Like A Girl

The filmmaker, Lauren Greenfield, created an advertisement to market and sell sanitary rags and other feminine products for the Always brand. This advertisement is a short documentary in which the filmmaker interviews folks on camera and has them act as though they are doing various physical activities like a girl. The video is titled Always #LikeAGirl and was published to YouTube a few weeks ago. At last check, the video has over thirty-four million views.

The advertisement is also accompanied by the hashtag, #LikeAGirl, on Twitter and there are thousands of folks tweeting about the video. The overwhelming response to the video seems to be positive. The video and hashtag are clever in that they invite consumers into a discussion about gender-related issues.

One of the primary issues discussed is the dive in self-confidence felt by girls during puberty—how being like a girl is supposedly the worst possible thing that a girl can be—how saying that somebody runs, fights, or throws like a girl is an insult that contributes to this decline in the self-confidence of girls.

Lauren Greenfield calls this a “confidence crisis” that is “profoundly disempowering” for girls. Greenfield also says that she is “excited to be a part of the movement to redefine ‘like a girl’ into a positive affirmation.”

The movie, The Sandlot, does a fine job of showing how this insult is typically used. Telling a boy that he plays ball like a girl is the ultimate insult to a boy, worse than scab eating, fart smelling, butt-lickers who mix Wheaties with their mother’s toe-jam.

The insult is used primarily against boys who are not very competent athletic-wise. If a boy is told that he fights, hits, or throws like a girl, it means that he isn’t valued as a man…and neither is he valued as a woman. As such, the boy is just plain old worthless.

If a girl is told she fights, hits, or throws like a girl, it means that she isn’t valued as a man either, but, assuming she identifies as a woman, she still may be valued as a woman (or girl). As such, the girl isn’t seen as plain old worthless, like the kinesthetically impoverished boy.

So, when feminists try to spin this insult, when they say that our culture disempowers women via this insult or that there is no worse insult than being like a girl, they are failing to articulate the depths of meaning within the insult. They are failing to comprehend how that insult applies to boys and men and how that insult is more harmful to those within the male body.

I don’t really expect much more from our gynocentric culture. That feminists would spin this insult as a form of misogyny is to be expected. When an ideology is primarily fixated on the problems of women, of course those ideologues wouldn’t bother to understand the nuance of the insult. Of course they wouldn’t comprehend how it harms boys more than girls. Of course they wouldn’t bother to articulate how this insult actually contributes to a culture of male disposability, sacrifice, and heroics.

The insult has more to do with reinforcing the traditional gender roles of men. Those roles are a form of cultural misandry. Those roles reinforce the notion that the male body is nothing much more than a tool—a labor machine. There is very little, if any, misogyny in the insult because it primarily targets and degrades men with a male body who don’t fit a certain stereotype—an athletic-aesthetic and prowess. It’s a way to enforce a sort of gynocentric masculinity—a masculinity marked by chivalry, disposability, sacrifice, and heroics—primarily for the benefit of women—in deference to them.  It highlights the distinction between the performance value of a man versus the inherent value of a woman.

As noted above, if the girl is told that she throws like a girl, nothing is subtracted from her value as a woman. That insult takes nothing away from her because she is…a girl. And there is nothing wrong with that. The female body isn’t typically expected to be subjected to use like a male body and neither is it expected to perform like one. So, if a girl is told that she throws like a man, she is being told that her body is mannish…and that’s probably a more harmful insult to lob at a girl who may already be suffering with self-esteem issues.

It would have been interesting to see the reactions of the folks in the video had they been asked to perform like a man. Folks likely would have walked with a swagger, opened their gait to seem macho, and moved their arms like an ape. Hidden beneath the surface of these machismo motions of the male body is the abstraction of manliness—the self that tries to exist in a space where he is valued primarily as a labor machine—something of a performing monkey. Telling a man that he acts like a man is telling him that he is valued for what he does. Our culture doesn’t really place much value on a man apart from what he does. He doesn’t have much, if any, inherent value outside of his performance. As such, his value seems tethered to the performance of his male body—while simultaneously and seemingly contradictorily being reduced to a thing of abstraction—a disembodied and disembedded self.

In contrast, a woman can do practically nothing, sitting on ass—watching TV all day. So long as she doesn’t eat like a hippopotamus and gets a couple hours of cardio or yoga workouts in every week, she has a sort of inherent value—even though she does barely anything above the level of a slob. She could be a damn princess and nobody would be able to distinguish much of a difference.

The female body isn’t expected to throw, fight, hit, or run like a male body. As noted above, if a boy is told that he throws like a girl, he is just plain old worthless…because not only is he not valued as a man in a male body, but he is also not valued as a woman in a male body. Aside from the misandric nature of the insult, it also has transphobic and perhaps homophobic implications too.

The insult, when hurled at a boy, is meant to demean and police that boy into compliance with a masculinity that submits the male body to a dominance hierarchy of status. The insult is the inverted way of saying man up or be a man. It plays on the chivalric tradition that binds men to the role of provider and protector of women through the use of their disposable male bodies.

