Feminist fail Part #1

Seems like a good idea to start a new series, not particularly interested in arguing with feminists for the same reason that I have a poor attendance at the church of atheism, arguing against unfalsifiable gibberish that makes extensive use of abstract skulduggery is tedious, confusing and obnoxious. I made this blog to ridicule the garbage that the left-wing pamphleteers produce. It seems that I ignore feminist sophistry at my loss as it is rapidly becoming one of their biggest enterprises. I am basically just going to pick an article, paper, tenant, speech or whatever about feminism and then give it the old one two like a wife beater a rapist a critical thinker.
 Little disclaimer, when I talk about feminists, I am talking about a specific type of feminist, plenty of ways to describe them but I would build my net this way: Those that describe themselves as feminist without being asked are considered feminists, those that don't satisfy that condition but will answer yes to 'are you a feminist?' are in the everybody else camp. The article that this first entry is attacking is far, very far from the worst(for that you go to jezebel) but it is too damn easy for a lazy b***rd like me to pass up, ENJOY!

The Objectification of Women - It Goes Much Further Than Sexy Pictures

  For the folk that have been graced by the gods in that your path through life has curved and swooped around this brand of political thinking, your luck has run out and so as a consequence will your faith in humanity. An article on the huffpost claims woman are portrayed as mens objects of pleasure, like call of duty or something. Giving an ambiguous and entirely undefended definition she then misapplies it across the board and claims victory. The article is neither original, inspiring or enjoyable but is the typical quota piece that the left wing journals have obliged feminism with. 

"When feminists decry the objectification of women, most people immediately think of the images that saturate our magazines, movies, adverts and the Internet, of women in varying stages of undress, dolled up and presented for the male gaze. Yet, while sexual objectification is a huge problem, it is, sadly, only a fraction of the objectification of women that permeates our world, from the moment we enter it.

Because it is all too obvious and difficult to ignore, we tend to focus on sexual objectification. The difference between the way women and men are portrayed in national newspapers and other media is stark - women are too often reduced to the sum of their body parts, heavily Photoshopped to fit into an ever narrowing ideal of female beauty. It grabs our attention, we recognize that something isn't right, and we confidently assert that this is sexism in action.

And we're right, of course. Yet, an overemphasis on the 'sexual' aspect can obscure the much more problematic aspect of 'objectification', the iceberg of which sexual objectification is the visible tip. After all, being presented in a sexual way doesn't always mean objectification. Sexy pictures of men, in contrast to sexy pictures of women, frequently portray them as sexual subjects, actors exercising their sexuality, instead of objects meant to gratify someone else's sexuality.

So, what do I mean when I say that sexual objectification is simply the most visible part of objectification? Well, let's start by differentiating between subject status and object status. While a subject is active, with agency, an object is passive, being acted upon. This dichotomy is reflected in our grammar; when we hear, "Fiona stroked the cat," we recognize that 'Fiona' has subject status, while 'the cat' has object status. Now in an ideal world, we would find ourselves randomly cast as either subject or object at different times, depending on the situation, with no problems. However, in society's dominant narrative, subject and object status is heavily gendered, with men granted subject status the vast majority of the time, and women severely objectified."

Objectification hasn't got anything to do with objectivity despite also being hated by feminists. Objectification is the opposite of personification; giving human qualities to anything that isn't human, objectification means not giving humans' human qualities. The question begged by this is why didn't they just use dehumanization?, it means the same thing, lack of acknowledgement for others' human qualities, and it is already a pejorative with some really powerful connotations and historical examples. Only 2 plausible reasons come to mind, feminists are stupid, or an attempt to upkeep scientific pretenses. Whatever, it is neither here nor there, just another dark corner of this weird and horrible world.

Her dichotomy of sexy pics apparently explains why male sexy pictures are empowering and female ones are degrading, so that to compare them and declare equality is using a false equivalence(that would coincidentally unemploy her). Male sexy pictures that show a 200 pound heavily muscled, hairless baby faced child of the Greek gods isn't representative of men and will cause men  to look up in despair and think 'im a fugly fucking loser'. But the guy is fighting a bull or has his arm around one of the women below, so he is a subject and not an object. Well suddenly every man would think, 'hey I can fight a bull and pull a woman like that, that guy is just like me'. I found, after a time consuming session, some examples with which we can apply the aforementioned theory of object and subjectdom

