Tip #1: Rationalize Adopt political positions that condone misogyny. Never come between a man and his sense of entitlement to sex on demand, especially his “right” to exploit vulnerable women to achieve gratification through the use of violent, degrading, pedophilic imagery. Be sure to remind men that you’re here for them and understand that they […]
I’ve shared this not because I agree with it, but because I don’t.
The post reminds me of a conversation I had with a radical feminist the other week, who insisted feminism is not about equality. This confused me, as what else is feminism trying to achieve, other than ensuring women are treated as equals with men?
Then again, to some, feminism is about creating safe space for women, away from men. That’s fair enough. To others, feminism is about completely removing men from the equation, in the sense that there are feminists out there who want absolutely nothing to do with men in any way shape or form. I can’t argue that point as there are women out there who’ve suffered horribly at the hands of men, and therefore want no male influence in their lives at all.
Then there’s the article that is the subject of this post – and to me it is a curious thing that, in a time where feminism has made strides but still has a lot of work to do, one group of feminists would belittle or attack another group of feminists. What does that accomplish? Who does it help? And is it even remotely fair? It probably won’t come as a shock that I don’t consider it reasonable.
To quote (quotes will be in purple):
Adopt political positions that condone misogyny. Never come between a man and his sense of entitlement to sex on demand, especially his “right” to exploit vulnerable women to achieve gratification through the use of violent, degrading, pedophilic imagery. Be sure to remind men that you’re here for them and understand that they can’t help themselves. They’re wired to be visual, sexual predators who inevitably reduce women to objects. It’s in their nature. Do you really want them to go around raping virtuous women instead? Since the only form of female sexuality that’s visible or acceptable is one that validates masculinity and femininity, use this to your advantage. You can preach female sexual empowerment without infringing on boner rights. Win-win!
Emphasis mine. I have yet to encounter any feminist, liberal or radical, who condones misogyny. I have yet to encounter any feminist who doesn’t criticise entitlement culture. I have encountered a few who think men are mindless, aggressive creatures – maybe that’s where the objection in this article lies – because liberal feminists don’t reduce men to simplistic creatures or ‘sexual predators’ (welcome to the biological determinism argument, which is harmful to men and women), they are instead condoning and validating the very behaviour they claim to oppose. This argument is folly, but it serves as an excuse for the sarcastic paragraph above.
It also serves as a wedge, driven between liberal feminists who don’t regard men as predestined to be rapists, and men themselves. This kind of radical feminist thinking (and I must stress that it doesn’t apply to all radical feminists) is fuel for the fire of MRAs and MGTOWs, who will gladly exploit any excuse to condemn feminism and the idea of equality for the sexes. The paragraph above is the sort of thing they go looking for, before espousing it as the only form of feminism to exist. The damage this does is such that whenever anyone announces they’re a feminist, or says they support feminism, on Twitter or Facebook, they are subjected to a torrent of abuse. It’s all too easy for an MRA to claim feminism is about hating men, and reducing men to a biological impulse helps them with their excuses.
On another post of hers, I attempted to engage her in conversation. My comment is below:
I’m obviously not amused (or even quite certain how the label applies) at the accusation that I’m a megalomaniac. I asked a question, I question I feel was fair, and got back this.
I replied to Lavender’s response to me, but she decided not to publish my reply. She did post this on Twitter:
For the record, her original response to my comment was probably around four to fives the length of my comment, whilst my subsequent reply to her response was probably about the same in length. I also stand by my assertion that she missed the point I was making.