Yet, feminists seem to see this insult as one that mostly harms and disrespects girls by supposedly being profoundly disempowering to girls. This focus on how the phrase primarily harms girls is also an example of the gynocentric and chivalric tradition that continues to perpetuate the cultural norms that place women first—at the expense and sacrifice of men.

So, the insult is more harmful to boys because it reinforces the gynocentric and chivalric cultural norms of the traditional male gender roles—something that feminists ostensibly claim to be fighting against. The population that needs liberated from these gynocentric and traditional gender roles is the male population. Women already experience a great deal of liberation from these roles. Women are empowered to be caregivers or breadwinners. Men are empowered to be breadwinners or bums.

 So, you’re a stay-at-home dad, like a girl? Why don’t you get a real job, like a man?

When I was in my early twenties, I watched Saving Private Ryan with a half-dozen or so of my friends. I’ll never forget that opening scene on Omaha Beach. I’ll never forget how my friend leaned in to ask if I was OK. I’d never really seen anything like that—the way Spielberg used the camera to move in and out of the action. The opening scene captured the fear and courage, the duty and sacrifice, the male body and heroics—the disposability of men.

This is what it has meant to be a man. Being like a man has been (and continues to be) tethered to the willingness of men to do things like in this opening scene–to throw one’s body into the water and run headlong for cover—up a beach peppered with bullets, grenades, mutilations, and death. Being like a man, like the men who stormed Omaha Beach, means using one’s hands to try and keep from bleeding out while crying out for mother. Being like a man, for thousands of men who suffered dismemberments, meant using one good arm to pick up the other arm—the one that had been blown to bits and now lays apart from one’s male body in the sandy blood-soaked beach. It means detaching. It means becoming a disembedded and disembodied self—a thing to be used like a pawn, a tool, an object-of-utility. Yet, according to feminists, being like a girl is so profoundly disempowering for women. Where is my fainting couch?

fainting-couch

The opening scene of that movie made me feel queasy. Ever since I filled out my Selective Service card so that I could get my driver’s license, I’d wondered about what it’d be like—going to war. My friend’s father was a Vietnam veteran and had multiple purple hearts and stories from the injuries sustained in battle. He, my father, and my grandfather had tales of duress, disposability, combat, and war, but those stories were just words. The visuals from the movie gave more meaning to those words and suffering.

I’m sure that these men would not have reacted kindly to anybody saying that they do anything like a girl. However, if asked whether they’d choose to live their lives again, as a stay-at-home dad or as a veteran of war, they’d likely choose the former, assuming they had experienced liberation from their traditional gender roles.

So, when I see this moving advertisement about the confidence crisis that girls face, I can’t help but condemn it for being gynocentric, for its reinforcement of traditional masculine gender roles, for its callousness towards men, and for it being a piece of propaganda to sell sanitary rags to women and girls who may feel profoundly disempowered about being like a girl. If we want to be liberated from traditional gender roles, perhaps we should stop reinforcing them with empty, but feel-good #LikeAGirl propaganda.

Most sentences and blog posts are like a girl. They usually end with a period.

Advertisements

Nothing Further to Discuss

brad_pitt

Since I got involved in the pro-male issues, I’ve faced four recurring criticisms.

  1. “You’re a homo.”
  2. “You make sweeping generalizations.”
  3. “You have mommy issues.”
  4. “You must have been in a relationship with a real bitch.”

Number 1 is irrelevant as my sexuality typically has nothing to do with the issue(s) discussed. The criticism usually comes from a traditionalist conservative man or from a woman. The man is usually attached to his gynocentric identity. The woman usually feels disempowered over the fact that she has no control over my sexuality. Either way, my sexuality is typically irrelevant to the issue(s) discussed. If you bring it up, we have nothing further to discuss.

Number 2 is simply an asshat’s misunderstanding of qualifiers. This asshat likely has some confusion about basic logic. Either way, it’s not my job to educate asshats about such things. When an asshat makes such errors, we have nothing further to discuss.

Number 3 is probably true, but most of us have “mommy issues” anyway. My mother was an abusive cunt, but most mothers are this. Most mothers beat their kids. Mothers are perpetrators of psychological and/or physical abuse. (Stop lying to yourself. Mom pulls your strings and you know it.) There is nothing new about this fact. It’s relatively boring and brings nothing new to the discussion. If you bring it up, we have nothing further to discuss.

Number 4 is true. I’ve been in relationships with “real bitches.” However, that doesn’t nullify any of my arguments. In fact, it validates many of them. So, if you bring it up, we have nothing further to discuss.

The Patriarchy™ Fetish and Marble Cake

Marble Cake

I admit it. I have a guilty pleasure—feminist-philosophers. No, feminist-philosophers are not necessarily oxymoronic, though some of them are morons. Take, for example, Iris M. Young.