1. object

2. Subject "Fiona eats a banana"

3. Subject, "Fiona answered the telephone" 

4 object

5 object

6 Subject "Fiona benched a barbell"

This dichotomy between subject and object is tough. Apparently if the pictures labeled subjects were dominant, woman would do better, if the ones labeled object were dominant then woman would do bad. The last picture probably caught your attention as being both empowering and sexy, well it came from a women's health article, it is aimed at woman yet it is probably a contender for the most attractive of the above. 6's position in the woman's health article is the position that if it was appearing in men's health would have contained picture of an equally fit man that would be equally attractive to woman as 6, false equivalence? The ambiguities of this kind of dichotomy and the questions they raise are just mindbogglingly varied and the reason why I hated arguing with the religious; endless moving of the goal post, changing the rules of the game and what is required to win to the point that the only contest is of attention spans. 

Take 5 for example, "Fiona sat on the deck chair", "Fiona pulled her bra string", with enough liberalism you can turn every example of objectification into subject and object just by describing the models relation to the camera. The objectivity of this application of 'objectification' is non existent, it is all opinion and people seeing what they want to see.

These messages start right from the cradle. A study by Janice McCabe showed that male characters in children's books far outnumber female ones, and that even when characters (eg. animals) are gender-neutral, they are often referred to as male when parents read them to their kids. This pattern is consistent in children's TV shows, where only a third of lead characters are girls. The Smurfette Principle, where only one female character is present in an entire cast of male ones, still holds true for many TV shows, with 'female' seemingly a characteristic of its own.

Having been brought up on a diet of stories revolving around boys and men, this male-centeredness continues to dog us throughout our lives. The vast majority of films produced tell the stories of men, with women cast as girlfriends, wives, or mothers, or in other periphery roles. In a typical year, only about 12-15% of top grossing Hollywood films are women-centric, focusing on women and their stories.

It isn't just the media that does this. In everyday conversation, male pronouns dominate our speech and ideas. Every dog we see is a 'he', every stick figure a 'he', humans thought of as simply 'mankind'. There are exceptions, though. Boats, cars, bikes and ships always seem to be 'she', but this is hardly exciting once we realise that they are all objects, and possessions of (usually) men, at that.

Anyway, the cumulative effect of all this is that we are socialising generation after generation to view the world, and the women in it, from the point of view of men. As a result, only men are seen as full and complete human beings, not women. Women are objectified - this means we are denied agency, and are seen from the outside, our own consciousness, our thoughts and feelings, utterly overlooked.

Well the every "dog is a he" is crap, my dog's pride is often assaulted when people ask what her name is, I politely tell them that he ain't no bitch. As for the books and movies and what have you, are you implying a conspiracy, is the glass ceiling really the glass hive mind? because unless you are then all that is irrelevant. Woman are bigger consumers than men, proportionally much bigger. So to blame men for woman wanting to read stories about men, to blame men for woman's choices, seems like, feminism's answer to everything. 

This is the biggest contradiction of feminism. Whenever I think of feminism this is always the first and most prominent thing that comes to mind. That feminism, far from being a movement to liberate and empower in the way that the reformation and enlightenment were, modern feminism like socialism has developed into a counter revolution. The enlightenment and early feminism fought for freedom; rights and responsibilities. Socialism and feminism seeks to enhance rights by curbing those of others and dumping the responsibilities on the state, others.

Some quick examples of this, redistributive taxation for income heavily favors women at the expense of men. Quotas and subsidies for hard sciences in universities favors women at the expense of men. Public service jobs and mandated private sector quotas heavily favor women at the expense of men. Income, education and professional development, all areas that women were once responsible for their own advancement in. Those roles have now been partially and are increasingly being delegated to the state, at the expense of everyone.

The reason I say social democracy is because the Analysis that Alexis de Tocqueville used in 'Democracy in America' of how the State would rise and destroy civil society and keep people in perpetual childhood, which is exactly what has happened, is a perfect parallel to modern feminism. The state does to citizens what feminism has done to woman, have them regarded as children; breaking their self-confidence and self-reliance.

As for that last deluded lie:

"Women are objectified - this means we are denied agency, and are seen from the outside, our own consciousness, our thoughts and feelings, utterly overlooked."

Homelessness, men, suicides, men, drug addiction, men, prisons men... "our thoughts and feelings are utterly overlooked", the irony is magical. I have never head a news source talk about men's issues during an election, and unless you just phased out, they are substantial. Women's issues, all the time, Sandra fluke's cry for free stuff got more attention than all those problems combined during the election. 

