The Accusation That You're Pandering To The Far Right For Being Out Of Line With Feminist Fundamentalism
It's the EZ chill on speech!
It's the tar that comes out fast on social media to punish people for, for example, not parroting the notion -- from radical feminist origins -- that it is wrong and terrible to appreciate a woman for her looks.
Take my post on Serena Williams from the other day.
Serena Williams is a tennis superstar and a bit of a fashionista. She is sexy, but not emaciated model sexy. She's strong, muscular Amazonian woman sexy, and I love seeing photos of her in any sort of dress or undress. She's also opinionated and vocal about her opinions. To contend that she is betraying women by posing for sexy photos is just silly.
Accordingly, I posted a blog item the other day sneering at an Irish Independent writer's notion that Williams had somehow degraded herself and sabotaged women from being judged for their achievements by posing for the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue.
Some PC weenie tweeted the typical attack tweet -- the easy low blow meant to provoke guilt and fear of being associated with the alt right:
@amyalkon @CHSommers Glad you're around to massage the fragile egos of the Omega males of the far right, Amy. Do you offer happy-endings?
— The 37th Realm (@37thRealm) February 23, 2017
My response:
It's so cute when tiny little people have to demonize you bc you think it's ok for Serena Williams to be photographed in a bathing suit. https://t.co/TqfP7PaAre
— Amy Alkon (@amyalkon) February 23, 2017
Of course, all men -- including men who parrot radical feminist ideas -- are a product of evolution and the adaptations that drive men to go for features reflecting health and fertility. These features make up what we think of as beauty.
Oh, and I didn't want to give the person the validation of an extended conversation, but as @PersistentSeekr put it:
@PersistentSeekr
@amyalkon even funnier when they try to insult you by saying that you sexually service men they think treat women as sex objects
And let's back up a little on this "objectification!" thing. The truth is, sexually, hetero women typically see themselves as objects to be acted upon and men see themselves as the actors (the ones acting upon them). It's right in line with our physiology. Or just think of names for plugs and outlets. The "male" one is the one with the prongs. The "female" one is the one it goes into.
This doesn't mean any woman wants to be just an object, like a plant, a lamp, or a coffee table. But really, it's the rare sex act (necrophilia?) in which a woman is simply an object and not a person in the slightest. And frankly, it's up to the individual woman to be with a man who treats her the way she wants to be treated -- and to have enough to offer that she's respected for it.
Oh, and this "male gaze" bullshit -- women as objects for the "male gaze" -- comes out of the feminist film critic Laura Mulvey's utterly ridiculous Freudian take on women in film. (And remember what I learned when I read Freud -- the guy basically just made a lot of shit up, but had the serious looking glasses and the couch that helped us all ignore the lack of evidence behind his claims.)
Finally -- hilariously -- check out this shot posted on @37thRealm's Facebook page. (Posted by @37thRealm.)
I'm sure @37thRealm just appreciating her for all the library books she must have checked out.
"But really, it's the rare sex act (necrophilia?) in which a woman is simply an object and not a person in the slightest. "
But the ironic thing is that postmodern feminism fully embraces this view of heterosexual sex. In their view, sex is not something a woman participates in; rather, it is something that is done to her by men. The "all heterosexual sex is rape" thing flows directly from this. She is a completely passive object who has no choice but to lay there and take it. So much for female empowerment.
Of course this is a view of sex as it probably existed in the pre-civilization era. And while feminism decries uncivilized sexual behavior in men, it endorses primitive (and therefore, by definition, uncivilized) sexual practices in women. I keep saying that PM feminism will eventually get around to endorsing polygamy. Why? Because that was the pattern in pre-civilization and early civilization times: women sought out the shelter and protection of high-status men, and they gave of themselves sexually to get it. This is why feminists are so eager to discard all of their principles to get near men that they perceive as leaders of their tribe. (The canonical example being Bill Clinton, but there are many others.)
It also explains some of the hissy fits concerning Trump. He is the leader of an opposition tribe. Should his tribe defeat the tribe the feminists belong to, who will said feminists turn to for protection? Historically, the females in a defeated tribe were regarded as property by the victors, to be used as the winners desired. It's a primitive fear. In a way it's understandable, being hardwired into that part of our brains, but one of the purposes of Western civilization is to eliminate that sort of thing. In opposing said Western civilization, the feminists are fighting against the greatest benefactor women have ever known.