Young studied philosophy and earned a doctorate in philosophy from Pennsylvania State University. She became a professor of political science and was well known for her work in “theories of justice, democratic theory and feminist theory.” Sadly, Young lost a battle with cancer in 2006 and the world was deprived of “one of the most important feminist thinkers in the world…one of the most important political philosophers of the past quarter century.”

While researching this much respected philosopher, I discovered one of her papers, “Humanism, Gynocentrism, and Feminist Politics.” It is a brilliant and fascinating paper. It is a must read for anybody interested in The Patriarchy™, gender politics, and philosophy.

In this paper, Young presents two remarkably different versions of feminism—humanist-feminism and gynocentric-feminism. Young admits that these two types of feminisms are often contrary to and sometimes contradictory with each other. She also admits that both feminisms share the common narrative thread of male-as-antagonist. The overarching antagonist to both narratives is the male dominated culture that oppresses women—The Patriarchy™.

snidely_whiplashThis antagonist represents weak and lazy writing. It’s a tired, uninspiring, and one-dimensional villain. This antagonist no longer has a semblance of truth sufficient to procure for these shadows of imagination that willing suspension of disbelief for the moment, which constitutes poetic faith. The Patriarchy™ is the Snidely Whiplash of feminist narratives—a cartoonish caricature of evil, the archenemy of all women, humanity, and civilization. It is not an artifact of “poetic faith.”

As such, The Patriarchy™ is not a real thing. It is only an imagined thing—a fetishized object of imagination that exists in the minds of feminists and other morons. It exists to perpetuate a shallow and one-dimensional narrative that presents women as objects-of-victimization. It is the sort of thing that feminists love to hate. It is loved because it can be blamed for everything. It is hated because it is the villain. Without The Patriarchy™, there would be no feminist narratives. Without Snidely Whiplash, there would be no Dudley Do-Right. The Patriarchy™ is one half of a shallow and one-dimensional dichotomy of good vs. evil that exists in feminist narratives. It’s not any real thing of lived-experience. It is only an imaginary thing of imagined-experience.

To better understand this shallow dichotomy and the silliness of feminist narratives, let’s look at two of the most significant and influential feminist narratives as presented by Iris M. Young. Both narratives present women as victims of The Patriarchy™. Both narratives present The Patriarchy™ as an antagonist, a villain like Snidely Whiplash who twiddles his moustache and has no human depth beyond a sadistic lust for the devaluing and disempowerment of women.

Humanist-feminism

Humanist-feminism, according to Young, is best described in the works of Simone de Beauvoir. Young refers to this sort of feminist thinking as “Beauvoirian.” At its core is a revolt against being imprisoned in femininity. For these Beauvoirians, The Patriarchy™ “has ascribed to women a distinct feminine nature by which it has justified the exclusion of women from most of the important and creative activity of society—science, politics, invention, industry, commerce, the arts.” The Patriarchy™ forces femininity upon women. As such, humanist-feminism was a revolt against femininity and, by extension, a revolt against The Patriarchy™.

What makes this Beauvoirian revolt so fascinating is the fact that it is founded theoretically on the philosophical distinction between immanence and transcendence. Immanence roughly designates being an object. Transcendence roughly designates being a free-subject that defines its own nature and “makes projects that bring new entities into the world.”

It is argued by humanist-feminists that The Patriarchy™ does not allow women to become such transcendent and free-subjects. Instead, women are relegated to being objects of domestic and sexual service to men and for the benefit of men. As such, the full humanity of women is restricted by The Patriarchy™. This is, according to humanist-feminists, a brutalization of the personhood of half the human race for benefit to the other half. The Patriarchy™ mutilates and deforms women into objects—the non-human Other. Young writes that this “distinction between transcendence and immanence ensnares Beauvoir in the very definition of woman as a non-human Other…”

By defining humanity as transcendence, as a free-subjectivity above mere life and the processes of nature that repeat in endless cycles, women can only exist as victims—“maimed, mutilated, dependent, confined to a life of immanence and forced to be an object.” In short, humanity transcends, but women are imprisoned to a life of immanence. Humanist-feminism was a revolt against this sort of immanence, reproductive biology, domestic concerns, and motherhood—the things Beauvoir found most oppressive to women.

As such, Beauvoirians devalue women…just like The Patriarchy™ devalues women. The humanist-feminist revolt against The Patriarchy™ is patriarchal. As such, humanist-feminism is The Patriarchy™. They smash The Patriarchy™ by being it.

Gynocentric-feminism

According to Young, “gynocentric feminism defines the oppression of women very differently from humanist feminism. Women’s oppression consists not of being prevented from participating in full humanity, but of the denial and devaluation of specifically feminine virtues and activities by an overly instrumentalized and authoritarian masculinist culture.” Gynocentric-feminism is not a revolt against femininity. It is a revolt against the devaluation of femininity. It is a revolt against The Patriarchy™ by embracing what The Patriarchy™ always “ascribed” to women. As such, gynocentric-feminism is The Patriarchy™.