By this point in an article from a feminist, if you haven't bought into their line of rationalizing then it feels like you are reading excerpts from something that is describing some alien world a billion light years away. The trend of spewing crazy nonsense only grows exponentially and if you thought the middle was bad, wait till you see the end.

"It is because society tells us that women are objects, not subjects, that Tomb Raider's executive producer, Rob Rosenberg, finds it natural to assert that players "don't project themselves into [Lara Croft's] character," that they think "I'm going to this adventure with her and trying to protect her." Even though they are actually playing as Lara.

It is because society tells us that women are objects, not subjects, that Stephen Hawking can declare women to be "a complete mystery", and have newspapers gleefully latch on to this, declaring women "the greatest mystery known to man". It is a common refrain for men to bleat about not understanding women, but this is because they have simply never tried, because society has trained them to never look at life through the eyes of a woman.

It is because society tells us that women are objects, not subjects, that when society is presented with a case of male violence or sexual abuse, everyone looks at it from his point of view: "Oh, he must have been provoked to have done that," "He was a nice man who just snapped," "He must have been confused by her signals," "Maybe he's been falsely accused, how terrible to have to go to jail for that." With every victim-blaming, rape / violence apologist comment, society reveals through whose eyes it looks, and the answer is invariably the man's.

It is because society tells us that women are objects, not subjects, that even good men, when speaking out against violence against women, tell other men to imagine her as "somebody's wife, somebody's mother, somebody's daughter, or somebody's sister," it never occurring to them that maybe, just maybe, a woman is also "somebody".

It is frightening to consider just how deeply entrenched objectification of women really goes. We must certainly combat sexual objectification, but the battle will not end there. Women are objectified in more profound ways than we realise, and we must tear down every entwined shred of the patriarchy, in order to achieve our modest goal of being recognized and treated as human beings."

 Fucking hurts doesn't it, like drinking salty water. This ending is just like a ridiculous roundup. 'People want to protect Lara, not play with her' doesn't make sense. Your playing a video game, you're already playing her. What the hell does protect even mean if not play her well and not die. Unless people are paying for and not playing tomb raider, which doesn't seem plausible, The only way I can interpret that, with significant charity, is that your argument, if you could word it correctly, is that people DO actually want to play Lara but in a more protective way. 

Hardly a crime, only time I have not wanted a character to die in a protective sense was metal gear solid 4, the game was so good that when old man snake was crawling through the microwave and the violins were playing you felt for the old wardog. Everyone else I know that played it said they fell pretty sentimentally into the "come on snake bro, hang in there!" feel. I mean the guy was having panic attacks and looked like he was 90, should have retired long ago.

As for Stephen Hawking calling woman a mystery #firstworldproblems.

'Nobody cares about woman if they are just somebodies'. Well same rule applies for men but they are the bad guys right? Well lets just try a little trick, which of the following statements rings stronger with you.

1)Somebody has been taken to the hospital for a broken leg, 

2)Your mother has been taken to the hospital for a broken leg. 

If you answered anything but the latter you're a liar. The it could be you're.. is a marketing trick. You know that but you're just a grandstanding troll and it doesn't get any better so I am putting you back in your little box.

Done

Yes Feminism is a monster, and the image of my subconscious has now surfaced and I see to which monster I referred.

"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?"

 Yes, feminism is nothing short of a religious revival, an infinitely tangible idea of an invisible moral disorder that must be surmounted. One half of humanity born as sinners the other their victims. Their crimes aren't in stock, you can't tally or measure them. It is like a flood with the appearance of rivers and lakes, a giant waterway. The nefarious effects of the unconscious unthinking flood can only be understood by working back from its final consequences;  the lands swamp like status, the shortcomings of its victim. Damns and barriers to limit the influence and contain the flow of sin must be built so that its victims may once more rebuild on their land and the world can be returned to a natural balance.

  

IIIIIMMMMMAAAA JUSSSSS FUUUUUUKIN WITH YA,  that was just my demonstration of how feminism asserts itself, it serves up a dumb theory based on half truths, it makes bogus observations that reinforce the theory and then it carries out these proven social trends to the extreme to demonstrate the true evil of its nature. However having said that it must also be said that I do believe my metaphor was beautiful, poetic and accurate, just over the top, feminism is devastating to the individual which happens to land in the areas where it has maximum influence. For society as a whole it isn't that severe and will most likely go into a decline and be regarded by future generations as a stupid fad. Worst comes to the worst, it will collapse along with the west.