Cousin Dave at February 23, 2017 7:07 AM
For goodness' sake, Amy, don't tell the campus feminists about male and female electrical connectors! They'll march on the Electrical Engineering departments, demanding the terminology be changed to something else. :-)
Brad R at February 23, 2017 7:31 AM
You should check out the rest of their facebook images, particularly a girl in a metal collar.
This account has fanboi written all over it. Probably describes himself as a feminist, too.
I R A Darth Aggie at February 23, 2017 7:32 AM
Brad R, I remember back in the days when PATA drives were common in PCs. You could have two devices on one cable. Typically, people set one to be the primary drive, and the other to be the secondary - so the machine knew which one to boot from.
The primary drive was typically called "the master" and the secondary drive was typically called "the slave". Eventually a city official (LA??) wrote a directive that they were to be referred to as "primary" and "secondary".
I R A Darth Aggie at February 23, 2017 7:37 AM
"IRA Darth Aggee," I've been meaning to ask: If you hate California so much, why do you live here?
Crid at February 23, 2017 8:33 AM
Is it wrong that my first thought upon seeing this picture is "I bet that if I could get into those boots it would really help the depth of my squat?"
Jeff at February 23, 2017 9:10 AM
I love liberal pantywaist dimwits who champion feminism with pictures of Gorean slave girls on their Facebook page. Does this asshat even know what Gor is?
(For the record, I am not Gorean, but I know the tune and I can dance to it ;) )
warhawke223 at February 23, 2017 9:22 AM
Given that I've never resided in California, you must have me confused with someone else.
I R A Darth Aggie at February 23, 2017 9:57 AM
> Given that I've never resided
> in California...
No no... There's been no confusion.
Over thirteen years now, of all the commenters on every topic under Christendom, this blog's never had anyone so masturbatorially obsessed with a topic as you have been with slagging the Golden State. Your unbidden invocations are incessant. Never seen anything like it. I doubt you've made seven days of commenting in a row, maybe as few as three, quite possibly TWO, without a bitterly sarcastic word or link about California.
(Your compulsion exceeds even Amy's adoration for that single, trite "waist-to-hip ratio" study by Singh... Which has greatly abated, no matter how belatedly, since Obama's second term.)
You live here.
...Or you desperately wish that you did. After the first years of your fusillade, it's become embarrassing to watch. Saturdays, in a weekly chat by neighborly, grass-mowing men over a shared backyard fence, the fascination of one for the fashion choices of the other's wife has been creepy and intrusive. (We've had that happen on this blog in earlier days with commenters from Canada and elsewhere. And Canada.)
Presumably some leggy blond (perhaps passing through on her way back to back to San Luis Obisbo from a visit with a newborn niece in Plano) shot you down at the bar in DFW, and you think of her every time you touch your overweight wife or something.
I can dig it! Listen, I've been to Texas a number of times, most recently last October, and have collected only fond, spirit-enriching memories. Texas is a special place in America...
But let's not kids ourselves. Whatever her difficulties, costs and challenges, California expresses the renewal, the nourishment and the sheer, hammering beauty of the United States as does no contender.
Having lived here for over a quarter of a century now (by happenstance since the fall of the Berlin wall), I can assure that your veneration, however backhanded and transparent, isn't misplaced. Nowhere on the planet could have been as rewarding financially, socially, artistically, musically, athletically, politically... And yes, even erotically. Iowahawk rightly compares California to a psycho girlfriend— endlessly contentious, distracting and demanding.
I can assure you— She fucks like a mink.
Enjoy your hoedown, Cowboy.
Crid at February 23, 2017 2:54 PM
"Whatever her difficulties, costs and challenges, California expresses the renewal, the nourishment and the sheer, hammering beauty of the United States as does no contender."
If it didn't, it would have long been dead, given its leadership.
Radwaste at February 23, 2017 6:26 PM
☑ Affirmed.
Crid at February 23, 2017 6:40 PM
Speaking of feminism:
http://www.mrctv.org/blog/conway-feminism-seems-be-very-anti-male-and-very-pro-abortion
She's right, you know.
mpetrie98 at February 23, 2017 8:39 PM
"It's the tar that comes out fast on social media to punish people for, for example, not parroting the notion -- from radical feminist origins -- that it is wrong and terrible to appreciate a woman for her looks."
What must they think of Traci Lords, then?