For gynocentric-feminists, femininity is “not the problem, not the source of women’s oppression, but indeed within traditional femininity lie the values that we should promote for a better society. Women’s oppression consists of the devaluation and repression of women’s nature and female activity by the patriarchal culture.” Again, The Patriarchy™ is still to blame because it “threaten[s] the survival of the planet and the human race. [Patriarchal] values exalt death, violence, competition, selfishness, a repression of the body, sexuality, and affectivity.”

According to Young, The Patriarchy™ produces “phallogocentric categorization,” a moral rationality and language of sharp distinctions, of abstract rights and justice. However, the feminine is supposed to produce loose categories, a flowing of language that envelops and folds in on itself, reflects itself in a continuous and particularistic ethics of care—a continuous menstrual flowing of garbled gibberish. The feminine virtue is supposed to place the particular over the abstract and universal, all the while denying the “nature/culture dichotomy held by humanists… [asserting] the connection of women and nature,” rooting the feminine in the body-experience, rather than in some sort of abstract transcendence.

Gynocentric-feminism places a high value on the woman’s reproductive processes. It is supposed that these processes give women a “living continuity with their offspring that it does not give men. Women thus have a temporal consciousness that is continuous, whereas male temporal consciousness is discontinuous.” As such, males are said to be more alienated from their children, but more connected to their work and other endeavors of artifact creation. In this way, being woman is not being an object. Bringing forth life into this world is one of the most important endeavors-of-creation…and only women can do that.

Gynocentric-feminism inverts humanist-feminism—completely upending prior notions of women’s oppression. Yet, smashing The Patriarchy™ remains a goal of gynocentric-feminism. They smash The Patriarchy™ by embracing it.

Implications

Where humanist-feminism destroyed the value of the feminine, gynocentric-feminism restores it. There is dignity for women within their bodies and within their uniquely female body-experiences. Gynocentric-feminism shows that this connection with the body produces uniquely feminine virtues, language, and experiences of which men are not privy. In fact, men are not privileged at all in this way. Men are alienated from these experiences, from a “living continuity” with their children, and relegated to such experiences by proxy—through intellectual creations, hierarchal competition, and through functioning as an object-of-utility for a woman, for women, and for society-in-general.

This reality requires a reassessment of what male privilege means. Young writes, “If we claim that masculinity distorts men more than it contributes to their self-development and capacities, again, the claim that women are the victims of injustice loses considerable force.” She eventually questions, “what warrants the claim that women need liberating…of what does male privilege consist?” She has difficulty swallowing that bitter red pill. She has difficulty being straight and saying that we’ve been wrong about The Patriarchy™ and male privilege.

Although, she never disavows patriarchy theory, she does put forth a clever analogy as a way to try and change the subject, to escape responsibility, yet still fetishize and blame The Patriarchy™. In regards to gender, Young states that “we need a conception of difference that is less like the icing bordering the layers of cake and more like a marble cake, in which the flavors remain recognizably different but thoroughly insinuated in one another. [And this]… social change requires changing the subject, which in turn means developing new ways of speaking, writing, and imagining.”

Translation

Young wants her cake and eat it too. She wants to change the subject and direct attention away from the wrongheaded notions about male privilege and female oppression. She wants to create a narrative in which female oppression and privilege simultaneously exist in one menstrual flowing of garbled gibberish—a marble cake. She does not come forward to clearly say, “Oops, we were wrong about male privilege and The Patriarchy™.” She does not apologize for the decades of bashing and shaming men about their so-called privilege. She makes no apologies for the centuries of oppression men have endured as objects-of-utility for women and for society-in-general. She does not make any apologies for wanting her cake and eating it too.

Young is playing a game, essentially saying “it’s the fault of The Patriarchy™ that we were wrong…even though we weren’t really wrong. The Patriarchy™ forced feminists to make distinct icing and borders on their narrative-cake. It’s the fault of The Patriarchy™ that feminists didn’t create a marble-cake-narrative in which women could be simultaneously oppressed and liberated, thoroughly insinuated in one another. It’s the fault of The Patriarchy™ that The Patriarchy™ was allowed to be the primary antagonist of any feminist narrative.” This is Young’s elaborate game of victim-blaming.

Why did you men allow us to blame you? It’s your fault that we falsely accused you. Had you men simply valued us women, we would never have falsely accused you men of oppressing us. Never mind the countless bodies of men who sacrificed their lives for women and for society-in-general; that’s oppression of women too. Valuing us is not-valuing us. Oppressing us is not-oppressing us. No matter what men do, it’s the fault of men that women are simultaneously liberated and oppressed, valued and not-valued, empowered and not-empowered. Men and by extension, The Patriarchy™, are to blame for everything.

Conclusion

Young, like most feminists, clings to her fetish—her imagined-experience of The Patriarchy™. She refuses to develop a more comprehensive narrative. She refuses to create a narrative that gives depth to the lived-experiences of men. She refuses to relinquish her hatred of men. She prefers blaming men for everything. This is her love, her hatred, and her fetish. She clung to these until death.

