the demonstrable fact that women still overwhelmingly control the government, the police force and the judiciary.

My name is URL · 19-01-2014 04:10PM

Isn't it rather ironic that such a 'radical feminist' would speak down to women in general like that, telling them that all their primal instincts, feelings and sexual urges are nothing more than male constructed ideas? She seems to have as much disregard for females as she does for males.. certainly not a fan of individualism anyway. What a horrible, condescending and insane bitch.

Femme_Fatale · 19-01-2014 04:18PM

It's not remotely a red herring to say that anti father laws have their origins in traditional notions of the mother as the carer and the father as the provider. And it's not about blaming the "patriarchy" (a term I hate), it's just stating how things were - no more, no less. Plenty of men supported it and plenty of women with no feminist inclinations supported it. You can't deny the roots of it in order to blame feminism.

seenitall · 19-01-2014 04:34PM

Must be a hell on earth to be this woman and anyone like her.

Most women like or love men, and all they have to offer. It's the yin and yang workings of the human nature at play, we'd be extinct if it didn't exist.

To be this irrational and hate-filled toward the very nature of one's own species, is, I can only imagine, to be in some kind of torture chamber of one's own making. Seeing evidence of sexuality and gender interplay all around one, (as one can, like never before), couples holding hands, kissing, families spending time together, people enjoying themselves in mixed company, ads for romcoms or women's fashions or condoms - how utterly dejected and frustrated must this woman feel every time she steps into the street. Knowing that she'll never be able to defeat this dynamic.

I just pity her.

Fukuyama · 19-01-2014 04:41PM

Femme_Fatale wrote: »

It's not remotely a red herring to say that anti father laws have their origins in traditional notions of the mother as the carer and the father as the provider. And it's not about blaming the "patriarchy" (a term I hate), it's just stating how things were - no more, no less. Plenty of men supported it and plenty of women with no feminist inclinations supported it. You can't deny the roots of it in order to blame feminism.

I don't think anyone blames feminism for it. People take issue with its continued existence which is as a result of feminism.

The law itself is extremely outdated but is enforced despite it being sexist. There are extremely outdated by-laws for the Phoenix Park, on public view at all entrances, which state that women may not sell goods, rent a sun lounger by themselves etc.. etc... wouldn't it be ridiculous if these laws were actually enforced in 2014?

I'd describe myself as a feminist, but I'd never call myself one. To do so would attach myself to the nonsense that knocks around Tumblr, weird forums etc...

Extreme radical "feminists" suffering sexual oppression unto them

Comments