Radwaste at February 23, 2017 11:50 PM
Also--
> the guy basically just made
> a lot of shit up, but had the
> serious looking glasses and
> the couch that helped us all
> ignore the lack of evidence
> behind his claims
That's just a sixth-grader's thing to say. No one theretofore had considered human interiors with Freud's scope. That he didn't paint the lot markers, sewer lines and utility paths for the neighborhood of your dreams, or that he might have shown the typical biases of his own heritage during his revolutionary burst of insight, is irrelevant.
To snark about it with such grade school resentment is preposterous. He was a revolutionary thinker in a century with some doozies, and whatever his faults, he holds up better than all but perhaps three.
Sorry if your therapist broke your heart or something, Amy, but seriousballs: John Ioannidis recently shredded the pretensions of those who describe their movement through psychology as "rational" or, in your inexplicably precious phrase, "evidence-based." There's plenty of heavy work available for those who would hound frauds.
If you need to drop back a hundred and fifty years to be sure of your footing only to mock the man who created the garden rather than confront the ploughboys who poison it today, you're doing it wrong.
Crid at February 24, 2017 3:24 AM
Ya gotta admit, California is an easy target these days. Having said that, I have vacationed out there this year.
It actually is something that concerns me... California is a big piece of the U.S. economy. A financial breakdown of California is something that all Americans should fear. That train is roaring down the track and I'm sure that there is a way to stop it. What is Plan B? I'm not at all sure.
Cousin Dave at February 24, 2017 6:32 AM
No expertise, but I think an important first principle is Let each state create the wealth it needs to create.
Remember.
Crid at February 24, 2017 7:05 AM
I had a similar argument about Johnny Unitas. The guy insisted that Unitas didn't deserve to be listed as one of the greatest quarterbacks because he couldn't play today's game.
Play today's game? He invented today's game! He invented the two-minute drill and brought clock management to professional football. Without Johnny Unitas, there is no Joe Montana, there is no Tom Brady. Peyton Manning used to throw the ball to a spot on the field where the receiver was going to be. Guess who pioneered that with receiver, Raymond Berry? Yep.
Had the same argument with this same guy about Sigmund Freud as well.
There is a certain species of person who refuses to credit the pioneer with any greatness simply because others have taken the pioneer's accomplishments and built mightily upon them. These folks refuse to see the giant while fawning over the man standing on his shoulders.
Conan the Grammarian at February 24, 2017 8:05 AM
Well, this thread got off track.
Women like to claim, if you ask them, that their penchant for yoga pants and similar is just "comfort" but if it is comfort, why don't men EVER wear them? Frankly, women know (but wont' admit) that it makes their legs and butt look great and men turn and look. The only thing worse than being noticed for how hot you are is not being noticed.
Another difference between the sexes: while women dress to look good which often includes emphasizing their figure (yes, even high heels), men walking around in muscle shirts is not only rare but considered absurd, especially if they are over 20. When women march (e.g., feminists), they dress in vagina costumes or pink hats or go topless. When there are the rare men's rights rallies, do they wear penis costumes? No. So don't try to say women should not be judged by their looks--women do it themselves and no one makes them.
cc at February 24, 2017 8:27 AM
>Well, this thread got off track.
Nope... It never did.
Crid at February 24, 2017 12:01 PM
> a certain species of person who
> refuses to credit the pioneer with
> any greatness simply because others
> have taken the pioneer's
> accomplishments and built mightily
Not quite that simple... I think that species is mostly interested in making social distance. They want to look down at somebody great and imagine their superiority involved some kind of virtue for which they themselves should be credited... Even when it's blindingly obvious their own insight consists entirely of being born decades after the dust had settled. (Even then, it's never about doing the reading & writing [psychology] or passing and wind sprints [football].)
IIRC, JU is (/was?) one of the few old-timers to speak bluntly about the ravages done to his body, no?
Crid at February 24, 2017 12:11 PM
"If it didn't, it would have long been dead, given its leadership."
I try not to savage Reagan, Nixon, and Schwarzenegger for their residential histories. The Kennedys or Obama, for that matter.
YMMV.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at February 24, 2017 1:36 PM
Rare is the man who didn't look at that and think "dayam" (likely with some unspeakable thoughts).
Even rarer is the woman who didn't look at that with envy.
And in neither case, is that even remotely sexism against women.
Trust at February 24, 2017 5:07 PM
Disparage the giant and hold yourself as equal to or greater than the ones who stood on his shoulders. No actual effort on your part required.
I don't know if he spoke out about it, but he did lose the use of several fingers on his right hand through repeated injuries to his shoulder.
Conan the Grammarian at February 24, 2017 6:20 PM
Leave a comment