Sadly, this is what makes Young’s paper so brilliant and fascinating.  It illustrates the grasp of this fetish—The Patriarchy™. A philosopher as clever as Young fails to relinquish her fetish. Even after clearly making the case that prior notions of The Patriarchy™ and male privilege were wrong, she maintains that men are still to blame. Even when she knows that it’s not the fault of men, she still blames men—The Patriarchy™.

By painting men as The Patriarchy™, men can be made a cartoonish caricature of evil. Men become as shallow and one-dimensional as Snidely Whiplash—the archenemy of women, humanity, civilization, and all things good. Men become The Patriarchy™, the non-human Other.

This is the narrative of feminisms. This is the common thread that binds together feminist narratives. This is the dehumanization of men as the antagonist. It is the fetishizing of men as The Patriarchy™–an imagined thing, a fetishized object of imagination, a villain.

This villain no longer inspires the “willing suspension of disbelief.” This villain is not an artifact of “poetic faith.” This villain represents weak and lazy writing. The Patriarchy™ is bad literature…and so are feminist narratives.

The way forward may be some sort of “marble cake,” as Young describes, where gender differences are distinct, yet thoroughly insinuated within each other. However, before that can happen, a narrative granting multi-dimensionality and depth to men is needed. A narrative consisting of compassion and consideration for the lived-experiences of men and boys is needed. That will never happen as a feminist narrative. So long as men are written as the antagonist, as The Patriarchy™, men will always be the Other–the icing on the outside, apart from the cake, apart from humanity.

Ms. Marcotte’s Sandy Vagina

Sandy Vagina

The overall picture she offers, however, portrays woman only as victim—maimed, mutilated, dependent, confined to a life of immanence and forced to be an object…[Beauvoir]…expresses outrage at the selfishness, blindness, and ruthlessness of the men who benefit from the mutilation of the personhood of half the human race. –Iris M. Young, Humanism, Gynocentrism, and Feminist Politics

In a gynocentric world, mentioning an example of misandry is misogyny. Expressing dissatisfaction about men being used as objects-of-utility—that is radiated hatred of women. A man concerned that a woman might be more interested in his credit score, rather than his philosophy degree, obviously hates women. A man who challenges the gynocentric ideas about male privilege is a misogynist prick.  In a gynocentric world, men are human-doings; they are not humans-being. Men are maimed, mutilated, dependent, confined to a life of immanence and forced to be an object-of-utility for a woman, for women, and for society-in-general…and if a man expresses outrage at the selfishness, blindness, and ruthlessness of the women who benefit from the mutilation of the personhood of half the human race, the man can be expected to be further dehumanized with insults—troll, worthless tool, loser, dead-beat, whiner, and some form of a non-human Other.

If you think I’m exaggerating, check your privilege and consider what typically happens when a man challenges anything originating from a gynocentric point-of-view. Take, for example, what happened to me and to other men who challenged the notion of male privilege put forth by an entitled princess like Amanda Marcotte. In an article she put out on July 29th, she complained that men are not doing enough with their privilege. Men are not being quality objects-of-utility for her. As such, this irks her, like sand in her vagina, and she took to her keyboard to write an article excoriating men for doing too little and for doing romance all wrong.

Ms. Marcotte complains that she needs a giant douche nozzle to wash all the sand from her inflamed vagina.

What sort of sand seems to be inflaming the vagina of Ms. Marcotte today? Victimhood sand. Yes, the sand of victimhood is irritating the Marcotte vagina today. It seems that when men make public proposals for marriage, men are oppressing women. Yes, the evil patriarchy puts women at a disadvantage in these situations because a woman might feel like an “ungrateful” bitch for saying no.

That’s right. Options are oppression. The privilege of telling a man no isn’t really a privilege. According to Ms. Marcotte, the option of saying no actually disadvantages women. It’s oppression on par with slavery. Men have the “privilege” of making the first move, of putting their necks on the chopping block—risking public rejection and humiliation. Yes, in the twisty-straw world of Ms. Marcotte’s sandy vagina, it’s male patriarchal privilege—being expected to make the first move and take such risks.

It’s also male privilege to proposition women at bars or at night clubs. Making the first move in these settings also disadvantages women. Men who take the initiative and proposition women…those men are imposing on women the choice to say yes, no, or maybe. It’s like a big rapey “Penis O’ Freedom” that busies itself with raping women of their freedom to be free of making choices.

So, being filled with this irritating sand in her vagina, one would think that Ms. Marcotte would put forth a remedy for this oppression. Perhaps something like the importance of changing the social norms such that women are expected to proposition men—spreading out the risk equally between men and women. That way a woman gets the “privilege” of being full-on rejected by men who want nothing whatsoever to do with her.

Nope. Ms. Marcotte’s solution for this sand in her vagina is for men to do more. That’s right. Men who proposition women should do more to prove their worth. She writes.

Hitting on a woman in a public place by telling her she’s got some quality that sets her above other women, without explaining why he should be the natural recipient of all that unique goodness… [that is oppression because it is] …without nary a suggestion as to what he can do for her.

You see, if only men did more for her, then she wouldn’t have to worry about looking like an “ungrateful” bitch for rejecting a poor fool. She simply wouldn’t have any “reason” for rejecting him. If the man proves himself worthy to be up inside her, then there is no reason for her to say no…and this alleviates the oppression, effectively removing her from the slavery of choice—that big rapey “Penis O’ Freedom” that imposes itself on women via propositions.

In the comment thread to Marcotte’s piece of tripe article, I mentioned how this is one big lamentation about the quality of men who proposition Ms. Marcotte.

Big Penetrating Penis O' Freedom

Moments later, a white knight who lives in the twisty-straw world of the Marcotte Vagina rushes to rescue the damsel and to save her honor.

White Knight

Being a black knight, I quickly agreed that panhandling is a lot like propositioning a woman. It’s called “pussy-begging.” Most men are happy to get a few strips of bacon flap, kind of like how a hobo is happy to get a few pennies. My comment didn’t go over too well…and neither did any of my other comments.

When I pointed out the blatant misandry and objectification of men as objects-of-utility, I was quickly excoriated and my comments were heavily down-voted. The problem is that “pointing” is very patriarchal and too much like a penis. Pointing is “mansplaining,” and so I was accused of “radiating hate.” Here is the “hate” that I initially wrote in the comment thread.

Instead of men expressing how they find a woman attractive, how about men simply plop down their credit report and wear a t-shirt imprinted with their credit score?

Essentially, what Marcotte is saying here is “what have you done for me lately?” That’s not very progressive, empowered, or independent, In fact, it’s very traditional in that men have to prove that they can afford her, [kind of] like a herd of sheep. She wants men to “pay” for her with reasons. That actually seems to objectify women and that’s not empowering for women.

Also, Marcotte is claiming that men dehumanize women as objects-of-sexuality that are pressured with an obligation to reciprocate interest, but at the same time, Marcotte insists that men should dehumanize themselves as objects-of-utility for a woman. Prove that you’re a good tool for the women, that there are reasons for her to bother with exploiting the fact that you’re attracted to her.

Nothing about the piece of tripe article empowers women or men. It’s more of the same old crap. Nothing about this article values humanity. It’s all degrading to humanity—to both women and men.

So, I actually argued that people are humans—that men should not be treated like tools and that women should not be treated like sex toys. Nothing controversial about that, right? Well, if you live in the twisty-straw world of the Marcotte Vagina, what I wrote about human dignity is nothing more than raging hate—pure misogyny. Here is Ms. Marcotte’s moral correction of me and my reply to it.

Marcotte ReplyMy 1st Reply Ms. Marcotte never did bother to reply, but some white knight did so on her behalf.

Money for TimeI assume that a contractor who builds my house wants money in exchange for his time and labor. That doesn’t mean I radiate hatred for the contractor. Anyway, that was not my assumption, but it is Ms. Marcotte’s demand and main complaint about men—that they aren’t doing enough for her.

“…without nary a suggestion as to what he can do for her.” In her own words, Ms. Marcotte echoes the selfish and gynocentric idea that men exist for the purpose of doing something for her. Janet Jackson best sings about such things (men) in her song “What Have You Done for Me Lately.”

So, the white knight valiantly attacks the straw man and I simply point out that my assumption has nothing to do with money. My assumption is that these sorts of expectations are traditionalist in that men are still expected to prove their worth to a woman…and nothing about that is progressive. It is still based on the assumption that men must be objects-of-utility for a woman, for women, and for society in-general.

The valiant white knight desperately constructs another straw man to beat.

Circular Argument

Desperate gibberish. I never made any claim that both parties shouldn’t contribute to the relationship. If the valiant white knight had actually bothered to read my words, he’d realize that I’m arguing against the objectification of men as objects-of-utility. White knights have difficulty removing themselves from their gynocentric fog. If the white knight could remove himself from this fog for a moment, he’d realize that Ms. Marcotte doesn’t value men; she values what men can “do for her.” For gynocentric gender supremacists like Ms. Marcotte, men are human-doings, not humans-being. This is traditionalist in that men are tools. There is nothing “circular” about that statement and there is nothing wrong with making the comparison between men being tools and Ms. Marcotte’s demand that men be better tools.

And so…there are other “tools” that I had to deal with in the twisty-straw world of the Marcotte Vagina. Take, for example, this person—“Kesh Meshi.”

Kesh Meshi 1

Right. There are no social expectations on men to be objects of utility. What culture is that? Or, what crazy-straw universe does she live in? I have no idea. It’s “beyond me,” if it’s not the twisty-straw world of the Marcotte Vagina. As is usual when dealing with asshats, the conversation quickly degrades into name-calling.

Keshi Meshi Asshat

Yeah, I know. I stooped to her level. My bad. Apologies to all, but her insult wasn’t the worst. I was called all sorts of meanie names and accused of bad things. All for supporting the radical idea that women and men are humans and should be treated as such.

“LJC” claims that I’m arrogant for being a man who thinks of himself as a person. “How dare that uppity man not present himself as a dog! Bad doggie! No treat for you!”

Full of Himself

And then there is this insult—the one in which I’m cast as being entitled to a woman and that I’m just “upset” because I don’t meet the standard. Apparently, showering every day is the standard…and I don’t meet it. It’s kind of like a grade-school insult—you know, “stinky-head.”

 Zython Standard

There is the one by “Amazing Sandwich.” It’s an attempt to say, in some sort of pseudo-intellectual way, that because I value my humanity and the humanity of others, I “project” dehumanization of myself onto women. Yeah, it’s the twisty-straw world of the Marcotte Vagina. In that world, valuing my humanity is projected dehumanization of women. Go figure.

Amazing SandwichThere is the “Shohanna” insult of even more incoherent gibberish. I’ve read her tripe multiple times and, giving her the benefit of the doubt, I think she is saying that I’m a “waste” (some sort of garbage) and that rejection is the best sort of attention that I will ever get from a woman. I suppose I should accept my lot in life of being thrown away by women…because at least a woman will take the time to bother with throwing me away. I don’t know.

Waste

“Shohanna” later makes some homophobic remarks. Clearly, being trash was too good for me. Being gay is worse than trash, according to her, so she feeds me some of that gay-hate. Again, being in the twisty-straw world of the Marcotte Vagina, it’s fine to hate me and make homophobic slurs and call me a “misogynist prick” because I have the radical idea that men are humans too.

Shohanna HomophobiaIt gets worse, but I’ll spare the reader. I’ve only been on the thread for a couple days and the hatred for me continues to flow. I wrote about human dignity and for that I’m called an asshole, pretentious, a dick, arrogant, accused of radiating hate, accused of hating women, and, for some reason, my sexuality is made into an issue. None of this makes sense, unless you live in the twisty-straw world of the Marcotte Vagina.

Again, in that world, it is male privilege—being rejected. Rejecting men is such a burdensome and oppressive task for women. I do not know how women manage to survive with all that victimhood sand in their vaginas. Take a look at all the oppression of women in this video.

Within only a few moments, 100 women were oppressed. Women were forced by this malicious and privileged man to make decisions about rejecting his proposition. Women were enslaved by the imposing and penetrating “Penis O’ Freedom” and burdened to reject this evil patriarch. As anyone can see by watching the video, women are worried about looking like “ungrateful” bitches.

Women shouldn’t have to worry about such things, as Ms. Marcotte argues in her piece of tripe article. Being burdened with the sand of victimhood buried in her vagina, Ms. Marcotte clearly lays out the solution. Men need to be better tools. Men need to be like a giant douche nozzle that washes away the victimhood sand buried in the vagina of oppressed women. Some little emo clown won’t work.

Emo Fag 3Nope. Ms. Marcotte needs to invite a big veined throbbing cock nozzle deep inside her—one that fills the hole in her soul and reaches every last grain of victimhood sand within her, scooping it out with a circumcised tip and then a rinsing with a massive shot of anti-inflammatory jizz cream.

Ms. Marcotte and her ilk have little (if any) respect for the humanity and dignity of men. From their gynocentric point-of-view, men cannot be dehumanized, for men are not human at all; men are less-than-human. They are patriarchy. As such, men are maimed, mutilated, dependent, confined to a life of immanence and forced to be an object-of-utility for a woman, for women, and for society-in-general—douche nozzles that exist to “do for her.” Ms. Marcotte and her ilk are the selfish, blinded, and ruthless beneficiaries of the mutilated personhood of half the human race. FTSU.

[Gynocentric] culture confines…[men]…to immanence. Immanence designates being an object, a thing with an already defined nature lined up within a general category of things with the same nature. [Masculinity]…is an essence, a set of general attributes that define a class, that restricts…[men]…to immanence and to being defined as the Other. –Iris M. Young, Humanism, Gynocentrism, and Feminist Politics

Violence Against Women: Spreading Gynocentric Lies & Fear

end violence against women

Domestic violence and abuse are practically gender symmetrical. The cycles of violence and abuse within intimate partner relationships are incredibly complex and blaming one gender over the other is an oversimplification and wrongheaded approach for addressing these problems. This gynocentric focus on violence against women discriminates against male victims of this sort of violence and abuse. The gynocentric focus neglects violence against men, which is the overwhelming sort of violence in this world.

If you can’t see that violence against men is far more prevalent than violence against women, you have lost touch with reality. The very act of elevating violence against women as some sort of divine slight that is in some way worse than violence against men is sexist. The vast majority of all violence in this world is violence against men. Again, if you fail to see this, then you have lost touch with reality. If you fail to have compassion or understanding for the humanity of those affected by this violence, you are probably blinded by your hate or callous indifference. 

Men are humans too. We suffer and struggle for dignity, for love, for compassion. Those who promote this gynocentric focus, who so callously deny compassion to men, do nothing to effect change. They do nothing to reduce violence in this world. In fact, their hatred and callous indifference is a violence of silence that violates the humanity of men and women and our interconnectedness. Like it or not, to be is to be related. Violence doesn’t exist in a vacuum. In fact, violence is perpetuated by the narrowness of mind and illusion of vacuous human individuality. No person is an island because we are all related/interconnected. Violence against one person affects the whole community. The caring (or lack thereof) of a whole community creates the violence. If you want to make changes, then you cannot deny the violence against men. You cannot deny the culture in which men grow up. The culture, the community in which men live creates violence. You cannot simply say that men alone create violence because it is their nature to be violent. That is as bad as saying that blacks or Irish make good slaves because their nature is to be subservient. I challenge you to rethink your callous indifference/hatred toward men and realize that there is far more to the story than simply screaming about violence against women and the blaming of men as violent base animals. Men are humans fully capable and worthy of the deepest depths of compassion. If you believe otherwise, I challenge the depths of your humanity.

The above photo was pulled from the j4mb blog:

http://j4mb.wordpress.com/2013/06/04/facebook-censorship-of-an-image-of-a-male-victim-of-domestic-violence/

Moral Turpitude: An Open Letter to Facebook

angry-feministFeminists are pissed. According to WAM, Facebook has completely failed to produce an adequate response to feminist’s demands regarding censorship of “hate-speech” against women. WAM’s contention is that Facebook’s “inadequate” response contributes to violence against women, catering to a culture where violence against women is normalized. How could Facebook be so callous to the plight of women? What are the demands of these feminists?

  1. Recognize speech that trivializes or glorifies violence against girls and women as hate speech and make a commitment that you will not tolerate this content.
  2. Effectively train moderators to recognize and remove gender-based hate speech.
  3. Effectively train moderators to understand how online harassment differently affects women and men, in part due to the real-world pandemic of violence against women.

On the surface, such demands seem reasonable. No moral person would deliberately support speech that trivializes and glorifies violence. No moral person acting as a moderator would deliberately tolerate gender-based hate-speech. No moral person would deliberately misunderstand how violence affects women and men. Any failure to comply with these demands is proof of Facebook’s callous attitude and contribution to the normalization of violence. In fact, failure to acquiesce to these demands is proof of Facebook’s moral depravity. As such, corporate businesses should pull sponsorship from Facebook on the grounds of moral turpitude.

As a moral lesson for Facebook and as an attempt to instill at least a bit of virtue into this vile corporation, let us walk the grounds of moral turpitude for a moment. Let us deliberately support speech that trivializes violence, tolerates gender-based hate-speech and misunderstands how violence affects men and women. What would that speech be? Who would support that speech? What would be misunderstood about the effects of violence?

As we walk the grounds of moral turpitude for a moment, try typing into a search engine the phrase “violence against.” You will get scores of pages linking to articles and information regarding violence against women. Of the first 50 results, I counted only two results about violence against men.

 Violence Against 1 (Medium)

Violence Against 2 (Medium)

That’s right. Searching for “violence against” leads to information about violence against women. The language itself and search engine results reflect this sort of negligence against men and about the violence done to them. However, violence against women receives a sort of special status and notice. This elevated attention to violence against women is a sort of de facto discrimination against men. This focus on violence against women minimizes and trivializes the savage violence that men experience every day in this world. It is men who are overwhelmingly brutalized by a “justice” system that throws them into cages for non-violent drug crimes. It is men who are overwhelmingly slaughtered on battlefields and glorified for being great at slaughtering other men. It is men who are overwhelmingly homeless. It is men who are glorified for their brutality against other men in the ring as “sportsmen.” It is men who suffer overwhelmingly from sports related head trauma. It is men who juice their bodies in order to be glorified as objects of utility for a sports team. It is men who suffer the trivialization of violence done to them by society, by women, and by other men. We are often too busy elevating the violence against women to some sort of superior status, some sort of slight against the divine, in some ridiculous feminist pissing-match about which gender is the longest suffering long-sufferer in the history of long-suffering. That is a walk along the grounds of moral turpitude.

Those are the grounds of moral turpitude and along those grounds we see the lack of care, understanding, and compassion for the lived experiences of men. If feminists gave a damn about equality, they would be screaming about violence against men. They remain silent. The more they scream about violence against women, the louder is their silence about violence against men. This silence is hate. This silence is ignorance. This silence is bigotry. This silence trivializes and glorifies violence against men. This silence distorts the “real-world pandemic” of violence against men. This silence is violence. Nobody notices. Nobody cares. Feminists are pissed.

[Correction: Content has been edited by the editor of the content. :-)]